Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


Jim McGinn wrote:


> Hey, that's my insult. Go get your own. Next thing you know you'll be
> claiming my hypothesis as your own.

Not that I expect Ross to try to wade through the sea of posts designed
by your own mental illness to resolve whatever the hell it is that is
your 'hypothesis,' but since you've not published a thing, since you
seem both unwilling and incapable of putting something coherant
together, you'd both be powerless to stop him and would remain as
irrelevant as you are. So why again is it that you don't actually put
together your hypothesis in a form that's accessible to anyone who
doesn't inhabit the defective brain of Jim McGinn?


[snip]

> Like I said, it's easy to make big claims. Its hard to back them up.

Damn it, Jim. You've got to stop doing that. This is the third
irony-o-meter you've overloaded this week. Really, you ought to be
more considerate when you post that sort of stuff.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... >> Hey, that's my insult. ... >> claiming my hypothesis as your own. ... > doesn't inhabit the defective brain of Jim McGinn? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >>> Hey, that's my insult. ... Don't you know that you're an irrelevant delusional nutcase? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The McGinn Doctrine
    ... >>> Jim McGinn to Paul 062105 ... >>> No time for grammar. ... > Hey, Su, does he mean me or you? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)