Prev: which suffered more? Kepler Packing or Poincare conjectures #701 Correcting Math
Next: Your Helping Heart
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 19 Jul 2010 04:59


b...(a)cs.toronto.no-uce.edu wrote:
> In article <d195e290-e9d0-4d90-b3da-c5a83ecf3072(a)i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> Lee Olsen <paleocity(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Since bipedalism showed up in the fossil record millions of years
> >before exotic rock or stone tools, it can be safely assumed running
> >occured long before proficiency at throwing was developed.
>
> You don't need to throw tools -- you can throw anything.
>
> When Mr. Plutonium first asserted his theory, many people pointed out
> that chimps can throw accurately and with power for substantial
> distances. Many people who have worked with chimps have observed that
> they enjoy throwing whatever they have, especially feces, at their
> keepers.
>
> Mr. Plutonium responded in his usual unbalanced manner with scorn,

Ms. B from Toronto responded in her usual subpar logic by failing to
recognize
that throwing by a chimp is underarm throwing, a throwing that is far
far different
from anything remotely resembling human throwing. Chimps do sling
throwing.
And perhaps Oreopithecus went through a initial throwing stages of
sling throwing.
So there is a long chain of evolutionary steps of types of throwing
which graduates
into overarm long distance throwing. All these people with chimp
throwing stories, have
any of them seen a chimp lift a boulder size rock and crash it down on
another chimp?
I have seen chimps crack open nuts with a rock, but never seen them
attacking another
with the rock.

And why so many people fail
to recognize that the complexity of throwing has a broad spectrum of
types. That throwing can have huge
variances. B from Toronto is not focused on science in her posts but
focused on throwing hatred and darts at Mr. Plutonium.


> denial and assertions that he is the King of Science, so anything he
> says is true, and any contradictions come only from weak minded jealous
> fools and corrupt so-called scientists.
>
> After a while, everybody just ignored him. I recommend you do the same,
> but of course, you can do as you like. Meanwhile, watch out for those
> "safe assumptions".

If all the hate mongering were snipped out of B's posts, all her posts
would amount to
just a few pages.

Is this how all sour aging scientists with no science accomplishment
end their
career, by posting vectives at those who are progressive in science?

Go back to school, B, go to Univ of Toronto where I am sure they teach
Symbolic Logic
for you need a huge dosage of symbolic logic.

AP
From: pete on 19 Jul 2010 06:15
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> progressive in science?

Is the theory in this url:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08dogs.html?_r=1&ref=science

also one of your theories?

--
pete
From: Lee Olsen on 19 Jul 2010 07:43
On Jul 19, 1:59 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<nothing in reply>

Someone else pointed out"
"When Mr. Plutonium first asserted his theory, many people pointed
out
that chimps can throw accurately and with power for substantial
distances."

The statement that chimps "throw accurately and with power for
substantial
distances." is a lie.


From: Jesse F. Hughes on 19 Jul 2010 09:08
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes(a)gmail.com> writes:

> Go back to school, B, go to Univ of Toronto where I am sure they teach
> Symbolic Logic for you need a huge dosage of symbolic logic.

Out of curiosity, have you ever studied symbolic logic? If so, how?
Did you learn it on your own or in a course?

Just wondering.
--
"You lack the ability to reason, but instead get an idea in your head
and hold on to it against all evidence. I don't find you credible,
and reject your claims, as coming from a flawed source."
-- James S Harris shoots for Projection Post of the Year (2004)
From: Lee Olsen on 21 Jul 2010 14:24
On Jul 19, 1:59 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Go back to school, B, go to Univ of Toronto where I am sure they teach
> Symbolic Logic
> for you need a huge dosage of symbolic logic.

Logic has nothing to do with your ignorance of the fossil record.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: which suffered more? Kepler Packing or Poincare conjectures #701 Correcting Math
Next: Your Helping Heart