GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155512887


From: John Cartmell <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:48:07 +0100
References: <002201c6bd5f$1dfa3f00$6401a8c0@HP> <002c01c6bd71$4e346ad0$0c139a8e@PeterAKincaid> <4e55aa332bjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> <002a01c6bee9$d034daa0$01129a8e@PeterAKincaid> <023501c6beed$2e1d0c20$1b02a8c0@DC51YP91> <003901c6bef9$a2cc25e0$01129a8e@PeterAKincaid> <4e55f154dcjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> <000301c6bf29$b155ea80$86139a8e@PeterAKincaid>
In-Reply-To: <000301c6bf29$b155ea80$86139a8e@PeterAKincaid>


On 13 Aug, Peter A. Kincaid <> wrote:
> If you have nothing further to add on this then personal criticism then I
> suggest for the sake of all you refrain from it.

I object very strongly to people claiming that I'm unreasonably making
personal criticism! ;-)

But I wish to add more:
A spurious result was received. That happens at all times in all walks of
life. It is not the time to suggest that it's a general problem. It is not the
time to suggest that confidence will be undermined. It's the time to ask for
clarification.

If someone wanted to be very nasty and undermine confidence in a company or a
process then that person may take advantage of such a simple error. If people
of goodwill make that mistake then they should be advised that it's a mistake.

What doesn't seem to be understood is that, even if it wasn't a clerical
error, then we are at the forefront of scientific knowledge and should expect
to find the unexpected and deal with that knowledge in an appropriate fashion.

Being ultra-sensitive - especially on behalf of others - won't help us make
sense of the unexpected when it does happen.

--
John Cartmelljohn@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazineFAX +44 (0)8700-519-527www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing



This thread: