GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1214243230


From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Jewish E1b1b
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:47:10 +0200
References: In-Reply-To:


-----
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Jewish E1b1b
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:00:08 -0400
References: <>

Lancaster-Boon wrote:

>After your summary of the discussion...

Dear Andrew,

There was no summary yet. There was a beginning of the summary. You missed
The words "to be continued". You seemingly missed a number of things as
well.

---

Anatole,

So if you admit that you still haven't explained fully what everyone else is
supposed to respond to (no problem), why are you being such a meany when it
comes to people asking questions or expressing doubts? That seems a bit
naughty: "Stupid person you do not understand me at all, and what's more I
won't let you!!! [Dracula laugh]" :)

Put us out of our misery. Post a webpage with the full explanation, like any
of us would who were really interesting in a good dialogue, but had come
across an idea which was difficult to express on a list like this.

I'll expose myself to ridicule now. It seems to me that your method is not
cutting edge, but not a bad addition to the "tools of the trade" either.

Using short haplotypes to make clusters is an old method, but your clusters,
it seems also go one step further by simply assuming that particular STR
combinations which were first discovered, such as CMH, are special. With the
data you've been picking up (much of it collected with efforts of some of
the people you've been belittling) you could play around with the question
of what would happen if you pick some different markers, find their most
common short haplotype, and then try again. My feeling is that the
conclusions will be fairly sensitive? (Yes, perhaps you have already done
this. If so just say so. No Dracula laughs please.)

Best Regards
Andrew



This thread: