"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> P.Desenex wrote:
>> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > You might make make some of us
>> > think that you really do want science to make some progress here and
>> > are not just attempting some massive filibuster.
>> I believe someone in this group was collecting a library
>> of signature files. You know, little snippits of outrageous
>> irony that they would then hand back to the author at
>> some later date. I believe that the above might be a good
>> candidate. Shall we format it?
>> "You might make make [sic] some of us think that you really
>> do want science to make some progress here and are not
>> just attempting some massive filibuster." A.Kuliukas, 7/19/05
>> There is a bit of folk wisdom that starts out with "People
>> who live in glass houses.....".
> Yes, ironic indeed.
> For 45 years now the field of paleoanthropology has basically ignored
> at least two calls from FRSs to look into this most plausible
> hypothesis. Even today all we get is a series of otherwise very learned
> people putting up ad hoc excuse after ad hoc excuse why this thing
> shouldn't be taken seriously.
You don't seem to be well versed in language arts. Here,
you've apparantly missed the essential point made in reference
to your use of the word "filibuster". Your writing doesn't seem
to address the content of the objections leveled at your thesis
--as we see demonstrated in this post. I wish that I could
swing by SAP, as I do from time to time, and see you addressing
your critics. Unfortunately, such a trip is rarely rewarded with
anything other than a bitter tirade against "the field of paleo-
anthropology" and all those "very learned people" for their
failure to be swayed by appeals from the Royal Society. I am
sorry that you've invested so heavily in something you refuse
to get and I'm sure that it is no comfort to look out across your
campus and realize in your heart-of-hearts how seriously out
of place that you are. A savy academic would reconsider his
or her situation and make adjustments but you, Mr Kuliukas,
appear to be too pig-headed to operate in your own best
interests. Lets do some cutting, shall we?
1) The Hominid Bipedalism from Wading Hypothesis
--is not an adequately framed "hypothesis" as I believe
many of your detractors have pointed out. You of course
have responded to their critiques by repeating it. Humans,
of course, are not bipedal because they were waders but
because they are large-bodied primates with a history of
climbing. It seems to me that if you were interested in
advancing your "hypothesis", you would have to deal with
this alternative. You don't.
2) The Nakedness for Drag Reduction Hypothesis
Now all you have to do is explain all that hair on the
bodies of humans, the wide variation in the same, and
what sort of selective advantage accrues from having
one or the other. Be my guest.
3) The Adipocity for Buoyancy Hypothesis
...is, on the face of it, patently ridiculous. Fat is an
energy store, dear boy, as any old grandmother will
tell you. Should you have no faith in the wisdom of
your grandmother, you might like to take a nutrition
course (I think they have a couple at UWA). Failing
that, you could profit by taking one or two general
human biology courses. I'm thinking of something with
a survey quality --maybe human development.
> You're part of that process and yet you think the irony is on me.
I don't "think it", lad, I know it.
Finally, please don't think that you can goad me into
a long and heated "debate" with you regarding your
insistence that your this or that is right. They, and you,
are not and any review of your history here in SAP is
ample evidence in that regard. You don't seem willing
to "engage" and that, sir, is your ultimate undoing.
> Algis Kuliukas
Philbert Desenex, PhD., Stromatologist
University of Okoboji, Northern Iowa
Office hours: 2 -3, Thur-Fri