Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- From: rmacfarl <rmacfarl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:25:01 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 20, 12:38 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"rmacfarl" <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a6dde5cf-8180-4c20-afdf-07442052edfd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<obscenity> I didn't say I didn't care. Don't twist my words.
Instead try reading them, and understand.
It was only a slight extension -- and
fully justified. You don't care, as can
be seen from your tone.
You are wrong that I don't care; that was a misinterpretaion of my
meaning & intent. If I didn't care about this subject I wouldn't be
here. However I apologise for the obscenity as it was unnecessary and
unjustified.
.
- References:
- Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- From: Claudius Denk
- Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- From: rmacfarl
- Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- From: Paul Crowley
- Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- From: rmacfarl
- Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- From: Paul Crowley
- Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- From: rmacfarl
- Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- From: Paul Crowley
- Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- Prev by Date: Re: 2 new publications on the waterside theory
- Next by Date: Faster Than A Hyena?
- Previous by thread: Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- Next by thread: Re: Early Hominids could not have been migratory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
