name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote in
message news:...
> 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?

Elegantly?

> 
> > > 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.

Confirming?

> 
> > 
> > > 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.

No, I criticize you for being so goddamn lazy.  Nothing I've done is
stopping you from sitting down and working it all out on your own.

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 10/30/02 7:01:27 PM