Moksha Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 The lurkers should take note that nothing has been proved that cannot be disproved. So do we get to claim victory now? Personally as a lurker, I want to read more, then maybe afterward we can play those talked about word games - not the Times crosswords - too hard...how about hangman?Question: Are there any Native Americans without any Asiatic DNA background?
Argos Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 This is for Juliann and the moderators both: I will suspend my participation on the Pundits thread if it becomes apparent that my posts there are just becoming material for Juliann to twist into a "diversionary word game." Visitors to Kevin Graham's message board will notice that nothing of this sort has taken place in the thread titled "Stewart and The Dude go at it." Essentially all that has happened over there (among people who are considered too rowdy for FAIR) is reposting of the Pundits thread so the poor heathens can follow along.Dude,I don't know where to go with this at the moment. 1. KG's board has nothing to do with whatever happens here - I'm not sure why you brought that up. How they discuss something there has no bearing whatsoever here.2. We will keep an eye on Juliann but are not sure what you are asking. Do you object to the discussion on this thread in general? Are you saying that you don't want Juliann commenting on your discussion with Stewart? Do you think she has broken any of our posting guidelines? I don't want the Pundits discussion to end before its time. Please let me know what, specifically, you are asking us to do.Thanks,Argos
The Dude Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Furthermore, I do not think it behooves you (as a member of the Pundit's thread) to come onto this one and insult the other particpant when he wasn't involved in any of the comments. I didn't insult Stewart. I complemented his intellect and training. The "sloppy" and "sham" comments were directed at things he has written, and if you go back and read my review of his FAIR presentation and his response to that review (his post #10), you will see that I gave specific reasons for why they were weak.
The Dude Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Argos-I don't want Juliann starting up an ironically named ""diversionary word game" sideshow to the Pundits thread. I object to her characterization of my posts as word games, when the simple fact is that I made efforts to understand Stewart's position before I began reviewing his paper. Naturally, I crafted my criticisms to respond to what I understood to be Stewart's position. If Stewart's position turns out to be something more ethereal than what I originally understood, then so be it. I won't accuse him of playing diversionary word games, but instead I will try to understand him and adapt my criticisms or give them up if they no longer apply. This may make the Pundit thread longer/shorter or more tedious for some readers, but such is the nature of communication between people with different points of view. Whether or not it breaks a FAIR rule, Juliann's attempt to start up a sideshow brings a bad spirit to the discussion. I will not participate further if I have to worry that every word I say might be twisted into proof that I am just playing word games.As for KG's board, I brought it up to make the point that the "rowdy" folks are not stooping to this. Well, not yet.
Hawkmoon Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Furthermore, I do not think it behooves you (as a member of the Pundit's thread) to come onto this one and insult the other particpant when he wasn't involved in any of the comments. I didn't insult Stewart. I complemented his intellect and training. The "sloppy" and "sham" comments were directed at things he has written, and if you go back and read my review of his FAIR presentation and his response to that review (his post #10), you will see that I gave specific reasons for why they were weak.Regardless of whether you feel you gave "specific reasons" for his "sloppy" and "sham" scholarship, they are insults. Furthermore, to make a comment about him doing his homework like he wasn't before, and needed his better to point it out... also, was insulting. In the end, the point I was making had nothing to do with whether you responded to him adequately, but rather it had everything to do with insulting him in a thread that HE has nothing to do with. Insult Julian (or me) if you will... as that would be more appropriate... I just think you should leave him out of it and let your debate stand on its' own merits. *just my two cents*EDIT to add: I personally find the debate to be more interesting than anything else posted in the Pundit's area... so, I hope it doesn't end due to lack of participation. Anyway, this is my final comment on this as I do not want to add anymore to The Dude's uneasiness of the direction this may take. I do hope you keep participating though.
juliann Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 You have to be kidding. You are calling on the website that howls about "censorship" when they are banned from civil forums....while asking for censorship here? All I was going to do was put up a word for word analysis of a few sentences so what you have added and removed from a statement when you reword it is clear. I'm not interpreting anything or adding commentary. But I will be silent so you can't use me as an excuse to bail on Stewart.
juliann Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 As for KG's board, I brought it up to make the point that the "rowdy" folks are not stooping to this. Well, not yet.No...they just violate our copyright by importing our webpages wholesale. That is stooping to theft according to the rest of the world. Isn't that why the Hauglid thread had to be removed and that discussion ended? FAIR wasn't allowed rights to their own property? How ironic you would bring up that behavior as a justification.
