Noyau (1)

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

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

2,559 thoughts on “Noyau (1)

  1. GlenDavidson: For the future, it seems that you need to familiarize yourself with the characteristics of rat bastards.

    Glen Davidson

    You may be right. And I concede that I’ve been finding that fairly difficult.

    {Notes to Self: Consider the possibility that everything in the universe is the product of intelligent design–except rat bastards. Important? Unimportant?. Don’t forget to check the Logos on this. Remember that that very omission last time cost you seven months of pointless programming.}

  2. Time for some unpleasantness, at Alan’s insistence.

    Some of you may recall that Alan lodged a complaint against me about a month ago, writing:

    I suspect people may have guessed I am not overly enamoured of Keiths’s posting style either, which is all the more galling as I often agree with the substantive elements in his posts and comments. There is this obsessive desire to be right on any issue that I find disconcerting.

    I responded:

    Alan,

    I think you genuinely believe that, but have you ever paused and asked yourself whether it’s actually true? Your judgment is often quite poor, and this is no exception.

    When I make mistakes, I readily admit them. They’re my reponsibility, after all. You, on the other hand, have fought literally for weeks, bringing up the subject repeatedly, in order to deny an obvious mistake of yours.

    I’m happy to examine the evidence with you, if you’re (foolishly) willing.

    But be careful — you looked ridiculous and dishonest accusing me of quotemining [Ernst Mayr] today, and you’ll look ridiculous when we examine the evidence and see that it is you — not me — who fights to avoid admitting his mistakes.

    How about it? Shall we examine the evidence, or have you thought better of it?

    He refused to bow out, we examined the evidence, and sure enough, Alan looked ridiculous when I was easily able to supply examples in which I admitted my mistakes.

    I concluded:

    You’ve already falsely accused me of quotemining, and now you’ve falsely accused me of refusing to admit my mistakes.

    Your behavior is clearly a problem. But that wasn’t what you were trying to demonstrate, was it?

    With so much egg on his face, you might have thought that Alan would learn a lesson. Apparently not. He is now insisting that I address two other accusations of his.

    I suspect that he miscalculated and assumed that my silence was evidence of fear, when in fact it was evidence of pity. I figured he would cool down and drop the issue, but I overestimated him.

    So please direct any complaints to him, since I am doing this at his insistence.

  3. The first of Alan’s remaining false accusations has to do with the following comment of mine:

    I’d like to report an odd incident from yesterday morning. It appears that my IP address was blocked.

    1. When I tried to visit TSZ using my tablet, I kept getting timeout messages. It seemed odd, because I was able to access other sites.

    2. I tried accessing TSZ through my computer, and it also timed out.

    3. I tried accessing TSZ using my phone (over 4G/LTE) and it worked.

    4. I tried again on my tablet and computer and they both continued to time out.

    5. I started to get quite suspicious at that point, since these are the exact symptoms you would expect if my IP address had been blocked. The phone, which was communicating with the cell tower, was using a different IP address from my computer and tablet, which were talking through my router.

    6. I tried a bunch of times using my computer, and it continued to time out. Yet every time I used the phone instead, it worked.

    7. I used whatismyip.com to get my IP address, which ended in .230 . I confirmed that I was still unable to reach TSZ.

    8. I rebooted my router and verified that the IP address was the same, as expected. I still wasn’t able to access TSZ.

    9. I powered down my modem. When I powered it back up, I had a new IP address (as expected) ending in .123 . (I still have that address.)

    10. When I tried to access TSZ through my computer, it worked. Ditto for my tablet.

    In summary, the symptoms were a perfect match for an IP block, and WordPress provides that capability — Barry uses it at UD, for example.

    I find it very suspicious that my IP address appears to have been blocked the morning after Neil falsely accused me of harassing him.

    I would therefore like to ask him directly:

    Neil, did you block my IP address?

    I cannot prove that you did, but the circumstances appear quite suspicious, to say the least.

    In response, Alan weighed in with his typical uninformed sanctimoniouness:

    I’m sorry Keiths has made such a stupid allegation.

    And reiterated it:

    So I reiterate, alleging that Neil was responsible for blocking you is stupid. And I stand by that.

    My responses:

    That’s because you have reacted emotionally rather than thinking things through calmly.

    First, I didn’t “allege that Neil was responsible.” I stated my strong suspicion that my IP address had been blocked, and I asked Neil directly if he had done so. I was prepared to leave it at that if he said no, but then you came in with guns blazing.

    Second, my suspicion was quite reasonable, based on the evidence, and to call it “stupid” is itself stupid. For example, you are making a big deal out of the fact that moderators can’t modify the .htaccess file, as if I should have known that.

    How could I have known that? Was I “stupid” for not knowing information that I had no access to? Think, Alan.

    My suspicions were quite reasonable, and I will elaborate on that in a later comment.

    And:

    It’s quite easy to see that my suspicion was warranted.

    I was evaluating two competing hypotheses:

    1. Someone blocked my IP address.

    2. A glitch of some kind prevented my IP address from accessing TSZ.

    If it had happened at no special time, then I would have regarded #2 as being more likely.

    But the prior probabilities had been updated, quite dramatically, because a) the previous evening, Neil had falsely accused me of harassment, and not long before that, he had falsely accused me of misrepresenting him; and b) he has done similarly impulsive things in the past, for example when he tried to impose a “timeout” on walto and me. Patrick had to intervene in that one.

    He had a motive, he had tried this sort of thing before, and the symptoms matched exactly with what you would expect from an IP block.

    The alternative was that for the first time ever, a glitch was preventing my particular IP address from accessing TSZ, that it matched exactly what you would expect from an IP block, and that it was purely a coincidence that this happened immediately after a hysterical accusation of “harassment” from Neil.

    Which was more likely? The first, obviously. If anyone disagrees, I would like to hear your reasoning.

    So of course I was suspicious, though I was careful to emphasize that I couldn’t prove anything. That’s why, after having registered my suspicions, I was willing to let the matter drop if Neil denied it. Then Alan made his emotional entrance, irrationally dismissing my suspicions as “stupid”.

    If Alan or anyone else thinks that my suspicions were stupid or unreasonable, then make your case. Explain to us exactly why I should have considered hypothesis #2 above to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.

    I’ll hold on off on Alan’s final false accusation until the discussion of this one has died down.

  4. Hi Keiths

    This doesn’t need to be unpleasant for anyone. Readers have the option of scrolling past and this is the thread where rules are relaxed for such discussions.

    Let me first make a distinction between thoughts and actions. I strongly support the idea of free thought and expression so, in my opinion, you are perfectly entitled to any beliefs, thoughts or suspicions (strong or otherwise) that you may hold.

    I don’t dispute that the scenario regarding your ability to access TSZ was as you describe and you are perfectly entitled to jump to the conclusion that Neil was behind it. However when you wrote in a comment:

    Neil, did you block my IP address?

    I read that as an accusation that Neil had somehow nefariously interfered with your account. I thought this was a stupid thing to say and I said so but I checked to confirm that the allegation was groundless. In fact, it is impossible for any admin to create the scenario you describe through the WordPress interface.

    Here is how it might have gone, had you taken a different route.

    You could have asked: “Hey, admins, – *describes problem* – is there anything wrong at TSZ that might be causing the problem?”

    and I might have replied “I’ll look into it” and after checking, I might have added “Nothing this end. In fact there is no way anyone could create that problem other than by modifying .htaccess which only Lizzie can do.” I might have also asked if anyone else was having the same problem and whether anyone had an idea how to fix it.

    You could have kept your strong suspicions to yourself and that would have been that. You still have options. You could say something along the lines that you didn’t mean to suggest Neil had nefariously interfered with your account and that you see now how people might read that into:

    Neil, did you block my IP address?

    and maybe say sorry. That would be that.

    Or you can ignore this and carry on. That’s fine too.

    ETA typo

  5. TSZ times out on me frequently. Sometimes I get a database error and sometimes just a generic timeout message. This has been happening for a long time.

  6. petrushka,

    I do wonder whether the database-saving plugin slows things down when in operation. It kicks in four times a day and I’ve noticed not being able to connect at odd times. Giving it a couple of minutes before trying again seems to work.

  7. Just for context, here is my comment a few pages back that Keiths picks up on.

    Also Keiths asked me if I’m a masochist. Whilst I consider his delving into my sexual proclivities somewhat impertinent, I can confirm I am not a masochist. Not that there would be anything wrong with that! I’m all for the maximum freedom of thought, expression and behaviour that does not impinge on the rights of others. Always remember your safeword, too!

  8. As I’ve noted toward people who ascribe motives for being a nonbeliever, this is unseemly. And against the rules.

  9. petrushka,

    TSZ times out on me frequently. Sometimes I get a database error and sometimes just a generic timeout message. This has been happening for a long time.

    Yes, but when that happens it’s not IP-specific. I’ve checked.

    In my case it was IP-specific, as you’ll see if you read through the observations I made at the time.

    I have never, before or since, had an IP-specific problem (except at UD, where IP address blocking is standard practice).

  10. Alan,

    You haven’t answered the question:

    If Alan or anyone else thinks that my suspicions were stupid or unreasonable, then make your case. Explain to us exactly why I should have considered hypothesis #2 above to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.

  11. keiths:Alan,

    You haven’t answered the question:

    If Alan or anyone else thinks that my suspicions were stupid or unreasonable, then make your case. Explain to us exactly why I should have considered hypothesis #2 above to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.

    I did. I said you are perfectly entitled to entertain any suspicion you like. If you put that suspicion into a comment without first simply asking if there is a problem, that is another matter. I think it was a stupid remark to make without checking the evidence first.

    And regarding specific IP blocks, if you were blocked at the level of the TSZ dashboard, it would prevent you from logging in, not from seeing the site. Preventing visibility to specific IP addresses can only be done through .htaccess at the TSZ server and Lizzie, the only admin able to access the server interface has already confirmed she has no idea how to do that.

    ETA missing text

  12. keiths:

    Explain to us exactly why I should have considered hypothesis #2 above to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.

    Alan:

    I did.

    No, you didn’t. Here are the two hypotheses again. Explain to us why I should have considered hypothesis #2 to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.

    From my earlier comment:

    I was evaluating two competing hypotheses:

    1. Someone blocked my IP address.

    2. A glitch of some kind prevented my IP address from accessing TSZ.

    If it had happened at no special time, then I would have regarded #2 as being more likely.

    But the prior probabilities had been updated, quite dramatically, because a) the previous evening, Neil had falsely accused me of harassment, and not long before that, he had falsely accused me of misrepresenting him; and b) he has done similarly impulsive things in the past, for example when he tried to impose a “timeout” on walto and me. Patrick had to intervene in that one.

    He had a motive, he had tried this sort of thing before, and the symptoms matched exactly with what you would expect from an IP block.

    The alternative was that for the first time ever, a glitch was preventing my particular IP address from accessing TSZ, that it matched exactly what you would expect from an IP block, and that it was purely a coincidence that this happened immediately after a hysterical accusation of “harassment” from Neil.

    Which was more likely? The first, obviously. If anyone disagrees, I would like to hear your reasoning.

    Let’s hear your reasoning, Alan. Why should I have considered hypothesis #2 to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why was it “stupid” of me not to?

  13. Keiths, I think your testing methodology would not make it through the shoddiest level of peer review. You could be right or you could be wrong, but your accusation is unwarranted.

  14. petrushka,

    Good. Then you will be able to answer the question that Alan cannot.

    Explain to us exactly why I should have considered hypothesis #2 above to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was stupid of me not to.

