• FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines (2/2)

    From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to Michael Moroney on Sat Jan 2 07:36:05 2021
    [continued from previous message]

    Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.math, sci.physics 
From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> 
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:08:57 -0700 
Local: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:08 am 
Subject: Is Dr. Young (California emeritus) trying to steal the 

    Stonethrowing theory from Archimedes Plutonium; ethics about 
referencing the Internet vis a vis science journals 
 
Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", 
Archimedes Plutonium 
Internet book published 2002-2007 (
    assimilated in March 2007 in 
sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) 
############################## 
J Ant. 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. 
Copyright © Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2003 
Evolution of the human hand:
    the role of throwing and clubbing 
Richard W Young 
Editor-in-chief 
Gillian M. Morriss-Kay 
University of Oxford 
E-mail: gillian.morriss-...@anat.ox.ac.uk 
Managing Editor 
Edward Fenton 
E-mail: ja...@anat.ox.ac.uk 
Receiving Editors
    
Julia Clarke 
North Carolina State University 
E-mail: Julia_Cla...@ncsu.edu 
--- quoting from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571064 
Journal of Anatomy 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. 
Evolution of the human hand:
    the role of throwing and clubbing 
Richard W Young 
Correspondence Dr Richard W. Young, 2913 Hollyridge Drive, Los 
Angeles, CA 90068, USA. 
Accepted November 22, 2002. 
Abstract 
It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a
    group of 
chimpanzee-like apes 
began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this 
behavior yielded 
reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural 
selection for improved throwing 
and clubbing prowess. 
---
    - end quoting ---- 
----------------- quoting old post -------------- 
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.logic 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:24:18 -0500 
Local: Mon, Aug 12 2002 7:24 am 

