Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality


Jim McGinn wrote:
> JAE wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:

[snip]

> > You have made up your own defintion of genetic drift that differs from
> > what scientists
>
> Wrong. If you want to discuss genetic drift then first read my writing
> on it in sci.bio.evolution. It's a difficult subject. If you aren't
> willing to get rigorous then don't even bother.

I've read your writings there. I wasn't impressed and neither was
anyone else you corresponded with. While you're overly impressed with
your own "mastery" you appear to be alone in this opinion. There are a
few possibilities. A) you're nuts and deluding yourself, B) everyone
else you ever encounter is a mental midget and you and only you have
the intellectual capacity to understand what it is you're putting
forward on a variety of subjects including genetic drift. I'm taking
the more parsimonious route, that you are mistaken and deluding
yourself. There is no convincing you of this. You are dead-set in
your ways and opinions, but at some level, your inability to explain
yourself and unwillingness to present whatever it is that's floating
your boat now in a forum other than usenet--and forums where you seem
to regard everyone other than yourself as incompetent--makes you
irrelevant. It's your choice to remain irrelevant.


> > > > I
> > > > realize you disagree but I also realize that your disagreement is
> > > > completely and utterly meaningless.
> > >
> > > Shut up, fool. You can't put two sentences together to formulate a
> > > hypothesis. You're kidding yourself if you think I care what you
> > > think.
> >
> > This, of course, is your undoing. I believe Philip accurately
> > describes it as the McGinnian death spiral. Yes, yes, yes, continue to
> > tell me that I'm a fool and I should shut up and that I can't formulate
> > a hypothesis. The latter part is demonstrably false as I've proposed
> > and tested hypotheses and published these results. This latter part
> > seems lost on you, Jim, as you're seemingly unwilling to publish. Is
> > it perhaps because it's more difficult and you don't get the immediate
> > satisfaction of telling your critics--and there will be critics--to
> > "shut up, fool" or do you have some other bizarre rationalization?
> >
> > I DON'T think you care what I think. That's rather obvious because if
> > you did care, you'd publish. But what also appears clear is that you
> > don't care what anyone thinks and for some reason don't care about your
> > own "hypothesis" else you'd do something more than parade around your
> > claims that it's "indisputable."
>
> The game's over, dude. You now have an insurmountable obstacle between
> yourself and any hope you might (or might not) have with respect to
> discovering the situational factors of early hominid evolution. You
> will never come up with anything better than my hypothesis.

You never even played "the game." The obstacle is in front of you, as
you're the one trying to convince people that your minority views (e.g.
that you've got a hypothesis that explains 'human evolution' that is
'indisputable', that you have shown that genetic drift is a falacy)
aren't just psychotic ramblings. Again, I have nothing to prove to
you. You are irrelevant in the scientific community, totally unknown
by all but a tiny handful of people who for some reason or another
waste time on usenet and you are going to remain scientifically
irrelevant until you actually expand beyond this. Your pronouncements
of your victory are hollow.

I'm not even *trying* to come up with something that will discover
situational factors of early hominid evolution. It's not my primary
field of research, but I do know that in my primary field, I don't
parade around and tout my genius on usenet and think that it matters.
I can, however, read for comprehension and when I've attempted to read
your stuff, it's not so coherant and awe-inspiring as you tout it. I
don't think anyone else has been overly impressed either, though I'm
not going to speak for them. Clearly, you have a problem either in
that you do not have a brilliant hypothesis or you are indeed a poor
communicator (coupled with being somewhat of a jerk whose response to
criticism is to call people jackasses and tell them they're too stupid
to stand near the shadows of the great McGinn) or I suspect some
combination of both.

Again, it's entirely your problem because I'm not pushing an idea. You
are. The game is over if all you are here for is to say you're
indisputable and call me a jackass or a moron or whatever it is that
gets your rocks off. Now since the rest just continues your
ever-too-predictable line of insulting me while seemingly not actually
going into any detail that would clarify your position, I'm going to
snip it. You're just being an ***, McGinn, and, as it is, an
irrelevant *** since you're seemingly unprepared to actually try to
publish.

The game is over, McGinn.

.