| Daniel Pipes Mobile Edition Regular Site |
|
| Home | Articles | Blog | Reviews | Search | |
Submitted by Pavel A. (Canada), Sep 29, 2004 at 22:34
As a scientist, I shudder at the sentiments expressed by M. Bond in his emotional (not a surprise) attempt at criticism. Imagine introducing emotionalism, that is... letting your emotions interfere with the facts of reality, to the field of science. Would you rather that an engineer built a shoddy bridge because he simply felt that the proper way to bridge was somehow incongruent with his state of "verve"?Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.
| Title | By | Date |
| Reply to commenter A. Pavel [486 words] | M Bond | Apr 18, 2005 02:51 |
| ↔ Oriana, Italy, Europe [254 words] | Andrea Italy | Dec 31, 2005 16:54 |
| ⇒ Response to M. Bond [141 words] | Pavel A. | Sep 29, 2004 22:34 |
| There's more here [220 words] | M Bond | Oct 27, 2002 10:52 |
| Well ok, but.... [74 words] | M Bond | Oct 23, 2002 23:14 |
| Unfair generalization [154 words] | Carool Kersten | Oct 15, 2002 22:07 |