New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 16 Aug 2006 20:18 On 16 Aug 2006 23:43:50 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote: >John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >news:l3a6e2d8cdn1f2e4g0qqjgtnke1j58e0uf(a)4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:43:54 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>The concept of free speech was never designed for the yahoo likes of >>>you who find the free speech of others not to your liking. >> >> >> Spoken like a genuine Liberal! Thank you for this classic line; I just >> love this sort of reasoning. >> >> John >> >> > >One more datum showing that liberals are anti-free speech. That's a paradox: one of the definitions of "liberal" is "tolerant", but liberals seem to be intolerant of people who aren't liberals! John
From: Eeyore on 16 Aug 2006 20:31 Jim Yanik wrote: > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > news:l3a6e2d8cdn1f2e4g0qqjgtnke1j58e0uf(a)4ax.com: > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:43:54 +0100, Eeyore > ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>The concept of free speech was never designed for the yahoo likes of > >>you who find the free speech of others not to your liking. > > > > Spoken like a genuine Liberal! Thank you for this classic line; I just > > love this sort of reasoning. > > One more datum showing that liberals are anti-free speech. Hey ! You guys don't like democracy either if it gives the 'wrong result' ! I'm just turning it back on you. Graham
From: John Woodgate on 17 Aug 2006 02:34 In message <C108EF7F.3F283%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dated Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> writes >Perhaps we can work on updating the Code of Hammurabi to replace all >the fictional historical accounts we call the bible. Make a New Field of Metatechnology application to ISO for a new TC on Morality. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: bill.sloman on 17 Aug 2006 05:33 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:53:43 +0100, John Woodgate > <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >In message <4ra6e2lpi7mtpk3n2pt6541ollphb267rm(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 16 > >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> > >writes > >>On 15 Aug 2006 20:10:25 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > >>>What survivors? Asteroid impacts that have had the same sort of > >>>consequences tend to kill off all the big, slow-breeding land animals - > >>>everything heavier than a few kilograms. > >>> > >>>It takes a few million years before the small, fast-breeding stuff > >>>evolves variants to fiill all the empty niches. > >> > >>So whales and elephants evolved from mice, in a few million years? I > >>never knew that! > >> > >Not exactly mice, more like shrews. Google for 'Morganucodon'. Before > >whales went back into the sea, they were rather like dogs, and seals > >were very like dogs. Elephants were rather like 'rock rabbits', Hyrax, > >until they grew up. Google again. > > But asteroids killed off all the things like dogs. Sloman told me so. Sloman told you "tend to kill off all the big, slow-breeding land animals - everything heavier than a few kilograms. " There are certainly dogs that don't weigh more than a few kilograms - ad infact I was quoting from Tony Hallam's "Catastrophes and lesser Calamities" ISBN-0-19-280668, where he said "more than 10 kilograms" which still strikes me as excessively precise. I think you are over-interpreting the message. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 17 Aug 2006 06:06
John Woodgate wrote: > In message <63g6e2hsub8jhcp0mht8aqsqprupgheu8l(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 16 > Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> > writes > > >But asteroids killed off all the things like dogs. Sloman told me so. > > One of you has the timing wrong. When the asteroid did for the dinos, > the mammals were still Morganucodon types. They didn't get bigger until > after the dinos had gone and the climate had recovered. > -- There has been at least one recent fossil find which shows that the pre-asteroid mammals included creatures weighing several kilograms. They might have survived the end-Cretaceous event. It has been claimed that no animal heavier than 25 kgm did, and few that approached that weight. Of course you are right that neither dogs nor any of it immediate ancestors were around at the time of the end-Cretaceous event, some 65 million years ago - the carnivores appear as a separate group in the subsequent geological record. http://www.bobpickett.org/velvet_claw.htm##velvetclaw.htm -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |