web visitors?

[Mark Walker]

Not that I particularly care about the raging argument going on here, but I
think I'll exercise my rights here to highlight a few things that I consider
as unbelievable arrogance:

Neil Jones, you really should just stop after making your basic point.
Instead, you go on and on with little darts and jabs that suggest your own
misguided sense of superiority - and based on very little evidence, as far
as I can tell (if only someone else out there were as inclined to attempt
character assassination based on LEPS-L posting history).  At any rate, it
would seem that very little humility is ever transferred from your keyboard.

So, for the record, here are a few of the things in your most recent post
that I find objectionable:

 

> Your webmaster is, I presume, your son-in-law Joe, who you 
> have mentioned
> to us around 15 times in the last year.

I'm trying for the life of me to understand what your ability to scrutinize
old posts has to do with anything.  But you cite this ability time and time
again, so it must be of some particular value.

> You may FEEL this is the case but LOGICAL THOUGHT says differently.

Oh brother.  And you effectively highlighted your arrogance, too, so I know
it's not just me...

> Actually some people take this VERY seriously. You haven't 
> done your research.
> (as usual)

Can you believe this stuff?  And to think that I don't even have to search
the archives to find good stuff...

> I am not not condoning infidelity but it doesn't tell you anything
> about someone's reliability as a source of scientific information.
> 
> Do you ever hear anyone saying, "He must be a bad scientist, 
> he is an adulterer"?

Yeah, it is appropriate that you should disqualify this tender morsel -
since it was provided to you in complete humility (interesting concept, you
should try it).  At least you were able to belittle the obvious sensitivity
that Ron has for this issue, resulting in what could be considered an
effective late hit - not bad.


> This isn't a personal attack it is an statement on his 
> ability to put across
> scientific information rationally because of his personality 
> or personal 
> problems. Yes, he may deserve sympathy BUT he should not be 
> believed as you do. 
> You don't seem to think logically.

????  Obviously, we should all get lessons from YOU!

> There is a picture of him there for those who are curious. (I 
> do try to do my
>  research.)

Wait!  Did I detect a shred of humility in that statement?  Naw, upon
further review, the call on the field stands!

 
>  These are relevant facts in judging
> the quality or the accuracy of someone's scientific statements.
> These aren't personal attacks they are informing people that 
> you cannot
> trust someone's argument because of a wierd aspect of their 
> personality.
> It was he himself who was stupid enough to tell a journalist 
> about the 
> psychiatrist. Hardly a sign of intelligence.

And you think you are a good judge of intelligence because...?

> I don't dig at people personally. I post logical evidence to show that
> their ideas are badly constructed.

Oh, and this take is always my favorite.  "It is my purpose in life to
reveal stupidity and disingenuousness for the incapable, ill-equipped,
uninformed, and undereducated masses".  We all thank you for your great
public service.
 
> The trouble is that you have a difficulty in separating 
> logical facts from 
> your personal feelings towards them.

A masterful diagnosis, Dr. Jones.  Please, do provide us with more
psychoanalysis and sound theories on the foundations of human intellect.

> If you can prove me wrong by logic do so, but 

You think a lot of yourself, and that is just not logical...  Ka-huk!
O.K., that's a cheap shot.  I apologize for that one - but I just can't seem
to find the backspace key...

> 
> A brief examination of the record shows you have had 
> something negative to
> say about them around 50 times in the last year. Your comments are
> hardly moderate.  "Spies" and "unamerican" are two words I 
> recall vividly. 
> In fact your attacks on butterfly watching got you thrown off 
> one list.

A "brief" examination?  I'm sure yours was less than brief.  I shudder at
the thought of the lists you have been compiling.

-------

Just for the record, I'm not sure how I feel about the naba keyword.  I
suppose if there was some obvious intent to gain credibility through
accidental hits obtained from NABA surfers, I might actually agree with
Neil.  On the other hand, and it's a great, big fat hand indeed, it could
obviously be argued that TILS is the kind of website that NABA surfers are
looking for.  In this case, Ron is providing a service by including naba in
his keyword list.

What ever the truth is, it doesn't take away from my forever state of
astonishment with Mr. Neil Jones.

Mark Walker
In Oceanside, wondering why I haven't told you all about my recent wonderful
trip to northern Florida.

> 

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl