Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”

  1. stcordova,

    Is it OK with that I corrected the spelling of “across”?

    Of course. Post in haste, repent at leisure!

    The rest, I will address in the thread.

  2. keiths,

    Another bit of advice: Before you mock someone for a supposed mistake, make sure the mistake is theirs, not yours. You’ll save yourself some additional embarrassment that way.

    Excellent! I shall place this second bit of advice along with the first.

  3. Apologies to Keiths for my admittedly poor behaviour in remarking that his quote of Ernst Mayr was a “quote mine”. Of course I should have considered that Keiths had a copy of What Evolution Is before voicing my suspicion that he lifted it from a secondary source. Being irritated over his exchange with Joe Felsenstein is no excuse for this poor behaviour and I’ll try to control my irritation in the future.

    is, per keiths, obviously unironic.
    You might want to have somebody look at that thing…
    😮

  4. DNA_Jock: Apologies to Keiths for my admittedly poor behaviour in remarking that his quote of Ernst Mayr was a “quote mine”. Of course I should have considered that Keiths had a copy of What Evolution Is before voicing my suspicion that he lifted it from a secondary source. Being irritated over his exchange with Joe Felsenstein is no excuse for this poor behaviour and I’ll try to control my irritation in the future.

    I didn’t think THAT was supposed to be the ironic part. Was it?

    I thought the irony allegation was restricted to the remark that Alan made about working on his lying tendencies. THAT did seem like a joke to me. Anyhow, someone could apologize for an error and the tone of a remark (which Alan did, I have had to do at least once every couple of months, and keiths has never done, AFAIK), and also made a joke about having to work on a compulsion to fib.

  5. walto,

    I agree, walto. Alan might even apologize in all sincerity, but throw in a little playful exaggeration to add levity to the situation.
    It is keiths who is claiming to have an infallible irony detector; I suspect he’s fried its sardony-circuits completely during interactions with Mung. Whatever the reason, it is evidently malfunctioning.

  6. Mung: I should have added more words to take the zing out. Got it. Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?

    It depends on if your purpose is honest discussion or point scoring in your own mind, honesty be damned.

  7. keiths:

    So let’s take another look at your supposedly ironic statement:

    Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    At least no one else affects me in this way.

    Ironic? No, you had just told us that you had a problem, and you had apologized for your poor behavior.

    I generally agree with you on many topics, keiths, but I have to say that I thought the excerpt under discussion was not serious. Whether you call it ironic, sarcastic, or sardonic is to individual taste.

  8. Allan Miller:
    Incidentally, it is something of a myth among Brits that Americans don’t understand irony. I argue against the generalisation – there are many fine US dramas and comedies that are stuffed with excellent examples. I don’t really wish to generalise.

    It’s a bit like the crap-teeth thing in reverse. But then again, my teeth are terrible.

    I was looking forward to experiencing that much vaunted British irony before I first moved there. Turns out, Brits quite like potty humor.

  9. Regarding teeth, I find it amusing that national health services (my personal example is Medicare) don’t pay for dentistry, hearing aids, or eyeglasses.

    In other words, almost no benefit at all for the most common and expensive medical expenses.

  10. Patrick,

    True, that. I was careful to claim only that deadpan and self-deprecation are rarer in the USA. Quite the funniest guy I have ever met is a Yank, and his deadpan is awesome.
    If you want a mystery, why did American audiences go for Benny Hill?
    I mean Benny effing Hill ferchrissakes!

    It must be one of those Loki things, like the French and Jerry Lewis.

  11. Patrick,

    I was looking forward to experiencing that much vaunted British irony before I first moved there. Turns out, Brits quite like potty humor.

    Oh, irony abounds. You just can’t tell …

  15. Alan Fox: Yes, folks! Admit your mistakes or Keiths will taunt you a second time!

    Can we blame keiths for wanting to live in a perfect world, really?

  16. DNA_Jock: I suspect he’s fried its sardony-circuits completely during interactions with Mung.

    There is always that risk. 🙂

  17. stcordova: Alan,

    I like you, I have no problem with you personally. If I repeated something untrue, it would be because of a mistake, not because I knew it was untrue and still repeated it.

    What’s not to like? I wasn’t particularly getting at you but you were the example I thought of when wanting to illustrate a problem with the rules.

    I really don’t remember an instance where I didn’t deal with a major point. For example, especially with faded_glory, I acknowledge I thought he had the advantage of many points, but I still felt there was reason to hold back my ascent. I felt I was being fair.

    It was more to do with another commenter, JonF, who became very exasperated about the rule on assuming other posters are acting in good faith.

    As far as other criticisms, specific examples would be helpful. It’s true I ignore Mung and Gregory since they don’t seem to deal with the technical stuff.

    As I said I wasn’t getting at you. I don’t think claims about acting in good faith really count as much as demonstrating it.

    I occasionally forget somethings other people have told me like about Weasel. I still can’t figure out how much value it has to these discussions.

    Not sure why you mention it but I’m inclined to agree. Computing technology has developed enormously since Richard Dawkins wrote that BASIC program over thirty years ago.

    And FWIW, I was the one who at least made the first attempt at TSZ to put drift into Weasel, afterwards Keiths did his own version since mine had defects which I acknowledge.

    Again not sure why you are telling me this. I’m still not grasping the importance that, say, Larry Moran attaches to drift as a positive component to the overall process of evolution. I see that it happens but I still don’t grasp how it helps.

    And I have to say again, I occasionally backed the TSZ regulars against my ID and creationist comrades when I felt they were right.

    I realise the ID-Creation vs “Evolutionist” dispute is for many, especially in the US, ideological rather than scientific. It’s a hard thing to break the eleventh commandment (H/T walto).

    You perceive me as repeating a falsehood…

    Not really. What I sometimes see is people, who seem knowledgeable in their fields of expertise, going to a fair bit of trouble reponding to your posts and not much indication that you are reading those comments.

    I perceive myself as repeating a truth that the regular here don’t seem to comprehend.

    Well, I’d hope that you wouldn’t be advancing claims that you didn’t yourself think were true. What would be the point of that?

    One of us is wrong, it doesn’t make either of us disingenuous for repeating ideas we’ve held for over a decade

    Indeed. Or both wrong! People can be honestly and sincerely wrong. Changing your mind about something is not a crime either. Sticking to a claim that flies in the face of reality for the sake of collegiality doesn’t appeal to me.

  18. stcordova: Alan, you’re free to believe TomMeuller’s bloviations, but some of the stuff he is are outright howlers. I provided citations of literature to prove my points.

    Calm down, Sal. Scientific discussion is about trying to understand what happens in reality. We could all agree that water runs uphill. Yet we can all verify, with simple observation, that water runs downhill.

    Watch me take him apart in that thread. I’m not done with him.

    Participation here is voluntary. You are welcome to make your case about whatever it is* (within the rules, of course) and Tom Mueller is welcome to respond or ignore as he wishes. Science isn’t settled by winning debates or taking a vote. The adversarial approach may work for the justice system (I have my doubts) but science goes with what works until a better explanation turns up.

    *I don’t have time currently to keep up with all subjects in all threads, so haven’t been following.

  19. DNA_Jock, quoting Alan:

    Apologies to Keiths for my admittedly poor behaviour in remarking that his quote of Ernst Mayr was a “quote mine”. Of course I should have considered that Keiths had a copy of What Evolution Is before voicing my suspicion that he lifted it from a secondary source. Being irritated over his exchange with Joe Felsenstein is no excuse for this poor behaviour and I’ll try to control my irritation in the future.

    is, per keiths, obviously unironic.

    You might want to have somebody look at that thing…
    😮

    Psst, DNA_Jock — As walto indicated, it’s the second comment that is supposedly ironic, not the first one.

    You might want to have somebody look at that thing…

    Too funny.

  20. Patrick,

    I generally agree with you on many topics, keiths, but I have to say that I thought the excerpt under discussion was not serious. Whether you call it ironic, sarcastic, or sardonic is to individual taste.

    You do realize that we’re talking about two comments, not one, right?

    When someone sincerely…

    a) apologizes for a false accusation;
    b) says that it was emotionally driven, but stresses that that’s not an excuse; and
    c) says that he’ll try to control his emotions in the future;

    and then, 26 hours later, says effectively the same thing:

    d) that he has a lying problem;
    e) that it’s his problem;
    f) that it’s an emotional response that he’s “learning to curb”;

    … the obvious and sensible conclusion is that neither comment is ironic.

