Re: Little people and little acceptance
John Pastore (venture@CANCUN.RCE.COM.MX)
Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:28:02 +0000
On 5 Apr 96 at 12:56, Kotliar wrote:
> John Pastore has given his theories on the Mesoamerican archaeology
Correction: One other group.
>They have been discussed in detail there, and while it
> seems that few were convinced of his theories he certainly has
> plenty of airplay for his ideas.
Not true: The theory was not proposed to convince and it was not
discussed in detail. And you would be surprised how many did not
need convincing, but preferred to publish nothing to the digest of
that group and, thus, not subject their reputations to the likes of
those who opposed the way they did, or risk the liscensing of their
feild work. There were two avenues to provide 'collaborating'
evidence: "architectual realities" and "skeletal remains". The first
was only beginning to be discussed when the antics of a few
persisting with their notions on the "skeletal remains" more than
just stifled any progress.
The "architectural realities" avenue was totally ignored by those
who could not disassociate dwarves with notions of metaphysical
beings "elves", "gnomes" and "leprechauns", instead of "flesh and
blood" beings -and, instead, preferred to use these metaphysical
presumptions (as if the Pygmies of Africa had to be metaphysical) to
rally a few boneheads and find glee in the comeraderie it generated,
like a fraternity party, to initially ridicule and then sabotage both
me and the topic, while justifying it repeatedly as "challenging the
'authority' of (their) scholarship." In this instance, it is quoted
from the group's digest, where their private e-mails had been
requoted to the public forum.
This group, from Harvard and Boston Univerisites (all connected with
the Thinking Machine Corporation -and two others in the peanut
gallery), not only, ignored the "architecural realities" but also
railroaded the discussion which they had put under seige by one of
them making imposterizations, forging, smear e-mails, and two of them
making private threats, etc., (all documented on the group's digest
and off) while persisting with the notion that the few Maya bones
available (so few to not be a representative sample -but if dwarf
bones be found could prove the theory while, if not found, could not
disprove the theory) was sufficient in itself to conclude the
discussion by persisting with their notion that the differentiation
of the few skeletal remains as being either children or dwarves could
not have been "overlooked", and, since not "overlooked", dictated
that all skeletons of short stature had to be children and not
dwarves -"not overlooked", despite the facts that none of them had
(apparently) participated in any such examinations, that they did
"overlook" the ***existence of a category for dwarfism which does
***not*** require criteria for deformites, and in the most persistent
case (in another discussion, despite "numerous visits to Guatemala
and the Maya"), "did not even notice the incidence of baldness, or
non-incidence of baldness among the Maya for no better reason than
"not having it mind to look".
These same osteolgists and anatomists acutally remained quiet on the
existence of the category for dwarfism which did not require criteria
for deformities, and in one instance claimed that no such category
existed -an untruth which only came to light -finally- with the
report of Dr. Saul on the same day when the moderator decided to slam
the topic closed publishing to the group's digest his pretext: that
the topic "was not germane and noisy" (and pretext it was to cover
for his own collusion with the the blitzing of my mailbox, my
computer, thus, me. He also prohibited anyone from questioning his
action onto the digest, telling the list to address such questions
personally to him). While Dr. Saul's report from the Universtiy of
Michigan did ***not*** say that the examinations of skeletons of
short stature were compared to that existing category of dwarfism
that does ***not*** require criteria for deformities, the discussion
could finally, and nevertheless, escape the rigamarole that the
bonebrigade had imposed and return to the avenue of no resistance:
the "architectual realities" which are region-wide, and which many
of the archaeologists were anxiously awaiting. Instead it was the
beginning of the days to follow where the overwhelming majority
protested the slamming of the topic closed, and, in many cases,
unsubscribed from the list. It was, and remains, a travesty to
science, and open-forums everywhere.
>I think for the most point that
> the responses have been measured and focused on lines of evidence.
Kotliar, you are quoting a post that is describing an "architectural
reality" that can be evidence, yet you are ignoring it. This is the
first time it has been presented, yet you prefer your measure and
your focus -of what?
> He simply has not made a case for his theory that there was a race
> of 18 inch people running about (and perhaps still hiding out in the
> bush) in the Yucatan. No one "seemed" threatened or unresponsive to
> his ideas.
Right, it was I who was the recipient of "threats", and the case was
never presented for the reasons described.
