Re: Forum for rational scientific debate?


rmacfarl wrote:
Jois wrote:
<richardparker01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150680362.555287.191770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jois wrote:
<richardparker01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150674896.946343.133690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contributions to the discussions conducted in this forum by Macfarlane
and McLark can be seen at:

And we hope to see your further contributions at some forum but not
here.
We can only hope.

Jois

Jois - you can be a real 'moderator' of a discussion forum, or you can
take sides.

I have only quoted what those two contributors said entirely by
themselves.

Are you a 'moderator' or partial?

This is maybe the first time that I've deliberately been
confrontational. I'm a bit fed up with being attacked by people who
haven't, really, anything much more to say than personal insults.

[snip]

If I display a lack of respect for a couple of old wallies that have
been hovering around this "entirely open and free discussion group" for
some years, then I can only ask that they engage their minds before
they hit the keyboard.

regards

Richard

It isn't so much a lack of respect but that I'm 78% sure you are one of the
ATT group who decided to post here to stir something up and said so in that
forum months ago. Heck, it might have been a year ago. IF that's your goal
then you should be ready for what you do stir up.

You can float whatever ideas you want but why would you want to do so before
such a disinterested and unappreciative crowd?

Jois


My issue with Dickie-boy isn't so much his ideas as his personality,
which as demonstrated to date is that of a dishonest weasel.

That (dishonest weasel) is a very nice turn of phrase - must have taken
a deal of thought. Do you have weasels in Oz? even dishonest ones?

It's better to quote something you know about than total rubbish.

By the way, rus-siba - near enough to Rossie-boy, but not quite, in my
local Surigaonon language, means 'anus of an old pig' - it's the bit
of a roast pig that 's refused by the cooks or the party-goers, but
given to the dogs.



And more:

I like Algis, I really do, in spite of everything. Despite all the
extremely terse exchanges we've had, I find his Usenet persona to be
one of sincerity, even if far too earnest for his own good (or my
liking, depending on your point of view).

Well, that's nice. He really has some very good and original ideas. I
haven't noticed anything remotely like that from you.


But Dickie-boy? Mr "I am trying to compose a troll on sci.anthro.paleo"
Sleazebag Parker?

Bah! A nasty taste is left in one's mouth by
engagement with him. Yukkie yukkie! Ick! Ick! Ick!

Are you pregnant, Ross, or are you just going through the 'Late Old
Man' syndrome?

If a second-hand message from another group produces these over-wrought
symptoms, I would suggest you might contact your doctor. A psychiatrist
would cost too much, and the treatment (and fees) would go on for much
too long to deal with such an intractable problem.


Face it Dickie-boy. I've never agreed with Algis, because his ideas are
crap, but he's still a nice bloke. There are other people who post on
the PA groups who I may line up with in the AAT debates, but whom I
have a personal dislike of & therefore don't correspond with. And then
there are those who I don't like, & don't agree with.

Marc I don't
like, & really don't agree with. You I really don't like, & don't agree
with.

Do you see the difference?

Not really.

I'm still trying to work out your 'subtle' message. Perhaps I'm trying
to read too much into it, and it's so very crassly simple that I've
lost the point of what you thought you were trying to say.


But, Ross, you're doing a reelly good job of nurturing the study and
discussion of the science of palaeoanthropology in the anti-Podes

Keep up the good work, old chap!

regards

Richard

.