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



mclark wrote:

> >> So has she wised up, or not?
> >
> > I'm trying to imagine what kind of insult JAE would dish out if I'd
> > been persistantly trying to insult him in such a personal way. I'm sure
> > it would be quite severe. But never mind, I know the rules are
> > different when it's a club member doing the insulting.
>
> Sure, Algis, in your case, what's good for the goose
> *isn't * good for the gander. As I recall, you were the
> one who brought wives into this and to date have been
> "persistantly trying* to evade responsibility for yet another
> social faux pas. You may think you've gotten away with
> it. I'm just here to remind you that you have not.

I see. So me wondering if the motivation for Jim's bitter web site
(where *he* first brought his wife into this, remember) might have been
the fact that Nancy Tanner's much respected work of the female role in
human evolution being upstaged by a playwrite gives you free reign to
ask if my wife's been seeing the milkman, does it? (By the way we don't
have milkmen in Australia.)

So what does you writing lying letters to Phillip Tobias in order to
extract some of form of words that you might use as propoganda to
counter his public statements of open mindedness for the AAH give me
free reign to do to you?

I just wanted to remind you that I hadn't forgotten about that, either.

The way I see it, Jim comes out of this quite honourably if he did it
for those reasons. It lets him off the hook. It would actually
demonstrate great devotion and who could blame him for it? Not me. I
might have done the same thing myself. As for Nancy Tanner, I've never
written a word about her other than to say I've got the utmost respect
for her work. I doubt Elaine Morgan would say anything different.

Algis Kuliukas

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast