"Jim McGinn"  wrote in message
news:cpt9hn$ten$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> It just has to he reasonable.  It has to make sense.
>
> One approach you might take is that my objections to
> it are themselves unreasonable.

I think you are being quite sensible here.

But you have to understand, many of us don't know what your
objections are!  If you peruse your recent posts, I think that
you will agree that you sneer far more often than you object.

References to the emperor's clothes are like references to
Enron accountants.  They are not objections, they are expressions
of outrage.  Whatever function such expressions serve in making
you feel better, they are received as just so much noise.

The one objection that seems to be extractable from the recent
noise is your apparent intuition that "relatedness" ought to be
a summary encoding of the similarity between two individuals.
Various of us have tried to address this objection by pointing
out that "relatedness", as used in Hamilton's rule, involves
two individuals PLUS A CONTEXT.  Our attempts have elicited only
more sneers.

If you wish to give us a chance to show that your objections are
unreasonable, you will have to state clearly (again, perhaps -
we have short memories) what those objections are.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/18/04 4:23:37 PM