John Edser wrote:
>  ekurtz99{at}WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:-
> 
> 
>>The problem is not some correctable failure of approach or use or 
>>representation. It doesn't involve a voluntary act at all. The problem 
>>is a chronic inability to understand what is written on the printed 
>>page, and spontaneously to substitute some absurdly distorted creation 
>>of imagination for the real underlying idea. Nothing is so easy to 
>>understand that Edser cannot make a hash of it - Hardy-Weinberg 
>>equilibrium, Hamilton's rule, Special Relativity, Set Theory, Godel's 
>>theorem, the list is endless.
> 
> 
> JE:-
> Once again EK, like JMcG, remain happy to 
> denigrate without providing any argument 
> that proves their case. 

You would inevitably misconstrue any argument I made, since, as I said, 
you misconstrue everything.

In the part of my previous post that you snipped, I pointed out how 
absurd it is to suppose that your "critique" of Hamilton's rule is a fit 
subject for a paper in a professional biology journal. Mad Magazine 
would be a more appropriate destination. But if you are so sure that you 
have refuted one of the foundations of modern evolutionary theory, why 
plaster it all over sbe like graffiti? Why waste time arguing with me or 
anyone else here?  Why not go ahead and submit to the JofTB? Could it be 
that you know (as everyone here knows) that the idea is worthless?
---
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 12/7/04 6:21:06 AM