    Subject: Logic applied to Anthropology 
(most snipped to save space) 
This accurate stone-thrower would thus create a Hominid species in 
Asia 
from the Orangutan line and almost simultaneously create a different 
Hominid species in Africa from
    the Chimpanzee line. Perhaps another 
Hominid species created from the Gorilla line. 
------------------ end quoting old post ---------------- 
Finally, in December of that same year 2002, spurred by the TV show 
talking about Orrorin found in
    Kenya by Pickford and others, gave 
me the impetus to develop the Stonethrowing theory in full force. 
---------------- quoting old post 
------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.
    anthropology 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> 
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:02:43 -0600 
Local: Wed, Dec 11 2002 3:02 am 
Subject: Ourran man of Kenya "Secrets of the Dead" found by Martin & 
Brigitte 
I hope I got the
    spellings correct. Wanted to post this while still 
fresh on the mind after watching 2 or 3 Tuesday programs on the TV 
with NOVA, Secrets of the Dead. Tuesday night seems to be turning 
out as the best night for science on the TV. 
Anyway, I
    post this because recently I came up with my own theory of 
Anthropology which basically says that the evolution of humans was 
primarily one major aspect-- stonethrowing. Stonethrowing, according 
to my theory, created the human and prehuman
    species. Stonethrowing 
created bipedalism for primates. So I was anxious to hear about 
Ourran 
man as discovered by Martin and Brigitte in Kenya. Ourran man was 
also called the Millenium Man since he was found in year 2000. Ourran 
man is
    dated to 6 million years old. 
I was rather struck by what theory in anthropology was held before. 
The theory that the Savannahs of Africa increased, forests lost and 
this increase in savannah gave rise to the theory that savannahs 
caused
    bipedalism. 
If you do not mind me saying so, but I think the Savannah mechanism 
is 
a stupid sort of theory to posit as the cause for bipedalism. 
According to my theory, bipedalism goes hand in hand (forgive the 
pun) 
with stonethrowing.
    Increasing stonethrowing puts demands on the body 
anatomy to be more bipedal. 
And then this program of Secrets of the Dead had Mr. Johanson and 
Martin and Brigitte announce a new theory for bipedalism. They looked 
at orangutans and think that
    specific height of trees places a demand 
for Ourran to sort of walk bipedally in parts of the tree canopy. 
Again, if you don't mind me saying but that is rather a stupid sort 
of 
theory. 
There should be a reverse Occam's Razor that says if
    given various 
competing 
theories, choice the theory which is the strongest theory. And quite 
clearly, the 
stonethrowing mechanism giving rise to bipedalism is the strongest 
theory. 
I was curious to see if Martin and Brigitte turned up
    any stones in 
their digs for 
Ourran Man. I suspect that neither Martin nor Brigitte are skilled 
enough in 
detecting stones used by Ourran Man. I feel confident that if a more 
skilled team 
were working in Kenya in the vicinity of Ourran
    Man that many stones 
used by 
Ourran Man would be discovered. 
Now, there was one piece of evidence in this program that casts 
dispersions upon 
my stonethrowing theory. The evidence that Ourran Man had rather 
curved 
fingers for use in
    tree climbing and swinging. I suppose apes and 
monkeys have 
curved fingers. Curved fingers would not mesh well with 
stonethrowing. 
How do I reconcile that evidence? I can reconcile it by saying that 
the 
curved 
fingers of Ourran were
    not Ourran's fingers but that of a ape or 
monkey 
and that 
Martin and Brigitte wrongly ascribed those fingers to Ourran when 
they 
were not. 
Or, I can say that the disappearance of curved fingers was a long 
gradual process 
just as
    brow anatomy changes took a long time. That curved fingers 
were 
not an 
impediment in stonethrowing but that as time went on, the 
stonethrowing 
demands eliminated the curved fingers altogether so that by the time 
of 
Lucy 
of 2
    million years ago, curved fingers were absent altogether in 
stonethrowers. 
Is there any evidence that Ourran was a stonethrower from the 
anatomy? 
I would say quite definitively yes in the fact of the teeth structure 
was half 
and half
    vegetarian and meateating. Ourran's teeth resemble modern 
humans teeth to a large extent and that would indicate alot of meat 
in 
the 
diet. 
So I think that if Ourran Man is studied in more detail in the future 
it will be discovered that
    the site has many Ourran stones used for 
stonethrowing and that Ourran was mostly a stonethrowing predator. 
Archimedes Plutonium, a_pluton...@hotmail.com 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots 
of the electron-dot-cloud are
    galaxies 
----------------- end quoting old posts----------------------------- 
---- quoting Dr. Young on bipedalism in his January 2003 publication 
--- 
"Improved dynamic upright balance on more powerful legs and resilient 
feet in the
    service of throwing and clubbing would have made upright 
locomotion more efficient, leading to its increasing use and 
eventually 
culminating in habitual bipedalism. (Several other unique human 
anatomical and behavioural features can also be
    accounted for by 
this approach: Young, 2002)." 
--- end quoting Dr. Young --- 
############################################# 
Since I am lately "on about" intellectual property rights of 
scientists, about priority of discovery 
and about
    that of proper referencing and giving credit to where 
credit 
is due. The realm of intellectual 
discovery is an arena in which new ideas come very infrequently and 
especially important new ideas. 
So this arena is fiercely competitive and
    sometimes even highly 
dishonest. University "professors" are 
graded by their community by the number of publications and 
especially 
publications with "new ideas". 
So it is easy to see and understand that intellectual discoveries and 

