Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality


JAE wrote:
> 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.

Like I suspected, you're not willing to get rigorous.

>
>
> > > > > 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.

My reluctance to attempt to publish is a result of the fact that every
anthropologist I've come across is cut from the same cloth as you.

>
> The game is over, McGinn.

.