Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b irders ?

[Mark Walker]

Well, to the dismay of just about everyone else, we shall have some fun with
this - won't we Spock?

> You really should learn to keep cool you know Mark. Sometimes your
> posts risk being full of sound and fury signifying nothing. ;-)

I really should learn a lot of things.  Keeping my cool is in fact one of
them (just ask my children).  And I've never suggested that my posts signify
anything.  But you are quite mistaken to think that my principal problem
with you has anything to do with our disagreement over my assertion that the
world was created rather than having been randomly evolved from nothing.  My
problem with you has to do with your unbearable arrogance.  If I were more
like Paul Cherubini, I might one day accumulate and document all of the
historical belittling phrases that have expressed your dismay over those who
"just don't get it", while you obviously do.
 
> Being utterly serious just  for a moment the manner of your response
> actually
> illustrates my point beautifully. You have chosen to impugn my character
> by
> implying I am arrogant. (I would say I am not, and if you had chosen to
> meet
> me in person _when_I_offered a while ago ,I believe you would have a
> different opinion.)

I don't recall the invitation.  I do remember when you traveled to the
states (and specifically California) - but I don't believe you ever
suggested we meet there.  I have never traveled to the U.K. - short of
stopping over at Heathrow on my way to/from Europe.  Had there really been
an invitation (that I was available to accept), I would have gladly
accepted.  By the way, as you've so adamantly stated, you're not the only
person out there who disagrees with my views on the origins of the universe.
I've enjoyed many meetings with such people - including many hours in the
field.  None of them have ever provoked a response out of me other than one
of mutual respect and endearing friendship.

> By choosing an ad hominem attack as a response. You have proved my point.
> You need to show that my argument is wrong by _factual_ analysis.

I must confess that my previous post was indeed an ad hominem attack (no,
that wasn't an apology).  I also must confess that you were able to evoke it
quite easily - and I'd be somewhat relieved to hear that your behavior is
contrived for the sole purpose of evoking such a response, and not the real
you.  I am pleased to provide such entertainment for you.  I am somewhat
disappointed to hear that I've proved your point, however.

> Why then when I applied systematic study to the list itself did you accuse
> me
> of bad behaviour? Snoopping on everybody and analysing things. It seems
> you
> have never heard of GOOGLE!

Recall that you were the one questioning scientific behavior.  I've never
asserted that Neil Jones is not scientific in his obsession to monitor every
word and every post that passes over the wire.  Quite the contrary.  Weird
science, but science nonetheless.

> RIGHT THEN MARK.! You say my accusations are not true  PROVE IT! :-)

Which accusations are we talking about again?

> One important social grace is to be able to keep one's temper.

Now how did you know I had lost my temper?

> No. One butterfly collector who would like to say he is scientific but who
> has fallen for anti-science. In the same way as you fell for my
> deliberately
> provocative post.

Now that makes you a real a--hole.  Kind of like pouring salt on a snail,
I'd say.  

> 
> (This following stuff folks is why Mark fell out with me originally.

Wrong!  It's just you, Neil - not what you choose to believe.  Well - at
least the electronic you.  The electronic you does not come across as a nice
person.  True, I've demonstrated that I can also be mean (at least to you) -
but then we've already established that you provoked that response for your
own amusement, so it probably doesn't really count.

> Forgive
> me for having a go at him but he had a go at me and my response is an
> attempt
> to logically explain the true difference between us.)

Humility is one key difference.

> Mark. to be utterly frank. You may like to call yourself scientific but
> until
> you drop your belief in this phony, crooked, tribal anti-science no proper
> scientist will regard your beliefs as founded in science.

That's the most absurd assertion you've ever made.  As if my views on the
origins of the universe have anything to do with my ability to engage in
science.  Have you forgotten that 99% of science as you came to know it was
performed under similar "delusions"?  The greatest scientists in human
history were creationists.

And what do you mean "proper scientist"?  And why do you assume that I am
even seeking approval from other scientists?  Science does not need peer
review in order to be legitimatized.  I think it is you who is confused
about what true science is all about - it can and is often done within a
toddlers crib where no results are even ever conveyed.  

Which is as good a place as any to end this discussion - because the last
thing I need in order to validate my own science is affirmation from Neil
Jones.

> 
> Having said all this I still think you're a nice guy, even if you do get
> all
> worked up an excited and keep shouting at me.

I never raised my voice - not once.  That says nothing about the veins in my
neck, however, which are quite pleased to still be connected to the head.

Mark Walker



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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