proximity1

My point--which I thought I'd put clearly--is that Obama, being, indeed, "to the right of where Ronald Reagan would be were he alive and governing today," is also, at the same time, the extreme limit on the "Left" as far as the nation's practical political order is concerned. And, yes, if that strikes you as outrageous, I think it ought to. But it seems to me that it is true. Where, please, is there any actual and effective opposition to Barack Obama and his Clinton-ista cohort of appointees and advisors? And, who, please, do you expect to see annointed as the inevitable successor to Obama at the end of this second term 10 2016 if it is not Her-Highness-in-Waiting, Hilary Rodham Clinton, loyal and patient servant to the current pseudo-Democrat, the "Compromiser-in-Chief," Barack Obama?

Here's an extremely abbreviated form of my argument's main points-- I hope that it will be obvious why they're important. 1.) Obama has apparently reasoned (from very early in his first term, too, by the way) , and it appears, reasoned correctly, that there is simply no one to the left of him on the political spectrum whose views, opinions, count and must be taken into account. Before his re-election, I'd have disputed that. Now, it seems to me that the vote has proven his view correct beyond any doubt. 2.) That means in practical terms that his policy views and how to negotiate them with the so-called opposition are matters which he may work out according to his own precepts as they seem valid and useful for his political interests and career. There is now no reason for Obama to give the slightest hearing to anyone arguing a view which falls further to the Left of what he may happen to approve. This means that those who are counting on Obama's feeling now "free" to loose his "inner-Liberal" are in for a very rude awakening--unless I'm very much mistaken, the entire lesson of the first term is that no such inner liberal exists --now or previously. 3.) Taking 1.) and 2.) together, the upshot is simple: I hope you are happy with Barack Obama as the now outer-limits of what constitutes the Liberal end of the political spectrum because, dear Obama voters, he is it now and there may be something else you haven't counted on.... 4.) I have yet to see or hear any compelling case for why those forces which have so spectacularly succeeded in shoving the "Left" more and more to the "Right" should now suspend or abandon those efforts as being complete. If anyone can show me that compelling reasoning, I'd be very interested in reading it. 5.) Thus, it ought to follow that what's been such a great success--shoving what in the U.S. passes for the "Left" more and more to the "Right" is going to proceed and gain more ground at the direct expense of things--political principles and the policies which rely on them--held, or once believed to be held dear by the "Left." Generally, virtually everything that has occurred in and since the presidency of Bill Clinton has been, it ought to have been recognized and understood, in effect an unmistakable signal that there is no resistance from the "Left"--or, indeed, for that matter, no political resistance in the U.S. from any political quarter if by that one means popular as opposed to elite segments of the population. And, it is really this situation which is fundamentally the most serious for this analysis. It amounts to a de facto civic resignation from the realm of electoral politics--though, it is true, that this "resignation" was very brutally forced if one gives due account for all the time, money and meticulous effort that has been, over forty or fifty years, been expended on this and related goals. The American public, willingly or unwillingly, has been so debased, so demoralized, that the practical result is that the constellation of political interests which organized great wealth constitutes, now can say with complete accuracy, "We now have built and wholly-own the political and the electoral 'playing field', tailor-made to our own interests." I don't deny that in many respects these points are not exactly new or recent. I do, however, think that it is now implanted firmly in a way that heretofore had not been so unquestionably the case. And, I submit that this state of affairs is supremely dangerous for the future of the nation as a place where the terms "freedom" and "liberty" have any meaningful existence. Once the political and the electoral systems are made into completely bogus operations, where, in effect, one narrow set, (one class, really though Americans have been assiduously schooled to disbelieve in the reality and the importance of "classes" and "class interests", with disastrous effects) owns and operates the entire political apparatus from the local to the national level, then there is nothing left to stop or hinder the complete dismantlement of each and every article of civil rights and liberties---a process already now quite advanced and a process to which Barack Obama himself, however little it may be recognized or understood--has contributed a very significant share of the effort. We got here, though, through a long process; one in which a former cohort of citizen voters who'd have represented the Left-ward opposition of a Barack Obama has been in one way or another eliminated or has been co-opted into a more center and right-wing set of voters. That is why any effort to reverse and recover what has been lost and to preserve from further loss what little remains of a civic order that had some semblances of democratic principles and practices requires a recovery, a rehabilitation of that lost segment of the civic public.

