Re: savanna chimps are savanna dwellers, .....

On Nov 26, 12:09 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 26, 11:45 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Your assertions are rather obvious political tactics.  

Basically your assertions broacast that you are an illiterate fool.

Hit the books, as you have been told before.

From: "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Female Proclivaties and Capital Madness. [was: gradualism
sucks]
 Date: 1999/06/21

Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21A99@xxxxxxxxxxx>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo:
"You really need to do some reading (and I've said this before). You
should read, and I mean read not just skim which seems to be the
thread of
your work here, Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth's Making Silent Stones
Speak
(1993). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data. You need
to
read the literature and find which ideas you have which are just plain
wrong
and which are worthy of development."

Dan Barnes:
"Unfortunately your theory is not in the position where it
can be directly addressed which is why a number of people
have suggested that the best thing you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and
come back again. This is what would happen if you were a
first year university student and I don't see why there
should be an exemption in your case."

Greg Laden:
"Jim: Regarding the above (culled) questions; Imagine yourself in a
graduate student seminar asking your professor these questions? Well,
I'm
not your professor, and you're not my student, but it is an
interesting
thought experiment. I think of myself as very thoughtful of my
students,
and helpful to them, but if a student came back at my questions or
comments
with this sort of response, I would be very unhappy, and there is no
telling what would happen!!! Read the stuff. If you have a vague
memory
of it, that is not good enough. You should be saying things like "No,
you
are wrong. McGrew is irrelevant, because...." etc.! I've given you
the
names of a half dozen scholars who have done important work related to
what
you are interested in. Hit the books, kid!"

Su Solomon:
"Jim I cannot see that this 'idea' of yours is in any ways much
different
to that which was posted almost a year ago on the old PalAnth List.
Once again we have unsubstantiated claims re your interepretation of
the
mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical literature.
I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four hundred words
of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."

Your assertions are rather obvious political tactics. This means
that
nobody that is not already indoctrinated in the cult of anthropology
is going to be convinced by anything you have said in this thread.
And, therefore, the net result of anything you have stated here can
only be to further expose the complete lack of scientific integrity
of
this popularistic cult.

.

Relevant Pages