Re: Bipedalism in different substrates

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 08/08/04 

Date: 8 Aug 2004 02:43:20 -0700

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fSdRc.6636$nx2.1902@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Pauline M Ross" <pmross@ross-software.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:mii9h01nr3algi7v8nioa9ge7e0lrqefbe@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 11:59:22 GMT, "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:

At the risk of upsetting Bob's "wa" once more, Pauline, could I ask
you for a second and last time (I promise) to repost this in full? I
think it's only fair that I should have the right of reply to a
posting that's focused purely on attacking me.

> > >What that means is that the participants must be willing to accept facts,
> > >concede reasonable logic, and pardon my word, but "moderate" their
> > >stances as the points become clear.
> >
> > I don't see much evidence of *anyone* in this newsgroup actually
> > moderating their stance. Algis is one of the few who has, as it
> > happens. I would very much like to see more give and take, and fewer
> > rigidly fixed ideas.
>
> 8-) Evidence or even sound logic FORCES sane people to change
> their beliefs. "Give and take" are great when both sides agree to simply
> take the most logical and most reasonable path. "give and take" is not
> a social requirement UNLESS there is logic supporting the "give". Algis
> to his credit had to abandon Marc's little insanities when it became clear
> to him that there was no underlying logic. But even Algis reached a point
> where instead of taking the high road and accepting what must have
> appeared to him to be the inevitable and unavoidable conclusions, he
> shifted back into the Verhaugenian domain of simple "assertions" supported
> by insult and ad hominem. Faced with "that" kind of logic, dont expect
> to see the slightest "give" anywhere. 8-)

What are you talking about, Bob? You seem to have just completely
over-reacted to me calling you (and others) 'fools' because of
believing and repeating a web page citing that chimpanzees walked
bipedally for 1km when it was actually 50 yards. How many other ad
hominems have I ever addressed at you in the hundreds of postings I've
sent? I bet I can point to as many compliments as you can insults. If
I'd have had any idea you were so sensitive I wouldn't have called you
a 'fool' or anything.

I suspect you've just blown a fuse of frustration because the
self-righteous 'logic' you assumed would knock down the wading model
has done no such thing. I suspect you've realised this and have
calculated that it is a better strategy to go off in a big sulk of
Jasonesque mock-indignation, rather than continue to try to engage the
problem with any more attempts at beating it with reason. In this way
you might hope that people will not notice that it's actually your
arguments, not mine, that are the weaker.

You've hyped up the rhetoric in true Soviet style claiming I've
resorted to "insult and ad hominemand" yet all I did was call you and
others "fools" for posting an error of a factor of 20x. (Claiming apes
walked 1km, when they'd only walked 50yds) and yet in just this one
posting look at the insulting language you're using against my
opinions... "silly or illogical", and "absurd." You almost say that I
have called you "a pack of liars, fools, and any other invective that
he can steal from Marc". Apart from 'fool' - where did I do any of
those other things?

You go on about Hawkins' seeing the light and about people with
scientific persuasion admitting mistakes - but I heard no clear
admission of error from you about the '1km walking chimps' goof up.
Instead you accelerated your postings in an attempt to cover up with
evidence of extant ape bipedalism, but notably none of it anywhere
near the level of 24% found by Myers Thompson in bonobos.

You go on about me showing no give and take - yet I apologised
straight away when I realised that I had criticised you in error for
not citing the source of the 1km walking quote. Later, of course, when
I read that source for myself and spotted that you had also made an
error, I notice you offered no apology to me for the hours of time I'd
wasted in trying to validate your claim. (I had to order it from the
library and read a good deal of it. It's a 151 page document and the
web site had no page reference.)

You go on about the importance of FACTS but continue to ignore the
fact that the most predictable scenario for an ape to move bipedally
is in waist deep water.

[..]
> But "great" is a relative term, meaningful only in comparison to another
> known quantity. In this case, the "known" is the weakness of character
> that twists a logical scientific discussion into rantings just because the
> facts dont line up quite right for ones day dreams. "Great" may be
> nothing more than the bare minimum strength of character and intellectual
> honesty that a normal, sane human being would expect from another, and
> only "great" when compared to some of the tantrums we have seen in
> this forum.

'Tantrums' - how would you characterise the reaction of killfiling
someone who's 'crime', it seems, was merely to call him (among others)
a fool for making a goof up in a posting?
 
[..]

> Two things. . . . They, as did I, have tried to engage Algis in an
> intelligent
> discussion and have attempted to lure him into the process of building up
> that "supporting case", as have I. They have hoped that as the case
> unfolded
> he would recognize the great gaping holes and illogical contradictions in
> the fabric of the concept and simply abandon it. Ive tried the same.
>
> Thats three fair and honest attempts to get him to at least look at his own
> "evidence" ...

That's so astonishingly patronising it's almost comical. It's actually
me that's trying to get you guys to look at the evidence. Apes, in
waist deep water... are bipedal with almost 100% certainty. But will
you look at that? Will you hell.

> ... and in return we are a pack of liars, fools, and any other
> invective that he can steal from Marc.

I did call you guys 'fools' for believing that chimps might walk
bipedally for 1 kilometre and I stand by that. If I'd have posted
anything like that I'd feel rather foolish. But you don't seem to be
able to accept that you made a simple error. All that bull*** about
Hawkins and you can't even hold your hand up and laugh at yourself.

I've never called you - or anyone on this forum (as far as I remember)
- a liar before but if you can't cite me an example, perhaps I might
have to do so for the first time here.

What other 'invective' did you have in mind?

I really thought you were one of the good guys on this forum, Bob. I
used to enjoy debating things with you but the level of hostility
you've shown since the kilometre *** up has made me think again.

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast