On Tue, 26 Mar 96 12:48:59 MST you wrote:
>SJ>I think there is confusion here. Sunderland, as is normal practice,
>tape recorded his personal interviews with Patterson and other
>curators of natural history museums. I think Dodson is getting that
>confused with that. In fact I cannot see in Sunderland's book
>"Darwin's Enigma" where he even mentions Patterson's 1981 address to
>the AMNH!
JF>Steve, the confusion is yours. Dodson and Howe were talking only
>about the tape of Patterson's talk at the AMNH, which was reported in
>an ICR Impact article in 1982. Sunderland's book, and his taped
>interviews with Patterson were never mentioned and had nothing to do
>with it.
I didn't say definitely it had. I was just suggesting (note the two
"I think.."s) that since Patterson's 1981 address to the AMNH does not
feature in Sunderland's one and only book, but Sunderland's taped
interview with Patterson is, that maybe Dodson was "getting that
confused". I didn't realise that Sunderland had written an "article"
on Patterson's address.
>JF>Dodson replied and retracted his suggestion that Sunderland might have
>been at fault, but maintained (correctly, I think) that it had been a
>reasonable question. He agreed, in a later letter, with Patterson's
SJ>How can it be " a reasonable question" if Sunderland did not even
>mention Patterson's 1981 address? I suspect that Dodson did not
>even bother to read Sunderland's slim book.
JF>Dodson rightly pointed out that taping of a talk without informing
>the speaker is at best rude, and assumed, reasonably but wrongly,
>that it had been Sunderland who had done so. The Impact article and
>transcript that Dodson read *were* about the AMNH address.
>Sunderland's book was never discussed.
OK. It appears from a mutual private message to both of us, that a
certain "Wayne Frair, a regular attendee at the AMNH lectures,
recorded it."
SJ>Well, after getting such a simple matter as Sunderland's tape
>recording of his interview with Patterson's in 1979, with a tape
>recording by an unnamed person at the AMNH in 1981 (which matter is
>not AFAIK even in Sunderland's book), Dodson does not have much
>credit with me for objectivity in this matter.
JF>Having read Dodson's letters, I think he handled the matter very
>fairly.
OK. I apologise for the above. :-(
JF>This is the *second* time you have confused the AMNH talk and
>Sunderland's interview.
No. I was only suggesting that was what Dodson meant, although by the
time I got to my conclusion, it had become stronger than that. I
should have prefaced the latter with a big "If...". Now I know about
Sunderland's 1982 article, any remaining "confusion" has been cleared
up! :-)
Regards.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------