jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:...
> name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote 
> 
> > > You are wrong to believe in the validity of a 
> > > concept despite the fact you are unable to 
> > > demonstrate its validity.
> > > 
> > 
> > So i am to demonstrate its validity, but not mathematically?
> 
> Why no math.
> 

I mentioned earlier that Hamilton derived the rule very elegantly in
his 1970 paper, and so if pressed for a mathematical derivation it
would pretty much be a transcript of that.  But clearly, that won't
do; if that was going to convince you then it already would have done.
 I am assuming, of course, that you have seen the derivation, that you
have pursued this matter in the existing literature before launching
polemic onto sbe?

> > And any
> > empirical support i offer will be rejected as 'anecdotal'?
> 
> Huh?

You rejected the wealth of sex allocation data confirming the validity
of Hamilton's rule as "anecdotal" in a previous post.

> 
> > What does
> > that leave?  Aside from random assertion.
> 
> Isn't this all you have now?
> 

When you strip away theory and empirical support, this is the only
avenue that is left.  Which is, presumably, why it features so heavily
in your messages to this board.

> > I am not going to lower
> > myself to your level.
> 
> Spoken like a true believer.

You criticize me for failing to get into the "IS NOT", "IS
SO", "IS
NOT" assertion game?  Grow up, Jim.
---
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 10/29/02 10:27:36 AM