    The second comment cannot be taken as ironic if the first one isn’t, and the first one clearly isn’t.

  21. Here they are again:

    September 2, 7:24 pm:

    Apologies to Keiths for my admittedly poor behaviour in remarking that his quote of Ernst Mayr was a “quote mine”. Of course I should have considered that Keiths had a copy of What Evolution Is before voicing my suspicion that he lifted it from a secondary source. Being irritated over his exchange with Joe Felsenstein is no excuse for this poor behaviour and I’ll try to control my irritation in the future.

    September 3, 10:05 pm:

    @ walto

    Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    At least no one else affects me in this way.

    To suggest that the second comment is ironic is to suggest that the first comment was insincere, when it clearly wasn’t.

  22. Patrick: I find it more than plausible.The fact remains that your euphemistic use of the word “soundbite” conceals the fact that what he did was quote mine Krauss.That is dishonest, regardless of whether Mung’s intent was to deceive others about Krauss’ actual views or simply to be obnoxious.

    I’d be more offended if I thought mung thought his sound-bite would actually deceive anyone into thinking Lawrence Krauss had had a dramatic conversion to IDism. Are any ID skeptics here that stupid? Am I giving mung too much credit suspecting he was being mischievous rather than him thinking for one second we would take his soundbite comment seriously?

    If Mung had said “Just yanking your chains, chill.” that would be one thing.

    Maybe I haven’t been reading closely enough but I thought he’d already hinted at that. It might be handy at this point if mung could just clarify if he was just yanking chains or does he indeed think we would take his soundbite as evidence that Krauss had converted.

    However, he’s still claiming that Krauss actually said what Mung quote mined him as saying (just look upthread a few comments).It shows a complete lack of respect for the truth.

    I’ll read upthread a bit more closely.

  23. DNA_Jock: If you want a mystery, why did American audiences go for Benny Hill?

    Did not know that! 😯

    For me, the bigger mystery is why Benny Hill should be such a big hit with the French.

  24. keiths: How on earth is the second statement ironic when it simply echoes the first statement, which is obviously not ironic?

    Do try to keep up, keiths.

  26. Alan,

    Rest my case, M’lud!

    Probably better to present your defense before resting your case — unless you don’t have a defense. In which case, carry on.

    DNA_Jock:

    Do try to keep up, keiths.

    Says the guy who got confused and defended the apology as ironic, when it was the later comment that was supposedly ironic.

  28. Is there anyone who can do what Alan cannot, which is to explain why the second comment, as actually worded, should be taken as ironic if the preceding apology was not ironic?

    Allan? DNA_Jock?

  29. Keiths, you made the argument:

    keiths: Yet you are actually and bizarrely arguing that the second statement was ironic. How on earth is the second statement ironic when it simply echoes the first statement, which is obviously not ironic?

    Good luck explaining how your superior irony-detection abilities led you to that obviously bogus conclusion.

    So I gently made fun of your claim to have an infallible irony meter, pointing out previous occasions when it had failed you, and suggesting, no more, that your assessment of the ‘first statement’ was not as obvious as you thought.

    But thank you for once more demonstrating your inability to detect sardony. One really couldn’t make this stuff up.

  30. keiths: Is there anyone who can do what Alan cannot, which is to explain why the second comment, as actually worded, should be taken as ironic if the preceding apology was not ironic?

    Allan? DNA_Jock?

    I reject your premise

  31. DNA_Jock:

    So I gently made fun of your claim to have an infallible irony meter…

    A claim I have never made. I’m simply saying that if you look at the evidence, the rational conclusion is that the second comment was not intended to be ironic.

    Do you disagree?

    For the record, and using your superior irony-detection ability, was Alan’s apology ironic? Was his second comment ironic?

    Defend your answers.

  33. keiths: For the record, and using your superior irony-detection ability, was Alan’s apology ironic? Was his second comment ironic?

    OK, I’ll bite! *suspends resolution to self*

    First comment was intended to be somewhat sarcastic with a hint of gritted teeth.

