dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/29/85)
"First and most important is the fact that mankind _is_ a kind..." George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man". Science, 152, 22 April 1966, page 474. Thought you'd enjoy this...No flames!! -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/29/85)
> > "First and most important is the fact that mankind _is_ a kind..." > > George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man". > Science, 152, 22 April 1966, page 474. > > Thought you'd enjoy this...No flames!! > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- Hmmm..... I guess we're bound to. Creationists can gloat over another example of evolutionist duplicity. The rest of us will simply note that no detailed response is necessary. Your title is rebuttal enough. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/30/85)
>> >> "First and most important is the fact that mankind _is_ a kind..." >> >> George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man". >> Science, 152, 22 April 1966, page 474. >> >> Thought you'd enjoy this...No flames!! >> | >> Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > [Ethan Vishniac] > Hmmm..... I guess we're bound to. Creationists can gloat over another > example of evolutionist duplicity. The rest of us will simply note that > no detailed response is necessary. Your title is rebuttal enough. For crying out loud, Ethan. Wasn't it obviously ("awbviously"?) a non-serious posting? I didn't accuse Simpson of duplicity, nor did I intend to. And you're right, no response was necessary, and the title was intended to indicate that it WASN'T an attempt to discredit Simpson. Jeepers. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/04/85)
> >> > >> "First and most important is the fact that mankind _is_ a kind..." > >> > >> George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man". > >> Science, 152, 22 April 1966, page 474. > >> > >> Thought you'd enjoy this...No flames!! > >> | > >> Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > > > [Ethan Vishniac] > > Hmmm..... I guess we're bound to. Creationists can gloat over another > > example of evolutionist duplicity. The rest of us will simply note that > > no detailed response is necessary. Your title is rebuttal enough. > > For crying out loud, Ethan. Wasn't it obviously ("awbviously"?) a > non-serious posting? I didn't accuse Simpson of duplicity, nor did > I intend to. And you're right, no response was necessary, and the title > was intended to indicate that it WASN'T an attempt to discredit > Simpson. Jeepers. > > -- > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | > | You're right. Sorry about that. Family pride. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas