"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
> 
> > > JE:-
> > > It seems obvious to me that 
> > > the professionals who regularly post here
> > > investing their time and effort, are doing 
> > > so because of their need to look outside 
> > > of their own peer reviewed square.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Personally, I gain very little from this discussion group, which is
> > why I tend to disappear when my workload demands that I make better
> > use of my time. 
> 
> JE:-
> This must be the reason why you suddenly stop 
> answering critical questions as debate heats up...

.. . . or rather, when it stagnates.

> Please answer the following 3 questions:
> 
> (1) How can you measure any difference
> between OFA and OFM using Hamilton's rule
> when the total fitness of the actor remains
> deleted from the rule?

I know the A and M refer to altruism and mutualism respectively, but
you're going to have to remind me exactly what these nonstandard
acronyms are before I can give you an answer.

> (2) Do you agree that totals, that represent
> constant terms and therefore maximands must 
> exist for any idea to be reasonable? 

How can a constant be maximised?
 
> (3) If you have no Maximand at all for Neo Darwinian
> fitness (Neo Darwinians cannot even provide a
> non refutable fitness maximand) by what right
> have Neo Darwinists  deleted the existing 
> refutable Darwinian maximand from within 
> Hamilton's rule?
> 

Who said I didn't have a maximand. Here's one: reproductive value.

> >snip<
>  
> > I may be wrong, but I suspect that most of the experts who post to
> > this newsgroup are also motivated by 'Education' rather than
> > 'Research'. 
> 
> JE:-
> If you have ever been a teacher then you
> must realise that learning requires an 
> ongoing teaching experience for both 
> teacher and student.

Not sure what that is meant to mean, sorry.

> > NAS:-
> > I also perceive no barrier to good ideas posed by the
> > current peer review system. With both these points in mind, I don't
> > see what a separate amateur peer review system is going to achieve. If
> > the likes of John Edser desparately want to get their ideas in print,
> > then they should, like legitimate researchers, submit these ideas to
> > the existing peer review system; or else they can seek out a vanity
> > publisher.
> 
> JE:-
> The above does not constitute a rational case 
> against a proposed _democratic_ and _transparent_
> peer review process that I argue does not exist
> at the moment but could be pioneered within sbe. 
> Would NAS please outline A RATIONAL case against 
> such an experiment. 

Really, it's not up to me to decide what you do. And frankly, I don't
care. I was just expressing an opinion.
---
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 11/17/04 9:38:23 AM