Re: The Real Place of Fuzziness in Anthropology
Joel and Lynn Gazis-Sax (gazissax@best.com)
Fri, 16 Aug 1996 12:14:07 -0800
Bryant wrote:
>
> In article <32139AE6.74CA@best.com>,
> Joel and Lynn Gazis-Sax <gazissax@best.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Still eating aborted fetuses, Bryant? Thought so!
> >>
> >> Alright, sure, Joel, whatever. But I was trying to make a point about
> >> the futility of partitioning an individual's genetic and environmental
> >> influences. [snip]
> >
> >Pardon me, Bryant, but I think it is time for you to come to terms with[...]
> >question /was/ downright hostile. If you don't like my flippancy, how[...]
> >thread. But the way you and your mafia have treated me since my[...]
>
> Alright, sure, Joel, whatever. But I was trying to make a point about
> the futility of partitioning an individual's genetic and environmental
> influences.
>
> I'm thinking that this is like trying to reason with a drunk, Joel.
> Can't be done. I never objected to your flippancy (I'm sure that
> disappoints, after coming up with such a gem as "eating aborted
> fetuses"), and I have no idea what you're ranting on about with regards
> to the mafia. Free advice: calm down.
Bryant, this is a fine example of what happens when I do try to "calm down".
I did my best to cool my language. I did my best to stop the name-calling.
But what do I get in return?
"This is like trying to reason with a drunk, Joel. Can't be done."
As for your mafia, the reference was to all the wonderful people like Angeline,
Len, and Steve Barnard who have invaded this group and turned it into a flame
capital.
An olive branch was offered here. But in classic form, you ignored the parts
which were critical of your form of address and your participation in this group.
I am still /trying/ to be nice to you.
But you persist in hectoring me. Yes, that's the word. I will admit to letting
my anger get the better of me. When I've been wrong, I've admitted my mistakes.
In the recent article you wrote, accusing Steven Jay Gould of fraud, you made
a mistake in describing the point of one of Gould's arguments. Where is your
retraction? And why is it that people who /admit/ to mistakes (as opposed
to /make/ mistakes -- cannot be trusted?
If the name of the game is Truth, then we should be thankful when a scientist
can take a second look at what he has previously written and then said "I
was wrong." Or when he says "This is an interesting path! How far can we
go with it?"
Finally, as to whether you detest my flippancy or not, well, I can't say
I believe you. You will go a lot farther with me if you did as you first
did, which was to complain about the tone of the discussion. At that time,
I very graciously nodded in your direction and minded my own act. For a few
days before you started getting mean. All your references to Mary Beth
as "my colleague" led me to ask just what your position was.
If you made a mistake, all you have to do is admit it. Instead, you dig
trench upon trench in self defense and then try to show the rest of us
just how much more you know than them.
We've had interesting threads start here in the last few days, threads about
Rites of Passage, etc. which have just died. The only ones that keep going
are these charged ones. Let's give things like sexism, patriarchy, what to
call Native Americans, etc., a break for now. They are volatile and we aren't
discussing anything. Let's see if we can follow some other line for a bit.
>
> Bryant
Regards,
Joel
--
___ ___
/\ _|_ /\ Joel and Lynn GAzis-SAx
/ /\_|_/\ \ gazissax@best.com
/ / /\|/\ \ \ http://www.best.com/~gazissax/
----------o----------------------------------------------------------
\ \ \/|\/ / / "If we try to flee from our human condition into
\ \/_|_\/ / the computer, we only meet ourselves there."
\/__|__\/ William Barrett
|