From owner-biophysics@net.bio.net Thu Mar 03 22:00:00 1994
Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!eff!cs.umd.edu!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!nova.umd.edu!not-for-mail
From: birzniek@nova.umd.edu (Gunther Birznieks)
Newsgroups: bionet.biophysics
Subject: Re: ad homonum electricity
Date: 4 Mar 1994 09:54:18 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Lines: 32
Distribution: bionet
Message-ID: <2l7i2q$t95@nova.umd.edu>
References: <940303085058.20202ccb@biosci.arizona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nova.umd.edu

In <940303085058.20202ccb@biosci.arizona.edu> GILLIES@BIOSCI.ARIZONA.EDU writes:

>Dear NETUSERS, especially Dr. O'kelle

>y

>  I have been reading with interest the "discussion" of BIOELECTRICITY 
>and have been learning from the involved parties.

>HOWEVER, I would like to caution Dr. O'Kelly against his ad homonum diatribe.

>HOWEVER, I would like to caution Dr. O'Kelly against his ad homonum diatribe.
>His attacks on "Andrew" (a.k.a. "junior") are neither warrented nor do they

What do you mean by "warrented"?  The person he was replying to did not 
seem to be simply asking questions about the paper -- "junior's" comments
were clearly undiplomatic to a high degree.  However, Dr. O'Kelly 
definately came back with a LOT MORE than just undiplomatic words about
"junior".  I think a clearly undiplomatic and abrasive criticism deserves
a harsh retort, but not with added name-calling.  Harshness should be
reserved for comments directed at the comments of the message not the
person who wrote the message.

>add credence to his arguments.  Without ther personal attack, one could almost
>believe him credible.

>HPOEFULLY, these future discussions can be held on a higher plane.

>HOPEFULLY, future discussion will be held on a higher plane.

>R.J. Gillies
>Gillies@Biosci.Arizona.EDU

.