Re: Bipedal Orrorin?

From: Michael Clark (biteme_at_spammer.com)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:59:45 -0500

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0409260327.5ba17d50@posting.google.com...
> jae@ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
> news:<b7af43cb.0409231306.685a508b@posting.google.com>...

[slop]

>> Don't waste your time with a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal. You've
>> said it before and it wasn't any good then either.
>
> I'm sure it was a waste of time, in terms of persuading you, Jason.
> But I think anyone with an ounce of objectivity reading this will see
> that I am more committed to open dialogue than you are and that I am
> more willing and able to defend my arguments than you are.

Let's see, where to begin. Sure it was a waste of time trying to
make a wet ape out of Jason. That is an impossibility as it would
be to convert any "objective reader". But it was also a waste of
time to regurgitate all that rhetoric in the hope that it might mean
something *this time*. It didn't mean anything the first time you
did it --and it continues to be meaningless. When someone asks you
to provide a selective regime in the context of wading, the appropriate
answer is NOT to say "it's obvious". It is *not* obvious. Do you
understand that, Algis? Do you? Can you be made to understand
that your answer is insufficient? Is it possible?

No insistence on your part that you are more "open to dialogue"
is going to fly in this NG when you have such a documented history.
You are *not* open to dialogue and cannot be with your fingers
planted firmly in your ears. So what can we say about this post?
More evasion, more rhetoric, more obfuscation, more dodges,
and no answers. How is that different from any of your other
posts?

Here is the first rule of holes (in the vain hope that you might
make use of it): When in one, stop digging. Oh, and I don't think
Jason is going to be ":..more willing and able to defend [your]
arguments than you are", kolidge grajuit.

> Algis Kuliukas 

-- 
Yada, yada, yada.
Quantcast