Re: Stringer ignorant & stupid (Re: "Why do biologists avoid writing about AAT?"


Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op 19-09-2007 05:52, in artikel
1190173946.086311.311990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the imbecile who
called Chris Stringer ignorant & stupid now says <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> :


My little boy, your only argument below is: I'm waiting for AATers to
publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Doughboy, we know what the amateur AATers publish: "? and opinions."
What is needed is professional papers.

Sigh. Again for the 100th time (why not inform a little little bit, my
boy?): they gave me the choice: writing a review paper or an opinion paper.
Okidoki, little boy?

"review" is not original research, I'm suprised even an amateur like
you doesn't know the difference.




Dont you even know that peer-review = conservatism??
Peer-review is excellent for old ideas that have to be fine-tuned, but peer
review doesn't allow radically new ideas.

Silly Marc claims no "radically new ideas" accepted in peer-review
journals, then he thanks
"four anonymous referees for corrections" in his TREE 2002
Acknowledgements section.
Doughboy can't remember what he says from one day to the next. This is
just further proof of the incompetent people writting about AAT.


New? 47 years is new?

O years, my boy: no anthropol.journal ever accepted an AAT paper
(John Langdon's irrelevant blabla can't be call an AAT paper).

Are you senile??? You were asked about biology journals, not
"anthropol.journal"



PA journals refuse to publish papers pro-AAT

I never asked about PA journals, I asked why no biology journals
argued AAT.

My little boy, ever heard of TREE = Trends in Ecology & Evolution? Even
never heard of the "Trends" journals??

Doughboy, we know what the amateur AATers publish: "? and opinions."

And you claim to produce science,
you fool.

You claim "? and opinions." is producing science?


Message-ID: <1124421294.671438.286120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jason Eshleman: "You're argumentative style is to set up a strawman,
claiming that the "alternative" is the "savanna" as if that somehow
has meaning. It doesn't. You're a
nutcase, a delusional fool who passes off his correspondence to
Nature
like it was a peer reviewed article, who passes off his TREE article
like it was original research and not an opinion piece, and who
pretends that he's got stratocladistic support for things for which
he
does not. You're a fraud, and on top of that, you're an ***."

Keep runing after kudus, my boy. Already found your list of
publications?? :-DDD

No original research from Hardy on AAT, none from Stringer, none from
Morgan, Algis , none from nobody. Keep running after your semi-aquatic
mountain beavers doughboy.

.

Quantcast