PDQNo.1, I made a reference to Gould as an ANALOGY, and NOT as the meat of my argument. Let's not get tripped by by side-issues on this thread about Sangraula. Just to keep thoughts straight: I indicated that I am more persuaded by Gould's critics (who have background in biochemistry and genetics), though I have enjoyed reading many of Gould's books. I have therefore used their "whatever Gould's scientific faults were, at least he was against the creationists too" sort of reasoning to explain my own attitude toward Sangraula in the line of "whatever faults Sangraula displayed in the past, at least he's saying all the right things in these times". You are welcome to interpret the use of this analogy in any way that makes YOU happy. And it's perfectly OK (pun intended!) to disagree with my characterisation of Sangraula as someone whose "OVERALL strengths far outweigh his weaknesses, and that it's good to applaud him for his strengths while making a note fo his PUBLIC failings (some of which I have listed here) that sit oddly with his democratic credentials" After all, hey, what good is any discussion if it doesn't get some thinking-juices flowing? oohi ashu