Okay. I can't locate the error in the poll's configuration and so can't "fix it". Sorry 'bout that. On the other hand, those who aren't averse to "voting" via a post (which implies no anonymity, it's true,) could do so in the thread itself, huh? True. I eliminated those "&"s as being perhaps prohibited in the field or upsetting the configuration. If it works, I'm content with this form. We can drop the extra data point indicating how respondants actually voted or not in the election--though I'd have found that interesting to see.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I understand what you mean because I haven't loaded the poll as a "user" but I amended it to allow multiple choices--does that fix it? I'll try opening the poll as a respondant and see what I get. thanks for the tip.

There is, of course, more than one way to read the consequences of the re-election of Barack Obama. As one who found reasons to favor his defeat, even while agreeing that Romney and his party are not an acceptable alternative, I am at this point considering whether, and if so, how, to broach this subject here. My argument has to be addressed to those who see Obama's re-election as either entirely salutary or at least the best of all practical possibilities and who see few or no negatives attending it. That is because it's now clear that, without some successful work on recapturing a now-lost-segment of the electorate, there can be no recovery of anything "to the Left of Obama"—something that is a now non-existent species of citizen-voter. Obama now embodies the extreme Left-ward limits of the real-world political spectrum. My case concerns why that is and ought to be seen as a truly devastating development by many who voted without qualms for Obama's re-election. While I see (as someone who is very much to the Left of him) important negatives in the re-election of Obama, my experience in this site leads me to doubt the usefulness of my first spending much time and trouble to write up in detail those negatives before sounding out what the reception to that effort would be. Are there those here who support Obama and yet who'd be interested in reading and discussing the contrary case which holds that this election outcome augers yet more very serious ill for the nation?

Then, if American, this reading selection puts you in a very select minority. You read both much more (in book form, which, for me, means "reading" as opposed to surfing the internet (including, even, "reading" such sites as this one, which I don't qualify as what I mean by reading) and much more widely than the average person does--since the average American doesn't read any books at all, of any kind, ever in a single year. Thanks for your answer.

For documentary films, try here: http://icarusfilms.c...s/middle_e.html Even better, for your reading, I recommend one of France's foremost contemporary experts on the middle east--for his wide and long views of the history and politics: see, (in English translations from original french) A history of the Middle East : from antiquity to the present day / Georges Corm ; translated by Hala Khawam / http://lccn.loc.gov/2010549017 Fragmentation of the Middle East : the last thirty years ; Georges G. Corm ; translated by Selina Cohen, Raj Isar, and Margaret Owen / http://lccn.loc.gov/89115618 and, finally, this one by Gilles Kepel, another renowned middle east observer in France, originally titled Fitna , in the french edition, it's available in an english translation, The War for Muslim Minds , : Islam and the West ; translated by Pascale Ghazaleh. http://lccn.loc.gov/2004050474 ------------------------- I suggest that you keep in mind that, like so many topics, this one, in particular, concerns issues of intense controversy. Every author, film-maker, without exception, will bring a point of view to the subject. When some criticize a work because its author "has an agenda," remember that on this, everyone has an agenda, a set of beliefs which are the context and back-drop of his or her works. The point is not to avoid so-called "biased" works, but, rather to sample numerous authors and prize most those who set out plainly their "agendas," their starting assumptions, their "biases. You have mine, here, in the recommendations I present above. The authors are ones who are knowledgeable, speak, read and write in Arabic or other Middle Easten languages, (usually in addition to English and French), and who have not only long experience in the countries concerned, but also a capacity to present points of view which are additions to or alternatives to the views commonly presented as the facts of the matter by Western-run or owned mass-media. Have a good trip!

RE: "Short memories in the United States are killing us. Do you agree?" In a way, I agree, yes. But it's a very conditioned agreement. There are many, too many, whose (political, esp.) memories are woefully short and, yes, that is a serious problem for the nation. But, as big or, I'd argue, an even bigger and much more serious problem is that there are many more people who cannot "forget" --since they never bothered to learn or become aware in the first place. Some would say that this is in effect another way of saying the same thing. I disagree. Those who used to "know" something are different from those who never learned that something. And the social and political consequences are quite different, too. Some time ago--decades, in fact--the forgetfulness was a serious and growing problem. But today, to characterize the matter, one should say rather that among what's going wrong is that so many have never taken the time and trouble to learn, and thus have little or nothing to "forget". To those who read this site, I wonder: what text (I mean by that an entire published book--and, mainly, I mean a bound and printed book) did you last read with, as your explicit purpose to better understand one or more issues, matters, topics of political interest and importance? When (how long ago) was this? And, before that one, when did you previously read an entire text on a political topic, and, again, which one? In this context, "political" means a book primarily concerned with an issue or issues of domestic or international public policy---but, beyond that, it may be of an economic or social topic, education, environment, etc. The point is, it should be a work that you chose, that you were moved to read, because you decided that the topic was of sufficient political importance and you needed a better grasp of it for that reason. ------------------------------ for my responses to these: May, June, 2012 : Jacob Burkhardt; Force and freedom; reflections on history [by] Jacob Burckhardt. Edited by James Hastings Nichols Feb. - April 2012 : Georges Corm ; " Le nouveau gouvernement du monde : Idéologies, structures, contre-pouvoirs" (2011) (and numerous others, partially, in first-time or re-reading of texts read entirely previously)

Journal Nature Article Title : « The Single Life : Sequencing DNA from individual cells is changing the way that researchers think of humans as a whole[1]” November 2012, Vol. 491, pp. 27-29 Pdf link: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.11710!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/491027a.pdf By Brian Owens, Nature assistant news editor, London ““People are becoming very interested in what is the variation from cell to cell,” says Navin, now at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.” … TUMOUR DIVERSITY “In his first effort with breast-cancer tumours1, Navin[2] was able to sequence only about 10% of the DNA — not enough to see individual point mutations, but good enough to study larger segments that are commonly duplicated or deleted, called copy number variants. "The results suggested that the tumour was made up of three major populations of cells, which emerged from the root tumour population in leaps and spurts at different times during the tumour’s growth. “It suggested a model of evolution where, instead of having lots of gradual intermediates, we saw hundreds of chromosomal rearrangements that occurred probably in very short periods of evolutionary time,” he says.” [1] http://www.nature.co...pdf/491027a.pdf [2] Navin, N. et al. Nature 472, 90–94 (2011)

"prox."

