Re: Jason's Dilemma


Jim McGinn wrote:
> JAE wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > IOW, Jason, herein you've produced an incredibly lame
> > > excuse for pretending to ignore my hypothesis. If I was
> > > to concentrate my efforts to a journal (let's say JHE)
> > > I'd get similar lame excuses but the difference would be
> > > that these excuses would not be as public as they are
> > > here in this NG and so it would be more difficult to
> > > expose the purely political nature of of your responses.
> >
> > OK, that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard for being too cowardly to
> > try to publish.
>
> I don't see how courage plays into this at all.

You don't seem to have any confidence in your ideas or your ability to
make them clear to anyone else, else you'd not hide behind the "I
already know that it will be rejected because people can't handle it"
nonsense. That strikes me as something akin to cowardice, or mental
illness or perhaps a combination of both. Try not to take it
personally.

> You already know ahead of time that it will be
> > rejected and you are ahead of time putting forth the rationalization
> > that it's someone else's fault. Sounds like complete quackery. I hope
> > you get great entertainment from pretending to have it all figured out
> > because your behavior makes certain that you will remain utterly
> > inconsequential.
>
> I don't know why you're concerned. You've read
> it. So you can't claim that it is inaccessible.

No, I've read bits of it. I read bits of something previous you sent
me as well, and the bits that you drop out when you're calling other
people idiots or fools, but I've never seen a complete "ecological
gatekeeper hypothesis."

I'm not concerned about it either. You seem to be the only one who
thinks you've got this brilliant answer. Perhaps you're completely
satisfied being the only one privvy to this information, but don't fool
yourself. Kept in your hands, it's just as irrelevent as the
scribblings of psych ward patients who claim the beams from outer space
are controlling their destiny.

> Could it be that you are waiting for others to
> substantiate it? You shouldn't worry about that.
> I don't. A hypothesis has to stand on its own.
> It's validity does not lean on the opinions of
> others.

No. I'm not waiting at all. Waiting would be a waste of my time
because I honestly don't believe you're going to do anything but
continue your MO of claiming to be this "World Class Evolutionary
Theorist" who drops bits of some manifesto that may have been put
forward at some point, steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to make it
more accessible, allthewhile making himself a laughing stock. The
validity of a hypothesis stands on its ability to withstand vigorous
testing. The repeated claims that this hidden manuscript somehow can't
be disputed are not the same thing as vigorous testing. Its (sic)
validity do not lean on the alleged irrefutability of it in the opinion
of self-proclaimed roost-ruling world class evolutionary theorist Jim
McGinn.

> Keep in mind that most people will only respond
> to something that is wrong. The more wrong the
> more they respond. (AAT being an excellent
> example.)

To a point, true. But beneath that, it's rather difficult to respond
or dispute or even bother to pay attention to something that exists
principly as a claim to a post once-upon-a-time that the initial author
won't provide more of a reference to. The biggest reason no one
bothers to try to dispute your hypothesis is that it appears largely
fictitious. I'm not going to waste my time hunting for something from
you, psych-ward-patient, er I mean Jim McGinn in order to try to
dispute it. I've got more productive things I can do with my time like
count the cat hairs on my bedspread.

> Slowly but surely my hypothesis will gain
> acceptance. Not that it's that big a deal. It's
> just science.

No, it will not. This is a grander delusion than proclaiming yourself
a world class evolutionary theorist. A usenet posting will not gain
acceptance and when you're dead or locked up or simply decide to stop
logging on, your hypothesis will disappear into the ether. If the
ideas are good, someone else will come up with them independently,
publish, and they will not be your ideas.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jasons Dilemma
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >>> IOW, Jason, herein you've produced an incredibly lame ... >>> excuse for pretending to ignore my hypothesis. ... bothers to try to dispute your hypothesis is that it appears largely ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Jasons Dilemma
    ... > Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> IOW, Jason, herein you've produced an incredibly lame ... >> excuse for pretending to ignore my hypothesis. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Jasons Dilemma
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... delusional-schmuck, er uh, Jimmy. ... complete enough to dispute in full form or to really bother with at ... but the fractions that squeak through in your various diatribes ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Impeccable
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> not the genius that you claim to be. ... > up my solution to human evolution as evidence that supports this ... It would seem, then, that the best way to dispute my, to use ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Why You May Never Comprehend Human Evolution
    ... > Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> dog whether he thinks your car needs a tune-up. ... inability to dispute it. ... detailed hypothesis that I presented. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)