Insofar as "unresponsive", besides the vocal few mentioned, others
were trying to respond intelligently and with grace, but couldn't
for the mere fact that the discussion was being railroaded with the
help of the moderator. As for those who were agreeing, or
demonstrating any kind of support to the theory, they were being
targeted by the private e-mail campaigns and were also having to do
their best to contend with that too. These e-mail campaigns were
written with the same, single argument "challenging 'authority' in
the same words within the same, single script. In private e-mails to
me, the same script was embellished with vulgarisms quite unbecoming
to science, much less, common decency. And the acceptance of
self-proclaimed 'authority' was the motive, the justification and the
objective -not science.
THEY WERE SIMPLY NOT CONVINCED AND THIS PISSED HIM OFF.
Not true, but how would you know? Have you asked me? Have you polled
how many were convinced or the slamming of the topic was not the
outrage it was? (Do you know that there are those who want to still
pursue the topic there but have been convinced that they can only be
a listmember of the public-forum at the "suffrance" of others?)
Well I am annoyed, and it mostly has to do with the baseless
conclusions so-called scientists can make when based on presumptions
such as yours, especially when they are being offered what could be
evidence; and especially when they make me the topic, instead of the
tunnel, for example, that I am describing.
> To assume as he does that simply making a proposition means that
> proposition deserves automatic acceptance seems odd.
Its odder that you assume I ever made such an assumption, especially
when everything recorded in the digest of that group proclaims the
> It doesn't
> work that way for those "inside" the academic establishment, why
> should acceptance on faith be applied to theories presented from
> those outside the "hallowed" halls.
Are you quoting me? "Inside?" "Hallowed?" I have never made such a
statement, although such rhetoric does reinforce the self-annoited
'authority' of some so-called scholars. Moreover, who ever asked
anyone to accept anything on faith? Not me, and you never heard that
from me. Why do you fabricate such?
Also, what is inside or out of "establishments" is of no import to
me. I am forty-eigth years old and saw through such so-called
"establishments" -whether they be academic, military or civil.
Always such so-called "establishments" are reducible to a few
individuals manipulating the public to serve the will they impose.
Its really as simple as that. What I do recognize by your statement
is that you see the public domain that is the internet to be some
special reserve for those "inside" such a so-called "establishment".
>I am not sure why he thinks he
> will have a more favorable reception on a much more argumentative
> and less patient group.
There you go again with your presumptions. How scientific. How are
you suppose to know what I think without asking -especially before
drawing conclusions? Is anyone simply suppose to accept such
conclusions because you made them and you think you come from within
an establishment, and thus your presumptions and conclusions must be
acceptable on faith alone? Well, obviously you think so, and,
obviously, I don't.
>I am doubtful that he will find his ideas
> embraced with any easier facility here , but I wish him all the best
> in his efforts to argue his case.
I am not looking for my ideas to be embraced.
> I merely wish to correct the
> impression that he has given that his ideas were not accepted simply
> because they "challenged established thought".
Kotliar, are you quoting me again? "Established thought?" I never
said that. I have never said it because I don't believe there is, or
can be, any such thing as "established thought" although there are
those who do busy themselves trying to establish their's. What study
did you make which establishes that my ideas were "not accepted", or
could not have been accepted? Certainly not from the majority who
protested the slamming of the topic shut.
>This ignores the
> fact that the factual merits of his theory have been given serious
> discussion elsewhere. The wonderful opportunities for the
> democratization of knowledge offered by new technologies such as the
> Internet require MORE discrimination, scepticism and critical
> incredulity rather than less. To value all information equally is to
> regard all information as worthless.
> John Pastore wrote:
> > Well I like to theorize too, and I introduced a new theory which
> >few archaeologists thought was "challenging the authority of
> > scholarship".
Well, Kotliar, is this an example of your dedication to science?
Even while you quote me from my post, which is offering what might be
evidence, you, instead, make me the topic and not the evidence. This
is the first time I have proposed it. Never had the chance in that
other so-called scientific chat group, and, irregardless of whatever
your value is on information, whether your inside or outside the
so-called establishment, wouldn't it help to first take a look at it?
Writer in El Mayab
"The supreme good in education is expert discernment in
all things- the power to tell the good from the bad,
the genuine from the counterfeit, and to prefer the
good and the genuine to the bad and the counterfeit."