RE: "It's been long known that areas of the brain show large amounts of activity when sleeping and others show very little activity, as well as vice versa. " True. But the point here is something rather more than simply that there are variable states and areas of brain activity at the same time over the scope of the entire brain. The point here is that the individual neuron activity is, just as the basic conceptions defended in Kupiec's research indicates, of a non-stereospecific kind, of a probabilistic character, rather than a deterministic kind of process. E.g. (from the radio program's digital file, as noted below): RE: "are you saying that the areas of the brain that are active/inactive are random?" Not exactly, no. I'm suggesting that what is, as I see it, anyway, explanatorily valid for one area of the body's tissue and cellular behavior--Kupiec's studies in various features of cell behavior in emryology, or other cell functions inter- and intra-cell -- is also valid throughout the body's cells and tissues; hence, any dynamic process, such as waking, or falling asleep, as Kupiec's view would predict, occurs, just as in other cells in other tissues, via a probabilistic dimension, so that direct and specific deterministic relationships are, and would be expected to be, impossible to find or to pin-point when examined at the individual cell level. That is why it seems to me that the research cited of Tononi in sleep and consciousness offers us one more example--among what should be virtually countless potential examples of it--of the stochastically-based behavior of cellular activity. It is this that lends to Kupiec's work and that of his fellow researchers, so profound an aspect--but it is not to say that the focus, as in this instance, involves, or concerns one or more areas of the brain, as opposed to others. The example cited above from the radio file indicates that the particular regions of the brain, in the instance described, was not in and of itself the crucial criterion; rather, what is significant is that there was no single affected region as opposed to another or others. It concerned a brain state that was indifferent to precise locale, hence, part of the phenomena's interesting character. Again, what makes this example worth pointing up is that it is exactly what Kupiec's works tells us we should expect to find. So, why, then, would a researcher (or in this case, the program's narrator, put it, "But the study of the activity of the individual nerve cells of their brains revealed a strange behaviorsome individual brains cells adopted for a tenth of a second a state of rest, the state found during sleep." ? Only because, as seen from the generally-accepted view of deterministic biology, cells don't behave and aren't expected to behave in a random, probabilistic, fashion--instead, they're supposed to follow, they're supposed to conform to, one or another form of chemico-molecular "signal" activity which is supposedly specific, precise, and deterministic in character, not a random result spread over vast numbers of aggregate cell populations.

Sleep studies suggest additional evidence of stochastically-based cellular behavior -- From the most recent edition of a french-language radio-magazine, « Sur les épaules de Darwin », (« On the Shoulders of Darwin 1»), a weekly (Saturday) radio programme hosted and narrated by Jean Claude Ameisen2 of the France Inter network, some interesting references are made (listen to the programme's digital recording @ 7:00 mins. to 9:00 mins.) to studies by Guilio TONONI3 (and other researchers) currently a research professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madision. Two studies , (one4 in which laboratory rats are the subjects (Local Sleep in Awake Rats) and another5 ( Regional slow waves and spindles in human sleep ), in which human subjects are studied) offer complementary results which can be seen to suggest that transitions from sleeping and waking states are in fact arrived at through stochastically-presented transitions over a continuum in which the brain shows spatially-dispersed neuronal activities whcih are split between those cells which in scans exhibit a sleep state as others exhibit a waking-activity state. Ultimately, sleep or waking comes about in the averge total of the brain's affected neurons gradually shifting to one or the other condition Thus, at one and the same time, there are found « localalized » conditions of neurons which are in a sleep or a waking state ; and this presents itself in a manner that corresponds to the same stochastic characteristics as those defended in J.J. Kupiec's studies. 1http://www.franceint...ter?play=480877 2http://fr.wikipedia...._Claude_Ameisen 3http://tononi.psychi...iulioTononi.php 4http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3085007/ 5http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21482364

Category: Tempting But Expensive and possibly over my head reading: Author: KANEKO, Kunihiko Life: An Introduction to Complex Systems Biology ; Springer Publications softcover isbn: ISBN 978-3-642-06915-4