Argos Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Argos-I don't want Juliann starting up an ironically named ""diversionary word game" sideshow to the Pundits thread. I object to her characterization of my posts as word games, when the simple fact is that I made efforts to understand Stewart's position before I began reviewing his paper. Naturally, I crafted my criticisms to respond to what I understood to be Stewart's position. If Stewart's position turns out to be something more ethereal than what I originally understood, then so be it. I won't accuse him of playing diversionary word games, but instead I will try to understand him and adapt my criticisms or give them up if they no longer apply. This may make the Pundit thread longer/shorter or more tedious for some readers, but such is the nature of communication between people with different points of view. Whether or not it breaks a FAIR rule, Juliann's attempt to start up a sideshow brings a bad spirit to the discussion. I will not participate further if I have to worry that every word I say might be twisted into proof that I am just playing word games.You know that this is a "free idea" zone on the ironically-named FAIR board ; however, I think the discussion going on in the Pundits thread (and your participation in it) is more important right now than Juliann's comments about it so I am asking Juliann to refrain for now.As for KG's board, I brought it up to make the point that the "rowdy" folks are not stooping to this. Well, not yet.Well, that isn't saying much. I've seen what they've done to Juliann on other boards. ~mods
The Dude Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Hawkmoon-Regardless of whether you feel you gave "specific reasons" for his "sloppy" and "sham" scholarship, they are insults. Furthermore, to make a comment about him doing his homework like he wasn't before, and needed his better to point it out... also, was insulting. I just think you should leave him out of it and let your debate stand on its' own merits. Points taken.
Confidential Informant Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 The irony of the invocation of the Shades/Graham's boards and their calls for censorship in this board is not lost.C.I.
Who Knows Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Let me see if I've got this straight. Originally, Stewart claimed: I believe that Book of Mormon peoples *could be* the principal/dominant ancestors of modern Native Americans, at least from a DNA standpoint. The Dude then responded with: BoM people could NOT be the principal/dominant ancestors of virtually all Native Americans.Now, Stewart claims this: Lehites/Mulekites could be the principal ancestors of Native Americans (on the whole).So, basically, all of this fuss is because of TD's interpretation to mean 'virtually all', while Stewart actually meant 'on the whole'.Is that correct?Also, can someone tell me the difference between 'virtually all' and 'on the whole'?One more thing:DOWN WITH LGT, LONG LIVE HT! (wanted to get my own cheer in)
The Dude Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Who Knows:I asked Stewart basically the same questions in my post last night. Let's just see how he responds. I don't think any of us can read his mind.
juliann Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Oh, I get it! Your cheerleaders get to wave their pompoms but I am to be silenced. Maybe you can just make a list of who is allowed to discuss this, Dude.
The Dude Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Oh, I get it! Your cheerleaders get to wave their pompoms but I am to be silenced. Maybe you can just make a list of who is allowed to discuss this, Dude.1. The Dude2. David Stewart
Gervin Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Oh, I get it! Your cheerleaders get to wave their pompoms but I am to be silenced. I think Who Knows was just trying to get some clarification and not trying to fill out a scorecard.Maybe you can just make a list of who is allowed to discuss this, Dude.Yes, this is a good idea. But it should be Fair. How about: you are allowed to discuss if you have under 5,000 posts on this board. Is that too exclusionary? Gee, some people really have a "wait" problem. Sit back & enjoy the Pundits thread. There'll be plenty of time, Juliann, for you to tell us how wrong The Dude is. Give us a little suspense.
Argos Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 OK, I'm going to ask everyone to put their pom poms down. This thread is to be more objectively discussing the discussion going on in the Pundits forum - not cheerleading or slamming either participant. I hate to see this thread closed but I will do it if I have to.It's probably best if The Dude does not simultaneously discuss here while discussing it with Stewart there. You agree with that Dude?~mods
The Dude Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 It's probably best if The Dude does not simultaneously discuss here while discussing it with Stewart there. You agree with that Dude?~modsOkay. I'll stay out as long as I'm not attacked as a typical "countermopologist", as long as my posts in the Pundit thread are not construed as a "diversionary word games," or "smoke and mirrors," etc. etc -- if that happens again, I will simply post a short goodbye. I will only comment further on this thread if I think my position has been misunderstood by thread participants.
