[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 138, Issue 3

Sun Oct 8 03:22:02 CDT 2017

Hi again John,

To repeat - I can find nothing in my note that is anywhere near the base language used by Hoser - although I can readily admit that I am not as skilled in the gentle art of writing as others would prefer. Some topics can really bring me to the boil so to speak and as hard as I try, I just can't resist a tinge of criticism at times, so sorry if I hit a nerve or two on some points. That my writing can also ooze a subtle under-current of displeasure on some matters is probably more obvious to others than me, so again sorry if you felt a little uneasy at some of the things I have said - but that's more an issue for you to handle I think than me anyway. But what I always try to tone down of course is my hideous tendency to soak some of the more serious points in acidic sarcasm and this can really distract some of the more sensitive readers from my main intention of getting their brains working.  Those who really pay close attention to what I write, may also detect a subtle humorous twist or two cunningly embedded within an argument but I am not trying to be trite or insulting (well maybe a bit) - it is just a method I use to get to the guts of an issue - the sort of in-your-face tactic used in Stanley Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange' where humour was used to highlight unpleasant acts of extremism.  It's very powerful, but can of course make the squeamish vomit if it takes them by surprise. Subtle overtones of annoyance in a critique can also obscure important points with some readers but also highlight them with others - it's a tough gig writing for a tough crowd - but I do my best to keep a civil tone. But your points taken as intended, and thank you for being so polite.

Regards

Richard

________________________________
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 8 October 2017 1:56 PM
To: Richard Wells
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 138, Issue 3

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<mailto: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<mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com>>
To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.