Wulf, you are fitting the profile of those who attacked me when I produced evidence of corruption in the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)(Australia).
Even after I produced two books that detailed the whole of it for all to read, with sources, the lot, my detractors claimed I had "no evidence" of this corruption.
In 1996 after winning yet another vexatious defamation claim against me by NPWS people, the then minister in charge of NPWS, Ms. Pam Allen told a press conference that I had "no evidence" to back up my claims of danger on the NSW Ski slopes, where I'd named some ski lodges as being in immediate danger. This rebuttal was (as planned) widely reported in the NSW Press as had similar denials at Christmas 1993, following publication of the book Smuggled.
That (end 1996) information, I'd received from several separate sources within NPWS and had corroborated independently. See not all who worked there were bad people.
Anyway, 9 months later "the evidence" was there to see in 18 bodies buried under the rubble of the Thredbo landslide, under two ski lodges I'd named 9 months earlier.
A later inquest by Derek Hand, confirmed everything I'd been saying for more than 20 years!!!
The rules for those (evil people) who shoot the messenger, attack a whistleblower or have some other (generally undisclosed) agenda is as follows.
A/ Never disclose your true agenda or motive, then
1/ Ignore, ignore and ignore, and then when this becomes impossible,
2/ Deny, deny, deny, (including by irrelevant argument such as "oh he has no evidence" or "he is a pedophile" and then when this becomes no longer possible, to
3/ Deride the original whistleblower (or scientist) for merely stating the obvious.
This appears the tack, you Wulf (and some others) are taking with my pythons classification.
Deny all you want, but that facts are obvious.
I had the same problem in the 1980's when I went against Cogger and declared "Liasis perthensis" a separate species to "L. childreni", which was like declaring the world round a thousand years back.
My detractors used this (now obvious fact) to allege I'd totally lost the plot!
After vilification for a decade or so, I was later derided by these same low-life's for "merely stating the obvious".
In other words I never got the credit due!
Wells and Wellington, incidentally suffered the same with their own papers in the 1980's and while I disagree with Richard on many things, including some of his descriptions (or lack of them), certain taxonomic or nomenclatural acts, etc, , the fact is that he deserves credit where due and that is why I am almost alone among his peers in Australia who accept and acknowledge his work and as a result named taxa after him and his co-author.
Who knows, maybe you Wulf will eventually give me credit for taking the bull by the horns and doing a consistent reclassification of Australian pythons in 2000 (which was well overdue) and maybe Wulf, you will actually accept the facts and the evidence as detailed in the paper … if in fact you actually read the detail and the relevant sources cited.
Armchair criticism is always welcome, but I only take heed of it's content if it is soundly based.
Otherwise I merely consign the rants to the trash can.
ALL THE BEST
Hoser 2000 (Python taxonomy - Australasia)

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]