    property rights is not something 
to dismiss or take lightly. 
In the case of Don Wortzman over the "Atom Universe" or "Atom 
Totality", there is suspicious behavior 
as to Don's dating where he has the year 19100. Does he mean the year 
"2000"?
    Or is the year 19100 
a way of undermining or subterfuging the date of Archimedes 
Plutonium's date of discovery? And another 
facet of Don Wortzman's "Atom Universe" is that it is only posted to 
a 
website but websites are 
notorious for
    not having a verifiable date, since author of a website 
can claim any date they wish. 
Another upsetting feature of Don Wortzman's website and that of Dr. 
Young's website on Stonethrowing 
is that they appear before Archimedes Plutonium's
    website on the 
theories involved. I say upsetting in that 
Don Wortzman has about a couple of pages on Atom Universe whereas 
Archimedes Plutonium has 
about 3,000 Internet posts on Atom Universe, yet Google search engine 
delivers Don
    Wortzman's site 
before Archimedes Plutonium. The same thing goes for Dr. Young's 
article on Stonethrowing yet 
Archimedes Plutonium has written thousands of pages on Stonethrowing 
theory and yet Google search 
delivers Young's first. 
I
    emailed several of the editors of the journal in which Dr. Young 
published his comments on Stonethrowing 
theory. I emailed Gillian M. Morriss-Kay and he replied that he had 
to 
go on a trip and would answer me 
when he returned, but I never
    received a answer. 
Basically what upsets me about Dr. Young's journal article and Dr. 
Gillian M. Morriss-Kay is that their 
journal does not have in place the ability to see if the Internet has 
had information that needs to be 
referenced by
    the authors of upcoming articles to be published. 
If someone, like Dr. Young, had read sci.anthropology in year 2002, 
and read my posts about Stonethrowing 
theory would have been the basis for Dr. Young's 
(1) chimpanzee-like apes 
(2) how
    stonethrowing drove the evolution of ape-like becoming human 
(3) and what Dr. Young calls "habitual bipedalism" 
So all three of those concepts were covered by me on the Internet in 
year 2002, and then in 2003 comes 
out the Dr. Young
    publication in the journal. 
So I had Dr. Young's ideas covered one year earlier or before that of 
his journal article. 
What I am upset about is that the editors of the journal will not 
reference the Internet posts of 2002. 
I simply asked
    Gillian M. Morriss-Kay to reference that 2003 article 
by Dr. Young with a reference to 
my 2002 posts to the Internet. 
I have the priority of discovery of those ideas, beating Dr. Young by 
one year. 
I think the Internet was "too new" and
    still is rather new to the 
journal publication way of doing science. 
And that many editors feel the Internet has few if any worthy posts 
that need be referenced. And that the 
Internet, to these old time editors, is a medium which can be 

    ransacked of ideas and not requiring any 
reference to the Internet once the ideas are plucked and later 
published in a hardcover journal. 
Whether Dr. Young was reading my posts in year 2002 about 
Stonethrowing theory and subsequently used 

    my ideas and never referenced me, is besides the point. The point is 
that those ideas appeared first on 
the Internet in 2002, and then later in year 2003 the same ideas 
appeared in a journal. 
So what I was asking of Gillian M. Morriss-Kay was
    to print a 
reference to my 2002 posts on Stonethrowing 
theory in a upcoming edition of this journal, much like what most 
newspapers such as the New York Times 
has as a "correction section" where they correct past mistakes. 
I have written
    an entire book on the subject of Stonethrowing theory 
which if all my posts were assembled 
would be probably a thousand pages or more. 
So it is high time that science journals realize that the Internet 
science newsgroups have to be watched 

    and referenced as per new ideas. And that some scientists read the 
newsgroups and are tempted to 
steal ideas from others and then reword the ideas and publish in a 
journal pretending as though they 
discovered those new ideas. 
The very nice
    thing about the Internet is that the ideas are all date 
time grouped. There is no question that 
I posted those ideas in 2002, whereas the journal in which Dr. Young 
published has few date-time group 
verifiability. 
Science journals and
    journal editors have to get used to the idea 
that 
the Internet is just as good as their 
journal itself as far as "doing science" and in many facets of doing 
science, the Internet is superior to the old 
hardcover journals such as the facet
    of "speed". No journal can 
compete with the Internet as to "speed" of 
getting the news out. 
I suspect Gillian M. Morriss-Kay thinks I have no case against Dr. 
Young and for that reason he never 
bothered to answer my email. But the case is
    important and the case 
is 
about science journals that have 
not grown up yet and matured yet to realize that the Internet is a 
valid medium of reporting science, especially 
new ideas in science and that the old journals must adapt to 

    reference 
the Internet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)