A plea

If you think he "came out swinging," you really need to read the thread.

Not only was he asking very pertinent questions, but when people repeatedly appeared to misunderstand, he continued to explain what he meant very patiently and courteously. I'm not surprised he lost his temper. I would have lost mine much sooner. There are few things more frustrating than people repeatedly appearing to misunderstand clear statements - but continuing to respond to them in a dogmatic manner.

Now Tim says he is just a layperson who has never professed expertise, and it would be better to ask an expert.

I go into detail in my response to him in Max’s thread. But yeah, calling someone you just met “prejudiced” and telling him to “get a grip” is not exactly a nice presentation card, even before going on to question his IQ.

Edit: Yeah, at least Tim is honest about that. But, I would be wary of someone whose very first action is an appeal to authority-including “researcher” in his username-... Someone who also claims to be an expert in human intelligence... Only to show some (very) juvenile tendencies shortly afterwards.

[Laird]

I think maybe the creation of this thread has done more harm than good.

It seems so. It's probably a good time for combatants to start trying to disengage... unless this flamewar is achieving something that I'm missing.

It's as if you're incapable of posting anything without contradicting yourself.

"E. Flowers did a splendid job on that."

That following your confused "ad populum" claim in response to my noting that you hadn't dealt with the reasons that Laird and I gave for disagreeing with you. Somehow, it's fine for you to uncritically invoke what someone else has said as if doing that were an "argument." But if I simply direct you to the reasons Laird and I offered against your view, that's "ad populum." Unreal.

Read the definition of ad populum, High-IQ Researcher. Anyhow, I wasted enough time on this non-subject. Would gladly disengage. 

And again, complete blindness to what prompted my response.

I note, yet again, the flagrant hypocrisy in your repeated objections to my making unflattering claims about someone I "just met," and yet you go right ahead and do that yourself, over and over.

And again, Tim was being civil when you began that low key mud slinging that provoked him. By the time that I made my comment, you were already flailing around and trying to convince people of your superiority.

Do learn to manage context, it’s bound to be helpful if you ever do field work.

This has turned into perhaps one of the worst and most useless threads on this site (not Chris’s fault, obviously). I’m a little confused by the lack of accountability on both sides here. PR started name calling fairly aggressively and it didn’t, in my opinion, take very much, though I understand his/her frustration. Additionally, Chris, I get that you’re saying you understand why PR lost temper, but your version of losing temper and PR’s are not remotely similar. The two sides here seem to believe neither side did anything that could really be criticized. Or they lightly say “oh, my bad” then say something indicating they don’t really feel that way. 

We all know tim feels strongly about the Pam Reynolds case, so I suppose from my POV I didn’t read much that I thought was so worthy of the show that has followed it. In any event, I wish both parties would just say “yeah, I could’ve done better” and moved on. Enrique, I think the way you’re handling things isn’t helping. This thread has devolved immensely, though the original thread devolve does plenty first.

If you think he "came out swinging," you really need to read the thread.

Not only was he asking very pertinent questions, but when people repeatedly appeared to misunderstand, he continued to explain what he meant very patiently and courteously. I'm not surprised he lost his temper. I would have lost mine much sooner. There are few things more frustrating than people repeatedly appearing to misunderstand clear statements - but continuing to respond to them in a dogmatic manner.

Now Tim says he is just a layperson who has never professed expertise, and it would be better to ask an expert.

What do you mean I now say I am a layperson who has never professed expertise ? I've never said I was anything other than a layperson, so what ? If I'd told you I was a consultant neurosurgeon or anaesthesiologist, it wouldn't make any difference, you'd still say the information I've presented is wrong.   

As I've said before, your avatar describes you down to a tee. You are strange, touchy and self righteous with a giant chip on your shoulder.

For the mods' sake, particularly Laird's, I won't be posting further in this thread.

The case happened in 1991. All that there is to be discovered about it, has been by now. If you are not happy with the facts, then contact the surgeons yourself like we did. Examine his published paper and publish whatever you can find, by all means.