Re: MV is the most published author of SAP

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 12/22/04 

Date: 22 Dec 2004 04:30:46 -0800

Jason Eshleman wrote:
> In article <1103598277.777951.71240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote:
> >
> >Jason Eshleman wrote:
> >> In article
<1103591924.736239.172230@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >I agree. He would do better to avoid some of the tactics which you
> >describe below which make him an easy target for hostility.
>
> He would do better to avoid more than 90% of his posts. He is an
easy
> target for hostility because he is so often hostile. He is hostile
far
> more often than he is not.

He's hostile to people of your persuasion far more often than he's not,
agreed.

>>> It doesn't seem to frustrate him, but rather he seems to be
acheiving
> >his
> >> goal, strange and twisted and sociopathic as it is.
>
> >By heaping such insults on him, you realise, you are not helping the
> >situation.
>
> I don't give a rat's ass if I'm helping a situation with Marc or not.

Congratulations.

> Marc was insulting people before I started posting, insulted people
when I
> responded to him, insulted people when I didn't respond and now that
> googlenews has up and made itself a pain in the ass and my new reader

> isn't as efficient at avoiding the MV drool, appears to be doing it
more.
> He is insulting to new posters who don't initially toe his line.

He's too insulting, I agree.

> I do not believe my actions in any way have any influence on what
Marc
> does or does not do. Marc is an ***, and that's completely
> independent of his views about wet apes. His behavior indicates to
me
> he's likely crazy (though probably functional in his day-to-day life
where
> similar behavior is more likely to result in a response of physical
> violence). His behavior indicates he's incorrigible. His behavior
> indicates that he's pleased as punch to demonstrate that he's a
> substandard human being.

> I don't like Marc. I think he is a poor excuse for a human being, a
> individual who routinely presents himself as a sub-human piece of
s**t.
> Your apologies for him don't help either. They only serve to make me
> think less of you when you spout such bull*** like that there are
other
> posters who are "far worse." There are other abusive posters, but no
one
> is in his league. No one is close.

That's shocking, Jason. You are just going *way* too far. It's
completely over the top. Those phrase, which you just wrote... "He's a
substandard human being", "he is a poor excuse for a human being" and
"a sub-human piece of s**t" are exactly the sort of things a Nazi would
have said. Don't you see that not only are you making no effort to mend
fences here, you're actually revelling in the same kind of joy you
claim he takes in exacerbating it?

What you have just written in the two paragraphs above not only puts
you in his league, it makes you far worse than him. Marc has never
called anyone a 'sub-human piece of ***' to my knowledge. Perhaps you
might correct me if you remember him doing so but if you can't, you
need to give him, and everyone here a pretty prompt apology for
dragging the tone of this newsgroup down to new levels. Shame on you.

[snip]

> >Michael Clark is a character here who is, in my opinion, far worse
than
> >MV. All he does is post nasty vitriolic abuse against me or Marc or
> >anyone who has the unspeakable affliction of daring to hold the view
> >that the AAH might not be so crazy as we have all been led to
believe.
>
> The volume of Michael's posts don't come close to Marc's.

Agreed but every single one of his replies to me is worse than the sort
of abuse MV dishes out, but not as bad as that you just dished out
again to Marc. Perhaps I was mistaken: You've just become worse then
Marc too.

> >Marc might regirgipost too much, but MC does not even do that. The
> >amount of content he has posted on this newsgroup is almost nil and
is
> >only bottomed by that other content-free poster - firstjois, him of
the
> >inane sig lines.
>
> Her actually, and that you've not figured this out over the years
> indicates that you haven't been paying enough attention to give your
claim
> much credibility.

I'm sorry if I mistook firstjois for a male. I thought her childishness
was unlikely to be that of a woman.

> >All we ever get from Clark is shitty abuse. I'm just sick of
responding
> >to him and I refuse to do so until he starts treating me as a human
> >being, instead of some kind of unter-menschen. I've tried siding
with
> >him against a creationist on another newsgroup but to no avail. He
> >continues to treat me like a piece of ***.
> >
> >It is illuminating that you heap abuse in copious amounts on people
> >like Marc, with some justification, but never seem to criticise the
> >likes of Clark. Why's that, Jason?
>
> Your memory is faulty, and thus your question is moot. Your comment
that
> I've never criticized Michael is false. I do not think Michael's
behavior
> is very good. I've said so. You appear either to have not read this
or
> have simply ignored this for some reason or another.

I don't remember reading it. If you did, I apologise. You certainly
don't make a point of doing so very often, anyway, whereas MV's
behaviour seems to be one of your most ardent interests.

> I do not think Michael's behavior has stooped anywhere near that of
> Verhaegen though and consequently I don't criticize him in the same
> manner. Michael has targeted you specifically and this bothers you.
But
> Verhaegen takes a shotgun approach, butting into threads apparently
for
> the sole purpose of calling MANY people idiots. The volume of Marc's
> posts far, far exceeds anyone elses. I believe that this was the
initial
> point of this thread.

When did Marc ever call anyone 'a sub-human piece of ***?', Jason?
I don't know about you, but given the choice, I'd opt for being called
an 'idiot' every time.

[snip]

> >Well it was my point. I'm not pretending to be a saint. I tend to go
> >too far in my hostility to Jim Moore, I accept, but then I think his
> >web site is a shocking attempt at a gross deception - adopting
> >double-speak tactics in insinuating that Morgan's life's work is
such a
> >gross deception in itself. It makes me angry that people have just
> >accepted his slurs without bothering to investigate them and that he
> >continues to masquerade www.aquatcape.org as a 'scientific critique'
> >when it does not even contain a single link to my counter-view. I
> >notice that you have nothing to say about that, Jason.
>
> You notice I've never called for him to provide a link! WOW! Shame
on me
> for neglecting my duties as officer for fairness-in-site-linking!
You
> notice I have "nothing to say about that." That's a really peculiar
way of
> phrasing the statement, seeming to imply that I'm either purposely
> avoiding something or that it's a subject that I'm somehow incapable
of
> addressing. No, I've never called on him to put a link to your page,
but
> since I've also seldom posted *anything* referencing his page, I'm
not
> sure why you find it peculiar that I've not spent the time insisting
that
> he put in a link. You appear to be trying to insinuate that in not
saying
> this, I'm purposely omitting something, doing this for the express
purpose
> of protecting Jim. This is a bizarre interpretation on your part if
I
> read your intent correctly. You've on occassion put posts that
either say
> or insinuate that I hold some special reverence for his page though
I've
> not the slightest idea where you're coming up with that. It appears
to me
> to be a fabrication of your mind.

Seeing you missed my point, let me try to spell it out for you. As you
tirelessly criticise me for not meeting your apparently exceptionally
high standards of scientific rigour and never stop defending your
actions as being purely due to 'maintaining high startds of science'
and not being anything specifically to do with the AAH - you know, I
kind of expect you to show that rigour somehow in your treatment of
arguments both for and against. But you don't do that. You attack me
for calling Jim's web site sleazy but then do not attack him for that
sleaze. In fact, you defend his sleaze and attack my critique. Don't
you see that it makes your claim of the moral high ground of scientific
objectivity look decidedly dodgy?

> You notice so many things wrong, Algis, but the point was that
there's
> bitter irony in a post where you seem bent on pointing out how unfair
and
> viscious people are towards you, but cannot at the same time refrain
from
> attacking someone whom you elsewhere ON THE SAME DAY bring in a third
> party into the mix to insult him. You accuse others (I believe it's
me
> specifically) of cowardice, though it appears to me that you are
engaging
> in a particularly cowardly tactic of the veiled insult.

I think Jim Moore's web site IS SLEAZY, get it? I'm trying not to
attack Jim himself, who I think is probably a nice chap and has done
his web site for the right motives. I've set out why in my critique:
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm.

> I have nothing POLITE to say about your response to Jim's page, other
than
> that the color scheme makes the text easy on the eyes. I've read
your
> response and find it lacking, find your critique to miss the mark in
near
> total and it appears to me that you do not understand Jim's points.

That's an astonishing conclusion. It demonstrates to me, clearer than
anything, that I was probably right all along: You must just be
*completely* biased on this matter.

I 'do not understand Jim's points?' - that is comical. You, clearly,
have not undertood them yourself, or my responses.

To take just one example, the 'Can AATer research be trusted?' page is
a complete and utter sham (see
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm) and yet you
say my critique misses the mark 'in near total'. Thanks, Jason. I was
hoping to pin you down eventually somehow to show your bias and I think
you've just provided me with the evidence.

> That
> you raised such a stink claiming that he lied about citations You
admitted
> you misread this point, misrepresenting his statement "you won't find
> these problems here." You claimed he was refering to his reference
> standard, though rather immediately proceeding, he admitted that he
lacked
> references in some places. His statement was with regards to
*altering*
> quotes. This mistake has been pointed out to you and you admitted
that
> you made the mistake. You haven't corrected your site on this point,
one
> you harp on in your critique over and over and over again. This is
not
> the only point where you miss the mark, but while you masaquerade
your
> "critique" of Jim with the false claim that he said his references
were
> perfect. This is such a monumental error on your part that the rest
of
> your criticism, which often returns to this false point, is rather
> meaningless. That you haven't corrected it (for starters, you could
take
> it down if you don't have the time to edit) doesn't indicate that
your
> serious about playing fair like you insinuate you wnat to do.

