On Sun, 19 May 2002 20:15:01 -0500, "Michael Clark"
<mclark@skypoint.com> wrote:
>"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:B90D9535.DCB8%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
>Give it up, Bob. This whole pissing contest between you and
>PD is pretty transparent. Phil is guilty of childish behavior
>(who puts a kill file in their sig?)
I do, and I am not ashamed to do so either.
As per killfiling him, If I continue to 'slugfest' with him,
then I am guilty of, ultimately, hippocracy. As I told Bob in
the 'ideal' world we would not get into the off-topic stuff,
but Bob is dead set on continuing, So I do not think it is
childish to put the killfile in my sig, so that he knows that
I will not respond to it. If he agrees to stop his obsession
he can send me an email and I will remove his name and we can
go our separate ways here. But I don't see that happening any
time soon. I see it as a flag
1. To let people know why I will not respond to his 'antics'
2. To let people know there is a possible problem they might
want to ignore. Either me or him or both.
3. To verify the fact that I want a cleaner, less
'slugfest' newsgroup, and the way I intent to do this
is to auto-ignore all those who would want to turn into
a slugfest.
IOW, the sig killfile is the politest way I can end the
argument with him. I am very serious about people initiating
off-topic threads and material, some people here who think
they are my 'friends' may also find themselves in that
kill-list if they do not stop initiating off-topic material
and especially threads. We do not need five threads for
offtopic post that appear in other threads, re-need only one
response, and if that does not solve the problem, then
kill-file the problem and move on. Yes, I have initiated alot
of off-topic stuff, this is how I propose to end it, and I
want the off-topic threads to stop, period.
>-and is not, if his slugfest with MB is any guide,
>infallible. And you are guilty of flogging a dead horse.
Infallible because I did not read Horai, yes, I confess, when
Gisele pointed these papers out to me in march or so I was a
little 'red-faced'. In addition Micheal, I do not read every
paper every week, if you want my original post I made about
Harris and Hey I still have it and I can repost it. I
generally summarize a work, keep a 'concept' of that work in
my 'rusty nails' head and move on. I think that, basically
Takahata et al made all previous work obsolete, because it
goes from a single locus study to a combined perspective. As
far as Micheal is concerned, a Scientist here who aint
willing to disclose his full identity and makes hit and run
attacks (as in when one gets close to sealing off his point
of argument he runs away), how seriously should we take such
a person. M.B. has had a very MREH slant, a slant that has
lost its defensibility and he knows this, so he has retreated
to the position of defending some, if even slight,
contribution of Neandertals. I am not hit and run, I tell you
and him strait to your faces, I don't see that it is likely
at all that Neandertals contributed hereditary material to
the human population, you know my name, you know where I
work, and you know what I have said. 10 years I been here and
in 10 years we can repost this and see whose right and who is
still defending the position they make today. And all my
'calculations' are in my website which I post at the end of
each post with my killfile. The website was at the request of
people in this group.
Can we get back to discussing science (as in this is a
science newsgroup) and stop discussing personalities, I have
been here for 8 years, in that time have you known me to
change my 'stripes'. I speak my mind, crude, lewd and
socially inacceptable at times, apologies for that, but the
recipe to 'minimize' the 'irritated' phil syndrome is to work
with me on getting rid of all this off-topic discussion and
personality disputes.
>Surely you have better things to do with your time.
[chuckling] You think he . . . . . . . [tongue in cheek].
Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu