Posted: Jun 18, 2019 4:19 am
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:
All I can observe is that YOU changed my “long, pointy” to the redundant “sharp, pointy” and my “Australopithecus” to “australopithecine”. Why can’t you just come right out and say what I changed.

I was talking to the observant and educated, JJ.

Jayjay4547 wrote:After evading the challenge I put to you,...

You challenged me?

Funny, I must have missed that! I only saw you attempt to order me to do something.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... you went on to change the subject by posting pics I had put up.

I know your tendency is towards historical revision, but the acceptance of that is usually aided when the subject of those histories is dead.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s one of several options you could have taken:

Oooh! You're going to give ME options about what action I might elect to do?

You really are being spectacularly arrogant today, aren't you JJ? Are you on the attack so that you don't have to defend the nonsense you posted last?

Jayjay4547 wrote:(b) You could have actually re-posted these “several pics” of australopithecines with sharp [long] pointy canines. That would have simply ended my career on the ratskep forum and you would have got a deal of approval from your peers. There was every incentive for you to do that, if those pics existed.

Which obviously contains a whole heap of inane assumptions.

Firstly, the notion that you would leave the website on account of anything factual - I already talked about this a page or two back - given your track record for simply evading reality and concocting fairy tales, for outright reality-denial... are we supposed to believe that a mere picture is going to send you scampering off with your tail between your legs?

Secondly, you assume I want you to leave the forum. That's genuinely ridiculous and something I've certainly never expressed, but undoubtedly generates a whole lot of the victimhood and martyrdom narrative threads that certain types of Christian thrive on. Who says I want you to leave the forum, JJ? In reality, all you'll ever see me asking of you is that you stop bullshitting. For me, there's space enough for everyone here, so long as they can abide by simple universal etiquette.

Thirdly, I neither expect nor aim for anyone's approval - not in this life, chap! :) My peers, in terms of rational skepticism, includes you - we're all equal members here, after all. In terms of this topic, who is supposed to be my peer here? There used to be some very knowledgeable palaeoanthropological folks here like Gib and Steviepinhead, and their presence would have made this discussion much more interesting for me (they'd have spotted the same errors you made, for example, and would also probably have noted some of the amusement I intentionally generated which you missed completely), and they'd have been able to actually have a technical conversation with me about anatomy which you can't.

Fourthly, when I've already made a post, it is not really my obligation to scurry off and find it on your command. Whether you acknowledge reality or not, there it remains.

Jayjay4547 wrote:(c) You could have withdrawn your accusation that I had lied. I don’t see that happening but like (b) above, it is on the face of it a theoretical possibility.

Well, I could also just as easily have compiled a list of your lies, because it's not like I've forgotten them JJ. This is just one example where you claim I haven't posted any pics of australopithecine crania when anyone reading this thread knows I have.

Jayjay4547 wrote:(d) You could have re-posted the pics that you actually had posted, from which I made this collation:


Which is fantastically convoluted because to have made this 'collation' of pics that I posted then you must recognize that I did in fact post said pics, ergo... :doh:

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then you would have had to make out that several of these pics were indeed of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines.

What's fascinating here is how you appear to have willfully forgotten what happened the last time I explained to you in technical terms the morphological characteristics of an australopithecine skull. Remember how you abjectly failed to engage in discussion about said features, instead simply waving it away while declaring that it represented evidence about how you're completely right?

You may find such games amusing, but given your willingness to tell me what I am supposed to be incentivized by, you haven't explained to me what's in it for me to go into technical detail that you seem both unwilling and unable to engage with.

Jayjay4547 wrote:In the first place, that would have been difficult because the only skull there with long pointy canines, doesn’t seem to even be a fossil.

Which is pretty funny coming from the guy who relies wholly on casts apparently comprised of substantial artistic creativity, and which you don't seem to realize aren't really representing the thing you think they are. :)

That's one of MY points here JJ! :naughty2:

Jayjay4547 wrote:What is really bothering me here, is my growing suspicion that you are playing me and I have been ludicrously falling for it.

Oh I am playing you JJ. I am toying with your arrogance and pomposity, your self-absorbed ignorance.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I just can’t square your behaviour over those pics, with that of someone who as you say, has spent his adult life studying human evolution and teaching it to undergraduates.

That's fun. You want to try this again.

Jayjay4547 wrote: In my experience, professional teachers are all over their material and eager to explain it; to take and own the role of mentor.

Great, now add into that equation a potential student who is ignorant, arrogant, and who has spent years using evasive argumentative strategies to continue a line of argumentation that is fundamentally hostile to not just the discipline but the entire methodology uniting all the sciences.

One way of teaching such a person, JJ, might be first to deflate the windbag. It may not be a tactic you like, but you made this bed, chap.

And this is also one of my key points. I quite clearly made this point to you: I offered to meet you fair and square in the middle and help you understand, but your arrogance won't let you acknowledge that your understanding is poor or that one of the people you're repeatedly bigoted against might know more than you. You won't even ASK me to explain because that would require you acknowledge your lack of competence in an expert field - instead you write up these long attacks where you get to pretend that you're still in an instructional position while pretending that the reason I am not enlightening you is because of some nonsensical conspiracy you've contrived rather than it being a direct result of your typical stupid behavior.

I will get round to showing you wrong in my own time, JJ, after I've had my fun. Because you're unwilling to engage in honest discourse, that's what's left. My amusement, and potentially the amusement of other people who have read your guff over the years.

Jayjay4547 wrote: But here you put up a series of pics of clearly different provenance, without explaining any of them more than just saying “Ding Ding”.

Is that really all I said, JJ? Are you going to call that an honest rendition of my role? :)

Jayjay4547 wrote: Then you claim they have told a story that they clearly don’t.

I don't tell stories JJ - that's your rhetorical strategy.

Jayjay4547 wrote: And then you decline to re-post them for discussion,...

Again, the question would be why I would need to repost pictures that are already here in this thread.

Jayjay4547 wrote:making out that to do so would be to “obey" (YES, SIR, SIR!) a layman.

As usual, you attempt to turn it all round, just as when you likened everyone to crazed dogs rending each other, but then described responses as awful, terrible personalizations! :)

In reality, it's nothing to do with 'laymen' and everything to do with grammar:

Show that you posted several pictures of australopithecus skull with long, pointy canines, by posting those several pictures again.

Verb 1 with no subject = the imperative mood. ... rative.asp

Definition: Imperatives are verbs used to give orders, commands,warning or instructions, and (if you use "please") to make a request. It is one of the three moods of an English verb (indicative, imperative and subjunctive).

Adults do not usually give each other orders, unless they are in a position of authority. However, adults can give orders to children and to animals.

I am not subordinate to you, I am not a child, nor am I a (non-human) animal, ergo the fact that you felt you could order me about is the real point here. I am poking fun at your arrogance.

Now, had you made it a polite request, I might well have performed the desired activity - I'm helpful like that! :)

But I don't do tricks on command, JJ. You really should know that about me after all these years.

Jayjay4547 wrote: It just doesn’t compute.

Your calculations are simply you projecting whatever is useful for you onto the discussion.

The computation is clearly borked when you're basically erecting a self-serving conspiracy theory.