VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Herbert Barger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:42:41 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
As a Jefferson Family Historian who assisted Dr. Foster with the DNA Study
may I please offer the following: I urge no one 
to waste valuable time on this controversy regarding DNA. Nothing was wrong
EXCEPT Dr Foster chose a KNOWN carrier of Jefferson DNA as explained in an
earlier e-mail. YES, there would be a match, I told him so and asked that he
inform Nature, which he didn't. Was this all part of a well thought
agenda.....YOU decide as I did when I wrote the Nature Editor-In-Chief,
Campbell and THEN Dr.Foster "clarified" (he mentioned the Randolph suspects)
and his REAL findings in their issue of Jan 7, 1999. Save you time folks,
it's an agenda.

Herb Barger  


-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon Kukla
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [VA-HIST] A modest proposal re the DNA debate

Mr. Corneliussen wishes to challenge the statistical methods of Fraser D.
Neiman's 2000 WMQ article, and Mr. Locke wishes to challenge the methodology
of Dr. Eugene Foster's DNA study as reported in the journal Nature in 1998.
Toward this end, in the past few days Messrs. Corneliussen and Locke have
posted about 5600 words to VA-HIST - or roughly 22 double-spaced typed pages
- close to the length of many journal articles.
   It strikes me that Messrs Corneliussen and Locke might consider
collaborating on a journal article in which they could :
1) present their arguments fully and clearly (without repetitions, "lol,"
etc) AND
2) describe and cite their supporting evidence in detail AND
3) submit their article to the validation of standard peer-review
and editorial process AND
4) present their arguments to a much wider audience,
5) in a readable format with text & notes, tables, graphs, or whatever else
is needed.

   Two journals that come to mind are:
Social Science History - see http://www.history.cmu.edu/ssh-journal/
   and
Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History
http://www.heldref.org/hm.php

    And when its published, please announce that to VA-HIST, so we all can
read it.
-- 
Jon Kukla
www.JonKukla.com

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US