When experts and non-experts discuss a theory, such as, for example, in this instance, the work of a reputable scientist doing work according to the accepted canons of scientific practice, and, in this case, a theory which challenges the currently prevailing paradigm in some significant way, I think it would be only wise and only fair of the experts in the discussion to consider the non-experts as presenting something for their consideration and that of the general readership; and, in the case of its expert complement, they should neither expect nor require of the non-expert more in explanation and defense of the theory than can be reasonably gained from a reading of the basic text(s) through which the original theorist makes his or her case. Or, in other words, experts should neither expect nor require from the non-expert a point-by-point response to any and all criticisms that might be levelled by experts and a successful defense which presumes an expertise that only experts possess. Those questions, properly, should be directed to the original scientists behind the theory under discussion rather than the non-expert here. I don't, for example, expect to convince each and every individual reader here of the validity of the theory I describe nor was that ever my intention or expectation. If that were possible, the scientist himself would have already accomplished this. Instead, a challenge to the prevailing paradigm is, by definition, one which has not gained the assent of the majority of the expert community. To expect a non-expert partisan to carry such a burden is, frankly, strange, to say the least. If such are the expectations here, then the site administration should dispense with any pretenses that this site welcomes opinion and participation from the lay public on science issues and frankly admit that such are not in fact really welcome here. Kupiec's work and his theory do not reject or deny the general data amassed in molecular biology. Instead, his theory presents a radically different manner in which to interpret and understand that data. Therefore, arguments which contend that « numerous studies show.... » do not go to the point being presented, namely, the import and significance of these studies rather than the matter of whether the data collected is meaningful at all. An effective rebuttal would show, rather, why such a reinterpretation is not tenable as an alternative to the prevailing interpretative view. Kupiec is, I think, aware of the objections which I have seen raised thus far here and he answers them in a general way in the text on which my views draw and are based. But I'm simply not able or competent to respond to particular papers which are cited to show how on one or another specific point Kupiec's views are supposedly contradicted. Such have been offered here already and, as far as I have read them and can understand their points, they are not pertinent nor do they really demonstrate how and where the Kupiec's basic theory is false or untenable. But, again, even if this were the case, that is a matter to be addressed on the expert level between scientists—not a lay reader-participant here. More astounding still, it seems to me, is that a critic here has levelled what are supposed to be expert criticisms which presume unanswered defects in Kupiec's theory while, the critic himself remains largely or entirely ignorant of the basic supporting text, and cannot even state that the criticisms have not been addressed already in that basic text. post scriptum:

I laughed a good bit after looking up an example of "Black Books" and watching a few minutes of season one, episode one. Funny. Thank you, that was --well, I'd never heard of the program before. So, now I understand what you're driving at. Anyway, like you, I ordered a copy on-line, too. It's just that I didn't use amazon.giant-killer-squid.com. I used another source and, like you, my book should land in my mailbox in coming days---which prompts me to write that I'd be very interested in discussing the book --perhaps we could read & discuss it as a very tiny 'book-club' of two?

Hmmm. Okay. I'd say "friends don't let friends go to amazon.com" --but that's just me. For your information, I learned of the Cohen book when ethologist Richard Dawkins referred to it in , found at Youtube.com. And, now, more "dangerous" reading recommendations. THE NET DELUSION : The Dark Side of Internet Freedom by Evgeny Morozov; see Chapter One of the book (.pdf file). Morozov also wrote an article for Slate.com published 19 March, 2012, A Robot Stole My Pulitzer! which I found published in a translation in this month's issue of Le Monde Diplomatique (page 28). AMENDED TO ADD: A forthcoming book by Morozov, The Digital Fix: Smart Machines, Dumb Humans and the Myth of Technological Perfection (all topics near and dear to my heart) is scheduled (tentatively) for publication in March, 2013.

Some thoughts of a related kind--- Having now a bit more experience in this site than when I first posted here, what I see as the importance of this topic has come into greater and greater relief. As I've thought about it a bit, I see that the topic's title question is really only one facet of a much larger picture—and with my experience here, I now know that the general habit here is to address issues from the more praticular rather than the more general perspective. In this case, I think that tendency is greatly to be regretted because, by considering many of the other facets of the issue of intellectual openness on the part of practitioners of science and its closest related occupations, we could find these facets throw useful and interesting light on each other. Here, as a provisional proposition, is one example of how I would find the discussion to gain in interest if it also took up a related question—that being, namely « How well would an unknown 'Richard Feynman-like character' fare in these fora? » Most of us are familiar with the name Richard Feynman and many of us first learned whatever we may know about his life and work only long after he had become celebrated in the annals of science. Thus—if we employ a little thought-experiment—if Feynman, the famous scientist we know of were somehow to join in this site's discussions today, I cannot doubt that he would enjoy a degree of respect that few others would command. All of that is easy to recognize and accept. It doesn't go against anyone's cherished beliefs to point any of that out. But, what if Feynman's participation occurred under a name that no one recognized? How would Feynman, the character, be perceived and received here if he came without the name of one of the 20th century's most celebrated scientists? It is in this latter manner that I would find the question interesting to include here under « Why are scientists seemingly reluctant toaccept new ideas? » To be quite frank, to be, perhaps dangerously frank, my impression after about two weeks' experience is that a quite objective observer of the general practices here should expect the visiting anonymous Feynman to fare rather poorly, to draw very lively opposition and disagreement---just as the real Feynman did in real life. Very few people in positions of authority found R. Feynman to be a benign character, nor one that they veiwed with particular affection—that is what I have gathered from Feynman's autobiographical writings. Simply, Feynman and authority were like the proverbial « Oil and Water »--they didn't mix well or lastingly in a an ordinary bottle of salad-dressing. Nor is there anything very unusual about a genius of Feynman's stature frequently running afoul of the priorities of authority and management. While science as an endeavor needs as many Richard Feynmans as it can get, it doesn't, as a community of professionals, at least as it seems to me, show much if any greater propensity to tolerate a character such as Feynman than does the general population, that is, when no one has previously identified the person in question as exceptional in his or her—on this the sexes are wonderfully equal for the worse—intellectual gifts. If this idea isn't unwelcome as a adjunct here—where it seems to me to have every pertinence to the OP---then what, I wonder are the reactions from the readership? And, if necessary, of course, the sausage can always be sliced yet « thinner » and this idea moved somewhere where its pertinence to the current thread won't be noticed or influential---right? For related interest, I take the opportunity to recommend a post (which now I see I'm unable to locate and link; maybe another reader can post a link to it) by Cap'n Refsmat in which he discusses his reading and view of Paul Feyerabend's Against Method. That is a very interesting post.

I've just found out about a relatively recent book which I'm now quiite eager to read. So, this is a rather a "What are you soon-to-be reading?" kind of post: both of them by NicK Cohen, the first is his You Can't Read This Book: Censorship In an Age of Freedom and the second, Waiting for the Etonians: Reports from the Sickbed of Liberal England . In the publisher's promotional copy, at Harper Collins' page (same as the link on the title, above) for You Can't Read This Book, one finds the following, and I excerpt that, here, for citation here because it is (i.e. " [we are] told that we [are] living in an age of unparalleled freedom"), almost verbatim, a view I have seen pronounced here in discussions. I suspect that more than a few readers of SFN find this their view as well and think this topic well deserves a broader discussion. ---------------------------------- * emphasis added

