From: Jim Yanik on
John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:ecd7e2dsmn3utfi02n0a8uth92sgs6fap2(a)4ax.com:

> 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",

Not in the current usage WRT politics.
These days,"liberal" is more accurately "socialist".


> but liberals seem to be intolerant of people who aren't liberals!
>
> John
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
From: John Woodgate on
In message <j329e2t9dc055hbcl7iip1lp8j43fo9fnp(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 17
Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
writes
>I certainly am confused. I've been informed that one or more comets
>killed off everything over a few kilograms, and that all available
>ecological niches were filled a few million years later. So giraffes
>and walruses and mastadons evolved from rabbit-sized critters in a few
>million years.
>
>Have I got it right at last?

Yes, for sometimes quite large values of 'few'.
--
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: Tim Auton on
Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote:
> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
> news:ecd7e2dsmn3utfi02n0a8uth92sgs6fap2(a)4ax.com:
> > On 16 Aug 2006 23:43:50 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote:
[whatever]
> >>> 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.
> >
> > That's a paradox: one of the definitions of "liberal" is "tolerant",
>
> Not in the current usage WRT politics.
> These days,"liberal" is more accurately "socialist".

Not just 'socialist': 'liberal' in US politics now seems to mean
'authoritarian socialist'. That's a fair attempt at the exact opposite
meaning of liberal, as far as I can tell.


Tim
From: Eeyore on


Tim Auton wrote:

> Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote:
> > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
> > news:ecd7e2dsmn3utfi02n0a8uth92sgs6fap2(a)4ax.com:
> > > On 16 Aug 2006 23:43:50 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote:
> [whatever]
> > >>> 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.
> > >
> > > That's a paradox: one of the definitions of "liberal" is "tolerant",
> >
> > Not in the current usage WRT politics.
> > These days,"liberal" is more accurately "socialist".
>
> Not just 'socialist': 'liberal' in US politics now seems to mean
> 'authoritarian socialist'. That's a fair attempt at the exact opposite
> meaning of liberal, as far as I can tell.

Yes.

liberal P Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian
attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of
the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or
associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in
Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or
university curriculum: a liberal education.
Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady
or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

Graham

Even Jim Thompson reckon's he's a liberal by that definition.

From: bill.sloman on

John Larkin wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 03:23:49 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote:
>
> >
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >> On 16 Aug 2006 07:50:29 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John Larkin wrote:
> >> >> 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!
> >> >
> >> >Good thing too. It isn't true. For whales
> >> >
> >> >"The short answer is that the best available evidence is that whales
> >> >evolved
> >> >from a terrestrial ancestor that resembled a wolf or hyaena, only with
> >> >its
> >> >five toes ending in small hooves rather than claws. This ancestral
> >> >species
> >> >belonged to a group called the mesonychids, or was closely related to
> >> >them."
> >> >
> >> >For elephants
> >> >
> >> >"Subclass Eutheria
> >> >Among the orders emanating from the subclass Eutheria are three that
> >> >are closely related.
> >> >
> >> >Order Hyracoidea:
> >> >Modern descendants are the hyraxes. African rodent-like animals the
> >> >size of rabbits.
> >> >
> >> >Order Sirenia:
> >> >Modern descendants are manatees and dugongs (sea cows). Seal-like
> >> >mammals living entirely in water.
> >> >
> >> >Order Proboscidea:
> >> >The order of modern elephants"
> >> >
> >> >So it would seem the both evolved from something closer in size to a
> >> >rabbit than a mouse,
> >> >
> >> >The mouse is a relatively small rodent, so no more closely related to
> >> >elephants or whales than we are (and more closely related to us than
> >> >either).
> >> >
> >> >http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040111
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But, I quote,
> >>
> >> >> >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.
> >> >>
> >
> >You are confused. A mouse weighs some 20 to 40 grams.
>
> I certainly am confused. I've been informed that one or more comets
> killed off everything over a few kilograms, and that all available
> ecological niches were filled a few million years later. So giraffes
> and walruses and mastadons evolved from rabbit-sized critters in a few
> million years.
>
> Have I got it right at last?

Getting closer. Something vaguely like a giraffe must have evolved to
graze the leaves on tall bushes - though it probably wasn't as
well-adaped as the giraffe, and couldn't graze as high. There was
alsosomething mammalian swimming around estuaries catching fish -
though it probably wasn't as good at it as the walrus - and there was
some kind of big grazer, though probably not as big as a mastadon or a
giant ground sloth (althogh the giant ground sloth probably evolved to
exploit the giraffe niche).

Check out pages 3 and 4 of

http://www.miracosta.edu/home/kmeldahl/articles/dinosNorthAm.pdf#search=%22post%20Cretaceous%20mammalian%20radiation%22

which discuss the radiation of the mammals after the K-T extinction.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen