Glenn, my apologies for the offense. I do remember things a little
differently though.
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:57:05 -0700 "Glenn Morton"
<glenn.morton@btinternet.com> writes:
> Bill, I am a bit disappointed in you for this. I have never seen you do
this
> before. When you privately asked me to debate the photos, I told you I
was
> leaving for a conference in a week. You said that was fine we could
debate
> until I left.
As I recall, you said we could debate until you left for the conference,
but I don't remember saying "that was fine we could debate until [you]
left." I was a little puzzled as to why you were putting a timeframe on
our discussion in the first place. It sounded as though you would be
leaving the list when you left for the conference. When you reappeared a
week or so later, I tried again to get you to address the data, with no
response.
> You never really posted anything about the coal except to say
> sorry my schedule is taking me away from the debate.
That sounds a little misleading, from my point of view (POV). Given your
activity here since your conference, you certainly would have been "able
to debate that", you just chose not to. And that's fine, Glenn, I
realize we have beat this dead horse into the ground.
> Fair enough, our
> schedules do that to us, but don't say I didn't engage the data when
you
> didn't really debate and I had given you a time frame over which I
would be
> able to debate that.
By my count we posted 8 times before you left and, as I look back over
the posts, I feel that I really did push the points I was trying to make.
It's not important though, we just see things differently.
I was digging through some old posts and came across one from Keith on
5/4/98 - Origin of Coal References. Keith listed 12 points that need to
be addressed in considering the origin of coal. His 12th point was:
"Many modern peats are formed by vegetation (including trees) that is
detached from the underlying substrate. The decomposing bottom of the
mat contributes the organic matter that accumulates to form the peat.
This is the case for much of the Mississippi delta."
If I may play devil's advocate (or if I may agree, just for the moment
:-), with what you've been saying Glenn), a totally detached swamp, or a
floating mat, would solve some of the objections I've had to the
observations. In this scenario though, I can't see how a razor-sharp
contact of organics with the substrate could be maintained. I would
think bioturbation would obliterate the contact or make it gradational.
Would water under a massive floating swamp become stagnant to the point
that life on the bottom couldn't survive?
Again, my apologies.
Bill
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 01:13:21 EDT