Re: Tribute to Peter F
- From: "whitesickle@xxxxxxx" <whitesickle@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:17:28 -0500 (EST)
In article <dovd05$21t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
whitesic...@xxxxxxx <whitesic...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>Peter F ... non-sensical ... stupid posters ... ridiculous terminology.
>eccentric buffoon .... all the worthless things you do
I am sorry to hear this said this way.
I just wanted to say that Peter is one of a number of posters here that
put forward views that I either don't agree with or don't understand
well enough to know whether I agree.
Given some of the insulting crap that goes on here, I appreciate him
and them,
and just wanted to express that appreciation.
--
Joe Felsenstein j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology,
University of Washington, Box 357730, Seattle, WA 98195-7730 USA
I don't know Dr. Felsenstein. I should just let this thread die as
apparently further response will give the appearance of further hurting
my credibility. However, since you chimed in I'm left with no recourse.
I don't care who it is I don't back down, at least in this kind of
forum where there is a barrier. I like things to make sense to me.
Sometimes they don't because it is beyond my understanding. Sometimes
it is because what I'm reading is (admittedly according to me)
nonsense. In Peter's case I had decided "much" of what he has posted is
purposeful nonsense although what actually is the purpose may remain
enigmatic. I always thought it was to get other posters to respond to
him. As you state, "I just wanted to say that Peter is one of a number
of posters here that put forward views that I either don't agree with
or don't understand well enough to know whether I agree." That is funny
to me, you're statement "you don't understand well enough to know
whether I agree". That is a "very" kid gloves approach but more
objective than mine. I think your making a case for basic social
etiquette and niceness. As you point out, "But he is always cheerful,
positive, non-insulting, non-evasive, and he does not go around
pretending that he has disproven the standard theory -- he does not
claim to be someone he isn't. There are a number of other posters here
who share these honorable traits." True. However, when it comes to why
he posts what he does on S.B.E., the majority which doesn't even have
the slightest reference to evolutionary biology except as some form of
interface for his postings, he is evasive. Of course, he has this
right. In addition, I would argue his intent is to neither prove or
disprove the standard theory. I just got a straw up my ass and wanted
to make my "Tribute to Peter F". Perhaps the way I did it could have
been different without being attacking. Also, I will be honest. I "try"
to take writing seriously and make something which will be an
interesting and informative read. Of course, I sometimes fail but I
try. I should accept posters write for different reasons and none have
to conform to a standard. However, this USENET group is technically
about evoluutionary biology and related matter and I don't see how most
of his postings are remotely relevant to the subject. I'm sure you
regard the following as irrelevant to your point but here is just one
sample of what Peter often posts to this group:
Oct 25 2001, 1:05 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
From: "Peter F" <fell_spamtrap...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - Find messages by
this author
Date: 25 Oct 2001 14:00:27 -0400
Local: Thurs, Oct 25 2001 1:00 pm
Subject: Our species's capacity to be religious
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Our capacity to be religious evolved because it ameliorates
*maladaptive*
misery.
N.B.
Religiosity is just one kind of many different persistent
preoccupations
that as a matter of a general neurological principle [i.e., of
"mutually
inhibitory 'psychomotor modules" - a more general and realistically
encompassing 'kin' to the principles of "center/surround
excitation/inhibition" and "lateral inhibition"] 'preconsciously
precludes'
(almost a tautology!) actually experienced "selective *HibernationT*
imploring type situations" --- come CURSES alt. CKHHURSES [respectively
the
short and the long abbreviation of the explanatory statement:
"Conditioned-in, Kept *HibernatedT*, Hence Unconsciously Remembered
{and
ususually rerouted representations of} Stressors {of SHITS-type}
effecting
symptoms"] --- from becoming a content of *ConsciousnessT* [or IOW from
becoming a fully preferentially energized "focus of
*actention*(~=reactive
attention")].
Very many human behaviours (also including many predominantly mental
such)
are "ambi-advantageous" (or, pragmatically put, "ambi-advantageously
evolved") adaptations specifically to the frequent life-situational
simultaneousness (or phylogenetic fugue of 2 thematic types of
"evolutionary
pressures" - SHITS (subset of Adversity) type pressures, and
Opportunity
type evolutionary pressures.
I refer to these behaviours (and to their corresponding brain functions
and
overall evolutionary tendency and trend in phylogeny - although at
times
only a latent 'leaning' of our phylogenetic lineage) as AEVASIVE
(Ambi-advantateously Evolved ..etcetera)
P
I can see why you don't understand him well enough Dr. Felsenstein.
Neither do I! You write, "Given some of the insulting crap that goes on
here, I appreciate him and them, and just wanted to express that
appreciation." I don't dislike Peter. However, I don't like his
scribblings on S.B.E. Yes, this is my problem (if I choose to make it
so) and nobody's elses. After the hundreds or thousands of Peter's
scrabble scribblings on S.B.E. I think I'm entitled to make one post on
how I feel. Regrettably, I used the wrong approach as all it managed
was to focus attention on myself rather than the point I wanted to
make. I'm sure if I barked at Inspector Clousea I would be thrown out
or worse. As far as insulting remarks I usually don't do that. There
are posters here I don't like based on their mindset, views, etc. and
the best way to usually "blow their boat" out of the water is to use
your intellect. The poster may not be aware what has happenned to his
argument BUT others will be. That is the point. However, with Peter
because much of what he posts is non-sensical there is no way, as I see
it, to agree or refute him...let alone understand what he is saying. I
should just see Peter as a harmless diversion.
Michael Ragland
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Announcing A New Unifying Principle of the Evolutionary
- Next by Date: Re: Heritability of fitness
- Previous by thread: Re: Tribute to Peter F
- Next by thread: Re: Tribute to Peter F
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
