Gimme a break, was Re: RE: Monarchs and Monoculture in southern Michigan

[Neil Jones]

On Sunday 28 August 2005 07:35, The Walkers wrote:
> Hi Anne,
>
> It's not Sunday yet on this side of the pond, but your words are well
> taken.

I some how don't think so.:-)
>
> This time Neil has crossed a strange line, however.  If I'm a fool, how can
> anything I say be considered "pure gold?".  Only if he has been anxiously
> waiting for me to be hurt, which I suspect that he has.

No let me spell it out. I thought being oblique would be enough. I wasn't out 
to hurt you. I refrained from saying this because it was too nasty but you 
have forced me to spell it out.( I am not deliberately nasty, You would know 
this if you had studied the science behind the personality test you took.)


You work as a "Scientist" for General Atomics. This company works in an area 
where there is a great deal of political scrutiny. Its activities are likely 
to be opposed by clever activists. You have used your employers equipment to 
provide those people with powerful evidence to _CLAIM_ that they employ 
incompetant people in important jobs. This includes the result of a very 
powerful aptitude test which, unlike paper examinations and qualifications is 
a very good indicator of true ability. Now let me spell it out. 

I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD LIKE THIS.

All this is aside from the fact that you repeatedly "go postal" and spray 
abuse around liberallly. They may not be as tolerant as I am.

> That, and his
> obsessive note taking, is weird stuff, and the thought of it makes me sick.

You are just digging yourself in deeper. I don't take notes at all. I do 
remember a few things as my memory is probably just a little better than 
average but nothing special. I am not doing anything that a slightly 
knowledgable child could not do.

> The truth is that I presented him evidence of a technical career in science
> and engineering that spans nearly 30 years.  He has chosen to dismiss this
> evidence and discredit me based on 3 things:

You forgot to say you work with computers :-)
And despite all those years of work you still don't know how to do childsplay 
things with your computer AND consider someone who does "wierd" and that 
someone being able to use a computer properly makes you sick.

> 1.  I am a creationist

No. You reject ALL of modern science, although not having a technical mind you 
don't understand how this is so. I am tempted to ask when you are going to 
sell Gabrielle into slavery as sanctioned by your religion :-) but I know 
that you are a good,gentle and kind father who cares. I just wish I could get 
you to think like a mainstream christian like the Archbishop of Canterbury 
here in the UK. You're not a bad guy your just confused.

> 2.  I think he's an idiot

As I have said before I could be the stupidest person in the world and the 
facts would still stand.

> 3.  My score on his personality test suggested that I should be a reporter
> (which I don't recall bothered me or my previous employer at all - I am
> most certainly a reporter)

No Mark. I didn't devise the test . It was devised years ago by scientists 
working in the field of psychology. Not having a technical mind you didn't do 
the research  to find out what was behind the test. It is actually far more 
technical  and powerful than you think. You got a score that shows a lower 
ability in technical matters and as you say the one line "fun" description 
does apply to you.

 I think it isn't beyond the realms of reason to think that an employer might 
take notice of that  when determining "downsizing" or promotion. Many of them 
use the test method in recruitment.

>
> Doesn't sound logical to me, but rather a selective ignoring of data to
> suit one's preconceived mindset - oh, it's precisely the thing he is
> accusing Paul Cherubini of!  And me!  How interesting!

This is just the point.  Your test results and your general behaviour show 
that you have a low ability to work out what is logical. You do not 
understand how to work out who is selectively ignoring data and who is not. 
Because you don't like me since I don't agree with the wierd  cult to which 
you seem to belong and you are ruled by your heart and not your head your 
feelings allow you to come to wrong conclusions.

This is how Cherubini works he preys on the scientifically innocent. 

You will probably go on to confirm the test result by calling me "Arrogant" or 
something simiilar as you always do.


> Mark Walker (btw - I get to pray every day.  I just don't always do it).

I grow tired of trying to get you to think. Don't you think it is about time 
we agreed to differ? We do have an awful lot in common you know. We are both 
passionate about butterflies and we both share an interest in Evolutionary 
Computing.
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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