William Morse wrote:
> "Anon."  wrote in
news:cl65sn$ave$1
> {at}darwin.ediacara.org:
> 
>  
> 
>>Just to set the record straight on what I feel constitutes abuse, it 
>>does include questioning my professional competence, for example:
>>
>>"How can anybody who has a BSc in statistics and
>>a PhD in quantitative biology not know that random
>>processes ... _cannot_ be eliminated from
>>a natural population? Has Dr O'Hara been misusing models
>>for so long that he cannot discriminate between testable
>>reality and just his oversimplified "quantitative
>>biology" models?"
>>(from the 5th of October)
>>
>>Some other choice quotes (from 2nd October, or earlier in the same 
>>thread), which I also take to be abusive:
>>"Dr O'Hara's reply seems to be completely confused. "
>>"Dr O'Hara's protest that: "It was a statement, or a
recommendation" 
>>remains absurd via his own logic: ..."
>>"Dr O'Hara's arrogance knows no bounds. "
>>"Where did Dr O'Hara obtain his PhD? Please tell us so students can 
>>avoid this school!"
>>"Can Dr O'Hara follow a simple argument? "
>>"Clearly Dr O'Hara does not have a clue about what this experiment is 
>>actually about: ..."
>>"None of Dr O'Hara's responses demonstrate any ability to understand 
> 
> the 
> 
>>simple biological experiment that I have proposed. "
>>
>>Now, there are substansive scientific points on which John and I 
>>disagree, and it may well be that John is correct on some points.  But 
>>if we are going to discuss evolutionary biology, then please focus on 
>>the issues at stake, and not get into insults and name-calling. 
> 
> 
> 
> John is something of a conundrum. He is neither stupid nor ignorant. But 
> he is singularly single-minded, and has an unfortunate tendency (shared 
> by many humans, including myself) to lapse into calumny when his 
> arguments are challenged.  
> I gave up responding to John some time ago, 
> even though he raises some good arguments, because of his single-
> mindedness. I suggest you do the same. What we need to do is get into 
> some good arguments between ourselves so we can both satisfy our desire 
> for intellectual discussion.

Well said.
There appears to be a general rule in USENET groups that the most 
obnoxious and fanatical posters attract the most attention. As a result 
they never learn to moderate their behavior, as they would have to do in 
a normal social environment. Perhaps those that never learned correct 
social behavior or are congenitally incapable of it gravitate to USENET 
since it is the only social outlet available to them.

If everyone generally observed the rule you recommend for Edser, USENET 
would be a far better place. Though Bob O'Hara means well, he is 
actually an unconscious enabler of the behavior he complains about.

  I think this may be difficult  because we
> tend to agree, but here goes: bipedalism in humans is simply a result of 
> drift - our ancestors could have as easily switched to knuckle-walking.  >
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Bill Morse
> 
> 
>
---
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 11/5/04 5:58:09 AM