🚀 go-pugleaf

On 23 Oct 1998 18:00:50 GMT, yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
wrote:

It's most amusing to look only at Yuri's responses to Peter Ashby:

[...]

>Get yourself a clue, Peter. Can you explain what you're babbling about
>now?

[...]

>I don't care what they read, as long as they also think for themselves.

[...]

>You're clued out. Or intentionally dishonest?

[...]

>False.

[...]

>You're lying.

[...]

>You don't have a clue.

>Here's a very interesting old post from another one of my usual opponents
>who is at least an honest scholar, unlike you.

DejaNews is *so* much fun.  On 26 August - not two months ago! - Yuri
posted in the thread 'Re: historiography and politics' in response to
Peter van Rossum.  It's a long post, so I won't quote the whole thing,
but two short passages are amusing:

Peter:
> but based on what I've seen from you in various ngs. the term
> diffusionist as it is used above fits you very well.

Yuri:
And you're still a liar.

- - -

Peter:
> As Greg already pointed out, he said it in 1989.

Yuri:
Liar.

<end excerpts>

>Enjoy...

>_____________________

Peter van Rossum, responding to Paul Kekai Manansala:

>While genetic studies are a promising area for sorting out the history
>of human evolution and migration I think you are being a bit overly
>optimistic that the "true" answer has been found.  While Cann has
>hypothesized that her genetic analyses are more consistent with a direct
>Polynesia/South American contact hypothesis, this is not a firm conclusion
>yet. 	

>Cann, R.L. & J.K. Lum
>  1996 "Mitochondrial Myopia: Reply to Bonatto et al." American Journal
>       of Human Genetics vol 59, no. 1.

And Yuri, reading a text that only he can see, comments:

>It is clear to Peter van Rossum, who is certainly no fan of Heyerdahl,
>that Cann and other's work provides support for Heyerdahl.

Perhaps, but that isn't at all what he said: 'Cann has hypothesized
that ...' is far from 'Cann's work clearly provides support for ...'.

> It provides
>some good support, although perhaps no final proof as yet, of Heyerdahl's
>theories.
>
>Dishonest hacks like Ashby cannot change these simple facts.

A dishonest hack would write:

>It is clear to Peter van Rossum, who is certainly no fan of Heyerdahl,
>that Cann and other's work provides support for Heyerdahl.

An honest scientist would write: 'It is clear that Cann views her
analyses as supporting a direct Polynesia/SA contact hypothesis'.

Brian M. Scott