Re: MV is the most published author of SAP

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 12/23/04 

Date: 22 Dec 2004 20:49:38 -0800

Jason Eshleman wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote:
> >
> >Jason Eshleman wrote:
> >> In article <Xns95C75F885571Dprd@128.249.2.19>,
> >> Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> wrote:
> >> >In sci.anthropology.paleo, Michael Clark created a
> >> >message ID news:GcCdnZ-Xh4nc-lTcRVnygw@skypoint.com:
> >> >
> >> >> I post questions and you post nothing.
> >> >> That's the way it is with you wet apes. Jason thinks he can
> >> >reason with
> >> >> you. I know better.
> >> >
> >> >That, I agree with.
> >>
> >> I think I agree as well.
> >>
> >> Algis now says he admires Verhaegen greatly.
> >
> >I do. He has shown single-minded determination to put forward the
view
> >that water has influenced our evolution in the face of overwhelming
> >hostility and some quite appauling personal attacks from people
here,
> >people like you.
> >
> >His view that bipedal origins probably pre-dates the LCA of Pan-Homo
in
> >wading-climbing environment, even before evidence like Orrorin and
> >Sahelanthropus was available, will turn out, I'm now quite sure, to
> >have been a brilliant piece of deduction.
> >
> >> Admiring someone who for
> >> years has shown no ability to be civil is, in my opinion, a flaw.
> >
> >I think his tactics often let him down and have said so repeatedly.
But
> >repeatedly calling people idiots is nothing compared to what you,
Jason
> >Eshleman, called him yesterday, 22nd Dec 2004. You are now to my
mind,
> >by head and shoulders, the worst abuser on this newsgroup. Calling
> >someone 'a sub-human piece of ***' drags this pathetic slanging
match
> >down to new depths. I notice that giving an apology for doing so is
the
> >last thing on your mind. More shame on you for not doing the civil
> >thing there either.
>
> A) Learn to read. I realize that you seem to idolize someone who is
> liberal in her modification of quotes, but correctly, I did not call
Marc
> a sub-human piece of *** as you seem to parrot time and time again.
I
> said he presents himself as such. I realize you were too busy
looking for
> another opportunity to compare me to a genocidal dictator, but do try
to
> get it right. He has spent years being abusive at no provocation.
YEARS.
> He has, to the best of my knowledge never apologized for such actions
to
> anyone. This is the marks of a sub standard human, or at the very
least
> sub-standard socialization.

More hypocracy. You say that I should learn to read because I mistook
your subtle use of saying he "presents himself as a sub-human piece of
***" as meaning he *is* a sub-human piece of ***. (Oh what a clever
distinction!) And yet in the next sentence, ooops - the rules have
changed, now me comparing what you said about Marc to what a Nazi would
have said is comparing *you* to a *genocidal dictator*! Your ability to
perform such acrobatics in the use of double standards is impressive,
but damning, Jason.

Presumably, by "her", you meant Elaine Morgan there. So, she's
"liberal in her modification of quotes", is she? Really? And the source
of this smear comes from where? Jim Moore's 'scientific' critique,
right? Let's examine that 'evidence' shall we?...

The *four* examples Moore gives on his web page
http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html simply do not stand up to close
scrutiny. I thought you'd read his web site. Clearly you didn't bother
to check any of his allegations out but just accepted them as fact.
Well done, Jason. What a thorough scientist you must be.

Here's the summary of that page, taken from my critique...

This page makes serious allegations against the AAH's chief proponent,
Elaine Morgan and her writing practices. More than once, he implies
that she deliberately misleads and misquotes as part of her normal
reporting technique. The heading and introductory paragraphs seem to
have been written in a way to lead the reader into a belief that the
claims made in her books are little more than lies and deception.
However, if one reads the detail of the page one finds that, actually,
Moore has only four specific examples to back up these claims and none
of them are anywhere near as bad as he portrays them to be.

