Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.


Pauline M Ross wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 02:02:36 GMT, "Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >I do indeed think Jim's page is balanced, restrained and
> >informative. And I do indeed have a problem with the AAT.
> >What Jim wrote can in no way be described as a bitter,
> >twisted rant. You do seem to have a rather dainty tea
> >party sense of what academic debates look like. Get over it.
>
> Balanced? Hardly. It's almost entirely anti-AAH, anti-proponents of
> the AAH and negative, like the rest of the site, with barely a
> positive comment to be found, but then it doesn't pretend to be
> otherwise, so that's OK.

But Pauline, it *does* pretend to be...

www.aquaticape.org

.... note the 'org'.

Jim *does* pretend to be...

'For a scientific critique of the... blaa blaa blaa...'

> If you want balance, you can compare it with
> Algis's original post, which gave both the Moore url *and* the
> transcript of the broadcast.

Thank you.

> Restrained? Again, hardly. It seems an excessive response (13 pages
> when printed) to a Radio 4 broadcast describing the history of AAH
and
> making some tolerant noises about it. And slagging off pretty much
> everyone taking part is hardly restrained.

Now that's sad, Pauline. Are you telling me you wasted 13 pages of nice
clean white paper?

> Informative? Well, your mileage may vary, but I noticed very little
> hard information in it. Even the long and convoluted discussion about
> EQ had no actual numbers in it. Even after reading this section
> several times, I'm still not sure exactly what is incorrect about
> Michael Crawford's statement that the zebra's brain is 360-70 grams
> and the dolphin's is 1.8 kg.
>
> A bitter, twisted rant? Certainly a rant (and that's OK, that's what
> the web is for, isn't it?), and somewhat twisted, yes, in the subtle
> and not-so-subtle slurs. Bitter - I don't know about that. Unpleasant
> is the word I would use.

I think his wingeing about how his wife - a very well respected
anthropologist and one we can all admire - was upstaged by lil' ol'
Elaine - a "nobody" - is pure, nasty and quite transparent bitterness.

> If Moore stuck only to identifying errors of fact, that would be
fine,
> but the attempt to paint AAH supporters as either ignorant or
wilfully
> deceptive, and the constant use of emotive language ("dodge", "cute
> little trick", "spouting off", "suspiciously carefully", etc) makes
it
> look like a fairly zealous crusade on his part.

And the way he promotes himself as some kind of authority about how
aquasceptics behave is just nauseous. How patronising is that?

Algis Kuliukas

.