>Article: 796 of bionet.molbio.ageing
>From: woodgold at seismo.emr.ca (Cathy Woodgold)
>I don't know about the first quoted statement, but the second seems to
>be an attempt to approximate what I wrote, so I'm responding. I did not
>make any statement meaning quite the same as either of the quoted statements,
>and I don't think anybody else did, either. If you're going to criticize
>what people say, please try to quote them exactly; criticize what they
>said, not what they didn't say!
If I criticize what people didnt say, then these people have nothing to
feel offended about either!! I have deliberately avoided refering to
articles in order to emphasize the scope of this newsgroup rather
than picking on people. Again, this newsgroup is "bionet.molbio.ageing"
and when I see an article that is far from the topic, I am compelled to
send signals. We are interested in finding the molecular biological
reasons for ageing and I am sure I will find support from those vast
majority of silent readers of this newsgroup. We are not interested
in articles which propose justifications for our ageing or even trying
to define 'scientific objectivity'. I hope this message is taken in the
right spirit and that it does not open a thread of articles.
> If you think I was implying that there are Supernatural Reasons or that
>being killed by Nature is "better", you have misunderstood me. Perhaps I
>didn't express my ideas clearly enough. (Why do people keep misunderstanding
>me? I think this is the second time I've been misunderstood while trying to
>explain the same concept. Am I not explaining it very well, or is it a
>very difficult concept to grasp?)
> Basically, the concept I was working with was that there are a lot
>of fertilized human eggs. A lot of these grow into babies, and a lot
>of them don't. A lot of the ones that don't grow into babies don't grow
into babies because they have seriously defective genes. It is "natural
>selection" that decides which genes are so seriously defective that a
>baby can't result. If you don't understand the concept of "natural selection":
>ask me or somebody else to explain it. Anyway, "natural selection" is NOT
You cannot intimidate someone and also expect them to discuss science.
I dont see any reason for you to feel hurt personally when I had
made a very general comment requesting everyone to stick to "molecular
biology of ageing". If you feel that your original article justified
posting here then you have no reason to respond to my article.
> And once again, I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD THING FOR PEOPLE TO DIE! and please
>stop saying that I'm saying that when I'm not!!
It is statements like the above which reduce the quality of an article.
Pl don't get illusions that SOME PEOPLE ARE POINTING THEIR FINGERS AT YOU,
WHEN THEY ARENT!! We do not discuss such matters. We request you to
provide, as far as possible, quantitative results or computational results
or an exhaustive step-by-step logical argument towards ageing that HAS
NOT been putforth so far. Your article should qualify as a preliminary
scientific result/hypothesis that could become a scientific publication
someday or atleast your article should refer to such work.
I can also provide an example of an incomplete theory:
"Whenever I bent down to pick flowers, my backbone stretches and that
leads to certain genes becoming defective and hence I age!"
I would rate my incomplete theory as non-sense.
Please avoid such discussions. One purpose of posting an article is
to catch the attention of other serious researchers in this topic and
if possible get their serious opinions. You can achieve this by doing
your homework better. If not, we only get a good laugh out of your
posting. If you continue posting such articles, we expand our KILL file.
Read Suresh Rattan's article (#784) for a more useful scientific
discussion as well as for a good example.
Lilly Hall of Life Sciences