I really and sincererly do think you sell yourself short in proposing to start over clean. That's because I see (and saw) something quite significant in your earlier remark. But rather than point it out myself, I wanted to extend that opportunity to you. And, in a very indirect way, your subsequent comment implies what I had had in mind. And now, I hope to make that point quite explicit: When I read your remark, "Suggest some concrete, well-reasoned ideas and my bet is that attitudes will be swayed by those good ideas. So, do you have any?" I was struck by how very much it seems to ignore about the overwhelming tendencies in human behavior, and of what spectacular contrary examples history offers us to undermine this very optimistic view of yours. My reading of history leads me to notice, unlike your view, the vastly many examples where well-reasoned ideas had simply no measurable effect on anyone---and, above all, no effect on those who count and who counted most: those in power. In briefest terms, simply, everyone and anyone can and does have his own personal notion of what shall constitute or not constitute "well-reasoned ideas" and simply reject out of hand any that do not measure up (perhaps, most often because they are simply not welcome ideas in the first place) Well-reasoned ideas we've had--by the bucket-full. If you say that it's really all just a matter of being patient, and that, with time, the tide will turn, I answer that none of us has any idea how much time remains to learn any given lesson, "X", before the failure to learn it spells general doom. Nor does anyone know, by the same token, whether or not, indeed, what's already been done has effectively doomed us. That may be true. I don't pretend to know it for sure. But, what I do pretend to know for sure is that the idea---often held as an unstated and unexamined working assumption, rather than as an expressly recognized part of our most basic assumptions---that the time we have in which to figure these things out amounts in effect to "forever" or "infinity" --the idea that this is the event horizon---that idea is a snare and a delusion. No human can ever know eternity or grasp it----which is why it offers so compelling and welcome a refuge of comfort. So many terrible things are pushed way, way, way out there at the edge of infinity. But, of course, infinity has no edge and can never be approached. What I hope you may see in my response here is not starting over but something that you can readily describe as progress of a sort. If there was any resentment felt on my part earlier, this is to assure you that there remains nothing of it now. Your views and responses remain very much of interest to me. Doesn't matter that you're 18 and have an incomplete education. I'm about three times your age and I have an incomplete college education. What you do have, as I think is clear from your posts, is a very alive imagination and the intelligence to do whatever may be necessary to get any education that you care to obtain---inside or outside of the classroom. It may be, of course, that your unconventional approach to things may mean that keeping strictly inside the classroom for that education, inside, where conventional-thinking is "King", may be a very hard and trying road to follow. I could not agree more strongly than I already do with your recommendation that we give a serious and profound "re-think" to the educational system. The thing is, all such systems are, by definition, authority structures, power structures; for that reason, they necessarily serve power's and authority's interests and anyone who, like you, chafes at authority's dictates, will have a harder time getting educated in the conventional way. Einstein's whole life is an example of this. Feynman's life is not quite so marked an example of it, but remains a partial example. People who, to use a now-tired phrase, "think outside the box" aren't much liked or appreciated by those who think "inside the box". There's nothing to be done about this. That's the way it is, the way it's always been and, I'm sorry to say, probably the way it's always going to be. What you should remember, among other things, about yourself is that you have an uncommon curiosity and capacity to see things that a lot of other people would just as soon not notice, let alone examine. These qualities are a natural gift. Don't despair that you possess them, even though they place you outside the happy medium of conventional approval. Recognize the positive and the negative consequences of your gifts and go and do all that your imagination can give you the insight to achieve.

I was referring, there, to the impression which I had that you were doing just that--putting Kupiec's work on a par with the stuff of Wikipedia. I came to that mistaken impression because of the close juxtaposition of the two remarks--one mentioning Kupiec, the other mentioning Wikipedia. With no mediating feature separating them, I mistook them as being related in your mind and in your reply. Yes, you're quite right, there. And, before even reading your reply here, my conscience had already recognized and pled your case successfully. So, I do indeed regret, apologize for and retract that accusation. There is another thing on which we're agreed---at least in a sense. While this thread is not, in my opinion, at least, "largely done", I see and agree that your interest in it almost certainly is. The evidence you claim to want for the stochastic character of gene expression is all evidence which you (apparently) refuse to read, or, if you read it, then, having read it, you refuse to recognize it. That is why I'm convinced your participation in this thread is probably at its end. For others who can and will read and recognize what you don't see, I think that the thread's interest can be or remain of interest. The simple and short answer is that no one proceeds in that way. Of course, such writers do solicit the review and criticism of their own circle of professional friends--and some daring ones even go beyond the safety of their trusted friends for critical comment on a forthcoming text. But more than that is simply not done customarily in the case of such a text. It wasn't done by Darwin, or by anyone before or since, including Dobzhansky, Mayr and anyone else you'd care to cite when it comes to the publication of a text such as those listed above by Mayr or, in this case, that of Kupiec. As for citing Wikipedia for attribution, credit, I wonder: is that really pertinent in the present example which concerns nothing other than a listing of publications---available from any number of non-exclusive, non-original sources? And, since the provenance of the list is entirely evident by launching any of the isbn hyper-links, isn't it also in effect "cited" in that implicit manner?

To place Kupiec as a scholar and researcher on a par with Wikipedia's level of scholarship is a degrading remark. It degrades you, not the scholarship or person of Kupiec. With regard to novel hypotheses and their fitness for consideration by scientists and in what circumstances, etc., Darwin's main hypotheses concerning natural selection, too, when On the Origin of Species was first published, were extraordinarily novel :