Argos Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 It's probably best if The Dude does not simultaneously discuss here while discussing it with Stewart there. You agree with that Dude?~modsOkay. I'll stay out as long as I'm not attacked as a typical "countermopologist", as long as my posts in the Pundit thread are not construed as a "diversionary word games," or "smoke and mirrors," etc. etc -- if that happens again, I will simply post a short goodbye. I will only comment further on this thread if I think my position has been misunderstood by thread participants.Understood. We will delete, without warning, personal attacks/slams of The Dude or David Stewart or any other post that we deem inflammatory or gratuitous.We want the discussion to continue in the Pundits forum more than this thread.Argos
asbestosman Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Who Knows:I asked Stewart basically the same questions in my post last night. Let's just see how he responds. I don't think any of us can read his mind.Just so I understand the genetics of the principle ancestor thing, are there so many contributors that no one group has a supermajority for contribution and that the principle group would merely be the largest minority? To use the marbles example it would be like saying you have lots of bags of marbles. You have more red and white marbles combined than you do blue marbles. However, you have more blue marbles than either red or white marbles. I suppose you could extend that further to say that in some bags you have more red marbles than blue marbles and in others you have more white marbles than blue marbles--maybe this is even the case for most of the bags, but you could still have more blue marbles than red or white marbles alone if a few bags had a relatively larger number of blue marbles.Even in that case, I would imagine that we could detect which color of marbles would be the largest marjority if we were to dump all the marbles into a bigger bag. If this were done, would all sides agree that Asian DNA is the largest (potentialy largest minority) contributor? If so wouldn't that leave the only potentially reasonable hypothesis as being a common ancestor (perhaps common Israelite ancestor) for both groups?Or perhaps David Stewart is saying that because of the skewed nature of the bags of marbles our sampling was incorrect and has identified the wrong color marble as the largest minority. Perhaps there is only one more blue marble than red marble but our statistical sample could shouw more red than blue?Hope I'm not detracting too much. I find the statistics much easier to follow than the rest, but still an interesting read. I'll be content to just watch if that is what is preferred.
Hawkmoon Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Can we lock this thread until the Pundits are done punditing? I mean, what seems to happen is every anti-TD comment is being monitored while every pro-TD comment is left to stand as is. For those somewhere in between is serves little purpose-- especially if it leads to the end of the debate. Once it is over I say have at it. Just a thought.
Argos Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 CKS, CI and everyone else.No more comments about the moderation or what Juliann has said or anything else about Juliann. Or The Dude or David Stewar for that matter.This thread is now for discussing the FACTS and ARGUMENTS that are going on in the Pundits' forum. Nothing else.She has agreed to back off. I have not said that she can't post here at all. HOWEVER, I am not going to ask one person to back off and then others pile on.Stop it now.
Argos Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Hawkmoon,I did consider your suggestion and can still do it if necessary. But I'd like to try to keep this thread open. It seems we ought to be able to have a discussion about the points being brought up in the other thread since we can't post there.Let's see what happens.ArgosP.S. Juliann - you did notice that you may still post here - you just volunteered to back off on whatever it was that pushed The Dude's buttons.
juliann Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Oh,Well I came up with this table I hope it helps.
The Dude Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Argos-I second Hawkmoon's suggestion to lock the thread for now (this should not be viewed as "far too solicitous" to my concerns, since Hawkmoon asked for it first.) Some people simply cannot control their urge to challenge your moderating decisions and editorialize about David Stewart, Juliann and myself. The only person who has made a post within your mandate for FACTS and ARGUMENTS was Asbestosman, and he could perhaps start a new thread for discussing genetic principles. Additionally, I would then be able to participate, whereas I have agreed to limit my participation in this thread.[i've cleaned up the thread. We are going to keep it open for now. Argos.]
cksalmon Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 CK, I didn't say all that.You're quite right, Juliann. I'm sorry about that.That is hardly fair to put my name on statements I didnt' say when I've been gagged.It wasn't intentional, just sloppy posting on my part. I didn't differentiate at all between your comments and the last two comments I quoted. Again, sorry. BTW, in deference to the mods, I just deleted the whole thing. Best to you.CKS[Thank you, CKS, your cooperation is appreciated. Argos]
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.