Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion



> > JE:-
> > "Extensively?" All you commented was that yourself and O'Hara had
made
> > some secret agreement between yourselves as to what O'Hara really
meant.
> > You never stated what that agreement was to hapless sbe readers,
i.e. it
> > was just more of the same: evasion.
> > I find it amazing that this is all you can find to actually comment
on
> > within the entire post...

> JM:-
> Kind of unfair, isn't it John? You can say all kinds of eccentric,
> confused, and even paranoid ("secret agreement") things and people
> just ignore you. But insert just one blatant lie ("refused to
comment")
> and they jump all over you.

JE:-
You only provided a bunch of syntax that added up to a negative net
contribution. I do not consider a negative net quantity to be more than
zero.

Until both yourself and O'Hara stop _blatantly_ evading the obvious
catastrophic consequences of O'Hara's answer to Hamilton's Rule and
EITHER: provide to sbe readers an explicit retraction of what O'Hara had
actually answered OR the supposed agreement between yourself and O'Hara
as to what O'Hara's answer actually meant, I will continue to _quite
properly argue_ that O'Hara's answer to my question has been evaded by
both yourself and O'Hara.

>snip rhetorical garbage<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx






.