Re: JDM on Negus.

J. Moore (
Thu, 21 Sep 95 12:49:00 -0500

El> You constantly complain that I dont give page references; and you imply
El> that this is with malice aforethought. Why would it be? Either because
El> the quotes aren't really there, or to make things difficult for you.
El> Well, you have done more than anybody to establish that the quotes
El> always really are there - for which I thank you. As for making things
El> difficult for you, if you could force yourself to think of me as a human
El> being rather than an Evil Empire,

I'm sure no one thinks of you as an empire; everyone knows that
Britain hasn't had an empire since the second world war.

El> you could have asked me for the page
El> references. It would have saved you a lot of time.

I didn't know it was an option: please post all the complete
references to all the statements in all your books. Thank you.

El> Now, from Denton to Negus. On Denton I could understand exactly what you
El> were trying to say. i.e. that human inefficiency in coping with salt
El> excess or salt deficiency is not a speciality of our species as I
El> indicated (and believed, though you won't believe I believed it) and if
El> I had read through the whole of Denton's book as diligently as you did I
El> would have realised this.

You mean you didn't read the first or last pages of the book at all!?!
You didn't even read the summaries at the beginnings of each
chapter -- not even the one about "Salt intake and high blood
pressure in man" (Chapter 27: 542). Frankly, even a causual
reading of just the chapter headings and summaries makes Denton's
position clear: "Hedonic intake of salt is a definitive component
in the overall physiological organization of salt appetite in man
and reflects behaviour favourable to survival under the conditions
in which the species evolved. The author differs with the viewpoint
of Dahl (1960), reiterated by Freis (1976), who proposed salt
appetite in man is induced rather than innate".

El> On Negus I must admit I can't see what you are driving at. I write for a
El> non-specialist market and tend to keep the quotes short. You find this
El> sinister.

Not sinister, just convenient. Altering quotes by dropping words
and phrases which don't say what you wish they'd say is considered
dishonest; not even showing that the quote was altered (as you did
with the Negus quotes) is considered deceitful. I believe even
the "non-specialist market" sees things this way.

El> You seem to believe that Negus was saying something quite
El> incompatible with my description of the descent of the larynx, and I was
El> attempting to hush this up by not beginning the quotes earlier and
El> finishing them later than I did.

And by leaving out words and phrases that contradicted your
position, while pretending it was an unaltered quote.

El> May I ask a simple question? Why do you think it happened? You're a
El> whizz with the destructive criticisms. How about some positive ideas for
El> a change?
El> Elaine.

That's quite humorous, Elaine, coming as it does from someone
whose case is based on "destructive criticisms" of a strawman
model, along with healthy doses of misquotation and misrepresentation.

Tell me, what aquatic animal uses eccrine sweating?

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *