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



Algis Kuliukas wrote:

[snip]

> If you had a hypothesis on some non-aquatic (therefore more scientific,
> presumably) factor, it would be fair game to brainstorm around the
> problem and consider each and every possibility where the evidence
> might be contrued to actually support the hypothesis when, at first
> glance, it might seem not to. Why do the rules change here? Could it be
> that it's that dreaded 'a' factor again?

You are entitled to your opinions about wading and swimming and whatnot
of course and you have every opportunity to write something, get it
reviewed and try to get it published to prove me wrong, to try to show
that I'm spefically prejudiced against you and that others are going to
accept your visions as genuinely worthwhile when I've said they suck
donkey balls. I doubt very much you'll be successful, but there's an
easy way for you to prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong. [I suspect
strongly that if you fail in your endeavors to convince the scientific
world, you'll probably just claim that everyone's biased as you've done
here repeatedly. It's a one-size fits all defense that you can take
forever if you feel like it, but it's one that only serves to make you
look like a bitter, foolish putz who can't face up to reality.] I
honestly don't care if you're right or wrong if you've done a good job
[you haven't yet--you're not even close].

You can even claim to know what *would* happen *if* I were to do
something, though when you do this, do realize that you're speculating
as a mind reader and you've been laughably wrong. Your "evidence" of
my "bigotry" based on what you expect might happen if isn't really
evidence, but merely your own psychological tool to bolster your own
esteme. If I had an idea as vague as "water did it" with "it" being
seemingly anything, I'd never claim that this statement was a
hypothesis because I know what a hypothesis is, what it's used for and
how useless such a vague statement is. You're wasting your time trying
to tell me what I would have done. You don't know and frankly, what
you've said I'd do doesn't seem consistent with what I've done.

To this, what I do not like though is when you go from zealot pimping
your ideas to the putz who claims to know my motives and says things
about me that are not just untrue, but slanderously so. You appear to
live in comfort pigeonholing my opinions as against yours because of
prejudice or bigotry on my part against you because you refer to the
"a" words. That's a load of ***. UNLIKE you, I've written,
submitted, gone through review and published in *reputable and
appropriate* scientific journals on a hypothetical issue concerning the
role of water in an aspect of human history. It's a hypothesis that
wasn't part of a dominant paradigm and differed from the majority
opinion as I was taught it once upon a time. There's a record of this,
of what I've written and what I've presented as evidence to support
this, a written, reviewed, published record and as such, your claim
that I'm somehow hydrophobic is both ignorant and unfounded. Shove it
up your ass before you start claiming that I'm a bigot about subjects
concerning water. Do your fucking homework before you start pretending
you know what I think and what I'd do. You're so hopelessly lost in
what I've actually done, what I know, what I've learned, what I've
supported and why that your opinions of what I "might do" are dirt
poor, insulting, and dishonest.

NOW! I won't engage in more pointless attempts to show just how
ridiculous, how convoluted, and how vaccuous your "reasoning" has been
because I don't think that anything at all can convince you. You're
outside of reason. But rest assured, when you start trying to claim
I've said something that I haven't, when you drive forward such
ridiculously ignorant and false charges at me that clearly run against
what I've actually done professionally, I'll strike back and call you
on it, you ignorant schmuck.

.

Loading