Re: New Ethiopian Find - Oldest Biped At 3.8-4 mya

From: JAE (jae_at_ucdavis.edu)
Date: 03/27/05 

Date: 27 Mar 2005 10:36:21 -0800

Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> JAE wrote:

[snip]

> If this is not another example of your 'double standards' what is?

This is not an example of a double standard. An example of a double
standard is taking a study where you measure the efficiency of humans
over a variety of terrains and say that they've no efficiency advantage
over some other form of unmeasured locomotion and claiming that these
data are better than others. An example of a double standard is
expecting a far-less-than-half-baked idea about a nebulous hypothesis
that, by your own admission, hasn't even been defined by its proponents
for the better part of 40 years to get the same play in textbooks as
material that has gone through rigors of peer review. These are
examples of double standards, Algis. You should learn what the phrase
actually means.

[snip]

> Oh, so I am to be admonished because I don't resort to calling you
> names? Well I do apologise. If you were so honest why did you not
> criticise the Kruger et al paper for not even measuring the amount of
> body hair shaved off and the size of the bodies it was removed from?
> Instead of touting it as some kind of rebuttal to the Shapr & Costil
> and Sharp et al papers?

Actually, Algis, the point is that you DO resort to calling names,
repeatedly. Your charge of "double standard" or to compare me to a
journalist is your way of name-calling. You mean nothing favorable by
this but you've created your own vocabular of slurs and slander. I'm
admonishing you for being a twit who pretends to be civil when you are
not.

Algis, I did not tout Krueger et al as a rebuttal to Sharp and Costill.
 I had noted that you were long using evidence for complete shaving to
show that *reduction* could occur from a need to swim faster. I had
noted that you were extending out one phenomenon (removal) and using it
to address another (reduction). You seemed to claim that this was
kosher. I had mentioned this before I'd located Krueger et al.
[Though this was not a difficult task, it, like so many other papers
that seem germane to your "studies" seem to come to your attention only
when someone else points them out to you. Your ability to do your own
research beyond picking stuff up off the pop-science book rack doesn't
overly impress.] I had mentioned that measuring the difference between
human hair and naked may not apply to the difference between ape like
hair covering and natural human like hair covering. The scope of their
paper was not at all to address this, but to look at a phenomenon that
had been widely noted and believed by athletes, namely that shaving
helps competitive swimmers swim faster. They covered this scope, but
in doing so, noted something curious that suggested that the amount of
hair removed was not an issue. This curious finding was never part of
their initial hypothesis.

If Krueger et al had set out to address as the center of their paper
how different degrees of hair-reduction or hair loss affected swimming,
they should have collected more data. If they were to do a follow-up
study looking at *why* there was no difference, they'd have to collect
more data. I don't admonish people for finding a curious result in the
process of testing something else and reporting it.

[snip]

> Ego of *mine*! - Hah, that's a joke. You have attacked my scientific
> objectivity in practically every sentence you have ever posted to me
> and yet I take it in relatively good humour. But if I even even hint
> that your objectivity is questionable the response is '*** you!' The
> message is clear: JE's precious ego is to be defended at all costs.

Your scientific objectivity sucks big donkey balls, Algis. It's the
qualitative equivalent of that scummy stuff that clings to hair that
gets stuck in the shower drain. The relatively good humor you tout is
a load of bull*** as well. You regularly get irritable and defensive,
sling slurs at the credibility of those who have poked holes in your
"hypothesis." That you've invented your own little way of doing it
(like repeating the false charge of "double standard" over and over
again like you're some stupid frickin' parrot) isn't good humor, Algis.
 If you believe it is, you're as dishonest with yourself as with
anyone.

Quantcast