|
|
|
Requirements of Response
It is likely that there will be
a high degree of those wishing to respond to this paper. This is
certainly within their constitutional rights and they are encouraged to
do so, however, there are several criteria which this author feels will
be necessary for the usefulness of debate to employed.
A person wishing to respond to the results and conclusions of this
paper should attempt to fulfill these criteria so as to sidestep the
stagnatious bickering which tends to bog down discussion on this forum.
These criteria are as follows:
Responding posts should be academically styled in nature.
Responding posts should have references to peer-reviewed papers or
manuscripts pertaining to the issue, preferably from both sides. This
will indicate that the responder has at least given the academic
research a cursory reading.
Responding posts should be void of inflammatory comments, sarcasm,
flames, condescending attitude, cursory dismissal, etc.
Responding posts should be of fairly equal length. One-line or
generalized responses will not be considered substantiated and shall
not be addressed.
Responding posts which are queries as to how this or that unique
formation could be explained through a flood model will not be
addressed as the author has many more useful things in which he could
be employing his time.
Responding posts should not bring up unrelated or side issues.
All responses which adhere to all or most of the above criterion will
be collected together and each issue responded to in a second paper.
Previous Page - Next Page
|