  15. Alan, let’s recap the progress of your little inquisition.

    You accused me of quotemining Ernst Mayr. The accusation was ridiculous and obviously false, so you looked like a jackass.

    Then you accused me of not admitting my mistakes. I easily provided a counterexample from just a few days earlier. In response, you conceded the absolute minimum:

    I concede the point that you have recently corrected a mistake.

    [Emphasis mine]

    I provided another example from the very next day, with the result that you looked even more like a jackass.

    Not content with your humiliation to that point, you brought all of this up again after a few weeks. (I still can’t figure out why; did you actually think it would turn out well for you?)

    You labeled my suspicions towards Neil as stupid, but you can’t back that up either. When I ask you to explain why the alternate hypothesis was the only reasonable one, you fold. (Let’s see if petrushka can answer the question.)

    Plus, your explanations for why my suspicions were “stupid” were themselves stupid, as I noted at the time:

    Second, my suspicion was quite reasonable, based on the evidence, and to call it “stupid” is itself stupid. For example, you are making a big deal out of the fact that moderators can’t modify the .htaccess file, as if I should have known that.

    How could I have known that? Was I “stupid” for not knowing information that I had no access to?

    When we move on to your final accusation, it isn’t going to go any better for you.

    You set out to smear me, but what we’ve actually uncovered is your irrational, impulsive and dishonest behavior. It’s a serious problem, Alan. Why not address it rather than making false and hypocritical accusations against others?

  16. keiths,

    Yes, I did.

    keiths:
    Alan, let’s recap the progress of your little inquisition.

    Sorry? I’m the inquisition? I comment on this blog, help out with the admin because I enjoy it. You post here frequently out of choice. Nobody is holding your feet to the fire over anything. I, within the rules, will post as I have time and inclination and you are perfectly able to post, within the rules, whatever you want, ignore whoever you want and respond to whomever you want.

    You accused me of quotemining Ernst Mayr.The accusation was ridiculous and obviously false, so you looked like a jackass.

    My comment and subsequent clarification are available for all to read. I claim you lifted Mayr’s words from a secondary source. That I Iook like a jackass to you is unfortunate.

    Then you accused me of not admitting my mistakes. I easily provided a counterexample from just a few days earlier. In response, you conceded the absolute minimum:

    Funnily enough I think that example was subsequent to my comment that said “from memory, I can’t recall…” which was true when I said it. In fact I think I added something about not having searched for such an occurrence, though how I should go about it, I’m not sure. So you’re wrong there. I did not accuse you of anything, I merely remarked that I couldn’t recall such an incident. I should say I haven’t bothered to check back regarding my exact wording because I can’t be arsed.

    I provided another example from the very next day, with the result that you looked even more like a jackass.

    Well, as I hadn’t made an accusation, only mentioned I hadn’t noticed such an event, good for you.

    Not content with your humiliation to that point, you brought all of this up again after a few weeks.(I still can’t figure out why; did you actually think it would turn out well for you?)

    Love the pejoratives! Imagine that I might have taken you at your word. You promised to respond. You took others to task for not responding to your questions. Join the dots.

    You labeled my suspicions towards Neil as stupid…

    No. I called your posting a comment voicing your strong suspicions, equivalent to an accusation, stupid. You cannot be this obtuse, can you?

    …but you can’t back that up either.When I ask you to explain why the alternate hypothesis was the only reasonable one, you fold.(Let’s see if petrushka can answer the question.)

    Your claim that Neil could have produced the scenario you describe is false. What more needs to be said? You mention being IP-blocked at UD. Think, Keith, were you still able to see the site? I rest my case.

    Plus, your explanations for why my suspicions were “stupid” were themselves stupid

    Fine, I hear what you say. I still say it is stupid to voice an allegation without checking your facts.

    When we move on to your final accusation, it isn’t going to go any better for you.

    Are you turning into Zachriel (not that there would be anything wrong with that!)? You should say “I”. “When I move on!”. I’m remembering someone saying something along the lines of “just make your case”.

    You set out to smear me…

    Drama queen! I value your contributions, many OPs, over 5,000 comments. KN has acknowledged you as a valuable critic of his ideas. I broadly agree with the factual content, though bashing theists (for their theism) doesn’t interest me. What I dislike about too many of your comments is your delivery style, your casual rudeness to other participants. That and the fact that you can’t seem to take a hint about it. I view it as counterproductive to the ideals that Lizzie has been very clear about setting out and attempting to establish.

    …but what we’ve actually uncovered is your irrational, impulsive and dishonest behavior.It’s a serious problem, Alan. Why not address it rather than making false and hypocritical accusations against others?

    Thank you for your advice. I look forward to your further comments.

  17. PS

    I’m going to be away from a keyboard for the next few days, though I will be checking in on my phone, so any further response from me will not be likely till after this coming weekend.

  18. Alan,

    I’ll respond at greater length later, but for now I’ll note that your comment provides two excellent examples of your tendency to make snap judgments that backfire badly on you.

    Example #1:

    You wrote:

    I claim you lifted Mayr’s words from a secondary source.

    I “lifted” them from my copy of What Evolution Is. The book that Mayr wrote. Apparently, that possibility didn’t even occur to you.

    This is exactly the kind of jackass behavior I’m talking about. You falsely accuse me of quotemining, and have to backpedal from that. Then you falsely accuse me of “lifting Mayr’s words from a secondary source.” You get to backpedal again.

    All of this while you’re accusing me of “voicing an allegation without checking your facts”.

    I appreciate the fact that you are so determined to undermine your case. It makes my job that much easier. But how do you benefit from this sort of hypocritical and idiotic behavior?

    Example #2:

    You wrote:

    You mention being IP-blocked at UD. Think, Keith, were you still able to see the site? I rest my case.

    No, I was not able to see the site. Just like at TSZ. Your case fails.

    Think, Alan. Did it even occur to you that your own recent experience at UD might not be representative of everyone else’s?

    I carefully tested my hypothesis before voicing my suspicions of Neil. No one, including you, has been able to demonstrate that my suspicions were “stupid” or unwarranted.

    You, by contrast, blurted out your accusations without even thinking about the alternatives. Now that they turn out to be unfounded, you look like a hypocritical ass.

    Clean up your act, Alan.

  19. keiths:

    When we move on to your final accusation, it isn’t going to go any better for you.

    Alan:

    Are you turning into Zachriel (not that there would be anything wrong with that!)? You should say “I”. “When I move on!”.

    We’re doing this at your insistence, Alan. I was willing to let it drop, out of pity for you — and did. You brought it up again after weeks.

  20. Keiths, I believe your suspicions are unwarranted, because I have experienced a number of timeouts at this site. Far more than at other similar sites.

    I cannot say that you are wrong, but I think your accusation is lame.

  21. petrushka,

    I addressed that already:

    petrushka,

    TSZ times out on me frequently. Sometimes I get a database error and sometimes just a generic timeout message. This has been happening for a long time.

    Yes, but when that happens it’s not IP-specific. I’ve checked.

    In my case it was IP-specific, as you’ll see if you read through the observations I made at the time.

    I have never, before or since, had an IP-specific problem (except at UD, where IP address blocking is standard practice).

  22. Keiths, you are on record as never in your entire life made a logical error. Your record is better than HAL’s (which as you know, once made a tiny miscalculation).

    The problem I see is that you made a public accusation on the basis of your hypothesis. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. It stinks. The real problem is that you look like a jerk, act like a jerk, quack lick a jerk.

    The working definition of a jerk is someone who is always right. Even when they are.

  23. The problem I see is that you made a public accusation on the basis of your hypothesis. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. It stinks.

    …says petrushka, who just made a public accusation on the basis of his hypothesis. An untrue hypothesis.

    That’s called hypocrisy, petrushka.

  24. Alan Fox: Always remember your safeword, too!

    What good does it do if you remember your safe word and your partner forgets your safe word?

    For example, I recently forgot that keiths actually has a “safe phrase.” When he wants someone to stop beating on him he says, “I defend my claims.” To my shame, I continued to beat on him, and even mocked him for uttering his safe phrase! Mea culpa keiths.

  25. Alan Fox: And regarding specific IP blocks, if you were blocked at the level of the TSZ dashboard, it would prevent you from logging in, not from seeing the site. Preventing visibility to specific IP addresses can only be done through .htaccess at the TSZ server and Lizzie, the only admin able to access the server interface has already confirmed she has no idea how to do that.

    It just doesn’t seem to matter how many times you say this.

  26. petrushka: The working definition of a jerk is someone who is always right. Even when they are.

    I’ll have to remember that. I’m pretty sure it will be useful in my own life. 🙂

  27. petrushka,

    Perhaps a temporary glitch.

    Being logged in mostly means that there’s an appropriate browser cookie. A temporary network glitch might have prevented presenting that cookie in the browser connection to post.

  28. Mung,

    Apparently keiths fails to realize just how protected he’s been by the good faith rule.

    I don’t need or want the protection of the good faith rule, and I think it’s a bad idea, so I never ask for it to be enforced.

    As I said:

    I’m opposed to the good faith rule, as you know. It rewards dishonesty by insulating it from criticism, and it punishes those who truthfully point out instances of dishonesty, as I did with fifth’s above.

    Rules that punish honesty and reward dishonesty are a bad idea.

  29. Alan,

    Your claim that Neil could have produced the scenario you describe is false. What more needs to be said? You mention being IP-blocked at UD. Think, Keith, were you still able to see the site? I rest my case.

    I responded:

    No, I was not able to see the site. Just like at TSZ. Your case fails.

    Think, Alan. Did it even occur to you that your own recent experience at UD might not be representative of everyone else’s?

    Even the most obvious things don’t occur to you. You accused me of quote mining without bothering to check the quote. You accused me of “lifting” the quote from a secondary source, without even considering the possibility that I got it from the original. You accused me of refusing to admit my mistakes, and were promptly refuted. Now you assume, with no evidence whatsoever, that your experience at UD is the same as everyone else’s.

    It’s obvious to any technically competent person that there’s more than one way to interfere with a commenter at a WordPress blog. It didn’t occur to you.

    And now you — who have demonstrated that you are neither honest nor technically competent — insist that Neil could not possibly have blocked my IP address in the way I describe.

    Why should anyone believe you?

    If you want to be believed, answer my question:

    Explain to us exactly why I should have considered hypothesis #2 above to be vastly superior to hypothesis #1, and why it was “stupid” of me not to.

  30. What I dislike about too many of your comments is your delivery style, your casual rudeness to other participants.

    …says Alan, whose own casual rudeness is of course always appropriate, unlike mine.

    Alan,

    If ‘casual rudeness’ is your complaint, then why all the false accusations about other things? What were you hoping to accomplish by making shit up?

    That and the fact that you can’t seem to take a hint about it. I view it as counterproductive to the ideals that Lizzie has been very clear about setting out and attempting to establish.

    Lizzie isn’t opposed to ‘casual rudeness’, which is subjective anyway:

    This was never intended to be a particularly polite site, but the rules are designed try to keep people focused on arguments not personalities.

    You would apparently like to remake TSZ into a milquetoast paradise, but most of the rest of us, including Lizzie, don’t want that.

    I especially don’t want it if it means that someone like you can make false accusations all day without being challenged.

    Instead of asking us to bring TSZ down to your level, why not rise to ours?

  31. Gentlemen. I love you both. I don’t think you’re going to see eye to eye on this one and I’m not sure the payoff is worth it for anyone.

    KeithS has sharp edges. I like that , but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.

  32. Rich,

    Gentlemen. I love you both. I don’t think you’re going to see eye to eye on this one and I’m not sure the payoff is worth it for anyone.

    I agree, which is why I dropped the issue after refuting the first two of Alan’s false accusations. I hoped that would be sufficient and that Alan would wisely decline to further humiliate himself.

    It wasn’t sufficient. Alan couldn’t let it rest. He brought the issue back up after weeks and is insisting that I address the remaining false accusations.

    Please direct your complaints to Alan for dragging this out.

  33. Richardthughes: KeithS has sharp edges. I like that , but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.

    You mean, the self-congratulatory stuff like I hoped that would be sufficient and that Alan would wisely decline to further humiliate himself.

    What’s not to like?

  34. keiths:
    It’s up to Alan.I can’t imagine why he thought this would turn out well for him.

    You’d be surprised. Self-humiliation comes in a variety of flavors.

  35. walto,

    You mean, the self-congratulatory stuff like I hoped that would be sufficient and that Alan would wisely decline to further humiliate himself.

    It’s hardly self-congratulatory. Alan did all the self-humiliating work; I merely pointed it out.

  36. keiths: Instead of asking us to bring TSZ down to your level, why not rise to ours?

    Alan, if you need to rise to the level of keiths, you’ve truly sunk lower than I thought humanly possible. But then, you are French, right?

  37. Okay, on to the last of the false accusations that Alan has insisted I address. Let’s hope he has the sense to drop this afterwards. Besides making him look like an ass, it’s boring.

    I wrote:

    When I make mistakes, I readily admit them. They’re my responsibility, after all. You, on the other hand, have fought literally for weeks, bringing up the subject repeatedly, in order to deny an obvious mistake of yours.

    I’m happy to examine the evidence with you, if you’re (foolishly) willing.

    Alan responded:

    3. I guess you are alluding to the time you accused me of making a mistake regarding inheritance and the germ-line in eusocial hymenopterans. I did indeed keep requesting you for your explanation of what this mistake actually was, in your opinion. I’m still waiting. Please feel free to revisit the issue.

    [Emphasis added]

    Alan’s mistake was to disagree with this statement:

    The [soldier] ants aren’t reasoning about their sacrifice, so their behavior requires a genetic explanation.

    I pointed this out more than 20(!) times at Alan’s repeated insistence. Still he kept asking.

    Here are a few of my comments:

    keiths:

    You disagreed that the soldier ants’ behavior has a genetic explanation, and you gave a bad reason for that disagreement.

    It was a mistake. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?

    keiths:

    You misunderstood the biology, Alan. That’s all. It was just a mistake, not a catastrophe.

    keiths:

    Unless “Well, no” means “Well, yes”, and unless “There’s no feed-back” means “There is feedback“, then you misunderstood the biology.

    The ants’ behavior does require a genetic explanation, and there is feedback from the behavior of the sterile castes to the reproductive success of the queen.

    keiths, in exasperation:

    Alan,

    It’s time to take responsibility for your mistakes.

    Joe, Allan, Zachriel, Gralgrathor and I are all telling you that the behavior of the sterile castes has a genetic explanation. Are you going to continue to deny that?

    Even you recognized your error at one point, which is why you withdrew your statement!

    This is not a failure to communicate. It is a failure to take responsibility for what you wrote.

    Those comments are just from one thread. Alan brought this up again and again, and now he is saying:

    I did indeed keep requesting you for your explanation of what this mistake actually was, in your opinion. I’m still waiting.

    This is the man-child equivalent of putting his hands over his ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!”

    It’s ridiculous and infantile.

    Alan, you made a mistake. It’s obvious. Admit it and move on with your life.

  38. keiths: It’s ridiculous and infantile.

    You must be talking about your approach to getting me to talk about my beliefs about hell and your response when I actually did so.

  39. I asked you a question. When you finally answered it, I wrote:

    Good for you, NewMung! You actually revealed some of your views on hell.

    Were you expecting a tickertape parade?

Comments are closed.