Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:24:01 -0500 (EST)

> > JE:-
> > If you think the bank donating
> > $1000 to me is the same as me donating $1000 to the
> > bank only because both were altruistic acts then
> > your absurd lack of rationale speaks for itself.

> NAS:-
> Your absurd non sequitur speaks volumes.

JE:-
No wonder NAS keeps his identity secret.
The only absurdity here is NAS's failure
to even attempt to prove his point.

NAS must prove that the rule in the mirror
did not allow recipients and actor to change
roles allowing a negative sign of c for
the actor to now represent an _altruistic gain_
for the actor and not just a mutualistic gain
proving the diagnostic sign of c to be ambiguous.
My "absurd non sequitur" simply illustrates such
a reversed role altruistic event.

Typically, NAS just dictates what he wishes to get
away with and hopes nobody will notice. He employed
the same tactic when he deleted all algebraic
terms to disguise this role reversal. He may be able
to treat his students this way but he will not get
away with it here.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au