YOU: Whats that make you, a pharmacist?
ME NOW: There you go again, making an INCORRECT inference. No--I am not a pharmacist, but would not be ashamed if I were one. Not only are you wrong AGAIN, but you show your prejudice agaist someone you think is not as bright as you are, or perhaps does not make as much money as you. Shame on you.
ME: When politics drives pronouncements based on contradictory data it ceases to be science. Stephen Jay Gould is the mother of all anthropology/evolution liars. They disregard contradictory evidence (and there is much).
YOU: Don't know about Mr. Gould, his research practices, or whether he's a liar, or not. I suspect you may have some shortcomings of your own regarding contradictory evidence.
ME NOW: If you do not know who Gould is then you cannot be very well read in this subject matter. The scientific method (which--if you are not schooled in science please look up) advances by looking at data and putting forth hypotheses which can be falsified by experiments. Unfortunately, much in the way of paleoanthropological data CANNOT be falsified and therefore must remain quite speculative. I do NOT ignore good data; if I did, the whole basis of my worldview and intellectual honesty would be BS. This I will not do wherever the facts take me...this is why I rail against the pc pseudo-scientists. And BTW: there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that humanity emerged from Africa. What the debate about has to do with details and timing.
ME: Further, I infer from your question that you think I have an ulterior motive in lambasting this lunacy, i.e., I am a racist.
YOU: I didn't think you were a racist, but I had a suspicion. Glad to hear from you that such is not the case. Racist posts give credence to liberals, who wish to give this forum a bad name.
ME NOW: Well...merely having a problem with PC data makes you suspicious that I am a racist. Some advice: before you do that to a poster on this or any other forum, check out their other posts to see if there is a pattern. Another illustration of the scientific method of checking out an hypothesis (i.e., "suspicion").
ME: You, perhaps are a liberal. Read more on the subject starting with the site I linked.
YOU: Sorry I can't reinforce your particular prejudices, but I'd probably be considered middle right by everyone except evangelicals (no disrespect to fundementalists intended) Ideologues can also give this forum a bad name.
ME NOW: Goodness: everything gives this forum a bad name except you. Any nosebleeds atop that high horse?
ME: You do not sound like a mensch to me.
YOU: Yawn... Howcome everyone with whom I have the temerity to question, arrives at the same conclusion, stated more or less the same way? I do, or do not, agree with you hence I am, or am not, a Mensch?
ME NOW: Okay--this may be difficult for you so I will type s-l-o-w-l-y: You did NOT "question" me on facts or substance; you questioned my MOTIVES and implied a racist undertone to my post. That is acting like a liberal and therefore I assumed if it walks like a duck, etc. Have a pleasant PC day.