No. -- What is happening here is that you don't like that I think you are never positing Propositions statements that we can address as true or false. You do not build something we can test. What you do is called "error detection", which is something akin to setting arguments that call into question the premises by which others are trying to make a conclusion(to be fair with you, I think you are changing that). This error detection comes across as unfair in a subject that nobody really and truly knows much . - That is what you call impolite, that is what annoys you
and ... No, you do not have the privilege to define how I express myself. You may end up having the power to ban me, but never prevent me from expressing the way I see fit. You or angela or anyone else for that matter. - So be ready.
Welcome to the world of science (or at least people who value science), what you call error detection is nothing but your peers pointing out flaws in your reasoning and demonstrating the greatest quality of science, which is that it constantly improves itself by being falsifiable and open to criticism. Of course that does not apply to people who have their pet theories and defend them against any counter-evidence or criticism whatsoever, and that is precisely why you'll end up screwing your own theory, because it is not open to "error detections" and therefore will never get the chance to be refined and improved. What you think is a flaw of mine ("never positing propositions") is actually just a result of my being humble and realistic enough to know my limits and to understand that at least for now I should learn and read, with critical thinking, much more than propose and make conclusions.
I am also down to earth enough to not believe way too much in an entire "scientific hypothesis" created out of my own amateur knowledge about archaeology and population genetics. I have my personal guesses and hunches about what I think is more likely to be true on many issues that haven't been established by science yet,
however I won't be as bold as to create and insist on a pet theory of mine, even without broad support from
actual scientists, that I would then keep trying to force to fit to any genetic and archaeological study that is published. Unlike you, I know perfectly well who I am and how qualified I am on population genetics, so yes, I have much more intellectual conditions to make "error detection" (because I know the conclusions and data of scientic papers well enough to detect when someone is saying things that do not match up with what
actual studies have shown) than to make
ad hoc presumably scientific propositions that are nothing but speculations (yes, because a scientific hypothesis needs much more serious - and not online - scientific resarch). But at least I know that my speculations are... well... speculations until we gather much, much more genetic data, especially in terms of aDNA.
Now, this issue with you is over. The next time you even insinuate someone is crazier than you (even though nobody had called you crazy, so it's funny you yourself acknowledge that) you'll get an infraction, and you may whine about your freedom of expression or whatever, that will change nothing. You're free to say whatever you want... but you're not exempt from the consequences thereof, especially as you are in a private forum. I do not have the privilege to define how you express youself - HOWEVER you also do not have the privilege to force other people to put up with your lack of civilized behavior and respect for others. So you're free to be completely free elsewhere if you want to. Here you will have to obey some rules, otherwise you'll be out. It's as simple as that.
Now let's go back to the original subject of this thread.
).
