"Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on emotions. Debbie" hmmm . . . I thought I had been even toned in my post, but perhaps not. What I was objecting to Debbie are these comments of yours: 1) "Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and unscientific hogwash." 2) " It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here." The first I let slide, but after the second I called you on it. You are implying, intentionally or not, that on your side of the Atlantic intelligence is in greater supply than on ours. And like I said, by doing so you are acting in a typical stereotypical manner. You have been rather heatedly denouncing Mr. Wade’s book, basing your indignation upon the reviews of others rather than reading the material and forming your own opinion. Not an objective approach, is it? You can make your argument without bringing ANY nationality into it, as you’ve demonstrated. When you fail to do so you are, in a round about manner, doing the very same thing you feel so strongly Mr. Wade has done in his book. John Beardsley -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 3:54 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book John I am not in the least trying to censor the book. Note that Ken recommended the book to the list despite admitting that he hadn't even finished reading it. As I've tried to explain science is advanced by scientists doing research and writing scientific papers that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is a free world and if a reporter manages to get a commisssion to write on a subject in which he has no academic training or expertise then so be it. If people choose to read his book then that is their choice. It is my choice not to read such a book. I prefer to spend my time reading the original scientific papers rather than someone else's misinterpretation of those papers. Other people have already commented on the shortcomings of the book and its lack of scientific rigour, and I merely thought it would be helpful for people to read those reviews if they wanted so that they can perhaps try and understand the scientific viewpoint if they do choose to read the book. These authors have explained the problems with the book far more eloquently than I can. I provided those links for the benefit of all list members and not just Americans. Nationality should have nothing to do with it. The author of the book is after all a Brit. As you will recall, I also provided a link to a scientific paper by Guido Barbujani "Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity" which gives a good summary of the current scientific thinking on the subject of "race". I've provided a TinyURL below as the link got broken up by Rootsweb so perhaps people had difficulty accessing the paper: http://tinyurl.com/mvdt487 Perhaps you might like to have a look at this paper with an open mind and let us know what you think. If you know of any scientific papers that offer a different view perhaps you can share them with us. Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on emotions. Debbie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message