Re: Man-eaters


Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:

They are only up in the trees when predators are in the immediate
vicinity, dimwit.

How stupid can you get? What if the predator decides not to leave?
Lucy then will come down and beat him up?

What a plainly inane question. I suppose in those instances the apith
in question would be out of luck.

Do you ever tire of making retractions? If they couldn't guard one, it
is obvious they couldn't guard any.

Why don't you step us through the logic that brought you to this
conclusion. If nothing else it should be good for a few laughs.



I can't figure out what your point is. Assuming you have one.

Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."

Who is Niccolo Caldararo? Why would anybody care about his opinion,
dimwit.

Who the hell is Claudius Jim Denk McGinn, other than an alias for
someone too embarassed to use his real name? Coward. But then again, if
I posted the lunatic drivel you did, I would change my name also.


No response.

Nothing to respond to....


Why would you quote the opinion of somebody that has no expertise in
this field?

No response.


Obviously he has a lot more expertise than you do.....
Message-ID: <1165825208.180342.263860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jim McGinn: "Much of the existing evidence is consistent with
gardens/groves, etc.
Hominid fossils tend to be found in association with trees and water
nearby. And hominid food preference are consistent with such."

Have you been mentally ill long?



Niccolo Caldararo is a guy who can see through an illiterate buffoon
like you.

We're suppose to take your word on this? Fat chance that.

Says the loon imagining apiths guarded gardens.



You might try going to the library for the first time in your life and
check out a book called BONES by Lew Binford.

Read it. It's conclusions are dimwitted.

Hearing voices again?

Feel free to relay to us the brilliant insights that you, supposedly,
gleened from your reading of this book.

No response.

You can't read? He wrote the book once, how many people have to write
something before you get it?

Uh . . . get what?



Who said anything about his conclusions? I think
most of them stink also.

Then why did you present it?

Can't you read, there is a difference between observed facts and
conclusions drawn from them. Even an idiot like you should be able to
figure that out.

Keep in mind I don't have direct access to your imagination.

You certainly have access to plenty of imagination of your own, why
would you need mine?


That doesn't made his observations about
preadators hunting at night false. These can verified elsewhere:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2519leopards.html
NARRATOR: Tonight, on NOVA: As daylight fades, a silent hunter stalks.
For the first time ever, under the cover of complete darkness, see her
strike. With NOVA's special cameras, go on the hunt with Africa's most
successful big cat. Enter the hidden world of leopards of the night.

Do you have a point?

Yes, I falsified yours.

How so?

How not so?


Or check any good library (which I know you will never do). So much for
your lunatic idea apiths guarded territory or gardens day or night.

Specifically?

Your evidence that they did, specifically?

Specifically?

Specifically?




Let's face it, your silly
hypothesis is the funniest comedy to hit sap since Ed's MAOAC.

Humans currently are effective at defending territory from hebivores.
Why would it have been different for the earliest hominids?

How early? The South African caves prove apiths could not defend any
better than antelope.

Prove? How so? As usual you're just making up facts to fit your
preconceived notions.

Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."

Can't answer the question. You're a fool.

Message-ID: <1164704227.718683.98...
</groups/unlock?msg=04fbb3c26ba8e19a&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_frm/thread/3597d023d7604931%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26>@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>

Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
"The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to
the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of
modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid species."
Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.

Jim McGinn: "Well then I guess I stand corrected on this point."

Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."



Does your lack of intelligence means I need to repeat the same
citations continuously?



Homo e could. Any thing else you would like to
know?

Do you use a crystal ball?

Nope, just a library.

Why do you never include speific references that apply to your point?
Vagueness does not a hypothesis make.


Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.

Do you want the entire list repeated as an admission of your senile
mind?

Have you always been a lying ***, or do you only do it when
trolling on sap?


You're such a desperate fool all you can do is keep repeating points
that I've already conceded.

Since you were forced to concede in the first place only proves how
little thought you use when making up your fantasies in the first
place. Try thinking before posting. Apiths did not guard gardens
anymore than lions descended from saber-tooth cats.

.

Quantcast