Re: Jim Moore: Flores man could not have survived predators

From: J Moore (anthrosciguy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/04/04 

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:52:40 GMT

richard01 <richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6e30eb22.0411040103.70aba3ea@posting.google.com...
> "firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T56dnZ5gV4pgQxXcRVn-iw@comcast.com>...
> > Philip Deitiker wrote:
> > >> In sci.anthropology.paleo, richard01 created a
> > >> message ID
> > >> news:6e30eb22.0411020113.1a12262b@posting.google.com:
> > >>
> > >>> If you look at Jim Moore's notorious anti-aquatic ape theory site:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.aquaticape.org/predators.html
> > >>>
> > >>> you will find a quite persuasive, but half-baked theory that humans
> > >>> could not live in the sea because of the problems of shark and
> > >>> crocodile attack.
> > >>>
> > >>> In the Philippines, the Badjao sea gypsies live in or on the sea all
> > >>> their lives. In fact, the real risk of shark or crocodile attack is
> > >>> far less than equally life-threatening things like lightning or a
> > >>> coconut falling on your head.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you believe Mr Moore's armchair reasoning, you will also realise
> > >>> that the tiny Homo floresiesis could not possibly have survived in
> > >>> an environment with sabre-toothed elephants, Komodo Dragons (and
> > >>> even larger varanid lizards) let alone other predators on Flores.
> > >>>
> > >>> But they did.
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard
> > >>> My weblog Seashore Foraging & Fishing is at
> > >>> http://coconutstudio.blogspot.com
> > >>
> > >> From my experiance a prominent sign of a netloon is a person
> > >> who trolls with personal names in thread titles.
> > >> Secondarily you are lying about what Jim said and you should
> > >> apologize, or be killfiled.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Philip
> >
> > Lots of people seem to be willing to wait for you to shape up, Richard,
but
> > you obviously seem to be swiftly moving to the end of your rope. What do
> > you want from this group? An apology would be a good start.
> >
> > Jois
>
> Philip - I take your admonitions with respect - I appreciate your
> posts here (and elsewhere). I read them, try to understand them (and
> sometimes even publicly applaud them) although I often don't know what
> much of your specialist genetic jargon means.
>
> I am not an experienced newsgroup contributor. I don't know the
> jargon, and I don't know the manners (not that I've seen many). Why
> should I? It's only very recently that I've been physically able to
> access the internet at all, and discover a worldwide network of others
> who have similar interests.
>
> So, like a newcomer to the bar, I announce my position, and get back a
> little more than I think I deserve. I've been accused by you as a
> liar, and by Su Solomon as a drunken pornographer. That's a bit more
> than attacking my published opinions. It's like resident territorial
> monkeys throwing things at newcomers to put them in their place, and
> perhaps a phenomenon worth studying on its own account.
>
> If you have time, perhaps you could advise (under a different
> headline, so others can understand) what the following mean:
>
> 1) LOL
> 2) Troll
> 3) Killfile
>
> and if there are signs ;-) and >:-( to try and express body language
> over the web, are there others which can say, for instance -
> - Oh **** - not that old chestnut again !
> - You are talking nonsense - think before you post
> - Why don't you read my post properly before you attack it?
> - How can I conduct a discussion through swathes of >>>>> and deep
> strata of old messages?
>
> Jim - As the resident anti-AAT expert you publish, and advertise, a
> website against the whole idea, so I don't feel that you are just a
> contributor here, but the major, and consistently sceptical opponent
> of AAT, and a very public self-advertising target. If I am a 'troll'
> by using your name in my headline, then so what? You'll answer and get
> a chance to advertise your site again. 1 to me and 3 to you.
>
> I'm not attacking you personally, but your very established and
> constantly-advertised (and in my opinion, erroneous) opinions.
>
> We did, indeed, discuss shark and croc attacks in direct emails. But,
> I just didn't believe your reasoning - I live among people who are in
> the sea every day - they don't give a tinker's cuss for shark and croc
> attacks - and both of them are still very much about nowadays.
>
> On any single day in my village, there are up to a dozen juicy white
> surfers dangling their bodies in the Pacific, for hours on end. There
> hasn't been a single shark (or croc) attack in living memory. (We are
> only a very few miles from the site of the WWII 'Battle of Leyte Gulf'
> which still provokes stories of wrecked sailors perishing in
> 'shark-infested waters')
>
> If I remember I originally contacted you because your website quotes a
> croc attack on my island (Siargao) which was quite untrue. I didn't
> accuse you of lying, but merely of perhaps quoting an erroneous
> report. Have you corrected it yet?
<snipped>

You stated that you hadn't heard about the attacks (my source said that
there had been reported "the deaths of nine villagers in recent years, all
possible victims of the same crocodile") but you gave no evidence to suggest
that it was incorrect. You also complained about the reference saying the
island was "tiny" (he was an Australian, so that may affest what he
considers to be a non-tiny island) so now you're suggesting that everything
that's happened over years on your non-tiny island you would definitely know
about? Perhaps you could look up the records -- something concrete,
official if possible -- and present it. I'd appreciate it. Simply saying
that the source is wrong without evidence is not something that would lead
me to make a correction -- evidence is. Please go get some -- you're there;
it's a wonderful opportunity to do so. I'll be leaving for several months
in a few weeks, so i may not get to email or messages here, but you could
email me and I will get it when I return in the early spring. 

--
JMoore
__
For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to
www.aquaticape.org

Relevant Pages

  • 2008 Shark Attack Season Begins: 1 Surfer and 9-Yr-Old Bit on Ass at Florida Islands
    ... Sharks Bite Surfer, 9-Year-Old on Nearby Florida Islands ... by sharks in separate attacks on nearby barrier island beaches, ... within an hour of each other Saturday on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Traitors!!
    ... dissident republicans behind the two recent attacks in the North as ... traitors to the island of Ireland." ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Petie "Im not psychotic at all" Roehling admits that he[s a "webkook"
    ... The evidence proves your cartoon conspiracy theory ... attacks were run by CIA, ... A 28-year CIA career man and a former skeptic of alternative 9/11 ... Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • 9/11 - WHERE THE HELL IS *YOUR* PROOF?
    ... there has been no independent official inquiry into the attacks of ... and yet not a shred of evidence has been offered by the ... US government to support the official version of events they claim took place on ... ?WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR PROOF?? ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: Case for WTC Tower Demolition Sealed by David Ray Griffin
    ... there has been no independent official inquiry into the attacks ... evidence presented to the public that corroborates the official government ... both the American government and the complicit ... "WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR PROOF?" ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)