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


Algis Kuliukas wrote:

> Well my postulating about Jim's motivation for his
> otherwise-difficult-to-fathom hostility to Elaine Morgan is not in
the
> same ball-park as calling him a "sub-human piece of ***", is it,
> Jason? - You know, like you did about Marc Verhaegen. In fact I've
> complemented Jim on many ocassions.

No, it's not in the same ballpark. Marco spent years abusing me and
others on this group. Marc's FIRST post to me insulted me. He didn't
set it up with an exchange. He immediately twisted the etymology of my
name to call me an ass. First post. We'd never had an exchange
before. Couple that with the innumerable times he's knee-jerked called
a host of people idiots, fools and imbecil(e)s, and he'd gone to
pattern, marking himself as a true sociopath who didn't act like a
human being. He was acting (go back and read the post--I suspect you
can read though you don't alway make this readily apparent) like a real
sub-human piece of ***. He earned ever bit of that. You've got some
personal relationship outside of this group with him apparently, but if
you don't recognize that he's not just an ass every now and then but is
routinely a total ass, then you're not operating in the same reality as
most of us. That or you're simply slipping into a new pattern of
dishonesty, in which case you should be ashamed.

Jim has been all too civil to you. He has not repeatedly called you
names (like Marco has to many). His initial post to you didn't insult
you (like Marco has to many here). He's regularly civil and has given
you time that frankly, you don't deserve. You're not warranting his
civility and instead seem to be acting on knee-jerk in defense of
someone you appear to idolize for some reason. Now in your crusade to
defend Morgan, you've decided to attribute motive, in this case a base
motive that attacks Jim. In doing this, even one of your AAH allies
has admitted that your behavior was inappropriate.

[snip]

> Reading his attacks on Elaine, you'd think he thought she was some
kind
> of criminal. That's what's dispicable, Jason - his attempted
character
> assasination. That's what's really vindictive. All I'm doing is try
to
> imagine what could have motivated Jim to make such an attack. You
> really couldn't get a much nicer person than Elaine Morgan. I notice
> you are quite happy to defend Jim's attacks on an 85 year old lady at
> the moment when much of her life's work appears to have been
vindicated
> by the BBC. I think that is a really callous and heartless thing to
do.
> She deserves far better and always has.

Elaine wrote books that contained errors, errors of fact, errors of
citation, errors of logic. When she wrote them and published them, it
became public record. She gets no special right to pass off falseness
as science because she is a nice person who is 85, though this appears
to be your motive for defending her. Jim's pointed her mistakes. If
you consider holding someone to actually getting their facts straight
to be hostility, you're again not living in the same reality as the
rest of us. If you believe that the BBC's program--one ripe with many
agregious errors, things that are simply not true being put forward as
if they were-- vindicates her life's work, you are again not operating
in the same reality as the rest of us.


> Maybe, you're right. Maybe this was not Jim's motivation at all. But
> that's how it comes across to me. I can't imagine how so much
> bitterness could have been engendered against such a lovely person
> otherwise, can you?
>
> > You've sunk to a new low, Algis.
>
> No, Jason, I haven't done anything of the sort, although I can
imagine
> why you'd like to try to pretend I have. AFAIK the nadir of this
> newsgroup remains (and hopefully will always remain) when you called
a
> fellow poster a "sub-human piece of ***". You can't get much lower
> than that but thanks for reminding us about it. We really shouldn't
> forget such behaviour so that we might avoid it in future. Maybe Jois
> could introduce it as a sig.

Well, good to know that you are solely responsible for ranking of the
insults in this group. Who appointed you to that position? Did Marco,
a sociopathic nutcase who tosses insults at people in his opening posts
to them bestow you with that honor? Did you get it at the same time
that you were knighted to defend Elaine Morgan because she's a nice old
lady and thus shouldn't be held to any actual standards of truth or
reason in presenting data?

You should probably take the time to remind everyone that I once called
you a pathetic little prick as well. It probably makes you think
you're always on moral high ground to bring it up. It doesn't. You're
behaving like a real punk towards Jim and nothing you say about me and
nothing I've ever done changes that.

.

Quantcast