Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 14:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4540D3CA.6FEF27B0(a)hotmail.com... > > > MooseFET wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > Do you have any evidence that human societies were a herd-style >> > where only one male was allowed to remain in the pack? >> >> It is not needed. Take a look at many of the apes or wolves. Only the >> high status members get to breed. In wolves it applies to both sexes. >> In apes it is mostly males. The bonobo is very much an exception to >> this. > > The bonobos are apparently our closest cousins. Genetically. This doesn't always imply any societal similarities.
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 14:29 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehq2av$8ss_005(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <LbM%g.15888$TV3.3426(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> <snip> >>Strawman. Name one such country in the EU. > > A country who licenses TV usage. A country where the > wait for phone installations has a waiting list of > more than a few days (no competition). A country where > every job requires government permission. A country > whose total economy can't be shut down with one strike. > A country where its citizens expect the government to > provide and pay for all basic living requirements with > no labor in exchange. I have just checked my map and I cant find "A country" in the EU. Can you be more specific about which one you mean? I can't think of any which meet all your stipulations here.
From: Daniel Mandic on 26 Oct 2006 14:27 Eeyore wrote: > How do you cheat at golf btw ? > > Graham Hi Graham! Good Question. I think my Computer cheated me one time, with Golf (PGA 486 Golf ~1996, DOS 32bit). I was pretty sure I was one under that, what the Computer have shown, when I have started to chip the ball to/into the hole. (I had 2 strokes and then the next screen/turn I had 4 ??) PAR 4 Course. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 14:31 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:iivvj2tqe9juti768c09rbpluu727l23es(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:09:56 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:4nnvj2lppam6tqe5su8de9ee7u4reg3j5d(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:32:17 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>> message >>>>> >>>>> > If somebody >>>>> > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." >>>>> >>>>> That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. >>>>> An >>>>> assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past >>>>> two >>>>> Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." >>>> >>>>An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway ! >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>> How about "it rained for the last 39 days, so it will probably rain >>> today"? Anecdotal too, I suppose. >> >>If you said it without looking outside - yes. >> >>If the rainy season was 39 days long then it probably wouldn't rain. >> > > Well, we do have extremely precise rainy seasons here in California. > :-) Now that is observational evidence :-)
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 14:32
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehq9o5$8qk_005(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ichvj2dk0kq2i2hh75047tico4h8gammnv(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:19 +0100, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>> Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force >>>> in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school >>>> were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery >>>> school. >>> >>>Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor. >> >>Do people still say "duh"? >> >>> >>>Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor >>>science. >> >>This is a *discussion* group, not a peer-reviewed journal. If somebody >>says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." > > No. He would insist it couldn't be rain because the water isn't > blue. [glum emoticon here] > Would he? Wow. What colour is water? |