[POLL] [paint] Kroot Mercenary style?
John Hwang
enough, if I were painting them for someone else, but they don't quite work for
me. They don't quite look "right" to my eyes: too "fantasy", not "real"
enough for my tastes. So I'm going to strip them down and re-paint them. I'm
thinking to style them after real-life historical cannibal/ barbarian -types.
Options:
1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint job which
easily uses the quills for contrast.
2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
3. Headhunters -- from deepest parts of the Dark Continent (i.e. Africa).
4. Cannibals -- from the Lost World in South America, with white body paint
for contrasts.
5. Picts -- for a "white" option, to contrast body tattoos against. IMO, these
would paint very well, and I can already see what they would look like them.
Thoughts or comments?
--
--- John Hwang "JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anton Svärd
John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:20020913114530...@mb-fo.news.cs.com
...
> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint job
which
> easily uses the quills for contrast.
I rather like this one.
> 2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
And what else? Dark skin again I assume, but apart from that.
> 3. Headhunters -- from deepest parts of the Dark Continent (i.e. Africa).
>
> 4. Cannibals -- from the Lost World in South America, with white body
paint
> for contrasts.
Since they actually eat most of their opponents, this is pretty logical.
> 5. Picts -- for a "white" option, to contrast body tattoos against. IMO,
these
> would paint very well, and I can already see what they would look like
them.
Interesting. Would you go for a human flesh skin tone with this one?
> Thoughts or comments?
Using human skin tones is an interesting idea. I'll probably go for a dark
brown when I get around to my Kroot. I can't share any experience yet as I
haven't even bought them. My problem is tying them in with my dark blue Tau
and still make them look good and reasonably realistic.
/Anton
--
Pigs are fer eatin' - not fer sittin' on.
--Durgak da Fat, Orc Big Boss
Myrmidon
johnhw...@cs.com.no.com, John Hwang shouted out the following words
of wit...
> Just finished roughing out my Kroot Mercenaries in green. They look good
> enough, if I were painting them for someone else, but they don't quite work for
> me. They don't quite look "right" to my eyes: too "fantasy", not "real"
> enough for my tastes. So I'm going to strip them down and re-paint them. I'm
> thinking to style them after real-life historical cannibal/ barbarian -types.
> Options:
>
> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint job which
> easily uses the quills for contrast.
>
> 2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
>
> 3. Headhunters -- from deepest parts of the Dark Continent (i.e. Africa).
>
> 4. Cannibals -- from the Lost World in South America, with white body paint
> for contrasts.
>
> 5. Picts -- for a "white" option, to contrast body tattoos against. IMO, these
> would paint very well, and I can already see what they would look like them.
>
> Thoughts or comments?
>
Green gaming table - I was rather impressed with Nboylie's Green Nids
army, so it is certainly possible to carry it off successfully (pics are
available in the RGMW GenBus yahoo group file section if you haven't
seen them.) Some of the Eldar units look fantastic in green, but it's
generally a bright green that contrasts well with the table rather than
a 'natural' skin color (like the Orks - which I do like) or a camoflage
color pattern.
That being said - the question is more to the point - which of the
five paint schemes you list above is...
A. Going to look good on the table (or types of table) that you most
frequently game on?
B. Is time an issue (i.e. have to have them done for an up coming
tournament, game, or simply want to get them done a.s.a.p. so you can
game with them)?
If yes - then obviously you'll want to go with the scheme that you can
do quickly and still result in a resonably good looking mini.
If no - then you can pic the scheme you think will result in the most
pleasing appearance to you.
C. Which color scheme do you visualize as working best with any
additional minis from armies that they'll be mixed with?
D. And last but not least - which color scheme can you visualize most
clearly? Often this is the one that will work out as being most
pleasing to the painter.
You might also try looking at the Kroot painting suggestions on Ageis's
kick ass web site. (Sorry - can't find the URL off hand.)
Later,
Myr
--
"Conan, what is best in life?"
"To paint your miniatures, to see them driven before you on the table,
and to hear the lamentation of the cheese-mongers!"
- Del Webb
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Or...
Rob Singers
> Just finished roughing out my Kroot Mercenaries in green. They look good
> enough, if I were painting them for someone else, but they don't quite work
for
> me. They don't quite look "right" to my eyes: too "fantasy", not "real"
> enough for my tastes. So I'm going to strip them down and re-paint them. I'm
> thinking to style them after real-life historical cannibal/ barbarian -types.
> Options:
>
> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint job
which
> easily uses the quills for contrast.
While I understand what you're doing I do find gross ethnic stereotypes
offensive. Rather than launch into a rant I'll make the point by suggesting
that you could paint them yellow and enhance the slantiness of their eyes.
By the way if you're talking about Australian aboriginals I don't believe
there's been any reports of them eating people since Australian law was extended
to cover the Chinese. There's a tree that grows in Queensland called the
Chinaman tree. It's called that because the Abos would hide the bones there, of
the "chinaman" they'd eaten. It wasn't illegal to kill and eat Chinamen but the
white Christian settlers did not like cannibalism and if the Abos weren't good
workers would have "gotten rid of them".
> 2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
Most Polynesian people have facial or full body tattoos. I can help you here.
Tana Umaga bearing down on someone on the Rugby field reminds me of "Predator"
so I can see a hint of alieness with using Polynesian motifs.
http://www.nzrugby.com/2002/teams/allblacks/umaga_tana.asp
> 3. Headhunters -- from deepest parts of the Dark Continent (i.e. Africa).
>
> 4. Cannibals -- from the Lost World in South America, with white body paint
> for contrasts.
>
> 5. Picts -- for a "white" option, to contrast body tattoos against. IMO,
these
> would paint very well, and I can already see what they would look like them.
This would be kinda funny IMHO.
John Hwang
>John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> skrev ...
>> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint job
>>which easily uses the quills for contrast.
>
>I rather like this one.
>
>> 2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
>
>And what else? Dark skin again I assume, but apart from that.
Well, skin not as dark as 1 or 3, because I need to contrast the tattoos, but
definitely darker than the average pasty white Caucasian.
>> 3. Headhunters -- from deepest parts of the Dark Continent (i.e. Africa).
>>
>> 4. Cannibals -- from the Lost World in South America, with white body
>>paint for contrasts.
>
>Since they actually eat most of their opponents, this is pretty logical.
Yup.
>> 5. Picts -- for a "white" option, to contrast body tattoos against. IMO,
>>these would paint very well, and I can already see what they would
>>look like them.
>
>Interesting. Would you go for a human flesh skin tone with this one?
I'd be going for human flesh skin tones for *all* of them. Tho these are the
only Caucasians, if that's what you're getting at. :P.
>> Thoughts or comments?
>
>Using human skin tones is an interesting idea. I'll probably go for a dark
>brown when I get around to my Kroot. I can't share any experience yet as I
>haven't even bought them. My problem is tying them in with my dark blue Tau
>and still make them look good and reasonably realistic.
In your case, with blue Tau, you'd defininitely want the Picts. You're
basically reversing the color scheme with your Kroot, so they army ties
together.
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com, John Hwang shouted ...
>> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair
>> 2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
>>
>> 3. Headhunters -- from deepest parts of the Dark Continent (i.e. Africa).
>>
>> 4. Cannibals -- from the Lost World in South America,
>>
>> 5. Picts -- for a "white" option, to contrast body tattoos against.
>> Thoughts or comments?
>
>Well, while I'm not normally a fan of 'Green' type minis on a
>Green gaming table - I was rather impressed with Nboylie's Green Nids
>army, so it is certainly possible to carry it off successfully (pics are
>available in the RGMW GenBus yahoo group file section if you haven't
>seen them.)
Will look, but with their weapons and rags, Kroot don't follow the 'Nid
pattern.
>Some of the Eldar units look fantastic in green, but it's
>generally a bright green that contrasts well with the table rather than
>a 'natural' skin color (like the Orks - which I do like) or a camoflage
>color pattern.
Scorpions or Rangers, respectively. OK.
>That being said - the question is more to the point - which of the
>five paint schemes you list above is...
>
>A. Going to look good on the table (or types of table) that you most
>frequently game on?
Don't care. If it's "realistic", it'll look good to me.
>B. Is time an issue (i.e. have to have them done for an up coming
>tournament, game, or simply want to get them done a.s.a.p. so you can
>game with them)?
I simply need to finish painting before Maka finishes painting his CSM. :P
>If yes - then obviously you'll want to go with the scheme that you can
>do quickly and still result in a resonably good looking mini.
No difference. I'm a professional (as in, I've actually gotten paid to paint),
so I can paint anything fairly quickly and get reasonably good-looking minis as
a result. :)
>If no - then you can pic the scheme you think will result in the most
>pleasing appearance to you.
Yes. Whatever I think looks pleasing, and right now, anything above would look
more pleasing to me, or I wouldn't have listed them as poll options. :)
>C. Which color scheme do you visualize as working best with any
>additional minis from armies that they'll be mixed with?
They'll mix with multi-color Eldar, IG, and CSM. Therefore, it doesn't matter.
:)
>D. And last but not least - which color scheme can you visualize most
>clearly? Often this is the one that will work out as being most
>pleasing to the painter.
I can clearly visualize the Picts and the Aborigines. But I can paint
anything, so I'm not worried.
>You might also try looking at the Kroot painting suggestions on Ageis's
>kick ass web site. (Sorry - can't find the URL off hand.)
Saw them, wasn't impresed, can easily do better myself (sorry Agis).
John Hwang
>"John Hwang" wrote
>>I'm thinking to style them after real-life historical cannibal/
>>barbarian-types. Options:
>>
>> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint job
>>which easily uses the quills for contrast.
>
>While I understand what you're doing I do find gross ethnic stereotypes
>offensive.
Sorry. Cannibalism *never* occurred from a historical POV, so naturally, any
depiction thereof in game, representing same as same is offensive. My bad.
Idiot. It's one thing if I'm making things up out of thin air. However, I'm
working from history or pseudo-history.
Cripes, next you'll be demanding that historians remove all references to the
Stars and Bars, Swastikas, and SS because the offend people. Screw that. If
it happened, it happened. Don't sweep it under the rug just because some
people don't like to recognize the facts of the matter.
>Rather than launch into a rant I'll make the point by suggesting
>that you could paint them yellow and enhance the slantiness of their eyes.
Yeah, that's *so* historical.
>By the way if you're talking about Australian aboriginals
I am. Are there any *other* "Aborigines" which I might be expected to know of
in common parlance? No? OK, then.
>> 2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
>
>Most Polynesian people have facial or full body tattoos. I can help you
>here. Tana Umaga bearing down on someone on the Rugby field
>reminds me of "Predator" so I can see a hint of alieness with using
>Polynesian motifs.
>http://www.nzrugby.com/2002/teams/allblacks/umaga_tana.asp
Thank you.
>> 3. Headhunters -- from deepest parts of the Dark Continent (i.e. Africa).
>>
>> 4. Cannibals -- from the Lost World in South America, with white body
>>paint for contrasts.
>>
>> 5. Picts -- for a "white" option, to contrast body tattoos against. IMO,
>>these would paint very well, and I can already see what they would
>>look like them.
>
>This would be kinda funny IMHO.
Indeed. The only "problem" is that they might be too recognizable.
The Blue Raja
news:20020914005101...@mb-mu.news.cs.com...
> >By the way if you're talking about Australian aboriginals
>
> I am. Are there any *other* "Aborigines" which I might be expected to
know of
> in common parlance?
How about American and Canadian aborigines? You *do* live in the US, surely
you've heard of Native Americans.
That aside, the term "aboriginal" describes the native inhabitants of any
region.
--
The Blue Raja
"This is John "Smoking Gun" Hwang. He shoots first and talks about Eldar
later." - Rob Singers
RGMW FAQ - Is FAQ, is good
http://www.freewebz.com/rgmw/rgmw/rgmw-faq.html
The Blue Raja
> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair
I take it you haven't seen any non-bleached Australian Aborigines then?
Rob Singers
> "Rob Singers" wrote:
> >"John Hwang" wrote
>
> >>I'm thinking to style them after real-life historical cannibal/
> >>barbarian-types. Options:
> >>
> >> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint job
> >>which easily uses the quills for contrast.
> >
> >While I understand what you're doing I do find gross ethnic stereotypes
> >offensive.
>
> Sorry. Cannibalism *never* occurred from a historical POV, so naturally, any
> depiction thereof in game, representing same as same is offensive. My bad.
I think you misunderstood. I have no problem with cannibalism.
> Idiot. It's one thing if I'm making things up out of thin air. However, I'm
> working from history or pseudo-history.
Actually you might as well be with your generalisations on *appearance*.
> Cripes, next you'll be demanding that historians remove all references to the
> Stars and Bars, Swastikas, and SS because the offend people. Screw that. If
> it happened, it happened. Don't sweep it under the rug just because some
> people don't like to recognize the facts of the matter.
Ah jumping to conclusions isn't it great :-)
> >Rather than launch into a rant I'll make the point by suggesting
> >that you could paint them yellow and enhance the slantiness of their eyes.
>
> Yeah, that's *so* historical.
or factual. Exactly my point. Actually I think Lemon Yellow kroot would look
good.
> >By the way if you're talking about Australian aboriginals
>
> I am. Are there any *other* "Aborigines" which I might be expected to know of
> in common parlance? No? OK, then.
Not having any knowledge of your education I couldn't comment.
> >> 2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
> >
> >Most Polynesian people have facial or full body tattoos. I can help you
> >here. Tana Umaga bearing down on someone on the Rugby field
> >reminds me of "Predator" so I can see a hint of alieness with using
> >Polynesian motifs.
> >http://www.nzrugby.com/2002/teams/allblacks/umaga_tana.asp
>
> Thank you.
BTW Maori with no European blood are very dark. Brown rather than the
Blue\Black I've seen in Aficans The tattoos are chiselled in.
Rob Singers
> "John Hwang" wrote
> > 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair
>
> I take it you haven't seen any non-bleached Australian Aborigines then?
They run when they see yellow slant eyes ;-)
Anton Svärd
...
> I'd be going for human flesh skin tones for *all* of them. Tho these are
the
> only Caucasians, if that's what you're getting at. :P.
These were the only ones I wasn't sure you'd use a human tone for.
> >Using human skin tones is an interesting idea. I'll probably go for a
dark
> >brown when I get around to my Kroot. I can't share any experience yet as
I
> >haven't even bought them. My problem is tying them in with my dark blue
Tau
> >and still make them look good and reasonably realistic.
>
> In your case, with blue Tau, you'd defininitely want the Picts. You're
> basically reversing the color scheme with your Kroot, so they army ties
> together.
Problem is, I want to avoid bright colours. I'm working on a night world
theme, so I'd rather go with a darker main colour. The Aboriginal look might
work, if I manage to use the secondary colours in a good way. But, as I
said, even concept models are still far in the future for me.
Oh, this is a poll? I vote 1 and smithdoerr, with a negative vote for Blood
Angels.
/Anton
John Hwang
>"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair
>
>I take it you haven't seen any non-bleached Australian
>Aborigines then?
I live halfway across the world from them. No, I haven't. But I would do due
diligence at the university. :)
John Hwang
>John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> skrev
>...
>> "Anton Svärd" anton...@telia.com wrote:
>> >John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> skrev ...
>
>> I'd be going for human flesh skin tones for *all* of them. Tho these are
>>the only Caucasians, if that's what you're getting at. :P.
>
>These were the only ones I wasn't sure you'd use a human tone for.
LOL.
>> >Using human skin tones is an interesting idea. I'll probably go for a
>> >dark brown when I get around to my Kroot. I can't share any
>> >experience yet as I haven't even bought them. My problem is tying
>> >them in with my dark blue Tau and still make them look good and
>> >reasonably realistic.
>>
>> In your case, with blue Tau, you'd defininitely want the Picts. You're
>> basically reversing the color scheme with your Kroot, so they army ties
>> together.
>
>Problem is, I want to avoid bright colours. I'm working on a night world
>theme, so I'd rather go with a darker main colour. The Aboriginal look might
>work, if I manage to use the secondary colours in a good way. But, as I
>said, even concept models are still far in the future for me.
Even moreso. Your Kroot bodies should be pale, vampire/elf white, without
sunlight to activate the tanning process. Then have heavy and intricate
tattoos in the same dark blue as the Tau. This will darken them. As you're
white and dark blue, your colors are desaturated, so the models won't appear to
be overly "bright".
>Oh, this is a poll? I vote 1 and smithdoerr, with a negative vote for Blood
>Angels.
John Hwang
>"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>>
>> I am. Are there any *other* "Aborigines" which I might be
>> expected to know of in common parlance?
>
>How about American and Canadian aborigines? You *do*
>live in the US, surely you've heard of Native Americans.
Yes. We call them "Native Americans", even if they are aborginal.
>That aside, the term "aboriginal" describes the native inhabitants of any
>region.
However, when capitalized to "Aborigines", it only refers to the Australian
variety.
John Hwang
>"John Hwang" wrote
>> "Rob Singers" wrote:
>> >"John Hwang" wrote
>>
>> >>I'm thinking to style them after real-life historical cannibal/
>> >>barbarian-types. Options:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint
>> >>job which easily uses the quills for contrast.
>> >
>> >While I understand what you're doing I do find gross ethnic stereotypes
>> >offensive.
>>
>> Sorry. Cannibalism *never* occurred from a historical POV, so naturally,
>>any depiction thereof in game, representing same as same is offensive. My
bad.
>
>I think you misunderstood. I have no problem with cannibalism.
Good. Then given that I'm taking a pseudo-realistic approach, for models which
are supposed to be cannibal types, clearly styled thereafter, explain why is
offensive to match my cannibals up against RL cannibal types?
>> Idiot. It's one thing if I'm making things up out of thin air. However,
>>I'm working from history or pseudo-history.
>
>Actually you might as well be with your generalisations on *appearance*.
So you're saying I can't paint accurate flesh tones? What?
>> Cripes, next you'll be demanding that historians remove all references to
>>the Stars and Bars, Swastikas, and SS because the offend people.
>> Screw that. If it happened, it happened. Don't sweep it under the rug
>>just because some people don't like to recognize the facts of the matter.
>
>Ah jumping to conclusions isn't it great :-)
>
>> >Rather than launch into a rant I'll make the point by suggesting
>> >that you could paint them yellow and enhance the slantiness of their eyes.
>>
>> Yeah, that's *so* historical.
>
>or factual. Exactly my point. Actually I think Lemon Yellow kroot would
>look good.
No. Far too bright for my tastes. I already covered this in my intro. Please
pay attention. .
>> >By the way if you're talking about Australian aboriginals
>>
>> I am. Are there any *other* "Aborigines" which I might be expected to know
>>of in common parlance? No? OK, then.
>
>Not having any knowledge of your education I couldn't comment.
See my other reply on this point.
>> >> 2. Maori -- for the full-face tattoos, of course.
>> >
>> >Most Polynesian people have facial or full body tattoos. I can help you
>> >here. Tana Umaga bearing down on someone on the Rugby field
>> >reminds me of "Predator" so I can see a hint of alieness with using
>> >Polynesian motifs.
>> >http://www.nzrugby.com/2002/teams/allblacks/umaga_tana.asp
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>BTW Maori with no European blood are very dark. Brown rather than the
>Blue\Black I've seen in Aficans The tattoos are chiselled in.
Yes. I'm aware of this minor color shift. Again, what makes you think that I
wouldn't get the tones correct?
Rob Singers
> Good. Then given that I'm taking a pseudo-realistic approach, for models
which
> are supposed to be cannibal types, clearly styled thereafter, explain why is
> offensive to match my cannibals up against RL cannibal types?
You still think that's what I took offence to?
I think modelling Kroot on real world cannibals is a great idea. Forgetting the
cannibals part I think Polynesian or Melanesian motifs is a better idea. If
anything Kroot are a match to Papuan Highlanders more so than any of your
examples.
I would have thought that mentioning yellow skined slant eyes would have given
the point away. I'm starting to wonder if you and Blackheart don't get on
because you're far to much alike ;-)
Maka
> >> 1. Aborigines -- dark skin, light hair translates into an easy paint job
> >>which easily uses the quills for contrast.
> >
> >While I understand what you're doing I do find gross ethnic stereotypes
> >offensive.
>
> Sorry. Cannibalism *never* occurred from a historical POV, so naturally, any
> depiction thereof in game, representing same as same is offensive. My bad.
It did occure rather wide spread in a Prehistoric setting. As for how
should you paint them?
I vote for a Football team thats plane has crashed in the Andies.
Or...
Aztec. You can get a wide range of skin tones. On a scale of 1-10,
RTM being a "2", me coming in about "4" and you in at "6", Aztecs
would go from 5-9, based on the art work I viewed that the Aztecs
painted of themselves. You could also include lots of very bright
feathers and accessories, and paint the wepaon blades to look like
Obsidian. The darker bodies with bright weapons would add a lot of
color to your fairly dark gaurd army.
> Idiot. It's one thing if I'm making things up out of thin air. However, I'm
> working from history or pseudo-history.
I guess we have to post a source for any paint scheme now and defend
it.
> Cripes, next you'll be demanding that historians remove all references to the
> Stars and Bars, Swastikas, and SS because the offend people. Screw that. If
> it happened, it happened. Don't sweep it under the rug just because some
> people don't like to recognize the facts of the matter.
-Maka
Rob Singers
> > Idiot. It's one thing if I'm making things up out of thin air. However,
I'm
> > working from history or pseudo-history.
>
> I guess we have to post a source for any paint scheme now and defend
> it.
No you Yanks do a good enough job of defending idiocy and ignorance as it is.
It would be a drain on the whole NG if we had to educate you about what happens
outside your borders.
The Blue Raja
news:hgPg9.2407$b5.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
It'd be a full time job trying to explain that a world exists outside their
borders.
PS. Hugs and Kisses from the land of wind and ghosts.
Qrab
<the_blue_ra...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> "Rob Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hgPg9.2407$b5.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
> > > > Idiot. It's one thing if I'm making things up out of thin
> > > > air. However, I'm working from history or pseudo-history.
> > >
> > > I guess we have to post a source for any paint scheme now and
> > > defend it.
> >
> > No you Yanks do a good enough job of defending idiocy and
> > ignorance as it is. It would be a drain on the whole NG if we had
> > to educate you about what happens outside your borders.
>
> It'd be a full time job trying to explain that a world exists
> outside their borders.
>
> PS. Hugs and Kisses from the land of wind and ghosts.
*snicker* You guys are funny.
--
Be seeing you-
Qrab
remove yourhead to reply
Anton Svärd
...
> Even moreso. Your Kroot bodies should be pale, vampire/elf white, without
> sunlight to activate the tanning process. Then have heavy and intricate
> tattoos in the same dark blue as the Tau. This will darken them. As
you're
> white and dark blue, your colors are desaturated, so the models won't
appear to
> be overly "bright".
Could work. I suspect it would be a lot of work though, highlighting all
that pale skin properly and then paint tatoos all over it. Still, it might
be worth a concept model. I'm mostly in favour of dark skin, maybe with a
pale belly and probably with smaller tatoos.
RT Maitreya
>>That aside, the term "aboriginal" describes the native inhabitants of any
>>region.
>
> However, when capitalized to "Aborigines", it only refers to the Australian
> variety.
This is correct.
RTM
Rob Singers
Have a degree in Social Science too do you Dr Dan?
Mikael
received a subspace message from this:
[X] bloke [] bint []troll [] thing [] d00d
[] DJ [] moron [] NARP [] other,
""Rob Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com>" of the planet
rec.games.miniatures.warhammer:
Stop fucking arguing. Erik has a degree in History; go ask him.
Mikael
--
Resistance is futile. You will be initiated. Have a nice day.
The RGMW FAQ:
http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
Read it. And don't bloody top-post!
Maka
No, Dr. Dan has a Degree in a *"real science". Either way, the
question isn't about what fluffy science degree you have, it is a
question of grammar.
I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
reproducable discoveries as real science.
-Maka
The Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell
"Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2db7e5c8.0209...@posting.google.com...
--
Samuel Campbell, #109
Housedad and Gamer
RGMW outtakes collector
"Sam, what would RGMW be without you?" - Marshall Dragoo
Look out for that spamtrap...
Read the FAQ http://www.rgmw.org
Maka
Oh so I'm sure you know of the crop cycle of wild rice, corn and beans
and the pressures it puts on a city of say 300,000 in pre-historic
times? I'm sure you've also read the inability of a culture of that
size to support year around on the crops that they were growing, and
the evidence that points to the Aztecs eating the bodies of the
sacrifices to supplement their diet, filling in missing amino acids.
Of course you might think the Aztecs raided others for food, but
evidence shows that most raids were in times of amino acid gaps, and
the peoples they were raiding would not have a stockpile of the right
kind of food.
I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was written by an
American Archeologist (A science here, rather than in a school of Art)
and your clear discrimination (often deserved) against Americans would
prevent you from know this.
-Maka
Qrab
Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell" <mani...@wink.optushome.com.au>
wrote:
> "Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2db7e5c8.0209...@posting.google.com...
> > "Rob Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<oQXg9.2493$b5.1...@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > > "RT Maitreya" wrote
> > > > John Hwang wrote:
> > > > >>That aside, the term "aboriginal" describes the native
> > > > >>inhabitants of any region.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, when capitalized to "Aborigines", it only refers
> > > > > to the Australian variety.
> > > >
> > > > This is correct.
> > >
> > > Have a degree in Social Science too do you Dr Dan?
> >
> > No, Dr. Dan has a Degree in a *"real science". Either way, the
> > question isn't about what fluffy science degree you have, it is a
> > question of grammar.
> >
> > I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
> > reproducable discoveries as real science.
> >
> ...as apposed to wanking Science?
Wanking is an artform. Just ask Old Bear.
smithdoerr
> No, Dr. Dan has a Degree in a *"real science". Either way, the
> question isn't about what fluffy science degree you have, it is a
> question of grammar.
>
> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
> reproducable discoveries as real science.
Social Science discoveries made using quantitative data can easily be
reproduced. Discoveries made using qualitative data are definitely more
subjective but can be reproduced as well.
--
-smithdoerr
Robert Singers
> I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was written by an
> American Archeologist (A science here, rather than in a school of Art)
> and your clear discrimination (often deserved) against Americans would
> prevent you from know this.
What the fuck has that got to do with people jumping to conclusions about other
peoples opinions when they could actually be utilising the offers of help from
those people about subjects that they actually bloody know about, rather than
getting fucking stupid, having a tantrum and their little friends joining in.
Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a shit load more
than you about the Native peoples of the pacific and what you're taught in
American schools might just be apocryphal. After all you guys can't even spell
Aluminium right.
S. Ryan Kirk
>
> Oh so I'm sure you know of the crop cycle of wild rice, corn and beans
> and the pressures it puts on a city of say 300,000 in pre-historic
> times? I'm sure you've also read the inability of a culture of that
> size to support year around on the crops that they were growing, and
> the evidence that points to the Aztecs eating the bodies of the
> sacrifices to supplement their diet, filling in missing amino acids.
> Of course you might think the Aztecs raided others for food, but
> evidence shows that most raids were in times of amino acid gaps, and
> the peoples they were raiding would not have a stockpile of the right
> kind of food.
This is getting way off topic, but I'd be interested in knowing the
name & author of this paper as I was an Anthropology major and I like
Central/South American topics. I'd be interested in knowing why the
Aztecs would eat humans rather than wild game.
> I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was written by an
> American Archeologist (A science here, rather than in a school of Art)
In Canada anthropology is also an Art rather than a science. Why it
is different in the U.S. I do not know.
S. Ryan
Robert Singers
> (Maka) wrote
> > Oh so I'm sure you know of the crop cycle of wild rice, corn and beans
> > and the pressures it puts on a city of say 300,000 in pre-historic
> > times? I'm sure you've also read the inability of a culture of that
> > size to support year around on the crops that they were growing, and
> > the evidence that points to the Aztecs eating the bodies of the
> > sacrifices to supplement their diet, filling in missing amino acids.
> > Of course you might think the Aztecs raided others for food, but
> > evidence shows that most raids were in times of amino acid gaps, and
> > the peoples they were raiding would not have a stockpile of the right
> > kind of food.
>
> This is getting way off topic, but I'd be interested in knowing the
> name & author of this paper as I was an Anthropology major and I like
> Central/South American topics. I'd be interested in knowing why the
> Aztecs would eat humans rather than wild game.
We could have a lively discussion about the amino acid deficiencies of diets
where corn is the primary staple. Personally I find burial rites more
interesting than discussions of diet which generally fail to take into account
time as a factor.
> > I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was written by an
> > American Archeologist (A science here, rather than in a school of Art)
>
> In Canada anthropology is also an Art rather than a science. Why it
> is different in the U.S. I do not know.
In NZ Arts and Social Sciences are generally in the same school.
The Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell
"Qrab" <qr...@san.rr.yourhead.com> wrote in message
news:qrab-79611E.1...@news-server.san.rr.com...
Maka
> "Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2db7e5c8.0209...@posting.google.com...
> > "Rob Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<oQXg9.2493$b5.1...@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > > "RT Maitreya" wrote
> > > > John Hwang wrote:
> > > > >>That aside, the term "aboriginal" describes the native inhabitants
> of any
> > > > >>region.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, when capitalized to "Aborigines", it only refers to the
> Australian
> > > > > variety.
