[Taxacom] Banning panbiogeography discussion

[John Grehan]

I received off list the following comment, here posted with my response.

 "surely papers have to be accepted or rejected on how they deal with
>     data and evidence, not on the basis of the underlying historical
>     model they originate from."
>
>     The situation can get a bit more tricky when it comes to different
>     research programs that work from different perspectives. For
>     example, if practitioners of a biogeographic research program object
>     to the premise that the actual spatial geometry of distributions is
>     historically informative, then one may end up with the latter
>     research program being opposed by those practitioners. Nothing wrong
>     with that in of itself. But if it extends to those individuals
>     acting as reviewers who rejected the spatial method on that basis,
>     or calls for suppression of such research programs, then things get
>     a little more problematic for science. That is the problem that has
>     been largely swept under the biogeographic carpet for the last  half
>     century or so. Waters et al should be congratulated for making this
>     the open hand.
>
>     Cheers, John

On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:27 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> I received this rather interesting (given the original posting about
> suppression) off-list email which is reproduced below (without the person
> being named as I guess that person wishes to remain anonymous).
>
> "I am very tired of hearing about this issue over and over again
> throughout the years. I'm sure that I am not alone. Please take this
> somewhere else.
>
> To which I responded:
>
> "If there is a great majority on Taxacome who are 'tired of this' then get
> the moderator to ban discussion (of panbiogeography?). But really, if you
> are tired of it, why not just delete the post and not read it? That's what
> I do when there is something that does not interest me."
>
> Cheers, John
>
>