Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation

Bryant (
18 Aug 1996 11:14:05 -0600

In article <4v7iu5$>, Bryant <> wrote:
In article <4v6h9f$>,
<> wrote:
>Stephen Barnard <> wrote:
>>A few people have questioned my motives in starting this thread. Well, tough.
>Did you take any time at all to wonder WHY people questioned your
>motives? Judging from your post you could have cared less.

Why *should* any of us care less? Questioning motives is an interesting
exercise after it's been shown that somebody's arguments are illogical,
but it's a poor argumentation tactic. Why not look at the content of
one's post, respond to it as though it were sincerely posited, and go
from there?

Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about Gould's or Rushton's motives
for presenting the versions of human evolution they do, for example. I
look at the content of their versions, and compare those to the facts at hand.

Calling somebody a bigot does not speak to their points. It's a
chickenshit distraction technique that should be ignored.