New Theory Wanted.
Philip Deitiker
conspiracy theory and I have mine.
Here it goes. Has anyone noticed that when one Kook
disappears a new one shows up. Just as soon as one is
thrashed a new one pops up or an old one flys out of the
woodwork, it is almost like a tennis ball server or
some instrument is throwing them.
Premise 1. The kooks cannot withstand or put forth logical
arguments.
Premise 2. In their attacks against science they fly
head long into the published literature, in which savvy
individuals to show them there ignorance.
Conclusion as a result their arguments are beaten to the
point they are summarily discounted by most in the group.
Their supporters are left disenfranchised after a while, and
the run back into the cobwebs and dark places from which
they came.
Observation. That as soon as one kook disappears a new kook
reappears.
Hypothetical Premise. What if the disappearances of one kook
is associated with the reappearance of others.
New Theory.
Hyperdiffusionist Kook Theory of Science Groups on the
UseNet.
This theory stipulates that the kooks that invade and
recitate odd and unsupported theories on the UseNet are
connected via an unseen network behind the scenes. As part
of the agreement kooks in this diffusionist network
cooperate, not diluting one kooks argument until he is
thoroughly thrashed and has not other recourse than shut-up
or make an ass out of him or herself like Inger/Larry do.
Once one kook get tired of being kicked around like a mangey
street dog, they leave and a new junk-yard shows up to show
the world that mangey dogs have a place in acedemia. This
cycle repeats itself over and over again.
During the respite period of the kook, he gathers new
'junk' data or tries to reconcoct his theory in order to
make it appear that he has corrected old problems. The
individual may create a web-site of evenm try top squeeze
his junk into a publication or meeting which he can then
cite in the next go round. He/she may also be scanning
newsgroups or other groups for new argument techniques, or
carrying on email conversations trying to build support
behind the scenes for the next go round.
At the end of this period the individual gathers
sufficient nerve and sense of empowerment and once again
goes on the offensive, spreading to new niave venues (as
Jabby does), involving new groups of peoples, etc.
I think this new theory is adequate to explain many
phenomena.
1. Old Earth Creationist (Jabriol)
2. Young Earth Creationist
3. Extraterrestrial Creationist (Ed Conrad, Sirvent)
4. In Situ Creationist (Floyd, MIB)
5. Ape Theorist (MV, McGinn, Howard, Many others)
6. Hyperdiffusionist (Inger, Eric, Larry, others)
and a long list.
I think a conspiracy theory is warranted here as a perfect
explanation for the tandem and cyclical nature of the
arguments that we see. We can add to this the restrictions
placed on posting by talk.origins have notably increased the
direct posting by 2 kooks. Notice the number of threads
current that are authored by Ed Conrad but not followed up,
the same is true with Jabriol. With their target audiance
unable to increase the level of discussion of their target,
they are forced to increase their targeting of s.a.p. Inger
is an excellent example of this in sci.archaeology in which
her arguments are thoroughyl trashed she immediately shifts
the arguments to her potential victimization by all kinds of
villianous acts. We can see that these individuals try to
afford the occupation of groups with their activities, and
this generally continues till a new round of kooks show up
and take over. As a result I think it is safe to say
conspiracy to dominate groups with off-topic and illogical
material abounds in the science groups, with collaboration
by the kooks to perpertrate pollutive and unscientific
discussions for no other reason than to undermine the
purpose of groups.
As a result rather than waste our time discussing with
each kook the specific reasons why the individual is a kook
we need a new comprehensive theory and a constant thread in
which each of these theories are combined into a single
theory in which they can debate add nauseum about nothing,
joining and leaving that thread, wasting endless hours
looking for data to support that theory, and then after
spinning wheels for months, leaving and 'figuring' and
coming back.
What we need here is the perfect Kook Theory as a Diversion.
Sort of like chinese handcuffs.
Here are several proposals
Aquatic/Terrestrial/Astronomical Hypertestosteronize
Hyperdiffusionist Creation theory.
The error with creation theory is that it does not
adequately service all the different versions of
creationism. The Hyperdiffusionist Creation theory has
it that animals were created in many places, each being told
they were the first humans; however. As a result when these
humans contacted each other they discovered that their were
contradictions (hyperdiffusiionist critique). God
individually transformed all of these to Mankind and then
told them new stories
God told them they were
1. Brought by aliens
2. Born of exotic animals
3. Made from Dirt
4. Born of water
5. Born of Coal.
Then he told each group that the others were not first but
the other groups existed to provide their group with wives
for marrying. [This explains the inconsistency in the
biblical text]
God also provided longrange sea transport for any culture
that wanted to travel. Some groups were afraid so that they
were taken back to land after 40 days and told it was a
flood. The other groups were taken on guided tours of other
lands and returned after sharing techniques. God placed
roped bobbles just under the oceans surface that were marked
such that the ancient travels could tell longitude and
latitude. Each bottle contained a strong magnet that caused
the dial in the sun compassed to vibrate when it got close
to a longitudinal degree radian. However over time these
floatation deviced leaked and sank to the bottom of the
ocean floor.
For groups of people who believed they came from the ocean
he placed pearl bearing oysters at different depth
encouraging them to dive, For groups of people who believe
they came from the dirt, he had glowing mountains in which
commandments on how to live were given.
As god's testosterone levels increased he created more
groups; however, finally all this pleasing every group got
complicated and God ran out of testosterone and so currently
he is living in a cave alongside a lake in mongolia.
In order to explain culture this theory would have that all
culture was originally created by God after transforming
humans. At first god showed humans how to knapp stone, but
as per constant instruction resulting in massively swollen
hands god moved to teaching humans new techniques, like
pottery, and things that were easier to teach. The stone
tools that exist for 2.6 million years were failed attempts
to teach earlier creations.
The origin of God of course is a mystery; however in this
theory God was a Neandertal, with a superior intellect, had
discovered the fountain of youth and was doing genetics on
the lessor humans from africa. Over time however, the
Neandertals stopped having sex and began to die off, only
one very long lived Neandertal was left, and he traveled
around on his Sled with 8 reindeer, administering stories
and advice to all the worlds peoples. This is why the
reindeer species is spread so widely in the arctic.
This little addition takes into consideration what happened
to the not-intellectually inferior Neandertals (for AVG).
Neandertals were actually an alien species from another
planet and had secretly lived in Pennsylvania Coal Mines and
Europe for 250,000,000 years [reason why neandertals had a
long nasal region was to protect from brown lung disease].
One of the deficiencies of NEandertals is that he cannot
swim. In their attempts to interbreed with aquatic humans,
which at that time could only have sex underwater, the
Neandertals drowned and this is why Gods died out.
Anyone is free to add additional meat to this composite
theory of human evolution and archaeology if they want.
Andy
news:taj5svoid18389qbp...@4ax.com...
> I think we need a new theory here. Everybody has a
> conspiracy theory and I have mine.
>
> Here it goes. Has anyone noticed that when one Kook
> disappears a new one shows up. Just as soon as one is
> thrashed a new one pops up or an old one flys out of the
> woodwork, it is almost like a tennis ball server or
> some instrument is throwing them.
My take on this one is that there is a fundamental need in the universe for
a Kook, therefore, when one Kook leaves another must be created. The
Kookiness therefore must be transferred in some way.
I propose that the kookiness is transferred by fundamental particles which I
name (in full recognition of gluons, muons, gravitons etc) Morons.
I suspect that Moron transferrence is instantaneous and propose a series of
experiments where kooks are executed in a faraday cage under strict lab
conditions in the presence of a potential kook. the spped of new-kook
emergence can be timed. If we can only find a moron proof shield we could
execute kooks inside the shield and prevent moron transmission and,
hopefully, the spread of kookiness.
(with apologies to Pterry)
Andy
Spiznet
> I think we need a new theory here. Everybody has a
> conspiracy theory and I have mine.
>
> Here it goes. Has anyone noticed that when one Kook
> disappears a new one shows up. Just as soon as one is
> thrashed a new one pops up or an old one flys out of the
> woodwork, it is almost like a tennis ball server or
> some instrument is throwing them.
> One of the deficiencies of NEandertals is that he cannot
> swim. In their attempts to interbreed with aquatic humans,
> which at that time could only have sex underwater, the
PD-
1) One needs to create a new ng: kook.origins to discuss and
worship/vilify various kook/kook theories
2) I think you are onto something with you astute analysis of kook /
ng dynamics. Their may be a stochastic distribution of kooks at any
given time but in each ng perhaps there is an alpha-kook...
3) kookism is relative: we would all be kooks in either the 15th or
25th centuries.
-Mark
Seppo Renfors
Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
> I think we need a new theory here. Everybody has a
> conspiracy theory and I have mine.
> Here it goes.
[..] ....and there went.
It was OFF TOPIC once again, and an attempt to pick another fight and
nothing else.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
firstjois
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FC3562A...@not.pollis.net.au...
:
:
: Philip Deitiker wrote:
: >
: > I think we need a new theory here. Everybody has a
: > conspiracy theory and I have mine.
:
: > Here it goes.
:
: [..] ....and there went.
:
: It was OFF TOPIC once again, and an attempt to pick another fight and
: nothing else.
:
: --
: SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
I think Philip expressed the frustration a lot of us feel about the content
of these newsgroups and did it with a lot more humor and spice than I could
have.
A few months back I would read a posting in SAP and wonder what this person
or that would say about the topic and regret that that particular person
didn't post here anymore. Think of the non-kooks this group (and SA, too?)
this group has lost. Now interesting topics are smothered by kook posts.
Paleoanthropology seems to be exploding , folks, it's got to be like
watching the first manned moon shot, and here we are in this mud puddle,
shooting damp clods back and forth. Is this the best we can do?
Jois
Lloyd
Oh Dear! Oh NO! We can't have this. Surely not the EXECUTION
of kooks. Oh, how politically incorrect! Surely it would be
better to rehabilitate them? I picture a large brick structure
with guard posts and towers, where kooks might be required to
experience daily inspirational motivational presentations, on
logic and proper scientific skepticism. And then, once rehab-
ilitated, they might be released back into our society (under
close supervision, of course) and become useful and productive
citizens once again.
To discover if they are properly rehabilitated, they'd be allowed
access to a computer equipped with a 1.44 modem, every 6 months
or so, and observed for an hour.
Those that fail the test more than 3 times might be required to
listen to an endless recording of Fran Dresher reading their own
posts, from the Google archives.
Much more than humane, I think.
Lloyd
*****
.
Kåre A. Lie
<Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote:
>I think we need a new theory here. Everybody has a
>conspiracy theory and I have mine.
>
>Here it goes. Has anyone noticed that when one Kook
>disappears a new one shows up. Just as soon as one is
>thrashed a new one pops up or an old one flys out of the
>woodwork, it is almost like a tennis ball server or
>some instrument is throwing them.
I think we get the best Kook theory by slightly adapting Feynmann's
electron theory as explained by Atkins:
There is only one Kook in the universe, and what we think of as a lot
of Kooks is actually a slice through that Kook's path as it whizzes
backwards and forwards in time. That would certainly be an economical
universe.
Yours,
Kåre A. Lie
http://www.lienet.no/
David Johnson
news:7f56d4d8.03112...@posting.google.com:
What a strange, strange definition of the word "humane"...
David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
David
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
news:taj5svoid18389qbp...@4ax.com...
> conspiracy theory and I have mine.
>
> Here it goes. Has anyone noticed that when one Kook
> disappears a new one shows up. Just as soon as one is
> thrashed a new one pops up or an old one flys out of the
> woodwork, it is almost like a tennis ball server or
> some instrument is throwing them.
>
detective show 77 Sunset Strip. Their teenager of all trades was one Gerald Kookson III or
Kookie for short. He drove a California custom car, dressed "hip," as opposed to the suit
and tie the other characters wore, and was always combing his hair, which was styled in
what was known then as a duck tail.
There was a briefly popular song titled "Kookie, Kookie lend me your comb" and a brief
fashion trend based on the way he dressed (casual with white socks)
MIB529
> 2. Young Earth Creationist
> 3. Extraterrestrial Creationist (Ed Conrad, Sirvent)
> 4. In Situ Creationist (Floyd, MIB)
Waitaminute! Not quite. I'm all for out of Africa. I'm just
against the land bridge because it violates the rules of
evolution. Now don't you feel retarded.
> 5. Ape Theorist (MV, McGinn, Howard, Many others)
> 6. Hyperdiffusionist (Inger, Eric, Larry, others)
> and a long list.
Including Philip himself, since he insists those Japanese
taught Indians how to make spears that don't appear in
Japan. Sorry, but I don't know what to call that except
hyperdiffusionist. ESPECIALLY someone who thinks Clovis
is in Alaska when his very post says otherwise!
BTW, you have a net loon index of +100 for soem of your recent
posts.
Spiznet
> > I think we need a new theory here. Everybody has a
Don't apologize he's probably a kook.
No seriously, so you are saying that the gett'om, with its moron
particles orbitting the kookeus is the basic godamic structure of the
usenetverse. I think you've got it!
-Mark
Skeptical1
Proposed experiment:
Materials:
1 steel chamber
1 newsgroup emitting kooks (very small)
1 kook counter (Phil Deitiker bot)
1 relay
1 hammer
1 flask of hydrocyanic acid (small)
1 cat (live)
Harry (Skeptical1)
Kåre A. Lie
wrote:
>Proposed experiment:
>
>Materials:
>1 steel chamber
>1 newsgroup emitting kooks (very small)
>1 kook counter (Phil Deitiker bot)
>1 relay
>1 hammer
>1 flask of hydrocyanic acid (small)
>1 cat (live)
If you really are going to perform the classical Schrödinger's Kook
experiment, I for one will eagerly be waiting for the publicized
results.
Floyd Davidson
>> 1. Old Earth Creationist (Jabriol)
>> 2. Young Earth Creationist
>> 3. Extraterrestrial Creationist (Ed Conrad, Sirvent)
>> 4. In Situ Creationist (Floyd, MIB)
>
>Waitaminute! Not quite. I'm all for out of Africa. I'm just
>against the land bridge because it violates the rules of
>evolution. Now don't you feel retarded.
I've never posted anything anywhere that supported the idea of
"In Situ Creationist", or anything close to it. What we have
there is another "creationist" expression by Philip Deitiker.
His only means of "winning" a debate is the "In Situ Creationist"
generation of a strawman that he can then find fault with.
He sure as Hell can't fight his way out of his paper bag
with logic!
>> 5. Ape Theorist (MV, McGinn, Howard, Many others)
>> 6. Hyperdiffusionist (Inger, Eric, Larry, others)
>> and a long list.
>
>Including Philip himself, since he insists those Japanese
>taught Indians how to make spears that don't appear in
>Japan. Sorry, but I don't know what to call that except
>hyperdiffusionist. ESPECIALLY someone who thinks Clovis
>is in Alaska when his very post says otherwise!
>
>BTW, you have a net loon index of +100 for soem of your recent
>posts.
All one has to do is mention "anthropology" and a flock of net
loons is bound to arrive.
Anyone who says anthropology is not culture centric *is* a loon,
virtually by definition.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
George
you do of course realise that somewhere out there are sad idiotless
villages and bridges deserted by their resident trolls.
We have to start a Troll protection League NOW otherwise these
endangered species will die beneath the weight of the worlds
educational systems.
Churches spend millions perhaps even billions to protect the
uneducated by putting them in pulpits and congregations but even their
efforts are coming to naught as the insidious Internet spreads its
tentacles of rationality and science..
Send all your money to me and I'll try to get the idiots back to their
villages and the trolls back beneath their bridges...
you can trust me :-)
Eric Stevens
Go on!
You are stringing us along.
Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
firstjois wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3FC3562A...@not.pollis.net.au...
> :
> :
> : Philip Deitiker wrote:
> : >
> : > I think we need a new theory here. Everybody has a
> : > conspiracy theory and I have mine.
> :
> : > Here it goes.
> :
> : [..] ....and there went.
> :
> : It was OFF TOPIC once again, and an attempt to pick another fight and
> : nothing else.
>
> I think Philip expressed the frustration a lot of us feel about the content
> of these newsgroups and did it with a lot more humor and spice than I could
> have.
I can't agree. The fact being he accuses another of what he is guilty
of himself - I see nothing funny in that. IF PD expresses any
"frustrations" he shouldn't, as he is often the cause of unnecessary
"kook posts". I don't necessarily mean the weirdo views put, but the
abuse engaged in without any redeeming features at all.
> A few months back I would read a posting in SAP and wonder what this person
> or that would say about the topic and regret that that particular person
> didn't post here anymore. Think of the non-kooks this group (and SA, too?)
> this group has lost. Now interesting topics are smothered by kook posts.
Each and everyone of us can be a "kook" and a "non-kook", as occasion
dictates. I wouldn't segregate people into groups. SOME people
certainly deserve the title "kook" but then it does take persistent
and consistent hard work at being a kook before it can truly apply. It
takes something extraordinary to earn such a title.
In a ng where the people doesn't change a lot, two things can happen.
They become comfortable with each other's views and tend to treat new
people harshly, if they don't "conform". The other is they form two
groups who are opposed and throw mud at each other - and there is
little cross over. A newcomer is then labelled to belong to one group
or the other. It is impossible to be independent.
But there is also a third type. They are relatively few, but it is
THEY who most often kill good threads. They are the people who's prime
purpose is to abuse others above all - it can be a "non-kook" old hand
who doesn't like their "comfort zone" being disturbed. It can be a
right low life who takes pleasure in destruction - in real life they
are the graffiti vandal, the person destroying public property etc....
However you describe them they are the instigators of abuse, and it is
like a fresh cow-pat to blow-flies, others come from all corners to
join in! Oddly enough it is the VICTIM who usually ends up being
blamed! The reason is simple - shame, the perpetrators cannot accept
they were attracted by the smell of the fresh cow-pat and participated
in it!
> Paleoanthropology seems to be exploding , folks, it's got to be like
> watching the first manned moon shot, and here we are in this mud puddle,
> shooting damp clods back and forth. Is this the best we can do?
Sadly enough it applies to most groups from time to time. Then people
move on to other groups or interests ......
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
Philip Deitiker
<dro...@fuse.net> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
You are correct on this, I prefer the word "Fruitloop" as
its origins in the cereal industry are well-known. Other
words include loony-farm escapee, and of course the favorite
Netloon. We could have a nomenclature conferance and decide
on the best words to describe the 'phenomena'.
Philip Deitiker
some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>Send all your money to me and I'll try to get the idiots back to their
>villages and the trolls back beneath their bridges...
>you can trust me :-)
Yes, but it does appear that a few, at least, have escaped
their sanctuaries and roam freely about the earth.
Philip Deitiker
<er...@sum.co.nz> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>>There is only one Kook in the universe, and what we think of as a lot
>>of Kooks is actually a slice through that Kook's path as it whizzes
>>backwards and forwards in time. That would certainly be an economical
>>universe.
>
>Go on!
>
>You are stringing us along.
Ah string theory, So Eric which dimension do Morons flow
from? [IOW turn around and look backwards]
David Johnson
Well, the whole process of "as soon as one [kook] is thrashed a new one
pops up or an old one flys out of the woodwork, it is almost like a
tennis ball server or some instrument is throwing them" could be
described _as_ a "fruit-loop."
Then all we need is some way to track how far around the fruit-loop we
are and we'll know what sort of looniness is heading our way next.
Tedd Jacobs
"David Johnson" <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns943F640676011tr...@207.217.77.205...
is this a cause or an effect of their circular reasoning.
Ray Fuster
What you nerds call "kooks" are generally over-creative people trying to
find a way to express their ideas. This idea is so alien to you dusty old
farts that you spend an unbelievable amount of time, effort and emotion in
trying to make these poor slobs feel unworthy, when in the end- you are
unworthy. People like you owe your very existence to the so called "kooks"
of the world.
If you don't like what they write- don't read it!
...jerks...
-el Zorro
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
news:taj5svoid18389qbp...@4ax.com...
John Wilkins
> ma...@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote:
> > "Andy" <Andrew....@baesystems.nojunqmail.com> wrote:
I want to collect funds for a Moron Accelerator. It seems to me that if
we can cause many Morons to collide at high speeds, Quirks will be
ejected, transmuting elemental Morons into a smaller number of Cluons.
--
John (missing a village) Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
MIB529
> man_in_...@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote:
> >> 1. Old Earth Creationist (Jabriol)
> >> 2. Young Earth Creationist
> >> 3. Extraterrestrial Creationist (Ed Conrad, Sirvent)
> >> 4. In Situ Creationist (Floyd, MIB)
> >
> >Waitaminute! Not quite. I'm all for out of Africa. I'm just
> >against the land bridge because it violates the rules of
> >evolution. Now don't you feel retarded.
>
> I've never posted anything anywhere that supported the idea of
> "In Situ Creationist", or anything close to it.
Philip's an idiot.
> What we have
> there is another "creationist" expression by Philip Deitiker.
> His only means of "winning" a debate is the "In Situ Creationist"
> generation of a strawman that he can then find fault with.
That, and numerous ad hominems. You'll notice, when I said there's
no Clovis in Alaska, even though his very cites said it, he
flamed me. Then he invented a new definition of 'proto-' to cover
his ass.
He mainly made some very bad choice of words. Does 'evolve' mean
speciation or just a change in gene frequencies? Either way, he
loses: Under the former definition, humans evolved in Africa.
Under the latter, all populations are constantly evolving. So
the idea that Indians 'evolved in Asia' is a vacuous statement.
> He sure as Hell can't fight his way out of his paper bag
> with logic!
I know that. Say, did you know genetic distance has primates and
a few other orders of mammals only appearing in the Oligocene?
Problem is, the first tarsiers are in the Upper Cretaceous, found
in Europe and North America.
> >> 5. Ape Theorist (MV, McGinn, Howard, Many others)
> >> 6. Hyperdiffusionist (Inger, Eric, Larry, others)
> >> and a long list.
> >
> >Including Philip himself, since he insists those Japanese
> >taught Indians how to make spears that don't appear in
> >Japan. Sorry, but I don't know what to call that except
> >hyperdiffusionist. ESPECIALLY someone who thinks Clovis
> >is in Alaska when his very post says otherwise!
> >
> >BTW, you have a net loon index of +100 for soem of your recent
> >posts.
>
> All one has to do is mention "anthropology" and a flock of net
> loons is bound to arrive.
Well, duhh...What I meant is, Philip does. A net loon index of
+80 to +480 indicates that someone's delusional. At least in
long posts. In short replies, it's much stricter.
Philip himself taught it to me, so if he doesn't like it being
applied, he should avoid saying crazy things.
> Anyone who says anthropology is not culture centric *is* a loon,
> virtually by definition.
I'm reminded of Alice Fletcher. A liberal, Fletcher saw
assimilation as the only solution to the Indian problem. What did
it result in? A depression that some reservations still haven't
recovered from. She tried her best, but wasn't able to remove
herself from the Lewis Henry Morgan framework.
David
"David Johnson" <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message on the way he
dressed (casual
>
> Well, the whole process of "as soon as one [kook] is thrashed a new one
> pops up or an old one flys out of the woodwork, it is almost like a
> tennis ball server or some instrument is throwing them" could be
> described _as_ a "fruit-loop."
>
> Then all we need is some way to track how far around the fruit-loop we
> are and we'll know what sort of looniness is heading our way next.
>
> David
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________________________
> David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
>
> "You're a loony, you are!"
> "They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
> "Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!
Cool, I like that one. We could have quarter fruit-loops, half fruit-loops and full
fruit-loops.
Then for those who really like to split hairs, eighth and sixteenth loops.
To make things really interesting maybe we could also have Illiamen loops (spelling on
this the WWI flyer who invented the half loop combined with a half roll)
The possiblilties are endless, inside fruit-loop vs outside fruit-loop
Tedd Jacobs
"Ray Fuster"...
> This is just another plot for assholes to dominate this place....
guess what... this is a "sci" group,...
> What you nerds call "kooks" are generally over-creative people trying to
> find a way to express their ideas.
... not a "creative expression" group,...
> This idea is so alien to you dusty old
> farts
... "old", is a realitive term. for all you know half of us may be "young"...
> that you spend an unbelievable amount of time, effort and emotion in
> trying to make these poor slobs feel unworthy,
... 1.) it doesnt take much time. 2.) i've never said they were unworthy, or
even that their creative ideas are unworthy. they are out of place however when
they are trying to present them as a "science" that lacks foundation.
> when in the end- you are
> unworthy.
AMEN! i agree!! we are unworthy of people like ed, jabbers, et al.. and since we
are so unworthy and undeserving of their presence, they should punish us by
abandoning us poor unworthy souls in the sci groups.
> People like you owe your very existence to the so called "kooks"
> of the world.
you're right in one sense. "kooks" propogate too, my parents are avid
creationist. (they gave me a bible for x-mas last year, this year i'm giving
them "origin of species". <g>)
> If you don't like what they write- don't read it!
and you read this and responded because... you liked it, right? i mean, by your
own standards, if you didnt like what it said, you wouldnt have read it, and if
you didnt read it, you wouldnt have responded. but... how do you know if your
going to like or not it if you dont read it...? oh my, it is all so confusing.
thank you so much for setting me straight with this. so from now on, i can post
my views regardless of if they are flawed or not because i dont like anyone who
might post something in disagreement so i dont have to read it and i may
continue to be ignorant without conscience or guilt or most importantly,
accountability to varitability or fact.
i say 2+2=5. and no one can say anything to the contrair because you owe your
very existence to me making that statement. furthermore, because i dont like
anything anyone has to say against it i dont have to read it and can continue to
say 2+2=5 and be right. and of course i am right 'cause i've never read anything
that may contradict it.
wow. thats shallow.
Martin Reboul
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
news:taj5svoid18389qbp...@4ax.com...
> conspiracy theory and I have mine.
>
> Here it goes. Has anyone noticed that when one Kook
> thrashed a new one pops up or an old one flys out of the
> woodwork, it is almost like a tennis ball server or
> 2. Young Earth Creationist
> 3. Extraterrestrial Creationist (Ed Conrad, Sirvent)
> 4. In Situ Creationist (Floyd, MIB)
> 6. Hyperdiffusionist (Inger, Eric, Larry, others)
> and a long list.
>
Well, I hate to nit-pick, but according to the rigidly defined
dictates
of Nykosian Logic, that's a load of crap! And whatever happened to
the 'h' in Neanderthal?
As we all know, having carved the Sphinx, the Vikings moved to
Minnesota (airlifted by Abydos Helicopters), via Roswell, where
the Kensington Runestone was carved to boost the ailing tourist
industry in Area 51. Meanwhile, Grey Aliens, on advice from Yuri
Suchkinky, were infiltrating the area around what is now
Stonehenge,
and used native labour to build the Pyramids, which are obviously
not tombs, but gigantic....(cont. P.98)
Cheers
Martin
PS Where has Peter gone? I miss him...
Martin Reboul
>
>
> firstjois wrote:
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3FC3562A...@not.pollis.net.au...
> > :
> > :
> > : Philip Deitiker wrote:
> > : >
> > : > I think we need a new theory here. Everybody has a
> > : > conspiracy theory and I have mine.
> > :
> > : > Here it goes.
> > :
> > : [..] ....and there went.
> > :
> > : It was OFF TOPIC once again, and an attempt to pick another
fight and
> > : nothing else.
> >
> > I think Philip expressed the frustration a lot of us feel
about the content
> > of these newsgroups and did it with a lot more humor and spice
than I could
> > have.
>
> I can't agree. The fact being he accuses another of what he is
guilty
> of himself - I see nothing funny in that. IF PD expresses any
> "frustrations" he shouldn't, as he is often the cause of
unnecessary
> "kook posts". I don't necessarily mean the weirdo views put, but
the
> abuse engaged in without any redeeming features at all.
NB - 'Abuse' is "Seppo the Clown's" specialist subject....
... and one group floats to the top as 'pond scum', while the
dregs sink to the bottom and emit the odd bubble of methane....
> But there is also a third type. They are relatively few, but it
is
> THEY who most often kill good threads. They are the people who's
prime
> purpose is to abuse others above all - it can be a "non-kook"
old hand
> who doesn't like their "comfort zone" being disturbed. It can be
a
> right low life who takes pleasure in destruction - in real life
they
> are the graffiti vandal, the person destroying public property
etc....
> However you describe them they are the instigators of abuse, and
it is
> like a fresh cow-pat to blow-flies, others come from all corners
to
> join in! Oddly enough it is the VICTIM who usually ends up being
> blamed! The reason is simple - shame, the perpetrators cannot
accept
> they were attracted by the smell of the fresh cow-pat and
participated
> in it!
Oh Seppo! Who can you be talking about I wonder?
> > Paleoanthropology seems to be exploding , folks, it's got to
be like
> > watching the first manned moon shot, and here we are in this
mud puddle,
> > shooting damp clods back and forth. Is this the best we can
do?
>
> Sadly enough it applies to most groups from time to time. Then
people
> move on to other groups or interests ......
Now Seppo is here, you'll be seeing so many damp clods fly, you'd
better get under cover. Alas, the great pool of knowledge tends to
turn into a puddle of mire and filth once he treads in it I'm
afraid
Please forgive him even so - he is directly descended from
Piltdown Man, but never inherited the ancestral charm.
Cheers
Martin
Spiznet
>
> I want to collect funds for a Moron Accelerator. It seems to me that if
> we can cause many Morons to collide at high speeds, Quirks will be
> ejected, transmuting elemental Morons into a smaller number of Cluons.
Don't you mean "Clueless-ons"?
John Wilkins
No, I meant Cluons. If each Moron has a semicortical quantity, then if
you ram two Morons together, and eliminate the repulsive Quirks, the
resulting particle has a complete cortical quantity, and so is
attractive to Clues, thus becoming a Cluon. It also attains Charm.
--
John Wilkins
Rick Wagler
"Ray Fuster" <raysf...@micron.com> wrote in message
news:bq2t58$rqe$1...@admin-svc.micron.com...
> This is just another plot for assholes to dominate this place....
> What you nerds call "kooks" are generally over-creative people trying
to
> find a way to express their ideas. This idea is so alien to you dusty old
> farts that you spend an unbelievable amount of time, effort and emotion in
> trying to make these poor slobs feel unworthy, when in the end- you are
> unworthy. People like you owe your very existence to the so called "kooks"
> of the world.
>
> If you don't like what they write- don't read it!
>
> ...jerks...
> -el Zorro
>
find a way to express their ideas" really doesn't help.Shakespeare commented
on this phenomenon. Something about roses IIRC.....
Rick Wagler.
Philip Deitiker
<trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Well, the whole process of "as soon as one [kook] is thrashed a new one
>pops up or an old one flys out of the woodwork, it is almost like a
>tennis ball server or some instrument is throwing them" could be
>described _as_ a "fruit-loop."
ROFL, good point.
That would be a fruit-loop loop.
Philip Deitiker
Wilkins) wrote:
>I want to collect funds for a Moron Accelerator. It seems to me that if
>we can cause many Morons to collide at high speeds, Quirks will be
>ejected, transmuting elemental Morons into a smaller number of Cluons.
ROFLMFA0. First off how would you charge the Morons and
second those are damn big particles for an accelerator.
Better Idea. We could build a railroad up some tall
mountain, like Everest. Then we could strap them to a
polemans car with several tons of rocket worthy explosives
and send them off in the direction of the sun. Then you
could watch what happens as they begin to enter the
coronasphere. This would save tremendous amounts of money
since you could use the suns gravity to accelerate them.
Alternatively with proper tradjectory you could use venus
and mercury to accelerate them even faster toward the sun.
Bob Keeter
"firstjois" <firstj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haudnaxq2o7...@comcast.com...
Snippage. . . . . . . .
>
> I think Philip expressed the frustration a lot of us feel about the
content
> of these newsgroups and did it with a lot more humor and spice than I
could
> have.
>
> A few months back I would read a posting in SAP and wonder what this
person
> or that would say about the topic and regret that that particular person
> didn't post here anymore. Think of the non-kooks this group (and SA,
too?)
> this group has lost. Now interesting topics are smothered by kook posts.
>
> Paleoanthropology seems to be exploding , folks, it's got to be like
> watching the first manned moon shot, and here we are in this mud puddle,
> shooting damp clods back and forth. Is this the best we can do?
>
> Jois
Jois,
Just remember EXACTLY what was going on that few months back. Dont
forget, even if it would be convenient or if you would prefer the
"conclusion".
Who was it that "trolled" T.O. with inflamatory and insulting little
"commentaries"?
Who was it that insisted on baiting the extra-SAP loons into visiting this
particular
newsgroup via crossposted insults?
Just remember. And that is all I could ask.
Regards
bk
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:33:12 GMT, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >I want to collect funds for a Moron Accelerator. It seems to me that if
> >we can cause many Morons to collide at high speeds, Quirks will be
> >ejected, transmuting elemental Morons into a smaller number of Cluons.
>
> ROFLMFA0. First off how would you charge the Morons and
> second those are damn big particles for an accelerator.
You charge the Morons as they enter, before they become Cluons. And I
have an idea about accelerating them.
> Better Idea. We could build a railroad up some tall
> mountain, like Everest. Then we could strap them to a
> polemans car with several tons of rocket worthy explosives
> and send them off in the direction of the sun. Then you
> could watch what happens as they begin to enter the
> coronasphere. This would save tremendous amounts of money
> since you could use the suns gravity to accelerate them.
> Alternatively with proper tradjectory you could use venus
> and mercury to accelerate them even faster toward the sun.
No, what you do is this (much cheaper, and there are inexhaustible
number of the core elements): find a really Dense Object. In the US, you
could use Rush Limbaugh or the news director of Fox News; here in my
country we have an object of similar density named Andrew Bolt. The UK
is a particularly rich source of these objects.
In the accelerator, you mount the Dense Object (or rather, have a
technician mount it for you; some jobs are beneath the purity of
research) at the center of the chamber, and when the Morons enter the
chamber, they will immediately be attracted to that point. However, to
prevent collision and the absorption of the Moron into the posterior
pole of the Dense Object, thus forming a richer particle than before,
you surround the Object with repulsive (to the Moron) objects, such as
textbooks or other informative and relatively objective documents.
The Morons will build up velocity as they attempt to move up the pole of
the Dense Object, all the while accruing more charge (which you will
relieve them of before the next phase transition, as once they do become
Cluons it is a lot harder to do this). Finally, just before they
evaporate in a cloud of entropy, you open a door into another chamber,
which we will call the "classroom" since that is where they acquire
class. However, the door is only half the width needed for each Moron to
pass side by side another Moron, and so they will collide before they
reach that chamber, fusing, and forming Cluons.
Once in the classroom they will reach equilibrium by acting as a
knowledge sink, forming content Cluons, and voting Democrat.
--
John Wilkins
Daryl Krupa
> FYI the term "Kook", as I remember, probably originated in the old black and white TV
> detective show 77 Sunset Strip.
<snip>
From "cuckoo".
Philip Deitiker
Wilkins) wrote:
>No, what you do is this (much cheaper, and there are inexhaustible
>number of the core elements): find a really Dense Object. In the US, you
>could use Rush Limbaugh or the news director of Fox News; here in my
>country we have an object of similar density named Andrew Bolt. The UK
>is a particularly rich source of these objects.
Unfortunately Rush is out of commission, his housekeeper
spilled the beans on his drug addition and he is in Betty
Ford for a clean up. After he is cleared of the drugs he has
been on for the last 30 years, it is unclear how useful he
will be as a Dense Object. Besides David Letterman has
entered the fray claiming that Rush in nothing more than a
sputtering bag of really hot gas [on drugs]. We do have some
incredibly dense folks in the U.S. however and one of them
lives in houston, in fact he lives down the road from me (Hi
way 90, old spanish trail) and goes by the name Tom Delay.
As his name implies he has some rather archaic thinking
patterns and political styles, he might be a better dense
objects, and if a moron flew up his posterior at a speed
close to the speed of light, I don't think it would
adversely affect the politics of the Sugarland congressional
district.
Philip Deitiker
news:4ad78f65.0311...@posting.google.com:
While you 2 are standing around trying to figure out which 2
words I have said are mischaracterization, you should also
realize the company you are keeping and the large numbers of
individuals who respond with similar disbelief of your and other
activities. While it may be true that you score a point every
now and then, the overriding feature is that you reject science
for myth when it contradicts your favorite myth. The insipient
Jomon period is characterized now by cultural connections with
the Amur river culture and other cultures of the region. It is
called the Jomon, because, by far, Japan has done more
archeaology and Japan has supported larger populations; however
it has been posted elsewhere that Jomon, by no means, is limited
to Japan and this is even more true with the protoJomon
cultures. Given the obvious genetic connections between the
Ainu, Koreans, Orochon and other groups with most native
american groups, I don't think I need a diffusionist theory to
explain native american cultural similarity. Its not considered
diffusion when a group of people who a principle migrants to a
region also bring their culture with them, unless you beleive
that the original migrants to the New World had no culture. In
which case you can join Larry amoung the group of people who
next to nothing about paleoanthropology.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Molecular Anthropology Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Molecular Evolution of Hominids
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Latest Study on 10 xlinked loci
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Other good sites
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
<Nopd...@att.net.spam> in sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:13:41 GMT, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
>Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>>No, what you do is this (much cheaper, and there are inexhaustible
>>number of the core elements): find a really Dense Object. In the US, you
>>could use Rush Limbaugh or the news director of Fox News; here in my
>>country we have an object of similar density named Andrew Bolt. The UK
>>is a particularly rich source of these objects.
>
>Unfortunately Rush is out of commission, his housekeeper
>spilled the beans on his drug addition and he is in Betty
>Ford for a clean up. After he is cleared of the drugs he has
>been on for the last 30 years, it is unclear how useful he
>will be as a Dense Object.
He promises to be denser than before, it seems, and alas, he's back:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-11-17-rush-on-air_x.htm
Of course, he now has additional problems:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/rush_limbaugh_031118-1.html
Back to the theory, however.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Floyd Davidson
>
>While you 2 are standing around trying to figure out which 2
>words I have said are mischaracterization, you should also
>realize the company you are keeping and the large numbers of
>individuals who respond with similar disbelief of your and other
>activities.
Your articles remind me of Ed Conrad. You use the same
logic.
>While it may be true that you score a point every
>now and then, the overriding feature is that you reject science
>for myth when it contradicts your favorite myth.
Your main argument always seems to be that "science" is whatever
you think is right, and "myth" is whatever you don't agree with.
>The insipient
>Jomon period is characterized now by cultural connections with
>the Amur river culture and other cultures of the region.
That is an insipient sentence. But you have repeatedly made
other comments just like it; hence, I can only imagine you
haven't got a clue what you are saying. At first I thought
it was incipient dementia, but I realize now that you've been
this way for some time...
>Given the obvious genetic connections between the
>Ainu, Koreans, Orochon and other groups with most native
>american groups,
See, there you go with mythology you claim is "science". Did
you find that evidence layered between coal seams?
>I don't think I need a diffusionist theory to
>explain native american cultural similarity.
I don't think you can explain it with or without...
>Its not considered
>diffusion when a group of people who a principle migrants to a
>region also bring their culture with them, unless you beleive
>that the original migrants to the New World had no culture. In
So Indian and Eskimo culture originated in Asia... right along
with Proto-Clovis in Siberia, you found that between layers in a
coal mine!
You are ignorant and what you write is imprecise.
>which case you can join Larry amoung the group of people who
>next to nothing about paleoanthropology.
Do you and Ed share parents, or is it just an accident of
nature?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
Seppo Renfors
Martin Reboul wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3FC49F5B...@not.pollis.net.au...
[..]
> > I don't necessarily mean the weirdo views put, but the
> > abuse engaged in without any redeeming features at all.
>
> NB - 'Abuse' is "Seppo the Clown's" specialist subject....
Here we see a "person" hell bent on NOT being left out - hence is
intent on self identification as one of those I spoke about.
Ray Fuster
"Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:_Waxb.504114$9l5.194239@pd7tw2no...
here on this "archeological" information?
Yes, there's horseshit going on around here all right...
David
> What you nerds call "kooks" are generally over-creative people trying to
> find a way to express their ideas. This idea is so alien to you dusty old
> farts that you spend an unbelievable amount of time, effort and emotion in
> trying to make these poor slobs feel unworthy, when in the end- you are
> unworthy. People like you owe your very existence to the so called "kooks"
> of the world.
>
> If you don't like what they write- don't read it!
>
> ...jerks...
> -el Zorro
Feeling just a bit inadequate this morning are we?
David
Doug Weller
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:09:23 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> <Nopd...@att.net.spam> in sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:13:41 GMT, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
>>Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, what you do is this (much cheaper, and there are inexhaustible
>>>number of the core elements): find a really Dense Object. In the US, you
>>>could use Rush Limbaugh or the news director of Fox News; here in my
>>>country we have an object of similar density named Andrew Bolt. The UK
>>>is a particularly rich source of these objects.
>>
>>Unfortunately Rush is out of commission, his housekeeper
>>spilled the beans on his drug addition and he is in Betty
>>Ford for a clean up. After he is cleared of the drugs he has
>>been on for the last 30 years, it is unclear how useful he
>>will be as a Dense Object.
>
> He promises to be denser than before, it seems, and alas, he's back:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-11-17-rush-on-air_x.htm
>
> Of course, he now has additional problems:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/rush_limbaugh_031118-1.html
Thanks Katherine for this. Money-laundering, whatever next? No surprise I
guess.
Doug
John Wilkins
Did I mention that a side effect of having Morons orbit a Dense Object
is to form a Moral Vaccuum?
MIB529
> While you 2 are standing around trying to figure out which 2
> words I have said are mischaracterization, you should also
> realize the company you are keeping and the large numbers of
> individuals who respond with similar disbelief of your and other
> activities.
Hell, I can't stand Ed Conrad. What's your point?
> While it may be true that you score a point every
> now and then, the overriding feature is that you reject science
> for myth when it contradicts your favorite myth.
Not really. I reject flawed methodology of any kind, Philip.
> The insipient
When someone can't spell incipient, his post seems insipient.
> Jomon period is characterized now by cultural connections with
> the Amur river culture and other cultures of the region.
And WHAT does that have to do with North America, exactly? Your
logic is "A and B are similar, therefore A and C are connected."
One might suggest the similarities between A and B suggest a
connection between A and B, but not that it suggests a connection
between A, B, and a third culture a third of a world away.
> It is
> called the Jomon, because, by far, Japan has done more
> archeaology and Japan has supported larger populations; however
> it has been posted elsewhere that Jomon, by no means, is limited
> to Japan and this is even more true with the protoJomon
> cultures. Given the obvious genetic connections between the
> Ainu, Koreans, Orochon and other groups with most native
> american groups, I don't think I need a diffusionist theory to
> explain native american cultural similarity.
Um, try again, Philip. You can only know about current genetic
groups. And modern Indians are so mixed, your theory falls apart
right off the bat.
> Its not considered
> diffusion when a group of people who a principle migrants to a
> region also bring their culture with them, unless you beleive
> that the original migrants to the New World had no culture.
So the Mormons aren't hyperdiffusionists? LOL!
Anyway, there's already far too much evidence for pre-Clovis
habitation for your theory to work.
MIB529
> >While it may be true that you score a point every
> >now and then, the overriding feature is that you reject science
> >for myth when it contradicts your favorite myth.
>
> Your main argument always seems to be that "science" is whatever
> you think is right, and "myth" is whatever you don't agree with.
That's Philip for you. Oh, I can point out a semi-infinite number
of pre-Clovis sites, thousands of radiocarbon dates, and he won't
accept any of them because they're before any habitation of
Kamchatka.
> >The insipient
> >Jomon period is characterized now by cultural connections with
> >the Amur river culture and other cultures of the region.
>
> That is an insipient sentence. But you have repeatedly made
> other comments just like it; hence, I can only imagine you
> haven't got a clue what you are saying. At first I thought
> it was incipient dementia, but I realize now that you've been
> this way for some time...
Essentially, Philip forgets that Indians are the same species as
Ainu, Koreans, Orochon and others, Homo sapiens. I wonder how
many of these homologies would be present in pre-Columbian times.
I wonder how he defines 'most': That's not very precise by any
matter, and the Columbian exchange wiped out some 90% of the
population, so 'most' would at best mean 'most of whatever's
left'. And also, with the exception of HLA typing - which could
be explained by all the recently introduced Eurasian diseases -
they all use unilineal lines.
> >Given the obvious genetic connections between the
> >Ainu, Koreans, Orochon and other groups with most native
> >american groups,
>
> See, there you go with mythology you claim is "science". Did
> you find that evidence layered between coal seams?
I'm wondering about those 'obvious' genetic connections. How
'obvious' are they?
> >I don't think I need a diffusionist theory to
> >explain native american cultural similarity.
>
> I don't think you can explain it with or without...
He first needs to prove the cultural similarity.
> >Its not considered
> >diffusion when a group of people who a principle migrants to a
> >region also bring their culture with them, unless you beleive
> >that the original migrants to the New World had no culture. In
>
> So Indian and Eskimo culture originated in Asia... right along
> with Proto-Clovis in Siberia, you found that between layers in a
> coal mine!
He actually says he found it between layers in a coal mine?
> You are ignorant and what you write is imprecise.
Basically, he just invents words as needed, uses big words when
smaller ones would work just as well, and changes definitions
around. He then gives statements that are logically inconsistent
and/or inconsistent with his citations.
> >which case you can join Larry amoung the group of people who
> >next to nothing about paleoanthropology.
>
> Do you and Ed share parents, or is it just an accident of
> nature?
I think it's an accident: They have different last names, after
all. Maybe they both have an extra chromosome or two. (Oh, look!
A well-documented parallel mutation!)
Martin Reboul
>
>
> Martin Reboul wrote:
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3FC49F5B...@not.pollis.net.au...
>
> [..]
>
> > > I don't necessarily mean the weirdo views put, but the
> > > abuse engaged in without any redeeming features at all.
> >
> > NB - 'Abuse' is "Seppo the Clown's" specialist subject....
>
> Here we see a "person" hell bent on NOT being left out - hence
is
> intent on self identification as one of those I spoke about.
Of course I'll not be left out Seps - sorry you don't like like
it,
but you started it. Not only do you fly off the handle at the
slightest
criticism, you lie, cheat, misquote and cannot keep your temper.
You are unquestionably guilty of slander, libel, insulting and
threatening behaviour, and crass stupidity.
Now you will no doubt whine, and bleat with your usual paranoia,
and claim I am just as bad as you are. Perhaps I am, but I'm
afraid that
if you behave like that, that's what you can expect in return - if
you
play with fire, expect to get burned.
Since you obviously seem unfit to be trusted with a burnt out
match,
and have the intelligence, manners and self-control of a rabid
chihuahua , I'm surprised that you are so indignant Seppo!
Cheers
Martin
Philip Deitiker
<dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks Katherine for this. Money-laundering, whatever next? No surprise I
>guess.
The funny thing about the 'holier than thou' folks is that
they have a precedence for not.
Philip Deitiker
<mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Seppo is filter file fodder.
Seppo Renfors
Who spoke to you, eh Philip? Was your name mentioned, hmmmm? No it
wasn't, and NO you were not even talked about.
How about you mind your manners and only speak when spoken to like a
good child in company of adults!!
firstjois
:
:
: Philip Deitiker wrote:
: >
: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:25:11 -0000, "Martin Reboul"
: > <mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > Seppo is filter file fodder.
:
: Who spoke to you, eh Philip? Was your name mentioned, hmmmm? No it
: wasn't, and NO you were not even talked about.
:
: How about you mind your manners and only speak when spoken to like a
: good child in company of adults!!
Wow, looks like we'll have to ask Miss Manners to come visit here a while.
Now-a-days the "you" bit is dropped in favor of how a particular behavior
makes the speaker feel.
This isn't as difficult as it seems and takes only some practice. Heck,
the entire pattern is documented in the right books in any bookstore or
library "self-help" section. Name calling is noted as an especially
counter-productive tactic.
Jois
Bob Keeter
Be still my faint and feeble heart! Are you REALLY defending good ole
Phillip, my old "posterboy" for crude and loutish USENET behavior in someone
who should know better?
Unless you are willing to attack an evil whereever it might appear, you
might have to ask why attack at all. If that simple question ends up with
an answer you can live with, great.
Regards
bk
"firstjois" <firstj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o5qdnWqL9bq...@comcast.com...
firstjois
"Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BrTyb.930$Qd6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
: Jois,
:
: Be still my faint and feeble heart! Are you REALLY defending good ole
: Phillip, my old "posterboy" for crude and loutish USENET behavior in
someone
: who should know better?
:
: Unless you are willing to attack an evil whereever it might appear, you
: might have to ask why attack at all. If that simple question ends up
with
: an answer you can live with, great.
:
: Regards
: bk
Bob, there is a big difference between bad manners & evil. Big. And
Jeeezee Louise I gave up on that cape business when I was 4 or maybe 5.
Jois
Philip Deitiker
<firstj...@hotmail.com> did some sarious thank'n and
scribbled:
>Bob, there is a big difference between bad manners & evil. Big. And
>Jeeezee Louise I gave up on that cape business when I was 4 or maybe 5.
Bob didn't get to play with his cape, he was to busy playing
with something else.
Bob Keeter
>
> Bob, there is a big difference between bad manners & evil. Big. And
> Jeeezee Louise I gave up on that cape business when I was 4 or maybe 5.
>
> Jois
>
>
True, bad manners is a bit short of the "anti-Christ" or Hannibal Lector
but. . . . . ya just gotta take on the windmills where you find them.
Equal opportunity windmill jousting just shows a balanced and unpredjudiced
view of bad manners. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .of course I could suppose that "bad manners" in a spoiled
9-yr old are on a slightly different scale of significance than when
exhibited by a highly educated and at least supposedly respected adult, a
"scientist" no less! That would be fair, wouldnt you say? The poor
undisciplined and immature 9-yr old just does not know how to act civilized.
But then "bad manners" could perhaps be even more obnoxious and worthy of
censure in the elder? I do hope that you are not suggesting that "special
people" get "special treatment" and the privelege to live unrestrained by
the normal standards of allowable personal behavior that must so obviously
be sorely constraining the rest of us "average joe's"? 8-)
Id really recommend dusting off the old cape though. If there were enough
"caped attitudes" out there, willing to confront "bad manners" rather than
just tacitly acquiesce, don't you think it might just become a bit more
civil and sane place?
Anyway, whatever your choices in windmills, make sure that the ones you
defend merit the defense as much as the ones you target deserve the attack.
8-)
Regards
bk
Philip Deitiker
news:iPwzb.3086$Qd6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>>
>> Bob, there is a big difference between bad manners & evil. Big. And
>> Jeeezee Louise I gave up on that cape business when I was 4 or maybe
>> 5.
>>
>> Jois
>>
>>
>
>
> True, bad manners is a bit short of the "anti-Christ" or Hannibal
> Lector but. . . . . ya just gotta take on the windmills where you
> find them. Equal opportunity windmill jousting just shows a balanced
> and unpredjudiced view of bad manners. . . . . . .
Bob finally admits, he's so bored and compulsive he cant help but make
something of nothing. What a poor sad little man you are bob.
--
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
firstjois
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
news:1utrsvgf4tcrhvuo5...@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 02:27:42 -0500, "firstjois"
Not necessary.
Jois
firstjois
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.Spam> wrote in message
news:Xns9447AD...@128.249.2.19...
: In sci.anthropology.paleo, Bob Keeter created a message ID
You both should stop commenting about each other. Most of us have already
made up our own minds about what's what and who is who and you certainly
don't seem able to change your own attitudes/opinions about each other.
Good time to quit trying.
Jois
Michael Clark
Forty years ago, I'd get to bickering with one of my siblings
and Pa would come along, grab both of us by a collar, and
literally knock our heads together. Humiliating and humorous
all at the same time --but we got the message. Regardless
of who is "right", you look pretty silly to your audience.
Somebody ought to knock your heads together. Maybe
then I could drag your behinds out of the bucket.
Philip Deitiker
<firstj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jois
I stopped a long time ago, he's seems to want to keep it
going. Given his pathology I am more than happy to let him
set himself up for the occasional hit, eventually he will
learn there is no reward, at least most animals eventually
learn.
Philip Deitiker
<bit...@spammer.com> wrote:
>Forty years ago, I'd get to bickering with one of my siblings
>and Pa would come along, grab both of us by a collar, and
>literally knock our heads together. Humiliating and humorous
>all at the same time --but we got the message. Regardless
>of who is "right", you look pretty silly to your audience.
>
>Somebody ought to knock your heads together. Maybe
>then I could drag your behinds out of the bucket.
I gave up caring what Micheal 'perinneally wanting to battle
AAT and take up unneccesary bandwidth' Clark had to say a
whole long time ago. Part of the reason this NG went into
decline is people got dog tired of listening to you
buttheads with MV, so don't pretend you don't read this. As
far as butthead battles are concerned your butthead comments
are pinging way up there on the irony meter. Yeah, Yeah I
know <plonk>. Go f'yourself.
Philip Deitiker
news:OqWdnWPBQZL...@comcast.com:
> You both should stop commenting about each other. Most of
> us have already made up our own minds about what's what and
> who is who and you certainly don't seem able to change your
> own attitudes/opinions about each other. Good time to quit
I could care less if you have made up your mind or not on
anything. Alot of things happen in this group that should not
happen. The game plan of 2003 is that we all turn our heads and
ignore them until they consume the group or go away. Hint, very
few have gone away.
This group began its big decline right about the time bob
showed up, prior to that if there was a problem people acted
together to deal with it, post Keeter we just turn our head.
Jabby get out of hand, buy a better reader, Ed gets out of hand,
buy a better reader, crossposts scream over from talk.origins
buy a better reader. Somewhere the average newbie to this group
will take one look and shake head walking away. Otherwise its
the lingua franca of kooks and via our collective ignorance we
condone it. Fine, I won't respond to Bob for a while, but keep
in mind this group aint getting any cleaner.
There is some hope that this group will act to give the
interested a 'taste' of science. That it can exposee new
literature, that it can act in a fashion that reflects the
thinking within acedemia. If this group cannot reach the minimal
level to pull its head out of AATs ass and look at the sky,
for what good do you really think that it is. The world is not
going to stop spinning tomorrow if Marc responds to something
and no-one responds to him, right. Therefore I have to tell
you the truth, I don't care. I have my filters, I can ramp them
up or turn them off, and if the group spirals into the waste
heap that it is headed to, its because no-one here had the balls
to stand-up when the anarchist (Keeter and company squirreled in
here) and the polluters found a pleasant place to live.
When was the last time you took offense at Jabby's post and
contacted his ISP? When was the last time you informed
crossposters from other groups what Jabriol or Ed were up to?
Uh-huh. Not part of the solution = part of the problem.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Molecular Anthropology Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Molecular Evolution of Hominids
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Latest Study on 10 xlinked loci
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Other good sites
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Bob Keeter
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:vsvr0f...@corp.supernews.com...
Snippage. . . . . .
>
> Forty years ago, I'd get to bickering with one of my siblings
> and Pa would come along, grab both of us by a collar, and
> literally knock our heads together. Humiliating and humorous
> all at the same time --but we got the message. Regardless
> of who is "right", you look pretty silly to your audience.
Ah, Michael, you do paint a pretty picture.
> Somebody ought to knock your heads together. Maybe
> then I could drag your behinds out of the bucket.
Next thing I know, you will be suggesting the good ole PD and I just kiss
and make up! ROTFL!!
Regards
bk
Ross Macfarlane
> news:iPwzb.3086$Qd6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> > True, bad manners is a bit short of the "anti-Christ" or Hannibal
> > Lector but. . . . . ya just gotta take on the windmills where you
> > find them. Equal opportunity windmill jousting just shows a balanced
> > and unpredjudiced view of bad manners. . . . . . .
>
> Bob finally admits, he's so bored and compulsive he cant help but make
> something of nothing. What a poor sad little man you are bob.
Gentlemen, kindly sheath your swords & return to your boxes. It's bad
enough having to ignore Conriol et al. Let's keep the exchanges civil,
or at least scientific - no need for a resumption of unproductive
internal spats...
Ross Macfarlane
Bob Keeter
"Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:18fa6145.0312...@posting.google.com...
Snippage. . . .
> Gentlemen, kindly sheath your swords & return to your boxes. It's bad
> enough having to ignore Conriol et al. Let's keep the exchanges civil,
> or at least scientific - no need for a resumption of unproductive
> internal spats...
>
> Ross Macfarlane
Ross,
All you would have to do is to convince the good Dr to adopt the "Coal
theory" or the AAT, or even some creationist line. . . . THEN it would not
be an "internal spat". 8-) Matter of fact, then there would be much of a
spat at all.
The really infuriating issue with Philip is that his splashing around leaves
such a disgusting bath tub ring in the waterhole some might call science.
As far as I am concerned, every time his "act" is encouraged or even
tolerated without rebuke the rest of us take a little sip of that despoiled
spring water. On the other hand, I think that if you look back, I have been
pretty dang good at simply ignoring his posts. But then my kill file DOES
work! ;-).
As for Philip, let him find his own little private puddle in some cesspool
where his particular brand of immature mega-egotism is the accepted fare.
(It certainly wasnt accepted in the aquaria group, or T.O. or. . . . just
about anywhere else he has visited, and I at least really dont think it
belongs in SAP or SA!!)
SO, unless of course you would to debate that his "methods" and manners are
the stalwart underpinnings of proper science, or that he should be pampered
just to protect ourselves from his wraith, or whatever. . . . . . . . . . .
8-)
Regards
bk
Marc Verhaegen
> ... theory" or the AAT, ...
I don't understand a word of what Keeter is trying to say here & I'm not
interesting in it, I only saw the word AAT. Keeter's blabla has no relevance
whatsoever to AAT. FHI, AAT is about the theory of A.Hardy (1960 "Was Man
more aquatic in the past?" New Scientist): how a sea-side life - wading,
swimming, collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs,
crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains many human traits (absent in our nearest
relatives the chimps) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios: very large
brain (but reduced olfactory bulb), greater breathing control,
well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use, reduction of climbing
skills, reduction of fur, more SC fat, very long legs, more linear body
build, high needs of I, Na, PUFAs (all abundant at the coast, but +- absent
in savannas), etc. Hardy at the time was of course - understandably - wrong
in thinking his seaside phase happened c10 Ma. More likely it happened late
Plio or early Pleistocene, eg, the possibly earliest known stone tools
outside Africa "were found in the palaeo-shore deposits of a vast shallow
Late Plio/Early Pleist.lake" (Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421-440). Early
Pleist.Homo fossils or tools have been found next to large bodies of water
from Algeria in the W to Java in the E. When sea levels dropped, early Homo
apparently followed the Mediterr. & Indian Ocean coasts. Pleist.coasts
during the glacial periods were some 120 m below the present sea level, so
many fossil & archeol.finds only show the inland Homo populations that
entered the continents along the rivers/lakes/wetlands. In spite of this,
Homo remains (but no apith) have frequently been found amid shells, corals,
barnacles etc., throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World
(eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that could
only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma). So far, no serious arguments against
these ideas have been forwarded.
Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Doug Weller
> I don't understand a word of what Keeter is trying to say here & I'm not
> interesting in it, I only saw the word AAT. Keeter's blabla has no relevance
> whatsoever to AAT. FHI, AAT is about the theory of A.Hardy (1960 "Was Man
> more aquatic in the past?" New Scientist):
Max Westenhofer in 1942 developed the hypothesis, and Elaine Morgan is the
main protagonist today -- and I wish it weren't on sci.archeology as the
archaeological aspects are secondary.
See http://www.aquaticape.org/ for Jim Moore's critique of the theory.
Doug
firstjois
:
[snip]
: Next thing I know, you will be suggesting the good ole PD and I just kiss
: and make up! ROTFL!!
:
: Regards
: bk
:
I think I did suggest that once. It worked very well with fourth
graders - I'd take them both out of view in the hall and make a big fat
smacking kiss sound on the back of my hand and announce to the class that
the boys had "kissed and made up" then the boys would studiously avoid
each other big time. I'd no longer have to worry about one tripping the
other on the stairs or what damage would be inflicted/sustained on the
paved play ground.
As I saw on a t-shirt yesterday: It's all fun and games until someone loses
a tooth - and then it's hockey. But here it is neither fun and games or
hockey, it is just ugly.
Jois
firstjois
[snip]
: There is some hope that this group will act to give the
: interested a 'taste' of science. That it can exposee new
: literature, that it can act in a fashion that reflects the
: thinking within acedemia.
[snip]
This would be great.
: When was the last time you took offense at Jabby's post and
: contacted his ISP?
I block his stuff and a lot of others, too, and I know I'm not the only
one. When I do see one of Jabby's posts or one of Ed's I notice very few
from this group responding to them. I think we have all improved at
ignoring that trash. Also better at ignoring Marco, Harpo, and Algeo, but
I still think there might be a well written cut and paste response to their
posts like the sign over the gates of Hell - Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter
Here. Only because sometimes newbees might think there was a touch of
reality in their posts someplace.
: When was the last time you informed
: crossposters from other groups what Jabriol or Ed were up to?
I've been responding to the individuals themselves rather than to the whole
groups. Yes, I've learned a few new words that make the dogs blush but
think this outside-of-group contact doesn't feed J or E.
: Uh-huh. Not part of the solution = part of the problem.
:
Agreed.
Jois
firstjois
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ga9qhakgel9c$.ddmnaxlrk1s5$.dlg@40tude.net...
Exactly - now set this up as a macro and allow us to borrow it for SAP.
Jois
Doug Weller
Hm, can you set up an autoresponder in a newsgroup? Actually, you probably
could with a scripted newsreader such as Dialog. Might be useful in cases
such as this one. :-)
Doug
Marc Verhaegen
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ga9qhakgel9c$.ddmnaxlrk1s5$.dlg@40tude.net...
> > I don't understand a word of what Keeter is trying to say here & I'm not
interested in it, I only saw the word AAT. Keeter's blabla has no relevance
whatsoever to AAT. FHI, AAT is about the theory of A.Hardy (1960 "Was Man
more aquatic in the past?" New Scientist):
Doug snipped (read: couldn't find an answer to):
AAT is about the theory of A.Hardy (1960 "Was Man more aquatic in the past?"
New Scientist): how a sea-side life - wading, swimming, collecting coconuts,
shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains
many human traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot better
than dry savanna scenarios: very large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb),
greater breathing control, well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool
use, reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur, more SC fat, very long
legs, more linear body build, high needs of I, Na, PUFAs (all abundant at
the coast, but +- absent in savannas), etc. Hardy at the time was of
course - understandably - wrong in thinking his seaside phase happened c10
Ma. More likely it happened late Plio or early Pleistocene, eg, the possibly
earliest known stone tools outside Africa "were found in the palaeo-shore
deposits of a vast shallow Late Plio/Early Pleist.lake" (Dennell 2003 JHE
45:421-440). Early Pleist.Homo fossils or tools have been found next to
large bodies of water from Algeria in the W to Java in the E. When sea
levels dropped, early Homo apparently followed the Mediterr. & Indian Ocean
coasts. Pleist.coasts during the glacial periods were some 120 m below the
present sea level, so many fossil & archeol.finds only show the inland Homo
populations that entered the continents along the rivers/lakes/wetlands. In
spite of this, Homo remains (but no apith) have frequently been found amid
shells, corals, barnacles etc., throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all
over the Old World (eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on
islands that could only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma). So far, no
serious arguments against these ideas have been forwarded.
> Max Westenhofer in 1942 developed the hypothesis, and Elaine Morgan is
the main protagonist today -- and I wish it weren't on sci.archeology as the
archaeological aspects are secondary. See http://www.aquaticape.org/ for
Jim Moore's critique of the theory.
Doug, Moore's "critique" (:-D) is attacking straw men. He's hopelessless
outdated. The man only says that our ancestors were no dolphins. I fully
agree to that. If you had informed a bit, you'd known that all main
protagonists today place the seaside phase Pleistocene or possibly
late-Pliocene & that AAT has nothing to do with apiths, but with Homo, eg, a
recent paper: SC Cunnane & MA Crawford 2003 Invited review: "Survival of the
fattest: fat babies were the key to evolution of the large human brain"
Comp.Biochem.Physiol.A Mol.Integr.Physiol.136:17-26 "In the past 2 million
years, the hominid lineage leading to modern humans evolved significantly
larger and more sophisticated brains than other primates. We propose that
the modern human brain was a product of having first evolved fat babies.
Hence, the fattest (infants) became, mentally, the fittest adults. Human
babies have brains and body fat each contributing to 11-14% of body weight,
a situation which appears to be unique amongst terrestrial animals. Body fat
in human babies provides three forms of insurance for brain development that
are not available to other land-based species: (1) a large fuel store in the
form of fatty acids in triglycerides; (2) the fatty acid precursors to
ketone bodies which are key substrates for brain lipid synthesis; and (3) a
store of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, particularly
docosahexaenoic acid, needed for normal brain development. The triple
combination of high fuel demands, inability to import cholesterol or
saturated fatty acids, and dependence on docosahexaenoic acid puts the
mammalian brain in a uniquely difficult situation compared with other organs
and makes its expansion in early humans all the more remarkable. We believe
that fresh- and salt-water shorelines provided a uniquely rich, abundant and
accessible food supply, and the only viable environment for evolving both
body fat and larger brains in human infants."
Marc Verhaegen
> Exactly - now set this up as a macro and allow us to borrow it for SAP.
Jois
I'm always wondering why you savanna believers (in this case Keeter) can't
stop talking about AAT... :-D
Doug Weller
> "Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1ga9qhakgel9c$.ddmnaxlrk1s5$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>>> I don't understand a word of what Keeter is trying to say here & I'm not
> interested in it, I only saw the word AAT. Keeter's blabla has no relevance
> whatsoever to AAT. FHI, AAT is about the theory of A.Hardy (1960 "Was Man
> more aquatic in the past?" New Scientist):
>
> Doug snipped (read: couldn't find an answer to):
And that is why I'm sorry this discussion has found it's way to
sci.archaeology -- it's another of those where the protagonist finds a need
to insult people. Now if only we could get Marc and Larry Athy to find
something to argue about so that everyone else could get one with real
archaeology...
[SNIP] because I simply am not interested in this and have in any case seen
it all before.
Doug
Lorenzo L. Love
For people who don't know who Hardy was, he was one of those classic
British eccentrics who believed in all sorts of odd stuff. His main
focus was his theory that human evolution was driven by religious
experiences and telepathy as proposed in his books "The Spiritual Nature
of Man", "The Biology of God" and "Darwin and the Spirit of Man". This
pseudoscientific research is being continued by the Alister Hardy
Society Religious Experience Research Centre. This little Hypothesis of
an Aquatic Human Ancestor was just one of his minor eccentricities.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"One must not assume that an understanding of science is present in
those who borrow its language"
Louis Pasteur
charles
viable explanation. A long, long thread last year produced nothing but
a deterministic answer that would read like, "the brain knew it was
going to need more energy/food, so it "created" fat babies." I don't
really buy the starvation theory and am about to agree that our
ancestors had abundant food... their niche ...wherever it may have been.
sigh and smile
--charles
(deleted sci.arche.., cc to "doug")
(ps to lorenzo, resident humorist and cat fancier... ok, so hardy was a
fruitcake... but does that make your post ad hominem?)
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1ga9qhakgel9c$.ddmnaxlrk1s5$.dlg@40tude.net...
<big snip>
Lorenzo L. Love
[snip]
> (ps to lorenzo, resident humorist and cat fancier... ok, so hardy was a
> fruitcake... but does that make your post ad hominem?)
>
It means that Verhaegen's appeal to authority is an appeal to a fruitcake.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
“In the old days being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”
Charles Manson
Rick Wagler
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:%ftAb.2805$rP6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
For all that he was a damned fine marine biologist. He forecast the
debacle in the North Atlantic fishery decades ago though I'm sure
he was not alone in this. I highly recommend his two volume work
"The Open Sea". Alas when he goes off his turf and discusses
hominid evolution and evolutionary theory it all goes out of whack
and may cause some to disregard his primary scientific work which
would be a shame.
Rick Wagler
Philip Deitiker
<firstj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As I saw on a t-shirt yesterday: It's all fun and games until someone loses
>a tooth - and then it's hockey. But here it is neither fun and games or
>hockey, it is just ugly.
Ever seen a hockey player smile?
Philip Deitiker
Are you following me around Marc? I don't need groupies.
Follow Keeter around, he needs a few.
Marc Verhaegen
> [SNIP] because I simply am not interested in this
then why are you talking about it??
Marc Verhaegen
"charles" <lm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FD2831C...@mindspring.com...
> i am vitally interested in this fat baby issue. This appears to be a
> viable explanation. A long, long thread last year produced nothing but
> a deterministic answer that would read like, "the brain knew it was
> going to need more energy/food, so it "created" fat babies." I don't
> really buy the starvation theory and am about to agree that our
> ancestors had abundant food... their niche ...wherever it may have been.
Where? I think the answer is below: "shorelines". Where else?
Marc Verhaegen
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> was once again unable to provide a
sensible answer in message
news:%ftAb.2805$rP6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Tom McDonald
Marc,
Can you make a connection between the AAT and archaeology?
If so, have at 'er. If not, or if the archaeological element
isn't significant (as opposed to paleoanthropology, which
would seem more apropos), perhaps this isn't the best place to
discuss it.
Tom McDonald
--
remove 'nohormel' to reply
Marc Verhaegen
news:vt5kll5...@corp.supernews.com...
> Can you make a connection between the AAT and archaeology? If so, have at
'er. If not, or if the archaeological element isn't significant (as opposed
to paleoanthropology, which would seem more apropos), perhaps this isn't the
best place to discuss it. Tom McDonald
I see this is also sent to "sci.archeology", it wasn't me who did this,
sorry, Tom.
1) What is "at 'er"?
2) About archeology & AAT, an interesting paper is, eg, Jon M Erlandson
2001 "The Archaeology of Aquatic Adaptations: Paradigms for a New
Millennium" J.archaeol.Res.9:287-350: "Although aquatic resources are often
seen as central to the development of post-Pleistocene cultural complexity,
most models of human evolution have all but ignored the role of aquatic or
maritime adaptations during the earlier stages of human history. When did
aquatic resources, maritime adaptations, and seafaring first play a
significant role in human evolution? I explore this fundamental question by
(1) reviewing various theories on the subject; (2) discussing a variety of
problems that prevent archaeologists from providing a clear answer; and (3)
examining the archaeological record for evidence of early aquatic resource
use or seafaring. I conclude that aquatic resources, wherever they were both
abundant and relatively accessible, have probably always been used
opportunistically by our ancestors. Evidence suggests, however, that aquatic
and maritime adaptations (including seafaring) played a significantly
greater role in the demographic and geographic expansion of anatomically
modern humans after about 150,000 years ago. Another significant expansion
occurred somewhat later in time, with the development of more sophisticated
seafaring, fishing, and marine hunting technologies." If somebody is
interested, I can send the pdf.
3) I didn't bring up AAT here (in sci.anthropology.paleo), but a man called
Keeter (I still don't know for what reason). For some obscure reason, many
PAs (luckily less & less) keep misreprenting AAT. I have no choice but to
correct them.
Michael Clark
> viable explanation. A long, long thread last year produced nothing but
> a deterministic answer that would read like, "the brain knew it was
> going to need more energy/food, so it "created" fat babies." I don't
> really buy the starvation theory and am about to agree that our
> ancestors had abundant food... their niche ...wherever it may have been.
>
> sigh and smile
>
> --charles
> (deleted sci.arche.., cc to "doug")
> (ps to lorenzo, resident humorist and cat fancier... ok, so hardy was a
> fruitcake... but does that make your post ad hominem?)
I see you're still around, Charles, and I see you still don't
get it. Hardy ~was~ a fruitcake. No, that's not ad-hominem,
that's simply an observation.
[snip]
Bob Keeter
> viable explanation. A long, long thread last year produced nothing but
> a deterministic answer that would read like, "the brain knew it was
> going to need more energy/food, so it "created" fat babies." I don't
> really buy the starvation theory and am about to agree that our
> ancestors had abundant food... their niche ...wherever it may have been.
>
> sigh and smile
>
"The brain" at that stage of development doesnt know, or even "need to know"
anything about baby fat. Anyway, evolution does not work that way, IMHO of
course. Rapid brain growth after birth is not a theory, just an observed
fact. Now, consider the "drivers" and enablers behind the rapid brain
growth, for example the birth channel can only accomodate a brain and skull
(even a somewhat flexible skull) so there is an immediate "deselect" for
babies with excessively large brains via difficult and traumatic births. On
the other hand, there are some compelling reasons to get the brain as mature
as possible as quickly as possible.
One way to handle both is that the most survivable baby at birth has a
comparitively small head (and brain). As soon as the act of birth is over,
its very much to the baby's advantage to get that brain up to a nominal
"full size" asap. So. . . .
If a hominid baby and its soon to be growing brain get popped out into a
cold cruel world with a reasonable supply of high-energy baby fat, do you
not suppose that there would be a relatively higher survival rate than if it
arrives with no body fat at all? Survival rate is where its all about you
know. Just a few percentage points of "advantage" and the genes for baby
fat start to relatively quickly (in an evolutionary sense at least)
dominate.
The "baby fat" needs to have NOTHING to do with any bouyancy or aquatic
insulation effect. In fact, I would contend that by simple observable
facts, the hominid baby fat shows a completely different function.
Regards
bk
Tom McDonald
> "Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelCharter.net> wrote in message
> news:vt5kll5...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>Can you make a connection between the AAT and archaeology? If so, have at
>
> 'er. If not, or if the archaeological element isn't significant (as opposed
> to paleoanthropology, which would seem more apropos), perhaps this isn't the
> best place to discuss it. Tom McDonald
>
> I see this is also sent to "sci.archeology", it wasn't me who did this,
> sorry, Tom.
Marc,
I haven't paid lots of attention to this thread on
sci.archaeology, and didn't follow it back to its original
poster on sa. Not a big deal to me, but there is enough
personal friction here among our own regulars; it seemed to me
that this thread imported some of that from saa.
>
> 1) What is "at 'er"?
"Have at her"; meaning go ahead at will. It may be a
Midwesternism.
>
> 2) About archeology & AAT, an interesting paper is, eg, Jon M Erlandson
> 2001 "The Archaeology of Aquatic Adaptations: Paradigms for a New
> Millennium" J.archaeol.Res.9:287-350: "Although aquatic resources are often
> seen as central to the development of post-Pleistocene cultural complexity,
> most models of human evolution have all but ignored the role of aquatic or
> maritime adaptations during the earlier stages of human history. When did
> aquatic resources, maritime adaptations, and seafaring first play a
> significant role in human evolution? I explore this fundamental question by
> (1) reviewing various theories on the subject; (2) discussing a variety of
> problems that prevent archaeologists from providing a clear answer; and (3)
> examining the archaeological record for evidence of early aquatic resource
> use or seafaring. I conclude that aquatic resources, wherever they were both
> abundant and relatively accessible, have probably always been used
> opportunistically by our ancestors. Evidence suggests, however, that aquatic
> and maritime adaptations (including seafaring) played a significantly
> greater role in the demographic and geographic expansion of anatomically
> modern humans after about 150,000 years ago. Another significant expansion
> occurred somewhat later in time, with the development of more sophisticated
> seafaring, fishing, and marine hunting technologies." If somebody is
> interested, I can send the pdf.
I'd be interested in seeing this paper. My email address is
munged with "nohormel". Remove "nohormel", and it'll get to
me. Thanks.
>
> 3) I didn't bring up AAT here (in sci.anthropology.paleo), but a man called
> Keeter (I still don't know for what reason). For some obscure reason, many
> PAs (luckily less & less) keep misreprenting AAT. I have no choice but to
> correct them.
Yes, it seems a doctrinal dispute. Again, we have enough of
them here on sa, and IMHO don't need lots of it imported from
elsewhere. YMMV, and this is my personal opinion.
>
> Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
>
Tom McDonald
Marc Verhaegen
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:vt6les7...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hardy ~was~ a fruitcake.
Then why are you too stupid to find 1 single argument against his theory
that a sea-side life explains many human traits (absent in our nearest
relatives the chimps) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios do: very large
brain (but reduced olfactory bulb), greater breathing control,
well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use, reduction of climbing
skills, reduction of fur, more subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear
body build, high needs of iodine, sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids
etc.??
charles
yet to ever "win" an argument with you, i offer the following from
Wikipedia (a source, not necessarily a good one):
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"An ad hominem argument, or argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally
"argument against the man [or person]"), is a fallacy that involves
replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the
person offering the argument or assertion. Ad hominem is one of the
best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory
logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and
accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual
discourse. As technique of rhetoric, despite its usual lack of subtlety,
it is powerful and much-used and -abused. Anyone involved in political
discourse, and public discourse generally, would do well to become
acquainted with it.
Properly understood, it consists of saying that someone's argument is
wrong because of something about the person rather than about the
argument.... "
therefore, i am ad-hominen-ing by pointing it out! Even if i don't get
it, and hardy is a fruitcake, i don't think there is yet enough evidence
to figure out the fat baby issue. but if any "regular" on sap chooses
to ignore the whole she-bang, i would understand that. no, i am not
still here... just dropped in to irritate you briefly! :) or should i
say, "wr" and pay up?
Michael Clark
[ http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]
>...i don't think there is yet enough evidence
> to figure out the fat baby issue.
You don't think there is enough evidence to figure out the
baby fat issue. I guess that pretty much clinches it then.
(I just entered "infant" + "nutrition" in google and got
1,180,000 hits --maybe you could start there.)
> but if any "regular" on sap chooses
> to ignore the whole she-bang, i would understand that. no, i am not
> still here... just dropped in to irritate you briefly! :) or should i
> say, "wr" and pay up?
Didn't I say I'd give you a quarter if you cut the
"warm regards" bit? And here it it again --pity that.
[more non-sense]
charles
first of those about evolution was a creationist site. entered
*infant*nutrition*evolution and got slightly better results, but even
those are mostly about breastfeeding. several sites support Marc
openly. all of them seem to imply that humans were NOT starving (which
is my argument).
here's one:
http://www.fi.edu/brain/fats.htm
"The second piece of the puzzle was the discovery that docosahexaenoic
acid, (DHA), was a large contributor to brain growth. The third piece
was the discovery that DHA was found in seafood. When scientists put all
the pieces together they found that the early humans who lived near
water sources and ate seafood experienced the big brain change!"
appeared at first it might be a wet ape site, yet the above research is
attributed to Trinkhaus. it is from the Franklin Institute and is about
the brain. so it supports Marc, and not me, or the prior thread that
was deterministic. Unfortunately, the more i read, the more i have to
think about wet apes, and isn't that the opposite of what you
anticipated in those 1.2 million hits?
--chas
"i feel the earth, move, under my feet...."
Michael Clark
> well, i got about 1,280,000 hits with the same words on google. but the
> first of those about evolution was a creationist site. entered
> *infant*nutrition*evolution and got slightly better results, but even
> those are mostly about breastfeeding. several sites support Marc
> openly. all of them seem to imply that humans were NOT starving (which
> is my argument).
> here's one:
> http://www.fi.edu/brain/fats.htm
> "The second piece of the puzzle was the discovery that docosahexaenoic
> acid, (DHA), was a large contributor to brain growth. The third piece
> was the discovery that DHA was found in seafood. When scientists put all
> the pieces together they found that the early humans who lived near
> water sources and ate seafood experienced the big brain change!"
>
> appeared at first it might be a wet ape site, yet the above research is
> attributed to Trinkhaus. it is from the Franklin Institute and is about
> the brain. so it supports Marc, and not me, or the prior thread that
> was deterministic. Unfortunately, the more i read, the more i have to
> think about wet apes, and isn't that the opposite of what you
> anticipated in those 1.2 million hits?
Keep reading.
firstjois
"mb" <c...@pirin.ha> wrote in message
news:1g5owhb.woi8nu1vxucmpN%c...@pirin.ha...
: firstjois <firstj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Also better at ignoring Marco, Harpo, and Algeo..
:
: The Marx brothers are posting here too, or who the heck is 'Harpo' ?
:
: Michael
LOL What? What I said wasn't rude enough? Harpo is the one we never
hear from!
Jois
Philip Deitiker
news:MpednQltR44...@comcast.com:
> LOL What? What I said wasn't rude enough? Harpo is the
> one we never hear from!
Elaine?
Aardvark F. Bandersnatch, Esq.
> charles wrote:
> [snip]
> > (ps to lorenzo, resident humorist and cat fancier... ok, so hardy was a
> > fruitcake... but does that make your post ad hominem?)
> >
>
> It means that Verhaegen's appeal to authority is an appeal to a fruitcake.
>
What's wrong with that? I personally find fruitcake quite appealing,
especially this time of year with some bourbon.
Algis Kuliukas
> > get it. Hardy ~was~ a fruitcake. No, that's not ad-hominem,
> > that's simply an observation.
Someone should point out that Hardy was elected a fellow of the Royal
Society because of his outstanding contribution to marine biology. It is
also noteworthy that he was also knighted.
Algis Kuliukas