[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 138, Issue 3

[Richard Wells]

John,


Please take this in the most peaceful, polite and non-confrontationist way possible: To infer that my use of language is on a par with that of Hoser is garbage and is in itself on a par with Hoser actually. So please don't make that mistake again, its not a good look for your grasp of the English language mate. Under normal circumstances I would be rather hurt by your assertion that I was demeaning, emotional and vitriolic in my note, and I will try to understand why you think this. But yes, I most certainly CAN be demeaning, emotional and vitriolic but rest assured I have not be that at all. I am actually a rather sensitive soul that cares deeply for those I love and who love me (Hoser is in neither category) and I thought that my softer side was obvious in the piece...Oh well, I guess I better get to an anger management class - after the huge cue of taxonomists already at the door is treated first. I'm actually running late for my regular Bruce Lee Appreciation Club Meeting so I must go now. One more quick point.

On a brighter note, I think you are at least partly correct in your knee-jerk overview of my (actually brief) comments - By all means workers could decide to use his taxonomy and nomenclature or not, based upon the evidence at hand - that's the way to go....you're right, it's so simple - or at least it was, or at least would have been, or should have been...But this is a moving feast now so who knows how it will play out? However, there is a not-so-obvious alternative strategy that could be used against Hoser that would not require altering the Code, or misusing the Code, or ignoring the Code, that seems to have escaped everyone's attention...but I'll leave it to all you pacifists in the Game to work it out (can you hear my laughter at the chance of that happening?).


Yours Unvitriotically, Unemotionally, and more so Hilariously,


Richard Wells



________________________________



Message: 5
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 12:07:24 -0400
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The Hoser Problem and Cash for Names: Can
        taxonomic and nomenclatural acts be considered IP under law?
Message-ID:
        <CADN0ud2FT9-gHxsWf=bKUgtNH8QZrD21qv9N815LYT8BwZdSSA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Seems to me that Richard Wells expresses the same kind of demeaning
language as Hoser. There is certainly a lot of emotion tied up in this
particular matter. As far as I can distil out of the long ramble is that
Wells suggests that any attempt to formally curtail or constrain Hosers
taxonomic acts would be to invite future litigation. Since I am not a
herpetologist I have not been able to keep track in my mind of all the ins
and outs so maybe miss the obvious. It still seems to me that one can use
or not Hoser's taxonomic acts and leave it at that. Or am I being too
simplistic? I am just an ignorant bystander. I would add, perhaps
redundantly, that Well's vitriol seems quite indistinguishable from
Hoser's. Perhaps someone could compete with Angry Birds by designing an
Angry Taxonomists Game?

John Grehan