    Second comment was intended to be ironic with a hint of Jewish self-deprecation.

    Does that help? Probably not.

  36. Alan Fox: Is that a bad thing?

    Not really. BTW, Bruce mentioned elsewhere that Brits have voted Fawty Towers as the funniest sit-com ever made (or something along those lines). Delicate flower that I am, I noted that while I enjoyed that show, the top-of-the-lungs-hollering often bothered me, and then I compared Cleese’s decibel level with that of Phil Silvers on Sgt. Bilko. (One other similarity between the two shows was the regular FRENZY!, though of course Fawlty Towers was much superior.)

    I’ve been trying to think what BBC comedies I’ve thought to be funnier than Fawlty Towers, and The Office comes to mind. I also kind of liked that show about the woman vicar–can’t remember the name.

  37. DNA_Jock:
    Alan Fox,

    [taps gauge. Smiles.]
    Yup, all meters functioning within spec.

    Wow, I have to say that mine is sadly in need of work. I missed whatever was going on in the first response completely. It turns out that I’m a gullible mofo–especially for such a witty sophisticate. 🙁

  38. Alan,

    First comment was intended to be somewhat sarcastic with a hint of gritted teeth.

    “Somewhat sarcastic”?

    You identified your poor behavior, you explained why you shouldn’t have made your false accusation, and you apologized for it and said that you would try to do better:

    Apologies to Keiths for my admittedly poor behaviour in remarking that his quote of Ernst Mayr was a “quote mine”. Of course I should have considered that Keiths had a copy of What Evolution Is before voicing my suspicion that he lifted it from a secondary source. Being irritated over his exchange with Joe Felsenstein is no excuse for this poor behaviour and I’ll try to control my irritation in the future.

    For the record, are you actually denying that your statement above was sincere?

  39. walto,

    Cleese based the central character on the owner of a small hotel where he once stayed. Perhaps the best thing was that he was able only to write six episodes. It finished on a peak rather than fizzling out after being over-extended into mediocrity.

    ETA Dibley

  40. walto,

    This place is so nuts.

    No kidding. Alan gets caught lying about having admitted a lying problem, and then lies to cover it up.

  41. keiths: Is there anyone who can do what Alan cannot, which is to explain why the second comment, as actually worded, should be taken as ironic if the preceding apology was not ironic?

    For one thing, it is completely out of character. Alan does not write that way.

  42. DNA_Jock,

    Don’t forget to answer:

    For the record, and using your superior irony-detection ability, was Alan’s apology ironic? Was his second comment ironic?

    ETA: Same questions for Neil.

  44. Alan,

    You’re avoiding my question:

    You identified your poor behavior, you explained why you shouldn’t have made your false accusation, and you apologized for it and said that you would try to do better:

    Apologies to Keiths for my admittedly poor behaviour in remarking that his quote of Ernst Mayr was a “quote mine”. Of course I should have considered that Keiths had a copy of What Evolution Is before voicing my suspicion that he lifted it from a secondary source. Being irritated over his exchange with Joe Felsenstein is no excuse for this poor behaviour and I’ll try to control my irritation in the future.

    For the record, are you actually denying that your statement above was sincere?

  45. Allan Miller:
    Incidentally, it is something of a myth among Brits that Americans don’t understand irony. I argue against the generalisation – there are many fine US dramas and comedies that are stuffed with excellent examples. I don’t really wish to generalise.

    It’s a bit like the crap-teeth thing in reverse. But then again, my teeth are terrible.

    Hmmm…my teeth are crap, but I’m an American. I was raised British though, so maybe that’s why…

  46. keiths: Is there anyone who can do what Alan cannot, which is to explain why the second comment, as actually worded, should be taken as ironic if the preceding apology was not ironic?

    Typical red herring. I’d try to explain it to you, but what would be the point? Your mind is made up and you are determined to ignore contrary evidence.

  47. “Red herring”? It’s the crux of the entire discussion.

    Give it a shot, Mung. Let’s hear your explanation.

  49. keiths: Give it a shot, Mung. Let’s hear your explanation.

    Why would I go off chasing after what I just labeled a red herring? You do know what red herring means, in this context, right?

Leave a Reply