• Running Made Us Human: How We Evolved to Run Marathons

    From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 5 22:48:25 2021
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/running-made-us-human-how-we-evolved-to-run-marathons

    ...
    Homo sapiens are relatively pathetic athletes by all measures. But when it comes
    to long distance locomotion, we're remarkable. After 15 minutes of sustained running, fit humans can outlast nearly all mammals, especially in hot
    weather.
    ...
    The role of running in human evolution has been most intensely
    investigated by
    Daniel Lieberman, a Harvard University evolutionary biologist and 9-time
    Boston
    Marathon runner. Lieberman and others hypothesize that roughly 2 million
    years
    ago Homo erectus ancestors, armed with sharpened sticks and stones, were able to kill prey by persistence hunting.
    ...


    <https://www.cybertracker.org/downloads/tracking/Liebenberg-2006-Persistence-Hunting-Modern-Hunter-Gatherers.pdf>

    Endurance running may be a derived capability of the genus Homo and may have been instrumental in the evolution of the human body form. Two hypotheses
    have
    been presented to explain why early Homo would have needed to run long distances: scavenging and persistence hunting. Persistence hunting takes
    place during
    the hottest time of the day and involves chasing an animal until it is run
    to exhaustion.
    A critical factor is the fact that humans can keep their bodies cool by sweating while
    running. Another critical factor is the ability to track down an animal. Endurance
    running may have had adaptive value not only in scavenging but also in persistence
    hunting. Before the domestication of dogs, persistence hunting may have
    been one of
    the most efficient forms of hunting and may therefore have been crucial in
    the
    evolution of humans.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
    Human beings are a particular type of mammal. In this compelling clip, we
    see a
    tribesman runner pursue his prey through the most harsh conditions in a gruelling
    eight hour chase.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 6 02:57:25 2021
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/running-made-us-human-how-we-evolved-to-run-marathons
    Homo sapiens are relatively pathetic athletes by all measures.

    Yes, the endur.running nonsense is the most ridiculous hypothesis imaginable. And our Pleistocene archaic ancestors had even heavier skeletons, shorter tibias, broader pelvises, etc.
    Only complete idiots can believe that their Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes.

    Human anatomy, biology & fossil evidence is clear:
    our Pleistocene ancestors were waterside omnivores.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 6 10:36:24 2021
    Claiming we evolved to run, instead of walk, is like claiming that
    we evolved to sing, instead of talk.

    Look around. Seriously. Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. People are walking. Little children walk. Old ladies walk.
    Everyone walks.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664257293727236096

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 6 11:52:27 2021
    Op woensdag 6 oktober 2021 om 19:36:25 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

    Claiming we evolved to run, instead of walk, is like claiming that
    we evolved to sing, instead of talk.

    Probably, we first evolved song:
    singing was one of the preadaptations to talk.

    Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech
    Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2011

    In this paper we present comparative data, suggesting that the various elements of human speech
    - evolved at different times,
    - originally had different functions.

    Recent work by Nishimura [1-6] shows that what is commonly known as the laryngeal descent actually evolved in a mosaic way in minimally 2 steps:
    (a) a descent of the thyroid cartilage (Adam’s apple) relative to the hyoid (tongue bone), a descent which is also seen in non-human hominoids,
    (b) a descent of the hyoid bone relative to the palate, which is less obvious in non-human hominoids, and which is accentuated by the absence of prognathism in the short and flat human face.

    Comparisons with other animals suggest
    (a) the 1st descent might be ass.x loud and/or varied sound production,
    (b) the 2nd might be part of an adaptation to eating seafoods,
    e.g.shellfish can be sucked into the mouth & swallowed without chewing, even under water.

    We argue that the origin of human speech is based on different pre-adaptations that were present in human ancestors:
    (a) sound production adaptations related to the descent of the thyroid cartilage ass.x the territorial calls of apes,
    (b) transformation of the oral & dentitional anatomy, incl. the descent of the hyoid, ass.x reduced biting & chewing,
    (c) diving adaptations, leading to voluntary control of the airway entrances & voluntary breath control.

    After they split from human ancestors c 5 Ma,
    - chimpanzee ancestors became frugivores in tropical forests,
    - human ancestors became littoral omnivores.
    This might help explain
    - why chimps did not evolve language skills,
    - why human language is a rel.recent phenomenon,
    - why it is so strongly dependent upon the availability of voluntary breath control, not seen in other hominoids, but present in diving mammals.



    Look around. Seriously. Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. People are walking. Little children walk. Old ladies walk.
    Everyone walks.

    Yes, and walking evolved from wading.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Thu Oct 7 14:55:48 2021
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:

    Probably, we first evolved song:
    singing was one of the preadaptations to talk.

    Vocalizations. But more similar to yodeling, screaming (etc)
    than speech.

    Regardless of DNA, we probably needed symbolic thought before
    language could arise.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664349103659139073

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 7 15:34:12 2021
    Op donderdag 7 oktober 2021 om 23:55:49 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:


    Probably, we first evolved song:
    singing was one of the preadaptations to talk.

    Vocalizations. But more similar to yodeling, screaming (etc)
    than speech.

    Territorial songs.

    Regardless of DNA, we probably needed symbolic thought before
    language could arise.

    Associations between situations & sounds/songs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Thu Oct 7 20:27:40 2021
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:

    Associations between situations & sounds/songs.

    Not songs. That's attributing singing to chimps, hyenas,
    elephants... you name it.






    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664349103659139073

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Thu Oct 7 21:48:29 2021
    I Envy JTEM wrote:

    Claiming we evolved to run, instead of walk, is like claiming that
    we evolved to sing, instead of talk.

    Look around. Seriously. Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. People are walking. Little children walk. Old ladies walk.
    Everyone walks.

    Look around. Seriously, Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. Nobody is swimming.

    Seriously, do cheetahs run ALL the time? Or any other animal that can run?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Thu Oct 7 21:10:15 2021
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    Look around. Seriously, Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. Nobody is swimming.

    And you think this means... what?




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664349103659139073

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Crowley@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Fri Oct 8 04:43:59 2021
    On Friday 8 October 2021 at 05:10:15 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    Look around. Seriously, Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. Nobody is swimming.
    And you think this means... what?

    It means that we can't look at the routine
    everyday activity of a species and come
    to firm conclusions about the selective
    forces establishing their morphology --
    and certainly not as regards modern
    humans, whose daily behaviour is as
    relevant to that issue as is that of
    animals kept in zoos.

    200 years ago the great bulk of the
    human population spent most of their
    time bent over tending crops and fields.

    We have to identify those 'critical
    activities' in which success or failure
    determined death or survival, or
    enabled/disabled breeding success.

    For human males, success in fighting
    and war would be a major factor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Paul Crowley on Fri Oct 8 12:25:25 2021
    Paul Crowley wrote:

    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    Look around. Seriously, Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. Nobody is swimming.

    And you think this means... what?

    It means that we can't look at the routine
    everyday activity of a species and come
    to firm conclusions about the selective
    forces establishing their morphology --

    No it doesn't. That's senseless.

    and certainly not as regards modern
    humans, whose daily behaviour is as
    relevant to that issue as is that of
    animals kept in zoos.

    Again, not true at all.

    200 years ago the great bulk of the
    human population spent most of their
    time bent over tending crops and fields.

    Depends on the crop. And it was really only during special
    times -- like harvest -- when you needed "All hands on deck."

    We have to identify those 'critical
    activities' in which success or failure
    determined death or survival, or
    enabled/disabled breeding success.

    Boiled down to its essence: Migration.





    -- --

    MrPosti...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
    Govt Asks Coal India to Diversify, Explore Prospects in Electric Vehicles,

    EVs mean a greater demand for power, which means more power plants,
    which means more coal.



    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664349103659139073

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 9 01:51:30 2021
    Op vrijdag 8 oktober 2021 om 05:27:40 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

    Associations between situations & sounds/songs.

    Not songs. That's attributing singing to chimps, hyenas,
    elephants... you name it.

    Elephant trompetting.
    Gibbon song.

    Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? p.181 in
    Mario Vaneechoutte cs eds 2011 Bentham Science Publishers
    Ch.12 "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech"
    Mario Vaneechoutte cs

    We present comparative data, suggesting: the various elements of human speech
    - evolved at different times,
    - originally had different functions.

    Recent work by Nishimura [1-6] shows:
    what is commonly known as the laryngeal descent actually evolved in a mosaic way in minimally 2 steps:
    (a) a descent of the thyroid cartilage (Adam’s apple) vs the hyoid (tongue bone), a descent also seen in non-human hominoids,
    (b) a descent of the hyoid bone vs the palate, less obvious in non-human hominoids, and accentuated by the absence of prognathism in the short & flat human face.

    Comparisons with other animals suggest:
    (a) the 1st descent might be ass.x loud and/or varied sound production,
    (b) the 2nd might be part of an adaptation to eating seafoods, e.g.
    shellfish can be sucked into the mouth, and swallowed without chewing, even under water.

    We argue that the origin of human speech is based on different pre-adaptations in human ancestors:
    (a) sound production adaptations related to the descent of the thyroid cartilage ass.x the territorial calls of apes,
    (b) transformation of the oral & dentitional anatomy, incl. the descent of the hyoid, ass.x reduced biting & chewing,
    (c) diving adaptations, leading to voluntary control of the airway entrances & voluntary breath control.

    Chimpanzee ancestors became frugivores in tropical forests after they split from human ancestors c 5 Ma,
    but human ancestors became littoral omnivores.
    This might help explain
    - why chimps did not evolve language skills,
    - why human language is a rel.recent phenomenon,
    - why it is so strongly dependent upon the availability of voluntary breath control, not seen in other hominoids, but clearly present in diving mammals.


    ? (d) a 4th preadaptation = brain enlargement?
    seafood=brainfood.
    Only complete idiots still believe their ancestors ran after antelopes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 9 11:33:32 2021
    Op zaterdag 9 oktober 2021 om 20:22:47 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

    Elephant trompetting.
    Gibbon song.

    Those are just labels that we apply. The distinction is in your head.
    Lots of animals vocalize. They attract mates. They warn of danger. But,
    they don't have speech.

    Of course: they had no volunary breathing, no suction feeding, no very large brains:


    Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? p.181-189
    Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2011
    "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech"

    In this paper we present comparative data, suggesting that the various elements of human speech evolved at different times, and originally had different functions.
    Recent work by Nishimura [1-6] shows that what is commonly known as the laryngeal descent actually evolved in a mosaic way in minimally two steps: (a) a descent of the thyroid cartilage (Adam’s apple) relative to the hyoid (tongue bone), a descent
    which is also seen in non-human hominoids, and (b) a descent of the hyoid bone relative to the palate, which is less obvious in non-human hominoids, and which is accentuated by the absence of prognathism in the short and flat human face.
    Comparisons with other animals suggest that (a) the first descent might be associated with loud and/or varied sound production, and that (b) the second might be part of an adaptation to eating seafoods such as shell fish, which can be sucked into the
    mouth and swallowed without chewing, even under water.
    We argue that the origin of human speech is based on different pre-adaptations that were present in human ancestors, such as (a) sound production adaptations related to the descent of the thyroid cartilage associated with the territorial calls of apes, (
    b) transformation of the oral and dentitional anatomy including the descent of the hyoid, associated with reduced biting and chewing, and (c) diving adaptations, leading to voluntary control of the airway entrances and voluntary breath control.
    Whereas chimpanzee ancestors became frugivores in tropical forests after they split from human ancestors about 5 Ma (million years ago), human ancestors became littoral omnivores. This might help explain why chimpanzees did not evolve language skills,
    why human language is a relatively recent phenomenon, and why it is so strongly dependent upon the availability of voluntary breath control, not seen in other hominoids, but clearly present in diving mammals.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Sat Oct 9 11:22:47 2021
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:

    Elephant trompetting.
    Gibbon song.

    Those are just labels that we apply. The distinction is in your head.

    Lots of animals vocalize. They attract mates. They warn of danger. But,
    they don't have speech.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664590992284008449

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 9 13:01:21 2021
    DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

    Elaine noted that orangutans can whistle.

    She was probably wearing something sexy at the time.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664590992284008449

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Sat Oct 9 12:36:05 2021
    On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:33:33 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
    Op zaterdag 9 oktober 2021 om 20:22:47 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
    Elephant trompetting.
    Gibbon song.

    Those are just labels that we apply. The distinction is in your head.
    Lots of animals vocalize. They attract mates. They warn of danger. But, they don't have speech.
    Of course: they had no volunary breathing, no suction feeding, no very large brains:


    Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? p.181-189
    Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2011
    "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech"
    In this paper we present comparative data, suggesting that the various elements of human speech evolved at different times, and originally had different functions.
    Recent work by Nishimura [1-6] shows that what is commonly known as the laryngeal descent actually evolved in a mosaic way in minimally two steps: (a) a descent of the thyroid cartilage (Adam’s apple) relative to the hyoid (tongue bone), a descent
    which is also seen in non-human hominoids, and (b) a descent of the hyoid bone relative to the palate, which is less obvious in non-human hominoids, and which is accentuated by the absence of prognathism in the short and flat human face.
    Comparisons with other animals suggest that (a) the first descent might be associated with loud and/or varied sound production, and that (b) the second might be part of an adaptation to eating seafoods such as shell fish, which can be sucked into the
    mouth and swallowed without chewing, even under water.
    We argue that the origin of human speech is based on different pre-adaptations that were present in human ancestors, such as (a) sound production adaptations related to the descent of the thyroid cartilage associated with the territorial calls of apes,
    (b) transformation of the oral and dentitional anatomy including the descent of the hyoid, associated with reduced biting and chewing, and (c) diving adaptations, leading to voluntary control of the airway entrances and voluntary breath control.
    Whereas chimpanzee ancestors became frugivores in tropical forests after they split from human ancestors about 5 Ma (million years ago), human ancestors became littoral omnivores. This might help explain why chimpanzees did not evolve language skills,
    why human language is a relatively recent phenomenon, and why it is so strongly dependent upon the availability of voluntary breath control, not seen in other hominoids, but clearly present in diving mammals.
    -
    Elaine noted that orangutans can whistle.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Sat Oct 9 19:07:14 2021
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:

    Elephant trompetting.
    Gibbon song.

    Those are just labels that we apply. The distinction is in your head.

    Lots of animals vocalize. They attract mates. They warn of danger. But,
    they don't have speech.

    There are birds outside my window singing. None of them are aquatic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to Paul Crowley on Sat Oct 9 19:06:23 2021
    Paul Crowley wrote:
    On Friday 8 October 2021 at 05:10:15 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    Look around. Seriously, Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. Nobody is swimming.
    And you think this means... what?

    It means that we can't look at the routine
    everyday activity of a species and come
    to firm conclusions about the selective
    forces establishing their morphology --
    and certainly not as regards modern
    humans, whose daily behaviour is as
    relevant to that issue as is that of
    animals kept in zoos.

    What he said.

    200 years ago the great bulk of the
    human population spent most of their
    time bent over tending crops and fields.

    We have to identify those 'critical
    activities' in which success or failure
    determined death or survival, or
    enabled/disabled breeding success.

    For human males, success in fighting
    and war would be a major factor.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Sat Oct 9 19:05:49 2021
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    There are birds outside my window singing. None of them are aquatic.

    Because you use the same word you think they're doing the same thing
    as Robert Palmer?





    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664590992284008449

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Sat Oct 9 19:08:32 2021
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    Paul Crowley wrote:
    On Friday 8 October 2021 at 05:10:15 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    Look around. Seriously, Go to any busy shopping center or city
    street. Nobody is swimming.
    And you think this means... what?

    It means that we can't look at the routine
    everyday activity of a species and come
    to firm conclusions about the selective
    forces establishing their morphology --
    and certainly not as regards modern
    humans, whose daily behaviour is as
    relevant to that issue as is that of
    animals kept in zoos.

    What he said.

    No. "Aquatic Ape" isn't akin the to "Sea Monkeys" sold in the back
    of comic books. Swimming is something that our evolved from
    could be adapted to, not what we were evolved to do. In fact, your
    swimming would parallel the running in savannah nonsense.






    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664590992284008449

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 10 01:17:13 2021
    Some fool:

    There are birds outside my window singing. None of them are aquatic.

    ???
    And none of them ran marathons...

    Sigh.

    Humans (vs other primates) have feet with rel.long digital rays
    (incl.digits 1 & 5 - and this is even more in human embryos & fetuses).
    No bipedal (kangaroo, ostrich...) or QP running tetrapod has very long digital rays 1 & 5,
    instead, they have 1 or 2 central (esp.digit 3) long & strong pedal digits. Rel.long & strong outer digits (1 & 5) are typical of swimming-wading tetrapods.

    All other differences with other primates point into the same direction:
    fur loss, very big brain, SC fat, voluntary breathing etc. are typical of (semi)aquatic mammals.

    The facts are obvious: we have flat feet + rel.long outer digital rays:
    this is maladaptive to running marathons.
    Only complete idiots believe their ancestors ran after kudus.

    Of course, our feet are not very flat (any more): we are indeed not wading-swimming any more
    (and this makes it too difficult for some people).
    How fast we changed, where & how exactly we reduced wading or swimming, and became faster walkers & (still slow) runners is a matter of debate,
    but that we were "more aquatic in the past" (Alister Hardy) is obvious.
    only incredibly unscientific imbecils believe Pleistocene Homo ran marathons over savannas.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Fri Oct 22 22:44:23 2021
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:
    Some fool:

    There are birds outside my window singing. None of them are aquatic.

    ???
    And none of them ran marathons...

    None of them have snorkel noses.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Fri Oct 22 22:45:40 2021
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:

    https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/running-made-us-human-how-we-evolved-to-run-marathons
    Homo sapiens are relatively pathetic athletes by all measures.

    Yes, the endur.running nonsense is the most ridiculous hypothesis imaginable.

    The snorkel nose nonsense is the most ridiculous hypothesis imaginable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 23 06:20:30 2021
    Op zaterdag 23 oktober 2021 om 06:44:21 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:


    Some fool:

    There are birds outside my window singing. None of them are aquatic.

    ???
    And none of them ran marathons...

    None of them have snorkel noses.

    :-DDD
    That's all argument those outdated kudu runners have...
    Incredible imbeciles.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Sun Oct 31 22:50:49 2021
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:
    Op zaterdag 23 oktober 2021 om 06:44:21 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:


    Some fool:

    There are birds outside my window singing. None of them are aquatic.

    ???
    And none of them ran marathons...

    None of them have snorkel noses.

    :-DDD
    That's all argument those outdated kudu runners have...
    Incredible imbeciles.

    There is *no* argument for snorkel noses.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)