> > > >
> > > > This is correct.
> > >
> > > Have a degree in Social Science too do you Dr Dan?
> >
> > No, Dr. Dan has a Degree in a *"real science". Either way, the
> > question isn't about what fluffy science degree you have, it is a
> > question of grammar.
> >
> > I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
> > reproducable discoveries as real science.
> >
> ...as apposed to wanking Science?
Sure if you want to call it that. A lot of research is done and
claimed in the name of science, even though huge flaws exist... Most
often I see the lack of a remotely random sample as the most common
error. Followed closesly by a 'pet hypothesis'.
> Samuel Campbell, #109
-Maka
Robert Singers
> "Qrab" wrote
> > Wanking is an artform. Just ask Old Bear.
> >
> But there are those who get no joy out of it; re: Setzer.
Art is not necessarily enjoyable.
The Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell
The Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell
"Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:am3c0m$2ona$1...@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
more like interior decorating. e.g. Erik's poetry... interior decorating for
my toilet so I can alleviate my bowels.
RT Maitreya
> Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a shit load more
> than you about the Native peoples of the pacific and what you're taught in
> American schools might just be apocryphal.
What makes you think Maka is just another stupid blonde
surfer dood? Some people used to do this shit for a
living, y'know, before they turned to lives of Warhammer.
And don't even get me started on Al. To see it spelled
your way is like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.
RTM
John Hwang
>"Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
>> No, Dr. Dan has a Degree in a *"real science". Either way,
>> the question isn't about what fluffy science degree you have,
>> it is a question of grammar.
Yup.
>> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
>> reproducable discoveries as real science.
I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
This pretty much eliminates any field of "study" which has the word "Science"
in its name. E.g. Political "Science", Social "Science".
>Social Science discoveries made using quantitative data can easily
>be reproduced. Discoveries made using qualitative data are
>definitely more subjective but can be reproduced as well.
Show me something predictive and then run an experiment to demonstrate that
prediction can be fulfilled, and I'll look down less on the "Sciences" which
claim to be by name.
John Hwang
>John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> skrev ...
>
>> Even moreso. Your Kroot bodies should be pale, vampire/elf white,
>> without sunlight to activate the tanning process. Then have heavy
>> and intricate tattoos in the same dark blue as the Tau. This will darken
>> them. As you're white and dark blue, your colors are desaturated,
>> so the models won't appear to be overly "bright".
>
>Could work.
*Would* work. :)
>I suspect it would be a lot of work though, highlighting all
>that pale skin properly and then paint tatoos all over it.
Actually, with enough tattoos (full-body), you can get somewhat lazy on the
base skin.
>Still, it might be worth a concept model.
Well, then the Shaper, at least.
>I'm mostly in favour of dark skin, maybe with a
>pale belly and probably with smaller tatoos.
Done to death, IMO. The problem with dark skin is that tattoos don't show
well. You can't be darker than medium if you want clear, sharp tattoos to
show. If you get into the "black" ranges, you need to go with body paints in
white, yellow, etc. instead. IMO, this is *much* harder than tattoos, as
tattoos can be done with any ink nib.
John Hwang
>"Maka" wrote
>Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a
>shit load more than you about the Native peoples of the
>pacific and what you're taught in American schools might
>just be apocryphal.
Yes. You're Australian or Kiwi. And I don't see either of these countries
taking the world over by storm. Stupid Steve Irwin wannabes...
>After all you guys can't even spell
>Aluminium right.
That's OK. You can't spell color, liter, or flavor properly.
:P
Robert Singers
> Robert Singers wrote:
> > Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a shit load more
> > than you about the Native peoples of the pacific and what you're taught in
> > American schools might just be apocryphal.
>
> What makes you think Maka is just another stupid blonde
> surfer dood? Some people used to do this shit for a
> living, y'know, before they turned to lives of Warhammer.
What makes you think I think he is. You guys having a collective brian fart or
something?
> And don't even get me started on Al. To see it spelled
> your way is like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium. Aluminium.
The Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell
"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:20020915231640...@mb-fp.news.cs.com...
> "Robert Singers" rsin...@finger.hotmail.com
> >"Maka" wrote
>
> >Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a
> >shit load more than you about the Native peoples of the
> >pacific and what you're taught in American schools might
> >just be apocryphal.
>
> Yes. You're Australian or Kiwi. And I don't see either of these
countries
> taking the world over by storm. Stupid Steve Irwin wannabes...
>
> >After all you guys can't even spell
> >Aluminium right.
>
> That's OK. You can't spell color, liter, or flavor properly.
>
The US has economised the english language for their dense merkin lads.
John Hwang
>"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>> >After all you guys can't even spell
>> >Aluminium right.
>>
>> That's OK. You can't spell color, liter, or flavor properly.
>
>The US has economised the english language for their
>dense merkin lads.
You say that like it's a *bad* thing. :)
Robert Singers
> "Robert Singers" wrote
> >"Maka" wrote
>
> >Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a
> >shit load more than you about the Native peoples of the
> >pacific and what you're taught in American schools might
> >just be apocryphal.
>
> Yes. You're Australian or Kiwi. And I don't see either of these countries
> taking the world over by storm. Stupid Steve Irwin wannabes...
Why would we want to and that doesn't change the fact that we know more and have
more access to material on what *you* were freaking interested in.
> >After all you guys can't even spell
> >Aluminium right.
>
> That's OK. You can't spell color, liter, or flavor properly.
Prove my point, why don't ya.
The Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell
> "The Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell" mani...@wink.optushome.com.au wrote:
> >"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
> >> "Robert Singers" rsin...@finger.hotmail.com
> >> >"Maka" wrote
>
> >> >After all you guys can't even spell
> >> >Aluminium right.
> >>
> >> That's OK. You can't spell color, liter, or flavor properly.
> >
> >The US has economised the english language for their
> >dense merkin lads.
>
> You say that like it's a *bad* thing. :)
>
until you can spell it.
The Blue Raja
> >The US has economised the english language for their
> >dense merkin lads.
>
> You say that like it's a *bad* thing. :)
YS I LUV WEN VRE1 TLKZ N TYPZ N SMS LK THS I THNK ITZ 2 CL LOL
--
The Blue Raja
"This is John "Smoking Gun" Hwang. He shoots first and talks about Eldar
later." - Rob Singers
RGMW FAQ - Is FAQ, is good
http://www.freewebz.com/rgmw/rgmw/rgmw-faq.html
The Blue Raja
> liter
Is this supposed to be "litre" or "lighter"? American illiteracy makes it
impossible to tell.
Anton Svärd
John Hwang <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:20020915231403...@mb-fp.news.cs.com
...
> >I'm mostly in favour of dark skin, maybe with a
> >pale belly and probably with smaller tatoos.
>
> Done to death, IMO. The problem with dark skin is that tattoos don't show
> well. You can't be darker than medium if you want clear, sharp tattoos to
> show. If you get into the "black" ranges, you need to go with body paints
in
> white, yellow, etc. instead. IMO, this is *much* harder than tattoos, as
> tattoos can be done with any ink nib.
Sorry, I meant body paint for this, probably white or nearly white. While I
agree that the light colours would be harder to make, I wouldn't have to do
so much of it on each model.
/Anton
--
Pigs are fer eatin' - not fer sittin' on.
--Durgak da Fat, Orc Big Boss
smithdoerr
> "smithdoerr" spamc...@notreal.com
> >"Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> >
> >> No, Dr. Dan has a Degree in a *"real science". Either way,
> >> the question isn't about what fluffy science degree you have,
> >> it is a question of grammar.
>
> Yup.
>
> >> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
> >> reproducable discoveries as real science.
>
> I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
>
> This pretty much eliminates any field of "study" which has the word
"Science"
> in its name. E.g. Political "Science", Social "Science".
>
> >Social Science discoveries made using quantitative data can easily
> >be reproduced. Discoveries made using qualitative data are
> >definitely more subjective but can be reproduced as well.
>
> Show me something predictive and then run an experiment to demonstrate
that
> prediction can be fulfilled, and I'll look down less on the "Sciences"
which
> claim to be by name.
There are areas within the fields sociology, economics, and political
science that study and predict the behavior patterns of large groups of
people. Insurance companies, advertiser, investors, political parties,
business consultants, etc. all wager large sums of money based on these
predictions so I would guess these "predictions are fulfilled" more often
than not.
--
-smithdoerr
Mikael
subspace message from this:
[X] bloke [] bint []troll [] thing [] d00d
[] DJ [] moron [] NARP [] other,
"johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang)" of the planet
rec.games.miniatures.warhammer:
>"smithdoerr" spamc...@notreal.com
>>"Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>>> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
>>> reproducable discoveries as real science.
>
>I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
Nice job pulling definitions out of your arse. So, History and
Archeology aren't sciences, then?
>This pretty much eliminates any field of "study" which has the word "Science"
>in its name. E.g. Political "Science", Social "Science".
So effectively you're saying that sciences that try to discover how
huge and complex systems of human interaction work aren't sciences?
Let me guess, you majored in Engineering?
>>Social Science discoveries made using quantitative data can easily
>>be reproduced. Discoveries made using qualitative data are
>>definitely more subjective but can be reproduced as well.
>
>Show me something predictive and then run an experiment to demonstrate that
>prediction can be fulfilled, and I'll look down less on the "Sciences" which
>claim to be by name.
This prediction business is utter nonsense. I'm betting you don't
understand one single thing about political science, or any of the
other sciences you so high-handedly dismiss.
Mikael
--
Resistance is futile. You will be initiated. Have a nice day.
The RGMW FAQ:
http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
Read it. And don't bloody top-post!
RT Maitreya
>>>Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a shit load more
>>>than you about the Native peoples of the pacific and what you're taught in
>>>American schools might just be apocryphal.
>>>
>>What makes you think Maka is just another stupid blonde
>
> What makes you think I think he is.
Read your above sentence. "Jason and I know a shit load
more than you (Maka) about the Native peoples of the Pacific."
That's a direct quote, boss. It is also probably untrue.
>>And don't even get me started on Al. To see it spelled
>>your way is like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.
>
(SNIP)
Ow.
RTM
Rob Singers
> Robert Singers wrote:
> >>>Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a shit load
more
> >>>than you about the Native peoples of the pacific and what you're taught in
> >>>American schools might just be apocryphal.
> >>>
> >>What makes you think Maka is just another stupid blonde
> >
> > What makes you think I think he is.
>
> Read your above sentence. "Jason and I know a shit load
> more than you (Maka) about the Native peoples of the Pacific."
> That's a direct quote, boss. It is also probably untrue.
Where does it say that I think Maka's a ditzy surfer dude? Remember this all
started from John's blonde Aboriginals and you piping in as an expert on
Indigenous Australians. For all I know Maka's part Hawaiian and knows a hell of
a lot more about the subject. *He* certainly hasn't been sticking a foot in his
mouth.
Maka
> M_st...@hotmail.com (Maka) wrote in message news:<2db7e5c8.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Oh so I'm sure you know of the crop cycle of wild rice, corn and beans
> > and the pressures it puts on a city of say 300,000 in pre-historic
> > times? I'm sure you've also read the inability of a culture of that
> > size to support year around on the crops that they were growing, and
> > the evidence that points to the Aztecs eating the bodies of the
> > sacrifices to supplement their diet, filling in missing amino acids.
> > Of course you might think the Aztecs raided others for food, but
> > evidence shows that most raids were in times of amino acid gaps, and
> > the peoples they were raiding would not have a stockpile of the right
> > kind of food.
>
> This is getting way off topic, but I'd be interested in knowing the
> name & author of this paper as I was an Anthropology major and I like
> Central/South American topics. I'd be interested in knowing why the
> Aztecs would eat humans rather than wild game.
Human flesh was availible due to sacrifices. Nearby, wild game had
been depleted. Most game in the area was small (based on
identification of bones in digs) and it is not productive to send out
hunting parties to collect small game for a big city.
> > I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was written by an
> > American Archeologist (A science here, rather than in a school of Art)
>
> In Canada anthropology is also an Art rather than a science. Why it
> is different in the U.S. I do not know.
Anthropology is often used as a stepping stone into medicine, so in
the US it gets a heavier dose of science classes than in most
countries.
On a side note, in the US a coriner is an Anthropologist. What
education do the researchers of the dead have in your country?
> S. Ryan
-Maka
John Hwang
>"johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang)"
>>>> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
>>>> reproducable discoveries as real science.
>>
>>I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
>
>Nice job pulling definitions out of your arse. So, History and
>Archeology aren't sciences, then?
No, not really. Not what I'd consider "hard science". They lack the ability
to perform experiments to either prove or disprove anything. They're a step up
from pseudoscientists and "fill-in-the-blank Science" types, but not very much
so.
But good call in naming things which regularly pull things out their arses.
>>This pretty much eliminates any field of "study" which has the word
>>"Science" in its name. E.g. Political "Science", Social "Science".
>
>So effectively you're saying that sciences that try to discover how
>huge and complex systems of human interaction work aren't sciences?
Let them run experiments one-by-one and predict results.
For example, from Physics and experiment, I know that if I drop something it
falls at 32.2 feet per second squared, modified for fluid resistance and
altitude. This happens *every* time. I *never* see the case in which I pick
up a rock, release it, and then watch it slowly float off into the sky.
In the fields of near science, wannabe science, that happens all of the time.
They can only make an average prediction. Akin to scooping up a handful of
gravel and releasing it. On average, the little rocks will fall to the ground.
But some will fall quickly, some will stay put, and some will zoom off into
space.
>Let me guess, you majored in Engineering?
Yes. Tho I could have majored in any of a number of *real* sciences instead:
Biology, Chemistry, or Physics, had I been so inclined at the time.
>>>Social Science discoveries made using quantitative data can easily
>>>be reproduced. Discoveries made using qualitative data are
>>>definitely more subjective but can be reproduced as well.
>>
>>Show me something predictive and then run an experiment to demonstrate that
>>prediction can be fulfilled, and I'll look down less on the "Sciences" which
>>claim to be by name.
>
>This prediction business is utter nonsense. I'm betting you don't
>understand one single thing about political science, or any of the
>other sciences you so high-handedly dismiss.
I understand quite a bit about them. More than enough to know that they're not
"real" science.
John Hwang
>
>Is this supposed to be "litre" or "lighter"? American
>illiteracy makes it impossible to tell.
In America, we don't bend over to the Frenchies in spelling. A "liter" is
approximately equal in volume to one quarter of a British Imperial Gallon.
Maka
> "Maka" wrote
> > I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was written by an
> > American Archeologist (A science here, rather than in a school of Art)
> > prevent you from know this.
>
> What the fuck has that got to do with people jumping to conclusions about other
> peoples opinions when they could actually be utilising the offers of help from
> those people about subjects that they actually bloody know about, rather than
> getting fucking stupid, having a tantrum and their little friends joining in.
Who is having a Tantrum? What friend is joining in? If I wanted
help, I'd ask Qrab. If I was way off base, I think he might point it
out.
> Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a shit load more
> than you about the Native peoples of the pacific and what you're taught in
> American schools might just be apocryphal. After all you guys can't even spell
> Aluminium right.
Which native Peoples? I spent 6 months in Mexico doing field work on
teh Aztecs. I did not disagree with anything you said on peoples of
the Pacific, as I have not been extensively educated on them. I
provided Hwang with a native population that has evidence of
cannibalism for use as a paint scheme, so he wouldn't have to use
hollywood as a source.
-MAka
John Hwang
>I provided Hwang with a native population that has
>evidence of cannibalism for use as a paint scheme,
Indeed, thank you. Checking back, it looks like I failed to comment on it.
I don't really want especially dark-skinned types because I don't think can do
high-contrast tattoos, and body-paint would be inherently less detailed with
necessarily broader strokes.
Generic dark-skinned types just won't do for me, as they're overdone already,
and while the "bright" weapon contrast would be nice, I'm not sure it'll be
"gritty" enough for me. :)
I want something I can *paint*.
>so he wouldn't have to use hollywood as a source.
I wouldn't use hollywood anyhow. I was basing my choices more on my
recollections of early anthropology, and really was looking for a bit of
direction in terms of where to focus my reserach efforts before painting. At
this point, I'll probably end up with Picts, as these are the ones I think I
can get the best paint jobs out of.
If I wanted to do gross ethnic stereotypes, as that idiot Singers suggests, I
wouldn't even bother polling or gathering inputs. I'd simply paint them dark
brown and call it a day. Heck, I'd be done by now.
P Bowles
johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) writes:
>mikael...@null.fi (Mikael) wrote:
>>"johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang)"
>>>"smithdoerr" spamc...@notreal.com
>>>>"Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
>>>>> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
>>>>> reproducable discoveries as real science.
>>>
>>>I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
>>
>>Nice job pulling definitions out of your arse. So, History and
>>Archeology aren't sciences, then?
>
>No, not really. Not what I'd consider "hard science". They lack the ability
>to perform experiments to either prove or disprove anything.
True to an extent of history, which on the traditional university categories
into which these things are pigeon-holed has always been regarded as art rather
than science, but not really of archaeology - there have been innumerable
experiments designed to test whether people might really have used X method
suggested by the archaeological record to produce Y observed result, often as a
means of finding subjects for extremely tedious television programmes (not
because the experiments or their results are necessarily tedious, but because
they're invariably very bad programmes designed for the sort of low-brow
audience who need things like 'a pyramid is a three-dimensional triangle'
explained in exhaustive detail).
They're a step
>up
>from pseudoscientists and "fill-in-the-blank Science" types, but not very
>much
>so.
And what about physicists? Areas like cosmology have very little grounding in
experiment - indeed on the paleontology newsgroup a quantum theorist recently
tied himself up in knots trying to apply entirely theoretical arguments and
Occam's razor to paleontology and specifically human evolution, because he
didn't quite grasp the value of extrapolation from observational evidence, of
which experimentation is just one form (after all, the purpose of an experiment
is simply to produce an observable result against which one can test a theory).
>>>This pretty much eliminates any field of "study" which has the word
>>>"Science" in its name. E.g. Political "Science", Social "Science".
>>
>>So effectively you're saying that sciences that try to discover how
>>huge and complex systems of human interaction work aren't sciences?
>
>Let them run experiments one-by-one and predict results.
Psychologists do a great deal of this.
Philip Bowles
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) writes:
>>mikael...@null.fi (Mikael) wrote:
>>>"johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang)"
>>>>"smithdoerr" spamc...@notreal.com
>>>>>"Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>>
>>>>>> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
>>>>>> reproducable discoveries as real science.
>>>>
>>>>I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
>>>
>>>Nice job pulling definitions out of your arse. So, History and
>>>Archeology aren't sciences, then?
>>
>>No, not really. Not what I'd consider "hard science". They lack the
>>ability to perform experiments to either prove or disprove anything.
>
>True to an extent of history, which on the traditional university categories
>into which these things are pigeon-holed has always been regarded as art
>rather than science,
Yup.
>but not really of archaeology - there have been innumerable experiments
>designed to test whether people might really have used X method
>suggested by the archaeological record to produce Y observed result,
>often as a means of finding subjects for extremely tedious television
>programmes (not because the experiments or their results are
>necessarily tedious, but because they're invariably very bad programmes
>designed for the sort of low-brow audience who need things like 'a
>pyramid is a three-dimensional triangle' explained in exhaustive detail).
Nope. The problem with these things is that it's not often clear that they
found the *exact* way they did it. There are any number of ways to do things,
but to be able to conclusively prove or disprove something is a significant
hurdle.
For example, one may *predict* that pottery would be made in a certain way,
exhibiting certain structural features and imperfections. One may then make
pottery in the supposed way, as an experiment. Then one may *compare* the
experment with the prediction. If they match, one may conclude that this *may*
have been *one* way of achieving the pottery. But can one demonstrate that
this is the *only* way, that any exceptions can be explained exactingly?
>> They're a step up from pseudoscientists and "fill-in-the-blank Science"
types,
>> but not very much so.
>
>And what about physicists? Areas like cosmology have very little grounding in
>experiment -
I don't know about that. Most Physics is based on experiment. Theory needs to
be provable or disprovable. Cosmology allows one to make certain classes of
predictions which may be tested for concordance with existing accepted science.
To the extent that Cosmology makes testable predictions, I'd consider it a
science.
>indeed on the paleontology newsgroup a quantum theorist recently
>tied himself up in knots trying to apply entirely theoretical arguments
>and Occam's razor to paleontology and specifically human evolution,
>because he didn't quite grasp the value of extrapolation from
>observational evidence, of which experimentation is just one form
Hehe.
>(after all, the purpose of an experiment is simply to produce an
>observable result against which one can test a theory).
Exactly.
>>>>This pretty much eliminates any field of "study" which has the word
>>>>"Science" in its name. E.g. Political "Science", Social "Science".
>>>
>>>So effectively you're saying that sciences that try to discover how
>>>huge and complex systems of human interaction work aren't sciences?
>>
>>Let them run experiments one-by-one and predict results.
>
>Psychologists do a great deal of this.
And their rocks *never* float away into the sky when released? They *always*
fall at a basic rate of 32 ft per sec squared? I doubt this.
RT Maitreya
>>Read your above sentence. "Jason and I know a shit load
>>more than you (Maka) about the Native peoples of the Pacific."
>>That's a direct quote, boss. It is also probably untrue.
> Where does it say that I think Maka's a ditzy surfer dude? Remember this all
> started from John's blonde Aboriginals and you piping in as an expert on
> Indigenous Australians. For all I know Maka's part Hawaiian and knows a hell of
> a lot more about the subject. *He* certainly hasn't been sticking a foot in his
Retard, follow the thread.
Maka piped in, not me. He piped in claiming to know
something, and you called him an idiot. I then wrote
in saying "Maka knows more about this than you do".
You are now revising history to make it seem that
the thread went differently than it did.
Please try to stay up with the slow class.
RTM
P Bowles
johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) writes:
>>> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
>>> reproducable discoveries as real science.
How many times can you 'discover' the mechanisms of evolution or the Big Bang
theory? Several people can come to the same conclusion on the basis of the same
evidence (eg, Wallace and Darwin), but once discovered it couldn't be
'rediscovered'. Additional evidence can support it, but can't reproduce the
original discovery. Does that make these fields unscientific?
>I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
Astrologers will be thrilled to finally get recognition...
Philip Bowles
P Bowles
johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) writes:
>>but not really of archaeology - there have been innumerable experiments
>>designed to test whether people might really have used X method
>>suggested by the archaeological record to produce Y observed result,
>>often as a means of finding subjects for extremely tedious television
>>programmes (not because the experiments or their results are
>>necessarily tedious, but because they're invariably very bad programmes
>>designed for the sort of low-brow audience who need things like 'a
>>pyramid is a three-dimensional triangle' explained in exhaustive detail).
>
>Nope. The problem with these things is that it's not often clear that they
>found the *exact* way they did it.
You could say the same about evolutionary theory, genetics, paleontology or
many branches of physics, to name a few examples.
>For example, one may *predict* that pottery would be made in a certain way,
>exhibiting certain structural features and imperfections. One may then make
>pottery in the supposed way, as an experiment. Then one may *compare* the
>experment with the prediction. If they match, one may conclude that this
>*may*
>have been *one* way of achieving the pottery. But can one demonstrate that
>this is the *only* way, that any exceptions can be explained exactingly?
Why does it need to? Your criterion was that the subject makes testable
predictions through experiment - you can test a theory as to how pottery was
manufactured to see if it matches the prediction. Very few areas of science are
so cut-and-dried that you can categorically state there is no other explanation
- witness the many competitors for a replacement to the Standard Model of
cosmology, or the three or four current explanations for transitional features
between birds and various groups of dinosaur.
>>> They're a step up from pseudoscientists and "fill-in-the-blank Science"
>types,
>>> but not very much so.
>>
>>And what about physicists? Areas like cosmology have very little grounding
>in
>>experiment -
>
>I don't know about that. Most Physics is based on experiment. Theory needs
>to
>be provable or disprovable. Cosmology allows one to make certain classes of
>predictions which may be tested for concordance with existing accepted
>science.
> To the extent that Cosmology makes testable predictions, I'd consider it a
>science.
But modern theories of cosmology can account for known facts in widely
differing ways, hence the existence of several main theories and innumerable
variations on each all of which have survived testing against empirical
evidence. If science were ever to produce rock-solid theories there would never
be controversy, disagreement or indeed progress, as we'd have found something
which explained everything there was to know about whatever. I highly doubt it
will ever be possible for science to attain that level of perfection.
>>>>>This pretty much eliminates any field of "study" which has the word
>>>>>"Science" in its name. E.g. Political "Science", Social "Science".
>>>>
>>>>So effectively you're saying that sciences that try to discover how
>>>>huge and complex systems of human interaction work aren't sciences?
>>>
>>>Let them run experiments one-by-one and predict results.
>>
>>Psychologists do a great deal of this.
>
>And their rocks *never* float away into the sky when released? They *always*
>fall at a basic rate of 32 ft per sec squared? I doubt this.
One key feature of scientific prediction is the prospect of fallibility - if
you test a theory scientifically, sometimes it will be wrong. Often it will be
wrong in the case of psychology, as its subjects are far less well understood
than gravity or rocks and its study in a far earlier stage of development.
Science is a methodology, not a result.
Philip Bowles
RT Maitreya
>>>Let them run experiments one-by-one and predict results.
>>>
>>Psychologists do a great deal of this.
>
> And their rocks *never* float away into the sky when released? They *always*
> fall at a basic rate of 32 ft per sec squared? I doubt this.
Drug-addicted failed-marriage must-see-TVers are not rocks.
RTM
RT Maitreya
> If I wanted to do gross ethnic stereotypes, as that idiot Singers suggests, I
> wouldn't even bother polling or gathering inputs. I'd simply paint them dark
> brown and call it a day. Heck, I'd be done by now.
No turbans? You can use the grot weapons sprue
to arm them with AKs.
RTM
John Hwang
I didn't go that route with my Tallarn, instead making them Jungle troops, so
why would I do that with the Kroot?
RT Maitreya
>>>If I wanted to do gross ethnic stereotypes, as that idiot Singers
>>>suggests, I wouldn't even bother polling or gathering inputs. I'd
>>> simply paint them dark brown and call it a day. Heck, I'd be
>>>
>>No turbans? You can use the grot weapons sprue
>>to arm them with AKs.
>
> I didn't go that route with my Tallarn, instead making them Jungle troops, so
> why would I do that with the Kroot?
It's called "being cheeky" and "bringing in relevant
humor from other threads". Honestly, John.
RTM
John Hwang
I know. But I also know GW rather *wants* players to use gross stereotypes
with their minis. And apparently, the Lasgun was styled after the AK, so
again, the Tallarn *are* the best match to this sort of thing.
Qrab
> M_st...@hotmail.com (Maka) wrote in message
> news:<2db7e5c8.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Oh so I'm sure you know of the crop cycle of wild rice, corn and
> > beans
> > and the pressures it puts on a city of say 300,000 in pre-historic
> > times? I'm sure you've also read the inability of a culture of that
> > size to support year around on the crops that they were growing, and
> > the evidence that points to the Aztecs eating the bodies of the
> > sacrifices to supplement their diet, filling in missing amino acids.
> > Of course you might think the Aztecs raided others for food, but
> > evidence shows that most raids were in times of amino acid gaps, and
> > the peoples they were raiding would not have a stockpile of the right
> > kind of food.
>
> This is getting way off topic, but I'd be interested in knowing the
> name & author of this paper as I was an Anthropology major and I like
> Central/South American topics. I'd be interested in knowing why the
> Aztecs would eat humans rather than wild game.
You can't fucking shake a stick around here without hitting an
Anthropoligist, can you? How many is that now?
> > I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was written by an
> > American Archeologist (A science here, rather than in a school of
> > Art)
>
> In Canada anthropology is also an Art rather than a science. Why it
> is different in the U.S. I do not know.
It depends on the school and even then there are exceptions. For
example, at my school, Anthropology is an 'art,' while Bio-anthro is a
science.
--
Be seeing you-
Qrab
remove yourhead to reply
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) writes:
>
>>>> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
>>>> reproducable discoveries as real science.
>
>How many times can you 'discover' the mechanisms of evolution or the
>Big Bang theory?
See below. I'm not sure that these actual "discoveries". I'd place them with
many other conjectures, providing reasonable prima faciae explanatory power,
but relatively little in reproducibility or testability.
>Several people can come to the same conclusion on
>the basis of the same evidence (eg, Wallace and Darwin),
Several people had similar conclusions on the Etherium and Phlogiston, and what
happened there? They held just as much explanatory power as evolution or the
Big Bang. Ultimately, a better theories were proposed and tested and relegated
these conjectures to the dustbin. While these theories aren't bad, I don't
consider them most sound.
>but once discovered it couldn't be 'rediscovered'. Additional evidence
>can support it, but can't reproduce the original discovery. Does that
>make these fields unscientific?
See above. What you're talking about is what I'd consider theoretical physics
and theoretical anthropology. They are adequate for the moment, but ultimately
fail in the sense of strong reproducibility and testability.
>>I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
>
>Astrologers will be thrilled to finally get recognition...
Since when have their predictions ever been demonstrated to be provable?
They can't ever make a sound, precise prediction, depending on wishy-washyness
and loose interpretation.
John Hwang
>>Nope. The problem with these things is that it's not often clear that they
>>found the *exact* way they did it.
