keeping my word for Salty

Hi Scott,
I think salty will go to other boards regardless and declare that nobody has addressed his points. For example nosivads posts at ARN are cut-n-pastes of what he has posted here as are his responses to the likes of the Pixie who did not just fall down in awe.Another distinction is that salty does not ask questions. He mostly posts 2 sentence assertions that are identical except for word order. Or claims he is leaving forever only to post about 5 minutes later. thus he cannot go to other boards and claim nobody answered the question...what is the question in "Grasse would agree with me?"I don't care if he is here and I also don't mind if people answer him..I have been doing so for over a month now. But it is really annoying when an interesting thread gets derailed with his contentless drivel.mods re-directing the posts would be useful.cheers,
M

Mammuthus, my large hairy friend, I replied to your use of "things have gone too far" because it was the most recent in a series of posts by administrators suggesting that people leave salty alone. For the reasons stated previously I believe this to be unwise.I suggest the simplest way to deal with salty's contentless posts is to say "provide supporting evidence and then we'll talk". It does not leave the interested reader with the wrong impression. However I notice that one of salty's posts has been deleted. I wonder if this will bring cries of "Darwinist censorship" from him?

Hi wj,
I think salty will cry about Darwin for the rest of his life
The deleting has been even handed, SLPx had a post deleted, Taz as well, one of mine was...and it was made clear that the posts were deleted for being off topic and not having substance. salty is still free to post.Anyway, my guess is he will continue to cut and paste the same posts for the forseeable future but with varying intensity and frequency...I noticed that since I was offline the last few days, he seems to have piped down a bit cheers,
M

quote:

---

What produces a chimp or a human probably has very little to do with their respective DNAs which indeed are virtually identical. More likely, the differences result from chromosomal restructuring of identical genetic loci as first suggested by Goldschmidt. It was considerations like these that led me to postulate the semi-meiotic hypothesis

---

Goldschmidt has an excuse - developmental genes and non-developmental genes that affect development were largely unknown in his day. He died decades before it was discovered, for example, that a single point mutation in the FGF-3 receptor can cause achondroplasia.Others, writing at a time in which such things are known, do not have such an excuse.