Re: Savanna nonsense


Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> JAE wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> [snip the usual arrogant, pedantic nit picking pretentious lecturing]


So now when you're corrected on making a false claim, it's pedantic nit
picking? No wonder you're as pathetic as you are. You appear now not
only to be substituting your particular brand of inference and trying
to pass it off in the same light as actual observation, but you're
indeed ignoring actual evidence that runs counter to your inferential
claims.

Twisted your words? Honestly Algis, it takes no twisting. You got
dreadfully confused about vestigial traits and started getting
ridiculous and in doing so, could only find it in yourself to
(unsuccessfully) toss out some nonsequitur about lemurs. Twisted your
words? No, you made the claim that chimp mothers aren't going to be
likely to attempt to rescue their drowning children. You made this
claim inferentially, claiming further that there was "nil" evidence
that it has happened, but you were, as you often are, simply wrong
about that part and you were wrong in this case because you used your
own defective brand of logic in place of actually investigating to see
if there were any data.

Now it appears you've snipped that too. I can see why you might do it.
It must be rather embarrassing to be so gawdawfully inept in your
field of study that you have to try to defend your positions by
introducing nonsequiturs and using inferences and thought experiments
even when actual data disputes these thought experiments, but were you
honest about it, you'd realize that you've just screwed up again.

> > [snip the comments accusing me of attacking--comments from the same
> > pathetic brain-dead punk who seems not to remember calling me a
> > "rdiculously silly, arrogant, pretentious, paranoid, overly
> > argumentative twit." Does it bother you to be both an idiot and a
> > hypocrit?]
>
> I mildly insulted you openly, finally, one time because your history of
> replies to me has shown that you'd have twisted my words into one
> somewhere anyway.
>
> You've attacked me far worse in practically every posting. I finally
> had enough of it and decided to give you some of your own medicine.

Your objectivity is lacking. You make this claim repeatedly, seemingly
unaware of when you attack but play this poor weepy victim. I finally
had enough of your hypocritical bull*** and the pseudoscientific
nonsense that you were pushing. When you tried to ignore comparative
biology for investigating selection, when you seemed
confused--hopelessly confused as it turned out--as to even how one
addresses real issues like whether or not a trait is the result of
primary selection or is a secondary usage of the morphology, when you
took that and started in on an acusatory nonsequitur about lemur arms,
you pissed me off because you in essense decided against doing any real
science at all in favor of some bizarre crap that you call science.
When you came back claiming that you didn't make that accusation
(though the google record is clear) you further pissed me off by simply
being dishonest about what you'd actually said. I really didn't see any
reason to cut you any slack at all because what you were doing was
neither socially polite NOR did it in any way resemble anything
scientific. So when you made yet another one of your famous claims
where you substituted inference (this time being the inference you've
repeatedly put forward about how chimp mothers would be UNWILLING--note
that you referenced willingness and not simply abilities though you
based this on implied abilities only--to attempt rescues) I again
called you on it, this time pointing out that your own research
abilities just failed you because you seemed unable to find those
instances of chimp drowning--something you'd think would be important
to your 'hypothesis' that indicated that your claim about anecdotal
evidence was false.

Now if you want to cry boo hoo about how I'm not being nice, go buy
some tissue. But if you want anyone to take you seriously as a
scientist, you've got to stop trying to put forward kindergarten
play-time and expect it to be taken seriously. Do it long enough as
you have and you'll piss off people who do science and respect science
because every time you present something that isn't observation as
observation you are insulting the process of science. I know you're
more than likely to hide in some errant claim that it's just that I'm
against your aquatic ape religion that makes me say this, but that's
false. It's not water that I'm against. It's the bastardization of the
scientific method that you engage in to support your views that I'm
against and as long as you continue to perpetuate your methods even if
you pay lip service to wanting to do science--actually especially while
you say you want to do science--expect people to call you on your
bull***.

.

Quantcast