It's thrashing time. (was Re: Replacing babies)

Michael Bauser (
Fri, 05 May 95 21:49:29 EDT

Note: "Newsgroups" header trimmed to sci.anthropology, because now this
is just shop talk. Jeez! I take one day off to concentrate on classwork,
and some guy named after an imaginary prison thinks he owns the newsgroup.
Now I'm in a bad mood.

In article <Admin.0wk5@oubliette.COM>
Panopticon@oubliette.COM (Eric Shook) writes:

>In article <> (Michael Bauser) writes:
>> Note: I'm adding sci.anthropology to the "Newsgroups" header, because
>> all of a sudden, we're talking about sociobiology. Sociobiology AND
>> politics. Wonderful combination, isn't it?

>I'm cross-posting back to you, because I am
>discussing anthopology and anthropology. Interesting combination, isn't it?

What--The "anthropology of anthropology"? Sounds a bit circular, and it's
been done already, I'm sure. Please clarify.

>What makes certain people believe that every thread in usenet which deals
>with social darwinism and other over-thrown, completely discredited,
>completely falacious * crap * should be cross-posted to sci.anthropology?

What makes you think you're the divinely-appointed arbitor of what is
and isn't an anthropological subject?

>Just because it was anthropology that supplied the vast majority of the
>information that discredited so many of these heirarchical, linear
>models of existence, does this mean that we must always be sent the posts
>which contain fresh argument about it?

Ooh. "hierarchical, linear models of existence". Somebody's been
reading his Intro Anthro textbook, hasn't he? Don't confuse your
vocabulary with useful commentary.

>Michael, you are only attempting to involve us on your behalf. We are

Actually, I'm just trying to encourage more discussions on sci.anthropology
about subjects that anthropology can actually provide useful commentary
about. Sociobiology _is_ a topic that anthropologists can and do
discuss, an it's infinitely more on topic than that damnable "Big
Bang" thread. But do I get any discussion? No...I get your
petulant little flame.

>already well aware that there are continuous arguments about this. You
>really only are asking that we join in on this thrash fest. We decline.

1) "(T)hrash fest"? You act like anthropology never has "thrash fest(s)"
of its own.

2) Congratulations. This just became a thrash fest.

3) You vastly underestimate the number of beginners and neophytes on
sci.anthropology . I hang around this newsgroup and habitually answer
questions a freshman anthropology major might consider trivial; I have
no doubts that there are readers who don't know as much about socio-
biology as you do (or think you do; since you didn't actually say
anything about the subject, I can't be sure) and might learn something
from a small discussion of the topic. If you want a forum
dominated by professionals, you're more than welcome on the Anthro-L
mailing list. Just lose that attitude first, or the "serious
anthropologists" will roast you like a pinyon nut.

4) You seem to think I'm an non-anthro adding this newsgroup to his
personal flamewar. Nope. I'm an anthropolgy major who was reading
another newsgroup, and decided I just couldn't let a bad sociobiological
aside go unchallenged, because (as I said), sociobiology is a subject
I know something about, it's something I can discuss in reasonable
detail, and I knew Chapman didn't know what he was talking about.

5) Don't worry, Chapman's not going to post here. He so far appears
incapable of discussing anything not directly related to militias
or his plan to take over Usenet.

>No serious anthropologist will waste his time. (Me? I'm only a serious

Okay--that's it. When I had my department affiliation in my .sig, people
said I was bragging about my place in the hierarchy; I take it out, and
now I'm not a "serious anthropologist". Argh. My undergraduate diploma
says: "Bachelor of Arts cum laude College and Departmental Honors in
Anthropology" and I'm in my second year of graduate school. You, on the
other hand, are a self-acknowledged beginner who has dared to impugn my
credibility without knowing a single goddamn thing about me. If you
were a "serious anthropologist", you would know just better than to define
your narrow-minded little universe as the end-all and be-all of
anthropology. I hope there's a special place in hell for pretentious
little morons like you.

I'm a serious anthropologist. Now tell me *your* qualifications.

>The material refuting your opponents is already published. If
>you can't utilize the material effectively, well then that is a shame.

What are you talking about? Am I supposed to FedEx half my bookshelf
to Mike Chapman everytime he says something stupid?

>But don't cross post the drivel here, please.

Pot. Kettle. Black. I sincerely doubt alt.config wanted to see your

>Please respond only in e-mail, and please remove all cross-posts to
>sci.anthropology from your posts in the group of origin.

If you wanted this in e-mail, you should have started it in e-mail.
When I'm attacked in public by an arrogant no-nothing, I hit back.

>Thanks, Michael.

You're welcome. Anytime.

Michael Bauser <>
"It's participant observation. Honest!"