[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 138, Issue 3

[John Grehan]

Richard,

 In response to your assertion that “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” I would say that it's
only a mistake if you are correct, but my inference was based on your
frequent use of allegations and personal characterizations such as those
below.

Perhaps nowadays these kinds of expressions are considered appropriate for
scientific discussion and discourse. If that is the case then I guess I am
truly an anachronism. I would not dream of responding in this kind of
discourse even for some professional colleagues who have published calls
for the work of some of my colleagues and I to be banned from publication.
I think it is better to keep public discourse polite and respectful, not
matter how much I may be in disagreement over the subject issues - mate.

“He acts more in the manner of a cunning psychopath

Make no mistake about it, he can be as cunning as a house rat, so only a
fool would under-estimate him. He is more like a street-smart bully boy
that thrusts his narcissistic needs onto anyone within range

 He just seems to have become fixated with such a bias towards his own
agenda that he is starting  to go on like a bit of a dill over Hoser.

Thomson should really stick to his Don Quixote-like path to his dream of
becoming a Commissioner of the ICZN sometime before the year 2100

Also consider the ramblings of that leading light Commissioner of the ICZN
Dr Doug Yanega whenever he tries to bitch-slap Hoser – just pathetic

He treats Hoser and anyone else who intimately knows the Code as though
they are complete idiots

Doug, have you ever thought of becoming a waiter mate?

 idiotic plans and actions to actually rename taxa and redo or uncritically
ignore his nomenclatural acts. Piling the shit higher and deeper does not
fix the sewer - it only serves to spread the stink further.”

John Grehan



On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Richard Wells <envirodata at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>