I think I was hasty in admitting any 'mistake', that's why I haven't
corrected it. (I am always too ready to apologise.)

Let's read the papragraph from JM's web site in full, shall we?

"...On this site I try to provide references for my statements, and
appropriate, unaltered quotes from relevant sources to back up my
facts. The more curious or enterprising amongst you may wish to read
further about some of these features, and you'll find that easy to do
by simply going to a library and picking up one of the books or
journals I mention. If you try to do the same with most pro-AAT
accounts, you'll find one of several problems: they often don't give a
reference for a statement or quote at all; when they do the reference
is often incomplete (just a name with no clue as to what publication or
year the info is supposedly from; sometimes even a wrong name). On this
site, I've tried to tie as many of my statements to specific references
as I can; at present this is still incomplete and will be rectified
during my updates. Pro-AAT accounts also commonly use quotes which are
altered to "say" something the quoted person didn't actually say; they
leave out relevant material from the same source which contradicts the
AAT position; or they simply claim the source says the opposite of what
that source actually does say. You won't find those problems here. If
you do find an error on my site, please contact me -- there's a
feedback link on most pages."
(from http://www.aquaticape.org/)

Firstly, his claim that any missing citations "will be rectified during
my updates" is just plain not true. Six years on, and several updates
later, no such corrections have been made.

But onto the substance of my point. He's claiming...

1) Pro-AAT accounts also commonly use quotes which are altered to "say"
something the quoted person didn't actually say;
2) they leave out relevant material from the same source which
contradicts the AAT position; or
3) they simply claim the source says the opposite of what that source
actually does say.
4) You won't find those problems here.

Firstly, I dispute that he has shown that Elaine Morgan has done any of
those things except in the most pedantic sense. (e.g. missing out a
few, rather inconsequential words from a Darwin quote without putting
in a elipsis has altered what he "said" for sure.)

But we *do* find those problems on Jim Moore's web site, Jason.

On point 2) Jim Moore has done the same thing himself on at least one
occasion - the Denton quote. (see the link above.)

> Jim's site isn't perfect, and I'm sure I could find mistakes if I
cared to
> look--I believe he says that it's not perfect and says so
EXPLICITLY-- but
> what I've checked up on has been more or less on the mark. I cannot
say
> the same for what I've seen from you.

Oh WOW!!! So, Jim says his site isn't perfect. Oh that's all right then
is it? That means he can perform a character assasination on Elaine
Morgan's life work unimpeded, does it? Tell you what, Jason, I admit my
site, my definiton of the AAH, my masters thesis, my Ph.D. work and my
whole idea of water acting as an agency of selection in human evolution
isn't perfect either. Notice that? I said it EXPLICITLY. Does that mean
you let me off the hook too? Somehow, I suspect the rules are
different, yet again unsurprisingly, for me. You are just a bloody
hypocrite! There, add that to your small list of Me-to-You insults. It
was worth it.

> >So, in the spirit of fair play and getting down from high horses,
then,
> >how about you urge Jim Moore to put in a link to my critique of his
web
> >site? Would you do that? That would make it more objective and fair
> >wouldn't it? That would allow readers to make their own minds up,
> >right? It would be more transparent and more, what's the word,
> >scientific.
>
> I'm not sure how a link makes anything more objective or scientific.

Don't you? Really? Why don't you go ask one of your students. I'm sure
they could enlighten you.

> You
> are using the term scientific in a most peculiar and rather incorrect
way.

Yeah, yeah. (yawn) It's Jim Moore who claims his web site is scientific
critique. Again, amazingly, you have no problem with that. Pure bias -
for everone to see.

> Your plea makes it sound like he's hiding your site from the eyes of
> others.

Of course. He is. Don't you think someone going to www.aquticape.org
would deserve to see both sides? That URL (as opposed to
www.AAHCritique.org) implies a responsibility to do so. I've asked him
to do so nine months ago, but he's refused. I provided him with the
HTML. It would have taken him ten seconds to add it in but rather than
do that, he's posted since many hours of criticisms of my views.

> He owes you no specific link unless he specifically references
> your work. Your plea seems again to be some special request for
equal
> time. Are you similarly going to lobby Morgan to include a reference
to
> Jim's site in her preface?

I'm sure Elaine Morgan would, if she was to produce another version.
She's not afraid of people reading the alternative. Her books are full
of counter views. Haven't you read any of them?

More to the point my web site, of course, *does* provide links to
alternative views, including Jim Moore's.

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast