Did you morons ever consider evidence?

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:
> Even if

Show me the tools. Show me 500,000 year old
Chimp tools. Show me 20 million year old
monkey tools.

What, you're pretending that rock doesn't
get preserved? That, like bones, maybe only
1-in-a-million rocks get turned into rock?

You can't show me 500,000 year old Chimp
tools because Chimps don't use tools. They
never have and they never will. Instead,
morons see ACTIONS, they view a Chimp DOING
SOMETHING and they label that ACTION a
"Tool," thanks to their/your remarkably small
vocabulary.

Stop saying that the Chimp "Hammered"
something with a rock. Say they "Pounded" it
or that they "Struck" or "Hit" or "Beat" it.

There. No more "Tool."

That, or figure out that just because you
can use the word "Hammer" as a verb it
doesn't mean that a hammer was involved.

THERE IS NO CHIMP HAMMER! There is no "Tool."

STOP taking advantage of your own lack of
language skills to fool yourself into
believing stupid things.

That's my best advice for you. And, again,
post examples of 500,000 year old Chimp
tools. You want to claim that they used them,
so show us 500,000 year old Chimp tools.

...even a loser like you should be able
to see the problem here.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164303984518

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:29:13 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Show me the tools


Your demand here is just as stupid as elsetopic.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Martin Harran]

Nah, we're all morons so we can't understand evidence.

[Burkhard]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>
> jillery wrote:
>> Even if
>
> Show me the tools. Show me 500,000 year old
> Chimp tools. Show me 20 million year old
> monkey tools.

Well, look at a heap of rocks i an area where chimps (or rather their
ancestors) lived and take your pick. Though the preservation of the
marks from tool use might be difficult to discern after all that time -
you'd be looking for a pattern of abrasion here.

Other tools such like sticks of course preserve less well.

>
> What, you're pretending that rock doesn't
> get preserved? That, like bones, maybe only
> 1-in-a-million rocks get turned into rock?
>
> You can't show me 500,000 year old Chimp
> tools because Chimps don't use tools. They
> never have and they never will. Instead,
> morons see ACTIONS, they view a Chimp DOING
> SOMETHING and they label that ACTION a
> "Tool," thanks to their/your remarkably small
> vocabulary.

Nope, they label, quite correctly, the thing with which the action is
performed a tool. That's what tools are, things you perform actions with.

>
> Stop saying that the Chimp "Hammered"
> something with a rock. Say they "Pounded" it
> or that they "Struck" or "Hit" or "Beat" it.
>
> There. No more "Tool."
>

sure, the tool with which they pounded, beat hit etc the rock.I.e. the
beater or pounder. Modern human-made pounders look a bit like hammers
just with a wooden rectangular head - used for meat tenderizing.

> That, or figure out that just because you
> can use the word "Hammer" as a verb it
> doesn't mean that a hammer was involved.
>
> THERE IS NO CHIMP HAMMER! There is no "Tool."

possibly yes to the first if you have an overly narrow definition of
hammer that insists on a head and a handle. But since human language
works due to its flexibility and evolvability, even that would be
outdated to the point of silliness. If you got "hammered", you simply
drank to much, and "hammerhard" (hard as a hammer) in German simply
means exceedingly good.


Definitely no to the second, here a film of chimps using tools:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38524671


A stone used to hammer, or indeed to pound things, is a hammer. The
same stone gifted to someone is a gift. If I worship it, it becomes a
holy icon. If others worship it in ways not approved by me, a false
idol. If it is used to bribe someone it is a bribe, and if used to kill
someone a murder weapon.

Identifying things by the role they play is a perfectly good naming
convention, and there is no need whatsoever that they have different
psychical properties for each of them, so one and the same stone can be
a tool, a gift, an idol, a weapon etc etc

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:32:00 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Of course, JTEM makes no coherent connection between his original
semantic argument and his demand for evidence of fossil chimp tools.
My impression is he has no intention of doing so.

[Burkhard]

It's indeed difficult to say what he means with any of this. My guess is
that he tries (and fails)at a reductio:

He starts with the axiomatic idea that a tool is only a tool if it has
some physical property X that sets it apart from similar looking objects
that are not tools (I feel mildly tempted to it him on the head with a
rock, and then when charged with "assault with a dangerous weapon" plead
not guilty because it was just a big stone with sharp edges, not a weapon)

He then says that if ancient chimps used tools, given the definition
above, we should find fossilised objects with physical property X that
set them apart from similar looking objects of that time.

We do not find them - rocks used by ancient chimps etc look just like
any other rock, their "use" not being a physical property that was
preserved.

Ergo they did not use tools.

There is a big whooping mistake in pretty much every line of the
"argument", and the conclusion is circular, but hey...

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 02:24:01 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

You're a whole lot more creative at reading what ain't there than I'm
willing to do.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:

> Of course, JTEM makes no coherent connection between

You claim that Chimps use tools. Show us 500,000 year
old Chimp tools. You claim that monkeys use tools.
Show us 20,000,000 year old monkey tools.

If you can't then you're wrong. Simple as that.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164358779163

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:

> Your

There is no room for argument. Science isn't
argument, it isn't logic. If Chimps use tools
then show me 500,000 year old chimp tools.

Period.

If monkeys use tools then show me 20,000,000
year old monkey tools.

Do it. If you can't then you're wrong. Period.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164487486493

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Burkhard wrote:

> Well, look at a heap of rocks i an area where chimps (or rather their
> ancestors) lived and take your pick.

So... nothing.

You've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Exactly.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164487486493

[Burkhard]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

sure. Got lots of rocks.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:37:51 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Of course, JTEM makes no coherent connection between
>
>You claim that Chimps use tools.

Nope. You lie like a cheap rug.

>Show us 500,000 year
>old Chimp tools. You claim that monkeys use tools.

Nope, thou adulterate beef-witted bladder!

>Show us 20,000,000 year old monkey tools.
>
>If you can't then you're wrong. Simple as that.

Whether chimps and monkeys use tools today has nothing whatever to do
with fossil evidence of same. You continue to show you have no idea
what you're talking about, and are proud of it.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:35:13 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:


>There is no room for argument.

Definitely not in your mind, except with yourself.

[zencycle]

We have considered all the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that you are a bloviating shitbag of epic proportions.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

You're disagreeing with me, I'm saying that
Chimps & monkeys don't use tools and you've
disagreed with me, emotionally, from the
start. So show me 500,000 year old Chimp
tools. Provide cites. Provide links to
photographs. Do it or admit that you're
wrong.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164358779163

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

There is no arguing. If Chimps use tools
then show us 500,000 year old Chimp tools.

Period.

If you can't then they don't use tools.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164358779163

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

zencycle wrote:

> We

Multiple personality disorder aside, you're still
only one person.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164358779163

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:19:19 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You're disagreeing with me, I'm saying that
>Chimps & monkeys don't use tools and you've
>disagreed with me,

Nope.


> emotionally, from the start.


Nope. That's you stomping your feet and soiling your knickers.

>So show me 500,000 year old Chimp
>tools. Provide cites. Provide links to
>photographs. Do it or admit that you're
>wrong.

I admit I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:17:32 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>There is no arguing. If Chimps use tools
>then show us 500,000 year old Chimp tools.
>
>Period.
>
>If you can't then they don't use tools.

Proof by bald assertion, as easily refuted.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Show me 500,000 year old chimp tools.

You can't. So you're wrong. Period.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164487486493

[Burkhard]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

> Show me 500,000 year old chimp tools.
>
> You can't. So you're wrong. Period.
>

>

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070212/full/news070212-1.html

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:25:05 PM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> zencycle wrote:
>
> > We
>
> Multiple personality disorder aside, you're still
> only one person.
>

You can't show me one person who disagrees with me, so, you're wrong. Period.

Your inability to prove your point aside, you're still a bloviating shitbag of epic proportions.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

The collective proves my point, but is too
stupid to notice...

Burkhard wrote:

> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > Show me 500,000 year old chimp tools.
> >
> > You can't. So you're wrong. Period.

Wow, I ask for 500,000 year old Chimp tools
and this moron gives me little stone flakes
that aren't even a tenth that old, and likely
aren't even chimp in origin...


> http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070212/full/news070212-1.html

From the cite:

: "The type of starch on the pounding tools was
: nearly all from nuts that are eaten by chimps
: and not by humans," says Barton.

Panda nuts, identified by the story, *Are* eaten
by humans. Google it, for crying out loud! STOP
being such a religious twat BELIEVING in his
gospel, his written word, and check things out
for yourself... moron.

http://tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Panda+oleosa

Put short: A good argument can be made that
whatever was found was left by humans, IF left
behind by a living being and not simply a
geofact.

It's shocking, actually *Shocking* how far away
from a science-based, empirical human being you
truly are...

But what was found?

You're pretending that they found tools. But what
precisely was found?

I quote:

: Julio Mercader from the University of Calgary
: in Canada and his colleagues dated the flakes
: of rock that they found by studying radioactive
: elements preserved in the soils.

So they found flakes of rocks. Not rocks but flakes
of rocks.

Are these flakes the tools? Or did these flakes
fly off of a supposed tool? Or is this all an
enormous load of bullshit?

So we have something that isn't a tool, that can't
be used the way they state rocks are used by chimps
AND it's associated with a species of plant food
known to be exploited by man... but you definitively
state that these are chimp "Tools."

Wow, "Science."






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164640259348

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

zencycle wrote:

> You can't show me one person who disagrees with me

You can & did just show me an invalid "Argument,"
a fallacious argument.

(That means it's not real)

If reality mattered to the allegedly "Different"
people, wouldn't someone be calling you on your
idiocy right now? I mean, someone other than
me?

And pretending there are lots of different people
here, and they are for the most part mentally fit,
who is a lurker supposed to believe: A bunch of
frigging idiots who don't even know what is or is
not a valid argument, or the one guy who can &
regularly does rise above temper tantrums & ad
hominem?

Hmmm?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/penis

[Sean Dillon]

Tools are defined by their usage. If an object is used to accomplish a task, that object is a tool. If I use a rock to break open a walnut, that rock was a tool. It doesn't matter that the rock wasn't designed or modified to be a tool, because it is usage, not design or modification, that makes it a tool. Chimps use objects to accomplish tasks. Therefore, chimps use those objects as tools. Why would anyone need to show your ancient chimp tools, when we can see actual live chimps today using tools?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cp7_In7f88

Don't like my definition of "tool?" That's fine... it kinda doesn't matter. The reality is, chimps (and other animals) use objects to accomplish tasks, regardless of what words we use to label it. And it is the substance of that, rather than the label, that is actually important to our understanding.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Remember: If you want to pretend that Chimps
use tools, show me some 500,000 year old Chimp
tools.

What, rock never gets preserved? Please...

Sean Dillon wrote:

> Tools are defined by their usage.

No. You are definitely wrong. And no matter how
many other people agree with you, you're still
wrong.

Reality isn't decided by way of a popularity
contest.

Tools are nouns. You're pretending that a verb
is a noun.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164712558663

[pga6...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 5:30:05 AM UTC+10, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> jillery wrote:

> > Even if
>
> Show me the tools. Show me 500,000 year old
> Chimp tools. Show me 20 million year old
> monkey tools.
>

> What, you're pretending that rock doesn't
> get preserved? That, like bones, maybe only
> 1-in-a-million rocks get turned into rock?
>
> You can't show me 500,000 year old Chimp
> tools because Chimps don't use tools. They
> never have and they never will. Instead,
> morons see ACTIONS, they view a Chimp DOING
> SOMETHING and they label that ACTION a
> "Tool," thanks to their/your remarkably small
> vocabulary.
>

> Stop saying that the Chimp "Hammered"
> something with a rock. Say they "Pounded" it
> or that they "Struck" or "Hit" or "Beat" it.
>
> There. No more "Tool."
>

> That, or figure out that just because you
> can use the word "Hammer" as a verb it
> doesn't mean that a hammer was involved.
>
> THERE IS NO CHIMP HAMMER! There is no "Tool."
>

> STOP taking advantage of your own lack of
> language skills to fool yourself into
> believing stupid things.
>
> That's my best advice for you. And, again,
> post examples of 500,000 year old Chimp
> tools. You want to claim that they used them,
> so show us 500,000 year old Chimp tools.
>
> ...even a loser like you should be able
> to see the problem here.

> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164303984518


The problem with JTEM's rant is reality. Chimps DO use tools. They've been observed doing it. They also make tools. Again, they've been observed doing it. The type of tools depend on the local chimp culture. Chimps that need to extract nuts from hard shells use hammers, others who want to feast on termites or ants trim available vegetation to obtain long, thin twigs to poke down termite holes. Some make scoops out of bark or leaves to carry water. Chimps have been known to make a wide array of tools modifying materials such as sticks, rocks, grass, and leaves.

If a rock is used AS a hammer then it is, by definition, a hammer. If a Galapagos finch breaks off a cactus spine to use as a pick to pry out a grub from its tunnel then it is, by definition, a pick.

A quick search on Google Scholar using the terms: "chimpanzee*" "tool*" will turn up 43,500 hits.

Chimpanzees are also not the only animals in the world to use tools. A number of animals are known to use tools including mammals, birds, fish, cephalopods and insects.

You need to read a little more. For Chimpanzee tool use I suggest books by Dr. Jane Goodall who spent more than 30 years of her life studying them.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 08:25:04 UTC+3, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Remember: If you want to pretend that Chimps
> use tools, show me some 500,000 year old Chimp
> tools.
>
> What, rock never gets preserved? Please...
>
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > Tools are defined by their usage.
>
> No. You are definitely wrong. And no matter how
> many other people agree with you, you're still
> wrong.

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in
rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I
choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

>
> Reality isn't decided by way of a popularity
> contest.
>
> Tools are nouns. You're pretending that a verb
> is a noun.

You keep distracting to definitions of words to
avoid discussing what actually happens in
reality? Why?

[Sean Dillon]

"Tool" IS a noun, about that you are correct. But it is a noun associated with a certain class of activity. Its usage IN such activity is what makes it a tool.

"tool: A device or implement, especially one held in the hand, *used to carry out a particular function.*"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tool
(emphasis mine)

And of course since we're talking about language, not "reality," this is INDEED decided by popularity contest. How a word is defined is determined by popular usage. But again, why all the fuss? No matter what we call it, chimps (and other animals) use objects to accomplish tasks. This is verifiable. And is it not that reality that matters, more than whether we use a certain word for it?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 23:13:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pga6...@gmail.com:

Not to put too fine a point on it, that's the problem with
all (or nearly all) of JTEM's rants. And all his posts are
rants, so...

>Chimps DO use tools. They've been observed doing it. They also make tools. Again, they've been observed doing it. The type of tools depend on the local chimp culture. Chimps that need to extract nuts from hard shells use hammers, others who want to feast on termites or ants trim available vegetation to obtain long, thin twigs to poke down termite holes. Some make scoops out of bark or leaves to carry water. Chimps have been known to make a wide array of tools modifying materials such as sticks, rocks, grass, and leaves.
>
>If a rock is used AS a hammer then it is, by definition, a hammer. If a Galapagos finch breaks off a cactus spine to use as a pick to pry out a grub from its tunnel then it is, by definition, a pick.
>
>A quick search on Google Scholar using the terms: "chimpanzee*" "tool*" will turn up 43,500 hits.
>
>Chimpanzees are also not the only animals in the world to use tools. A number of animals are known to use tools including mammals, birds, fish, cephalopods and insects.
>
>You need to read a little more. For Chimpanzee tool use I suggest books by Dr. Jane Goodall who spent more than 30 years of her life studying them.

His mind(?) is made up; don't confuse him with facts.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:30:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 12:25:04 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> Remember: If you want to pretend that Chimps
>> use tools, show me some 500,000 year old Chimp
>> tools.
>>
>> What, rock never gets preserved? Please...
>>
>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>>
>> > Tools are defined by their usage.
>>
>> No. You are definitely wrong. And no matter how
>> many other people agree with you, you're still
>> wrong.
>>
>> Reality isn't decided by way of a popularity
>> contest.
>>
>> Tools are nouns. You're pretending that a verb
>> is a noun.

>"Tool" IS a noun, about that you are correct.

Tool is also a verb...

"Hand tooled"

.... and an adjective:

"tool steel"

....so he's not really correct; his definition is only a
partial one.

> But it is a noun associated with a certain class of activity. Its usage IN such activity is what makes it a tool.
>
>"tool: A device or implement, especially one held in the hand, *used to carry out a particular function.*"
>https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tool
>(emphasis mine)
>

>And of course since e're talking about language, not "reality," this is INDEED decided by popularity contest, since the definitions of words are determined by popular consensus.
>
>But again, why all the fuss? No matter what we call it, chimps (and other animals) use objects to accomplish tasks. And it is that reality that matters, more than whether we use a certain word for it or not.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> "When I use a word,'

You're intensely stupid, lacking any semblance
of reading comprehension, but I'll explain it
again anyway:

I never said it was impossible to use the word
"Tool" as a verb. What I pointed out is that
because morons like you CAN use it as a verb,
you are pretending that it's a noun.

BECAUSE you can say "He hammered the nut with
a rock" you pretend that the verb is a noun,
and that a physical tool was involved.

So, jackasses: Use a different word. Instead
of saying the "Hammered" the nut, say that they
"Struck" it. Or "Pounded" it. Or "Banged" it.

There. No you can stop imagining that there's
a physical tool involved.

And, again, you are intensely stupid. You're
welcome.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> "Tool" IS a noun, about that you are correct. But it is

You're rationalizing.

Stop that.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

ZERO reading comprehension...

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Tool is also a verb...

What you are presently arguing here, though it's
unlikely you might grasp it, is that the choice
of using the word "Hammered" instead of "Pounded"
necessitates the creation of a physical tool.

Also, in this context, you are wrong. And, not
just a little wrong either.

In context -- "Tool use" -- the word "Tool" is
not a verb. Period.

So you're multi-levels of stupid. Congratulations.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Still waiting for these 500,000 year old chimp
tools. Are you idiots STILL pretending that
rocks can't be preserved in the archaeological
record, or do you admit that these "Tools"
don't exist?

pga6...@gmail.com wrote:

> Chimps DO use tools.

Your argument is circular: "They use tools because
they use tools!"

> They've been observed doing it.

Actions have been observed. "Spear" or "Hammer" were
chosen as the verbs to describe these actions. Morons
believe that their word choices create physical objects.

Instead of saying he "Speared the monkey with the
stick," over taxing your little brain and causing you
to believe a spear was involved, say that he "Poked
the monkey with the stick."

There. No more "Tool." All gone.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498

[Sean Dillon]

No rationalizing. Just rationality.

LOTS of nouns are defined by what they do, or the purpose they are put to. Lever, chef, criminal, tool, etc, etc, etc.

#1 OED definition of tool: "A device or implement, especially one held in the hand, _used to carry out a particular function_."

Notice the defining element of the definition above, which I've emphasized for your convenience. If an implement (ANY implement) is used to carry out a particular function, the implement is by that merit a tool.

If a stick is used to carry out a particular function (say, poking an ayeaye), the stick is thereby a tool. If a rock is used to carry out a particular function (say, cracking a nut), the rock is thereby a tool.

Since chimps do both of the things above, there are therefore tool users. But again: why are you so twisted in knots about what we call it? Isn't it actually more important to understand that chimps use objects to accomplish tasks, than to worry about exactly how that is labeled?

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> LOTS of nouns are defined by what they do

I'll spell it out again.

Choose a different word. Instead of saying
"Hammered" say "Pounded." There. No more
tool. Just because you can use a noun as a
verb doesn't mean that the verb, the action
is suddenly a noun.

If "Tool" in this case is a noun, and you
for some reason need to pretend it is, then

show me 500,000 year old chimp tools.

Show me your "6 million years" worth of chimp
tools.

Seriously, the same morons are claiming to
find BILLIONS of human stone tools. AT ONE
SITE!

Actually, there are several cites where the
idiots claim to find BILLIONS of tools...

Yes. Billions. Yes. Mainstream. Not the fringes,
the mainstream.

So show us the 500,000 year old chimp tools.

You're pretending these things are objects,
they're tangible, so show us.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164802558032

[Sean Dillon]

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > LOTS of nouns are defined by what they do
>
> I'll spell it out again.
>
> Choose a different word. Instead of saying
> "Hammered" say "Pounded." There. No more
> tool. Just because you can use a noun as a
> verb doesn't mean that the verb, the action
> is suddenly a noun.
>

Nope... still a tool. Pounding, just like hammering, is a "particular function." A tool is, by definition, "an implement used to achieve a particular function." Therefore, a stone used to pound a nut is a tool.

> If "Tool" in this case is a noun, and you
> for some reason need to pretend it is, then
> show me 500,000 year old chimp tools.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I have no idea whether chimps were using tools 500,000 years ago. But I DO know that chimps are using tools NOW, because there is video available of them doing exactly that.

>
> Show me your "6 million years" worth of chimp
> tools.

See above.

>
> Seriously, the same morons are claiming to
> find BILLIONS of human stone tools. AT ONE
> SITE!
>

Humans certainly often use more SOPHISTICATED tools than chimps. They MODIFY their tools in ways that chimps generally don't. That's why human tools can be identified historically which chimp tools cannot.

But it is USAGE, not modification, that defines what is a tool. There is nothing in the definition of the word "tool" that indicates that an object must be modified to be one.

> Actually, there are several cites where the
> idiots claim to find BILLIONS of tools...
>
> Yes. Billions. Yes. Mainstream. Not the fringes,
> the mainstream.
>
> So show us the 500,000 year old chimp tools.
>
> You're pretending these things are objects,
> they're tangible, so show us.

How would you like me to distinguish a stone that a chimp used to pound nuts from a stone a chimp didn't use to pound nuts, 500,000 years after the fact?

And further, what would be the POINT, since I can show you actual video of actual chimps pounding actual nuts with actual stones IN THE PRESENT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cp7_In7f88
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164802558032

[jillery]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:49:15 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
>> LOTS of nouns are defined by what they do
>
>I'll spell it out again.
>
>Choose a different word. Instead of saying
>"Hammered" say "Pounded." There. No more
>tool.

Nope. There's no functional difference between a hammer and a
pounder.

[Burkhard]

Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> LOTS of nouns are defined by what they do
>>
>> I'll spell it out again.
>>
>> Choose a different word. Instead of saying
>> "Hammered" say "Pounded." There. No more
>> tool. Just because you can use a noun as a
>> verb doesn't mean that the verb, the action
>> is suddenly a noun.
>>
>
> Nope... still a tool. Pounding, just like hammering, is a "particular function." A tool is, by definition, "an implement used to achieve a particular function." Therefore, a stone used to pound a nut is a tool.

And here an image of a pounder;

https://www.amazon.com/Aluminium-Tenderizer-Kitchen-Pounder-shopping/dp/B01LCZANHG

Jtems combines severely limited vocabulary with a theory of linguistic
meaning every bit as weird as Ray's

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 20:00:06 UTC+3, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > "When I use a word,'
>
> You're intensely stupid, lacking any semblance
> of reading comprehension, but I'll explain it
> again anyway:

Do you feel wise when you write such angry foam? Really?

>
> I never said it was impossible to use the word
> "Tool" as a verb. What I pointed out is that
> because morons like you CAN use it as a verb,
> you are pretending that it's a noun.
>
> BECAUSE you can say "He hammered the nut with
> a rock" you pretend that the verb is a noun,
> and that a physical tool was involved.

Why you mess with meanings of words? Words mean what dictionary tells those
mean. Animals do use objects for altering other objects or other animals.
Animals craft objects from objects. That is what matters, that is what
happens in nature. Usage of words (like "tool") can make it simpler to
communicate with those who want to communicate.

>
> So, jackasses: Use a different word. Instead
> of saying the "Hammered" the nut, say that they
> "Struck" it. Or "Pounded" it. Or "Banged" it.
>
> There. No you can stop imagining that there's
> a physical tool involved.

You do not have authority to tell what words other people may or may not use
to communicate something to each other. If you dislike the word "tool" so
intensely then perhaps consider taking your medication.

>
> And, again, you are intensely stupid. You're
> welcome.

Such outbursts also may mean that you should take your medication,
or at least consult your doctor.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Öö Tiib wrote:

[...]

Pretend to be reasonable all you want, morons
like you are STILL using tool as a verb and
then pretending that this magically causes a
physical tool to exist in it's place.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/asshole

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Burkhard wrote:


> > Nope... still a tool. Pounding,

You jackasses are doing everything I claim jackasses
do, and then pretending that you somehow refuted me.

You're confusing verbs & nouns. You're using "Hammer"
as a verb and then pretending that this manifests a
physical object -- a hammer -- into existence. Or at
least that's what you were doing. At this point you're
moving the other way, pretending that a noun is a
verb!

You're a moron. You established everything that I said
is indeed a fact.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/asshole

[Sean Dillon]

I think you have some misconceptions about what nouns and verbs are.

A tool in this context IS A NOUN, and all of us are using it AS a noun. But an object's membership in the set "tool" is predicated on how that object (noun) is used. ANY object (noun) that is used to accomplish a particular task is a tool (noun).

A rock (noun) is a tool (noun), if that rock is being used to accomplish a task.
A stick (noun) is a tool (noun), if that stick is being used to accomplish a task.
Etc.

This just isn't complicated.

[Sean Dillon]

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 2:00:04 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
>
>
> > > Nope... still a tool. Pounding,
>
> You jackasses are doing everything I claim jackasses
> do, and then pretending that you somehow refuted me.
>
> You're confusing verbs & nouns. You're using "Hammer"
> as a verb and then pretending that this manifests a
> physical object -- a hammer -- into existence. Or at
> least that's what you were doing. At this point you're
> moving the other way, pretending that a noun is a
> verb!

No, I am doing neither of those things. Not all tools are hammers. A tool is ANY object that is used to accomplish a particular task. Using a rock to pound a stone doesn't make it a hammer, but it DOES make it a tool, because "tool" is a categorical noun that is defined in relation to how an object is used, not by what the object itself IS.

>
> You're a moron. You established everything that I said
> is indeed a fact.

>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/asshole

N

[Sean Dillon]

A tool is, by definition, "(noun) - an implement used to achieve a particular function."

Period. Simple. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Think of it this way: A "student" is a person to attends classes. ANY person can become a student by attending classes to learn. Attending classes to learn is the ONLY thing necessary for a person to become a student. "Student" is a categorical noun defined by a particular behavior. That doesn't make "student" a verb.

Likewise...

A "tool" is an object that is used to accomplish a task. ANY object can become a tool by being used to accomplish a task. Being used to accomplish a particular task is the ONLY thing necessary for an object to become a tool. "Tool" is a categorical noun defined by a particular usage. That doesn't make "tool" a verb.

Get it? No? Well, I've certainly tried.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:

> Nope. There's

Show us 500,000 year old chimp tools.

It's that simple.

If they're real, if you're not bat shit crazy,
show them to us. Here. Now.

There is nothing to argue. If you're not bat
shit crazy then show us. Period.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/asshole

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:34:09 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Show us 500,000 year old chimp tools.

Fossil chimp tools are irrelevant to your claims. You're just arguing
with yourself.

[Burkhard]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

You are simply engaging in an inept attempt at word magic. The
distinction between nouns and verbs is contingent and language specific,
it does not determine reality. And yes, if something is used for
hammering, it's a hammer, and if it is used for pounding, it's a
pounder. No reason at all why things should not be classified by the use
they get

[Rolf Aalberg]

"The Incredibly Lucky JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:76970e96-07a6-4bfe...@googlegroups.com...

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Nope. There's
>
> Show us 500,000 year old chimp tools.
>
> It's that simple.
>
> If they're real, if you're not bat shit crazy,
> show them to us. Here. Now.
>
> There is nothing to argue. If you're not bat
> shit crazy then show us. Period.
>
>

Why don't you show us some chimp tools?
No period.

>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/asshole
>



---
E-posten er sjekket for virus av AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Pro Plyd]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Nope. There's
>
> Show us 500,000 year old chimp tools.

Why?

[Pro Plyd]

Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 1:55:05 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Pretend to be reasonable all you want, morons
>> like you are STILL using tool as a verb and
>> then pretending that this magically causes a
>> physical tool to exist in it's place.
>

> I think you have some misconceptions about what nouns and verbs are.
>
> A tool in this context IS A NOUN, and all of us are using it AS a noun. But an object's membership in the set "tool" is predicated on how that object (noun) is used. ANY object (noun) that is used to accomplish a particular task is a tool (noun).
>
> A rock (noun) is a tool (noun), if that rock is being used to accomplish a task.
> A stick (noun) is a tool (noun), if that stick is being used to accomplish a task.
> Etc.
>
> This just isn't complicated.

Just to expand on the topic:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tooling?s=t

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:55:25 -0600, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> jillery wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. There's
>>
>> Show us 500,000 year old chimp tools.
>
>Why?

That's a good question. I hope you get a good answer.

[Pro Plyd]

jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:55:25 -0600, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope. There's
>>>
>>> Show us 500,000 year old chimp tools.
>>
>> Why?
>
>
> That's a good question. I hope you get a good answer.

Oh, there'll be an answer, just not a good one.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 21 August 2017 20:30:05 UTC+1, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> jillery wrote:

Of course I've been mainly ignoring this, but, if you
ask Google for (fossil chimpanzee tool), this is one
early result.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070212/full/news070212-1.html>

Of course it's only dated 4310 years old (the article
says 4300 and it is from 2007), but give it time.

[Pro Plyd]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
>> "When I use a word,'
>
> You're intensely stupid, lacking any semblance
> of reading comprehension, but I'll explain it
> again anyway:
>
> I never said it was impossible to use the word
> "Tool" as a verb. What I pointed out is that
> because morons like you CAN use it as a verb,
> you are pretending that it's a noun.
>
> BECAUSE you can say "He hammered the nut with
> a rock" you pretend that the verb is a noun,
> and that a physical tool was involved.
>
> So, jackasses: Use a different word. Instead
> of saying the "Hammered" the nut, say that they
> "Struck" it. Or "Pounded" it. Or "Banged" it.
>
> There. No you can stop imagining that there's
> a physical tool involved.

How and with what was the nut "hammered"?

How and with what was the nut "struck"?

How and with what was the nut "pounded"?

How and with what was the nut "banged"?

[Pro Plyd]

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 15:00:23 -0600, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > jillery wrote:
> >
> >> Nope. There's
> >
> > Show us 500,000 year old chimp tools.
>
>Why?

Why ask why? JTEM doesn't "do" questions.

> > It's that simple.
> >
> > If they're real, if you're not bat shit crazy,
> > show them to us. Here. Now.
> >
> > There is nothing to argue. If you're not bat
> > shit crazy then show us. Period.