1) The Darwin misquote. Moore lambasts Morgan by suggesting "Dropping
27 words from the middle of an 86 word quotation of Darwin and
pretending it's whole is just not kosher, and certainly contradicts
Morgan's self-righteous claim." The 22 words, Morgan omitted... "As Mr.
Wallace remarks, the natives in all countries are glad to protect their
naked backs and shoulders with some slight covering" did not affect the
meaning or the context of her quotation in the slightest. The claim
Moore alludes to, made on an internet newsgroup, that Morgan never
omitted words without indicating she'd done so with a row of dots, was
clearly proven as false, but how many of us have not made such claims
and wished they hadn't? Moore does so himself on this very web page. He
wrote 'You won't find these problems here', alluding to three types of
deception, including leaving out "relevant material from the same
source which contradicts the AAT position" when we do find such
problems on at least one one occasion. (see the Denton misquote below).
2) The Elsner & Gooden Misquote. Here Moore correctly calls Morgan to
task for misquoting a reference to bradycardia as evidence in support
of better breathing control. Morgan was clearly in error but as the
evidence Elsner & Gooden were citing was still of the nature which AAH
proponents would use to argue in favour of the diving reflex, if not
for greater breathing control.
3) The Negus quote. Here, Moore is clearly scraping the barrel as he
abandons Morgan's early published books and, instead, resorts to
postings made on internet newsgroups. Even here, it is not clear that
Morgan's omissions made any substantial difference to the argument she
was making.
4) The Denton Quote. Moore rightly points out that Morgan misquoted
Denton. She used the word 'selective' instead of 'selection'. He also
correctly points out that she omitted a word ('appetite') without
informing the reader of it. Nor did she accurately show that her quote
was only a part of a sentence. However, Moore's allegation, that
Morgan's placing of Denton's quote in a savanna context was a "complete
fabrication" is a little less certain. Not only did Denton clearly
allude to 'Kalahari Bushmen' in the first paragraph of this section but
Moore chose to omit that sentence from his own quotation which was
meant to justify his allegation.
Even if we accept all of Moore's points, Morgan's changes (or errors)
do not really change the substance of the quotation and the savannah
context she may have misplaced his quote into could be argued to have
been the general paradigm seen for hominid evolution by Denton himself.
Impartial readers of this might go a little further and conclude that
if anyone is guilty of attempting to twist the words of an author to
make cheap points, it is clearly Jim Moore, and not Elaine Morgan who
is doing so.

It is argued here that, sloppy as some of these examples may be, they
are almost certainly the result of genuine human error and not any
sordid intent to mislead. The fact that Moore could only find only
four, very poor examples, supporting relatively minor points about the
AAH from a book that Morgan published in 1990. In her five books Morgan
makes hundreds of points, most backed up by referenced quotations. Her
last book, especially, is relatively accurate in all of this. It is
mischievous in the extreme to imply, on the basis of this evidence,
that this is a general symptom of all her work.

(See http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm for a
fuller analysis.)

So out of all of Elaine Morgan's works there is one serious error as
far as I can tell. BFD. It certainly didn't change the general
substance of her argument that humans appear to have adaptations which
appear to provide some kind of diving reflex. As for the others, the
Darwin misquote is a ridiculously inconsequential offering. She missed
out a few words from Darwin's quote because they were boring. She
ommitted the elipsis from that quote to indicate that some words had
been ommitted. Big Deal. It could have been a type-setters error for
all we know. The Negus quote was taken from a bloody newsgroup for
heaven's sake. Talk about scraping the barrel. And on the Denton
'misquote' Moore was more guilty than she was of omitting selected
phrases from the passage quoted to 'prove' his point. That's it. It's
just crap, Jason, but I'm glad that have you so clearly endorsed Jim
Moore's research methods. I *know* that you'd have been full of damning
condemnation if I, Marc or anyone open to the idea that water might
have influenced our phenotype more than the apes had been so sloppy.
You've just demonstrated your bias clearer than I ever could because
you have repeated, and in fact exaggerated, Moore's smears by
suggesting that she was "liberal in her modification of quotes."
Thanks.

You're also wrong to say Marc had no provocation. Stone walling every
pro-AAH argument in the way you have done for YEARS is incredibly
frustrating. As you know only too well yourself, one's patience has a
tendancy to snap eventually. Marc's snapped a long time ago. I
sympathise with that but still don't condone his readiness to call
people idiots. But even there, people have called Marc far worse than
'idiots' and 'fools' for YEARS too. You just pretend that fact away
though in your attempt to vilify and de-humanise someone who's only
crime is to understand that human evolution was clearly greatly
influenced by water and get very frustrated that so-called experts have
argued themselves into such a corner on this that they would rather
argue that black is white than admit they had made a monumental and
fundamental mistake.

> B) You idolize an *** who hasn't shown a hint of standard
courtesy for
> a number of years. You idolize someone who has what goes far beyond
habit
> of attacking a range of posters. Is his modal abuse as nasty as I
got?
> No, but the prick spent years earning his due.
>
> Do note what kind of company you keep with Marc. You pick your idols

> poorly.

Now if I'd have written that you'd have lectured me about not having
the presumption to decide what you think. I do not 'idolise' him, nor
do I suggest that he is a sub-human piece of ***. Some of us are able
to hold more moderate positions.

I'm really only replying to this to remind everyone that Jason is
clearly in absolutely no mood for an apology on calling a fellow
newsgroup poster the lowest kind of insult possible.

I'm going to end this by getting back on thread. MV might be the most
published author on SAP, and I suspect he has called others idiots or
fools far more often than anyone else but Jason Eshleman must be the
number one canditate for the most abusive poster on this newsgroup.

And with that, I have nothing more to say about name calling. Can we
please get back to debating human evolution?

Algis Kuliukas