>Daniel misrepresented (or misunderstood) _me_, Kelley. Which is why I
>posted. I snipped because I reacted specifically to his
>misrepresentation of my example that made use of Wilson. I said:
>altruism's a technical term made use of by biologists. Example: Wilson.
>Daniel's comment implied _only_ Wilson used the term and I was engaged
>in some kind of definitional sleight-of-hand. "You can't claim the terms
>are 'used' just because Wilson uses them."
and you missed the rest of what he said. and what he said suggests, to me, that he meant no harm by his statement and certainly wasn't misrepresenting you. he was conceding your point.
again, what he wrote:
"If we're going to say that the sociobiologists are a coherent enough group that their use of technical terms needs to be respected, then you can't dismiss the racists and sexists as isolated nuts." (DD)
IOW, the group is coherent because they use the same terms.
your initial response on this point was to ignore this part of his paragraph. this meant that you went on a rant saying something that Daniel already conceded.
kelley