Allen Roy wrote:
> I have the same faith in Lalimov (and Baumgardner) as
> I do in any other person who has published in peer
> reviewed journals. If you believe that Lalimov had
> deliberatly mistranslated or even manufactured his quotes,
> the prove it.
OK, but what has become clear here is that you are not quoting
original sources that you have taken the time to dig up and
verify for yourself let alone provide in context for others
to see. It is admissable to quote secondary sources when it
is impossible to obtain the original. However, this is a
position you are trying to defend, and without even a text
to discuss (let alone a reasonable Russian translation), we
are basically left in the dark as to what the original authors
>Logvinenko, N.V. and G.V. Karpova. 1961. Litologiya i gineses Tavricheskoi
>Formatsii Crima (Lithology and geneiss of Tavrik formation of Crimea).
>Kharkov University Publishers, USSR. (Russian).
>Logvinenko, N.V. 1961. O Flishevih texsturkh triasovih otlojenii Crima
>(About Flysch textures in triassic deposits of Crimea.) Isvestiya vuzov
>(Proceeding of institutes of higher education). Geologiya i Razbedka
>(Geology and Prospecting) 3:16-28. Moscow, USSR. (Russian).
Defending the truth also means you laying it on the
table. If your folk and my folk see what is there,
then fine, at least you have the presented the facts straight.
That would lend credibility to your position. Otherwise, I can
open a bunch of textbooks and spend all day quoting "sources"
by Grace alone do we proceed,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:29:15 EST