>
>You could say the same about evolutionary theory, genetics, paleontology or
>many branches of physics, to name a few examples.
The first and last, yes.
Genetics? No, I wouldn't. Things like Down's Syndrome and Mendelev are
reproducible. One can breed things and get genetic results, testable, and
reproducible. Looks like hard science to me.
>>For example, one may *predict* that pottery would be made in a certain way,
>>exhibiting certain structural features and imperfections. One may then make
>>pottery in the supposed way, as an experiment. Then one may *compare* the
>>experment with the prediction. If they match, one may conclude that this
>>*may* have been *one* way of achieving the pottery. But can one
>> demonstrate that this is the *only* way, that any exceptions can be
>>explained exactingly?
>
>Why does it need to? Your criterion was that the subject makes testable
>predictions through experiment - you can test a theory as to how pottery was
>manufactured to see if it matches the prediction. Very few areas of science
>are so cut-and-dried that you can categorically state there is no other
>explanation
Hard science, real science and engineering allows me to do this.
>- witness the many competitors for a replacement to the Standard Model of
>cosmology, or the three or four current explanations for transitional
>features between birds and various groups of dinosaur.
Correct. And I have some difficulty with these theoretical branches.
>>>> They're a step up from pseudoscientists and "fill-in-the-blank Science"
>>>>types, but not very much so.
>>>
>>>And what about physicists? Areas like cosmology have very little grounding
>>>in experiment -
>>
>>I don't know about that. Most Physics is based on experiment. Theory needs
>>to be provable or disprovable. Cosmology allows one to make certain classes
>>of predictions which may be tested for concordance with existing accepted
>>science. To the extent that Cosmology makes testable predictions, I'd
>>consider it a science.
>
>But modern theories of cosmology can account for known facts in widely
>differing ways, hence the existence of several main theories and innumerable
>variations on each all of which have survived testing against empirical
>evidence. If science were ever to produce rock-solid theories there would
>never be controversy,
Mechanics and Electromagnetism seem awfully solid to me.
>disagreement or indeed progress,
As an Engineer, I'd say that hard science has produced considerable progress.
It allowed for things like suspension and cable-stayed bridges, skyscrapers,
and automobiles.
>as we'd have found something which explained everything there was to know
>about whatever. I highly doubt it will ever be possible for science to attain
that
>level of perfection.
True. But that still represents the ideal.
>>>>Let them run experiments one-by-one and predict results.
>>>
>>>Psychologists do a great deal of this.
>>
>>And their rocks *never* float away into the sky when released? They
>>*always* fall at a basic rate of 32 ft per sec squared? I doubt this.
>
>One key feature of scientific prediction is the prospect of fallibility - if
>you test a theory scientifically, sometimes it will be wrong.
Yes. Or as I've been putting it "testability", in layman's terms.
>Often it will
>be wrong in the case of psychology, as its subjects are far less well
>understood than gravity or rocks and its study in a far earlier stage
>of development. Science is a methodology, not a result.
So you're saying that psychology will reach the point of mechanics and EM?
smithdoerr
"P Bowles" <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020916141438...@mb-cv.aol.com...
And meteorologists are going to be peeved.
--
-smithdoerr
PS: Yeah I know the old saying "if the weatherman predicts sunshine expect
it to rain" is usually false in this day and age of high tech meteorology
but that would ruin the joke.
smithdoerr
So any kind of study or experimentation involving statistics isn't "real
science"? So let's see, that cuts out any area of Biology dealing with
genetic research, areas of Chemistry involving complex chemical reactions.
Many areas of Physics are out. The entire field of Meteorology is WAY out.
And any sort of statistical analysis of the effectiveness of Warhammer units
is totally unscientific.
> >Let me guess, you majored in Engineering?
>
> Yes. Tho I could have majored in any of a number of *real* sciences
instead:
> Biology, Chemistry, or Physics, had I been so inclined at the time.
According to your definition of "real science" many areas of the above
fields aren't real. But I guess you could always specialize in the more
simplistic and predictable areas of those fields.
> >>>Social Science discoveries made using quantitative data can easily
> >>>be reproduced. Discoveries made using qualitative data are
> >>>definitely more subjective but can be reproduced as well.
> >>
> >>Show me something predictive and then run an experiment to demonstrate
that
> >>prediction can be fulfilled, and I'll look down less on the "Sciences"
which
> >>claim to be by name.
> >
> >This prediction business is utter nonsense. I'm betting you don't
> >understand one single thing about political science, or any of the
> >other sciences you so high-handedly dismiss.
>
> I understand quite a bit about them. More than enough to know that
they're not
> "real" science.
Lol, given your sweeping generalizations it's obvious that you don't even
have the slightest idea of just how broad the fields of social science are
much less "enough to know that they're not 'real' science."
--
-smithdoerr
Robert Singers
> "Robert Singers" wrote
> > "Maka" wrote
> > > I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was written by an
> > > American Archeologist (A science here, rather than in a school of Art)
> > > and your clear discrimination (often deserved) against Americans would
> > > prevent you from know this.
> >
> > What the fuck has that got to do with people jumping to conclusions about
other
> > peoples opinions when they could actually be utilising the offers of help
from
> > those people about subjects that they actually bloody know about, rather
than
> > getting fucking stupid, having a tantrum and their little friends joining
in.
>
> Who is having a Tantrum? What friend is joining in? If I wanted
> help, I'd ask Qrab. If I was way off base, I think he might point it
> out.
I don't think you're way of base. I don't think that Koori or Indigenous
Australians are dark with blonde hair. I also don't think that they're called
"Aboriginals" just because RTM and John say so. I don't think you're a ditzy
surfer just because RTM seems to think that I do.
I do think that John's descriptions of the various "canabals" are as close to
being accurate as describing him as a yellow skinned slant eye [with a shit
eating grin et al]. I also think that given that most of his examples are dark
skinned that the various cultural motifs or artifacts will be what make the
difference.
> > Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a shit load more
> > than you about the Native peoples of the pacific and what you're taught in
> > American schools might just be apocryphal. After all you guys can't even
spell
> > Aluminium right.
>
> Which native Peoples? I spent 6 months in Mexico doing field work on
> teh Aztecs. I did not disagree with anything you said on peoples of
> the Pacific, as I have not been extensively educated on them. I
> provided Hwang with a native population that has evidence of
> cannibalism for use as a paint scheme, so he wouldn't have to use
> hollywood as a source.
The Indigenous peoples of Australia and Aotearoa and the Islands close to us of
which we have access to a great deal of material and if Smoking Gun would remove
his head from his posteur we could provide him with. I for example work very
close to our National Library so if he wanted anything special I could go over
there during a lunch time.
Qrab
(Mikael) wrote:
> Captain's log, Stardate: 16 Sep 2002 03:09:46 GMT.We have received a
> subspace message from this:
> [X] bloke [] bint []troll [] thing [] d00d
> [] DJ [] moron [] NARP [] other,
> "johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang)" of the planet
> rec.games.miniatures.warhammer:
>
> >"smithdoerr" spamc...@notreal.com
> >>"Maka" <M_st...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> >>> I refer to anything that uses that scientififc method to create
> >>> reproducable discoveries as real science.
> >
> >I refer to anything with *predictive* ability as a science.
>
> Nice job pulling definitions out of your arse. So, History and
> Archeology aren't sciences, then?
Archaeology is hard to classify. Other scientific disciplines are
often used to provide data that is incorporated into predictive
models. There are so many variables to consider when creating these
predictive models that it is more like building a house of cards.
Archaeology is a destructive science - merely gathering data from a
particular site destroys the resource. Since every archaeological site
is to a certain extent unique, data gathered from a site can not
necessarily be replicated (unlike physicists dropping rocks). Once
you've gathered the data from particular location on a site, you
cannot go back and re-gather that data, so in a certain sense
Archaeology is more exacting than other sciences.
I'm an Archaeologist. More often than not I'm a glorified ditch
digger. I've got no illusions as to Archaeology's place in the
spectrum of Science <-> Art. It is a discipline that uses scientific
methods to create predictive models, but these models are more often
than not impossible to verify. There are any number of Voodoo
Archaeologists running around out there doing more harm than good to
the reputation of Archaeology, but even 'real' sciences suffer from
that problem.
Excuse me if this doesn't make sense or there are too many typos, but
I spent most of the day standing out in the sun watching heavy
machinery dig a trench. Did I mention that I'm an Archaeologist?
Robert Singers
> If I wanted to do gross ethnic stereotypes, as that idiot Singers suggests, I
> wouldn't even bother polling or gathering inputs. I'd simply paint them dark
> brown and call it a day. Heck, I'd be done by now.
Trying to get both feet in there, John?
Robert Singers
> Rob Singers wrote:
> >>Read your above sentence. "Jason and I know a shit load
> >>more than you (Maka) about the Native peoples of the Pacific."
> >>That's a direct quote, boss. It is also probably untrue.
>
> > Where does it say that I think Maka's a ditzy surfer dude? Remember this
all
> > started from John's blonde Aboriginals and you piping in as an expert on
> > Indigenous Australians. For all I know Maka's part Hawaiian and knows a
hell of
> > a lot more about the subject. *He* certainly hasn't been sticking a foot in
his
>
> Retard, follow the thread.
Have you and John had some half completed brain transplant?
John called me an Idiot
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1698145532d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2
0020914005101.01966.00004374%40mb-mu.news.cs.com
Note this is just the first time while I was offering to provide him with
reference material
> Maka piped in, not me.
Yes here
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl846618069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=hg
Pg9.2407%24b5.183301%40news02.tsnz.net
and I replied in kind.
> He piped in claiming to know
> something, and you called him an idiot.
Really I'd like to see you come up with a google reference to that. The word
"you" in the following post
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl846618069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=am
2ume%242e4f%241%40si05.rsvl.unisys.com
refers to John, RTM, and Maka collectively. Maka has since stated that he's not
an expert on Pacific peoples. It's not on google yet but I'll be happy to
reference it later. Maka definately has a better handle on the subject than you
and John. He can come to front of the class. You and John in the corners with
the dunces hats.
> I then wrote
> in saying "Maka knows more about this than you do".
I'm sure your penis and your Daddy is bigger than mine too.
> You are now revising history to make it seem that
> the thread went differently than it did.
No I'm sticking to one opinion through out the whole thing.
> Please try to stay up with the slow class.
It's you two in the slow class that are amusing us all.
The Blue Raja
> >> liter
> >
> >Is this supposed to be "litre" or "lighter"? American
> >illiteracy makes it impossible to tell.
>
> In America, we don't bend over to the Frenchies in spelling.
Although you did bend over for them to get independence...
> A "liter" is
> approximately equal in volume to one quarter of a British Imperial Gallon.
That doesn't help, I've no idea how big a gallon is.
OTOH, I'm quite used to litres. Is it similar in size to that?
--
The Blue Raja
"This is John "Smoking Gun" Hwang. He shoots first and talks about Eldar
later." - Rob Singers
RGMW FAQ - Is FAQ, is good
http://www.freewebz.com/rgmw/rgmw/rgmw-faq.html
smithdoerr
And meteorologists are going to be peeved.
Robert Singers
> You can't fucking shake a stick around here without hitting an
> Anthropoligist, can you? How many is that now?
If you count the fact that I have one 300 level paper to do to finish my degree
then I think there's four.
smithdoerr
And meteorologists are going to be peeved.
smithdoerr
And meteorologists are going to be peeved.
smithdoerr
<snip>
Wow, quadruple post! Sorry about that folks, no idea why that happened. If
I'd know my post was going to appear 4 times I would have posted a joke that
was actually funny.
--
-smithdoerr
Maka
> M_st...@hotmail.com (Maka) wrote:
>
> >I provided Hwang with a native population that has
> >evidence of cannibalism for use as a paint scheme,
>
>
> I don't really want especially dark-skinned types because I don't think can do
> high-contrast tattoos, and body-paint would be inherently less detailed with
> necessarily broader strokes.
But the Shaper could wear the skin of his enemies.
> Generic dark-skinned types just won't do for me, as they're overdone already,
> and while the "bright" weapon contrast would be nice, I'm not sure it'll be
> "gritty" enough for me. :)
>
> I want something I can *paint*.
I like the Aztec idea for the obsidian blades and the colorful
feathers (covered in grit and blood?).
If I were you, I would go from something lighter, everything in your
army is rather drab other than the Spyrer and the Hive Gangers.
-Maka
Robert Singers
> Excuse me if this doesn't make sense or there are too many typos, but
> I spent most of the day standing out in the sun watching heavy
> machinery dig a trench. Did I mention that I'm an Archaeologist?
<Sigh> The only way that could be better is if you got to blow shit up too.
Robert Singers
> Lol, given your sweeping generalizations it's obvious that you don't even
> have the slightest idea of just how broad the fields of social science are
> much less "enough to know that they're not 'real' science."
I'm waiting for him to prove that black is white and get killed on a zebra
crossing.
The Less Sensitive Samuel Campbell
"Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:am60v9$1sse$1...@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
necessarily got along!"
--
Samuel Campbell, #109
Housedad and Gamer
RGMW outtakes collector
"Sam, what would RGMW be without you?" - Marshall Dragoo
Look out for that spamtrap...
Read the FAQ http://www.rgmw.org
St. Jason
Heavy machinery and Archaeologist should not be in the same sentance. You are
more likely a pot-hunter.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _<Don't quote this> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
St. Jason
In the land of the bland, the one idea-ed man is king.
"Fifty-thousand Squat fans can't be wrong..."
Qrab
<rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
I've seen shit get blown up, does that count?
I forgot to mention that the trench was for a sewer replacement
project...
Qrab
<rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Maka" wrote
> > "Robert Singers" wrote
> > > "Maka" wrote
> > > > I'm pretty sure you have not read this thesis as it was
> > > > written by an American Archeologist (A science here, rather
> > > > than in a school of Art) and your clear discrimination (often
> > > > deserved) against Americans would prevent you from know this.
> > >
> > > What the fuck has that got to do with people jumping to
> > > conclusions about other peoples opinions when they could
> > > actually be utilising the offers of help from those people
> > > about subjects that they actually bloody know about, rather
> > > than getting fucking stupid, having a tantrum and their little
> > > friends joining in.
> >
> > Who is having a Tantrum? What friend is joining in? If I wanted
> > help, I'd ask Qrab. If I was way off base, I think he might
> > point it out.
>
> I don't think you're way of base.
I don't think either or you are off base, I think you just don't
realize that you agree with each other.
> I don't think that Koori or
> Indigenous Australians are dark with blonde hair. I also don't
> think that they're called "Aboriginals" just because RTM and John
> say so. I don't think you're a ditzy surfer just because RTM seems
> to think that I do.
>
> I do think that John's descriptions of the various "canabals" are
> as close to being accurate as describing him as a yellow skinned
> slant eye [with a shit eating grin et al]. I also think that given
> that most of his examples are dark skinned that the various
> cultural motifs or artifacts will be what make the difference.
Y'know, when I saw John's original post, I was going to address some
of these issues, but I just didn't have the time to compose a proper
post. I also thought that John's descriptions were closer to Hollywood
stereotypes than to reality. One reason why I didn't immediately get
involved in this thread is that it's been over 10 years since I've
dealt with South American, African or Pacific Islander cultures, so
I'm a bit rusty. As shocking as this may sound, I didn't want to get
involved without having done some research on the subject to provide
some useful information.
Qrab
<rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
S.Ryan, Maka, Me, you, Phil seems to know a thing or two, and there
was another guy who stopped by for a while.
RT Maitreya
>>>a lot more about the subject. *He* certainly hasn't been sticking a foot in
>>Retard, follow the thread.
>
> Have you and John had some half completed brain transplant?
OK, retardo, let's try again.
Post one, by MAKA:
Oh so I'm sure you know of the crop cycle of wild rice, corn and beans
and the pressures it puts on a city of say 300,000 in pre-historic
times? I'm sure you've also read the inability of a culture of that
size to support year around on the crops that they were growing, and
the evidence that points to the Aztecs eating the bodies of the
sacrifices to supplement their diet, filling in missing amino acids.
Of course you might think the Aztecs raided others for food, but
evidence shows that most raids were in times of amino acid gaps, and
the peoples they were raiding would not have a stockpile of the right
kind of food.
Post two, by ROBERT SINGERS, in response to MAKA:
Is it to much of a stretch to realise that Jason and I know a shit load
more than you about the Native peoples of the pacific and what you're
taught in American schools might just be apocryphal. After all you guys
can't even spell Aluminium right.
Post three, by RTM, in response to ROBERT SINGERS:
What makes you think Maka is just another stupid blonde
surfer dood? Some people used to do this shit for a
living, y'know, before they turned to lives of Warhammer.
Let's recap:
Post 1, by MAKA:
I know a lot about the issues that are involved here.
Post 2, by ROBERT SINGERS, to MAKA regarding his knowledge:
I think you (Maka) are an idiot, and don't know anything about it.
Post 3, by RTM, to ROBERT SINGERS, in defense of MAKA:
I think you (Robert Singers) don't know shit about Maka, if you think he
has no significant background in this area.
After this recap, which is, mind you, absolutely irrefutable evidence
that I only joined this discussion in defense of Maka's background
knowledge, I will know accept whatever apology you wish to scribe to me.
Note that after this discussion, Maka later says "hey, I'm not an actual
EXPERT in Pacific native peoples, but I am well versed in the general
area, as well as having extensive knowledge of central american
peoples." Note that this still suggests he knows a FUCKLOAD more about
Aborigines than do you, given his general background in the area.
RTM
-Taking no Fucking Smartass Prisoners-
Robert Singers
Added quite nicely to the ridiculousness of the thread.
Robert Singers
> "Robert Singers" wrote
> > "Qrab" wrote
> > > You can't fucking shake a stick around here without hitting an
> > > Anthropoligist, can you? How many is that now?
> >
> > If you count the fact that I have one 300 level paper to do to finish my
> degree
> > then I think there's four.
> >
> I'm a lay anthropoligist... "Yeh, you got different people and they haven't
> necessarily got along!"
I'm really a gynaecologist faith healer.
RT Maitreya
>>A "liter" is
>>approximately equal in volume to one quarter of a British Imperial Gallon.
>>
>
> That doesn't help, I've no idea how big a gallon is.
> OTOH, I'm quite used to litres. Is it similar in size to that?
Liters and quarts are about the same size.
There are 4 quarts in a gallon.
RTM
-Oh, and Pi is three-
smithdoerr
Yeah, I must have set some kind of n00b record with that quadruple post.
--
-smithdoerr
RT Maitreya
> I also don't think that they're called
> "Aboriginals" just because RTM and John say so.
Try an English dictionary. www.dictionary.com for starts.
I don't make this shit up, kids.
> I don't think you're a ditzy
> surfer just because RTM seems to think that I do.
Then why'd you go off on him so hard?
I mean -out of fucking control- off on him, challenging his
intelligence, his motives, and his education all in one paragraph of
unsubstantiated tirade.
RTM
RT Maitreya
> peoples." Note that this still suggests he knows a FUCKLOAD more about
> Aborigines than do you, given his general background in the area.
Which may or may not be true, depending on yours and Jason's actual
education, of which I know little. I was on a roll, though, and couldn't
stop for hell or high water.
RTM
Robert Singers
> >> Excuse me if this doesn't make sense or there are too many typos, but
> >> I spent most of the day standing out in the sun watching heavy
> >> machinery dig a trench. Did I mention that I'm an Archaeologist?
> >
> ><Sigh> The only way that could be better is if you got to blow shit up too.
>
> Heavy machinery and Archaeologist should not be in the same sentance. You are
> more likely a pot-hunter.
oohhh get her