Conventional Evasiveness
- From: claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:45:56 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 1, 4:59 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:29 am, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:24 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Ross, I began this thread with a content oriented question. I
predicted that none of you whackos would even begin to
address it. Why don't you prove me wrong? What are you so
afraid of?
You what? You "began this thread with a content oriented
question"?
Yes, and you phoneys couldn't muster an answer.
No, you did not begin this thread with a content oriented question. On
that point I have already proved you wrong.
...
Put up or shut up jackass. Go ahead. What are you waiting
for? Is it a secret?
...
Put up or shut up jackass. Go ahead. What are you waiting
for? Is it a secret?
The irony in your ad hominem is extraordinary, as ever.
...
This is the bit you carried over from another thread:
Answer the question you evasive twit:
Is it not obvious that early hominids (Apith) must have
had a lifestyle that was distinct from chimps? If not
then why the dramatic shift in morphology?
...
Mike's reply:
In answer to your question, sure something is obvious,
chimps are quads and hominids are bipeds.
I was asking about lifestyle, you mental retard.
So what?
Playing dumb, as usual.
Neither I nor Mike could, in principle, give a great,
screaming, pink-and-blue rat's arse what you were talking about.
Then why the constant whining?
You asked 2 questions, to be quite specific, but in fact you disguised
(from yourself, no doubt) a couple of other premises within those 2
questions.
Such as . . . ?
One premise being the "dramatic shift in morphology". Do we agree that
this is a valid premise? Yes, we know Australopthecines are
morphologically distinct from great apes, but is the change
"dramatic"? (Mikey asked you that, but you - typically - did not
understand his question, and therefore deflected it.) Can the word
"dramatic" be defined in a scientific sense?
Evasive twit.
Is there an empirical
measure which could show that the degree of morphological change from
pre-hominid ape to australopith is more "dramatic" than - for example
- brown bear to polar bear? These are the kinds of questions
scientists ask, but you never do.
References?
To take that point further: your question preassumes that we know what
the chimp / australopith last common ancestor looked like - and that
we know how many morphological changes took place in the line from
that LCA to chimps & bonoboes. This is a false premise, as anyone with
a modicum of paleoanthropological knowledge would know. Is it
Ardipithecus? Kenyapithecus? Orrorin? Sahelanthropus? Something else
that we have or haven't found yet? Can you see why the answers to
these questions would be important to answering your question?
So, in your mind the evidence isn't clear enough for any premise at
all. If this is the case why do we not see you protesting when
conventional theorist, Lee for example, propose hominids hunting
extremely fast mammals in open habitat with spears and outrunning
lions? (Answer the question you evasive twit.)
A second premise that Mike took issue with was the reference to a
"distinct" lifestyle. He asks an entirely relevant question - and you
did not - could not - answer it.
Provide a reference you evasive twit. Keep in mind that we don't have
access to your imagination.
Firstly, we don't know what the lifestyle was like, owing to the
absence of physical evidence, so we are unable to say how distinct the
lifestyle was - but I'm going to assume that that ugly little fact
won't do anything to reign in your imaginative enthusiasm. So answer
me this... Was the lifestyle of your eco-doormen more "distinct" from
chimpanzees than a Bedouin goatherd's is from a Manhattan
stockbroker's?
In what respect?
[MClark: sidebet - I'll lay you 10 shares in a Bear Sterns "financial
instrument" that Jimmy's answer doesn't stretch to 2 lines of Google
text...]
... There's a long list of people that were
driven off this newsgroup because they couldn't hack the
scrutiny they got from me. Science ain't for sissies.
Yourself included Mac.
Like you would recognise science if it bit you on the bum. And I'm
still here, laughing at you.
Evasive jackass.
None of this qualifies as content. Most of it is nothing more
than ad hominem abuse (ooh, look - more o' them ol' logical
fallacies!)
I didn't present *this* as content you straw-baiting nitwit.
Which goes to prove (again) my previous point, that you did not start
this thread with content. You simply recycled some of your bollocks
from somewhere else...
This is your dispute? One can only wonder why you responded at all.
Ross Macfarlane
For the record:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
dra·mat·ic
Pronunciation[druh-mat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA –adjective
1. of or pertaining to the drama.
2. employing the form or manner of the drama.
3. characteristic of or appropriate to the drama, esp. in involving
conflict or contrast; vivid; moving: dramatic colors; a dramatic
speech.
4. highly effective; striking: The silence following his impassioned
speech was dramatic.
[Origin: 1580–90; < LL drāmaticus < Gk drāmatikós, equiv. to drāmat-
(s. of drâma) drama + -ikos -ic]
—Related forms
dra·mat·i·cal·ly, adverb
—Synonyms 1. theatrical. 4. startling, sensational.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Conventional Evasiveness
- From: rmacfarl
- Re: Caution, Conventional Illiteracy may be contagious
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Conventional Evasiveness
- Prev by Date: Re: Little Difference Between AAT and Conventional Illiteracy
- Next by Date: Re: Caution, Conventional Illiteracy may be contagious
- Previous by thread: Little Difference Between ATT and Conventional Vagueness
- Next by thread: Re: Caution, Conventional Illiteracy may be contagious
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
