You have his reply The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes.. You have his motivation at the venue which apparently prompted the letter arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). and you have his concern at some sort of record of his quotes. Finally you have this revealing comment, But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule. What is your beef? What do you suppose he is skeptical of, creationism?
"scepticism is a scientists duty"!....must not be a true believer darwinite.
I like Colin Patterson of the British Museum and I wish he were able to express himself with being pounced on by the 'No Questions' modern inquisition.
Scientists are continuously skeptical about everything. The details of classification are complex, and there are going to be arguments about details.
What you have failed to mention is that the quote that started this particular discussion is excerpted from a private letter, the full contents of which remains undisclosed.
The thing that is so astonishing is that you and other creationists seem to think that quotes out of context change reality. That is equivalent to arguing that conservatism is invalid because George Bush was insufficiently gung ho in 1970.
You know the quotes don't represent the author's full thoughts, but you seem to think a few "gotchas" is equivalent to an actual argument.
On the subject of transitionals, when was the last decade in which no transitional fossils were found? The last year?