https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
you draw to little children. What happened in La Brea Tar pits happened
also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New World.
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
you draw to little children. What happened in La Brea Tar pits happened
also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
World.
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
you draw to little children.
What happened in La Brea Tar pits
happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is >> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New >> World.
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey >> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
you draw to little children.
With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
What happened in La Brea Tar pits
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.
happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is >>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because >>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New >>>> World.
All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the >>>> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey >>>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
so you both may have been right.
Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
but for once he was on the right track:
give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
Marc's spam spans three groups.
After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat, sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.] The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.
On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway,
there is no point in claiming that they were burned to death without plenty of evidence, and you give none.
And Peter, please, before giving your opinion on something, please, at
least take a basic research of the thing you are commenting.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:24:24 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway,
or sank deep into the tar and drowned,
there is no point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.
And Peter, please, before giving your opinion on something, please, at
least take a basic research of the thing you are commenting.
I am sorry to say this, but you are parroting a lot of criticism that people have been leveling at you, without giving any clue as to where that "basic research" is to be looked for.
Or is it JTEM's criticism of others whom you are parroting?
I've gone out of my way to be helpful to you, spending many hours that I could have
spent learning things from others or teaching things to others in talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology.
Is this the way you repay me for all my help?
I will make a wild guess: the only place that can be fruitfully researched is the stack of about 50 papers that
Marc Verhaegen keeps advertising, with no advance clue as to whether he gives reasons for
them having burned to death that amount to more than his say-so.
If I am wrong, please do the research you are advising me to do, and let everyone
know where the evidence for them having burned to death can be found.
On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like >>>> you draw to little children.
With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
Other than that they
don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply (unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive, especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
persona, this is not kindergarten.
What happened in La Brea Tar pits
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.
I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
this should be a seminal paper.
happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is >>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made >>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because >>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
World.
All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
years), exactly in this very news group.
I knew that things are like
that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),
I don't need them, I
don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of them.
The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory >>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't >>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators,
they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines >>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of >>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes. >>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they >>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
so you both may have been right.
Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
but for once he was on the right track:
give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
Marc's spam spans three groups.
After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat, sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me, but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion, and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.] The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT), later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like >>>> you draw to little children.
With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mentionAll through this post, you are talking about a forum that
a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
you do not identify. What is it?
Other than that theyWhat posts? How do you know they are reading them?
don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply (unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive, especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
Why is your un-named forum so different?
So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they arePaid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
persona, this is not kindergarten.
participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.
What happened in La Brea Tar pits
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.
I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.
four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
this should be a seminal paper.
happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called >>>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made >>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and >>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
World.
All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing aboutNot sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
years), exactly in this very news group.
I knew that things are likeNot from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),
of their paper.
I don't need them, ISo far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that.
don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of them.
The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
Here is where I started to suspect the influence of Marc Verhaegen.I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory >>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't >>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators,
Sure, jaguars swim, but they are only distantly related to Smilodon.
they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines >>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have >>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of >>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes. >>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they >>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
so you both may have been right.
Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
but for once he was on the right track:
give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
Marc's spam spans three groups.
After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat, sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.]
The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, aOK, I thought that all your exposure to Marc in sci.anthropology.paleo
prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT), later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.
was what got you going on AAT. In what way is Hardy and Morgan's
theory different from his?
Peter NyikosMario is a badly-educated man with a hyperactive imagination. He is a fountain of
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like >>>>>> you draw to little children.
With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
you do not identify. What is it?
> Other than that they
don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
(unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive,
especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply.
Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
Why is your un-named forum so different?
So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about
them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
persona, this is not kindergarten.
Paid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.
What happened in La Brea Tar pits
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.
I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
this should be a seminal paper.
Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.
happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is >>>>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made >>>>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and >>>>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because >>>>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New >>>>>> World.
All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they >>> must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
years), exactly in this very news group.
Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
I knew that things are like
that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),
Not from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
of their paper.
I don't need them, I
don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the
next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I
didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of
them.
So far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that.
The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory >>>>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't >>>>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators,
Here is where I started to suspect the influence of Marc Verhaegen.
Sure, jaguars swim, but they are only distantly related to Smilodon.
> >>>> they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey >>>>>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines >>>>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have >>>>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of >>>>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes. >>>>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they >>>>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
so you both may have been right.
Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
but for once he was on the right track:
give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
Marc's spam spans three groups.
After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat,
sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me, >>> but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion, >>> and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.] >>> The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT),
later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.
OK, I thought that all your exposure to Marc in sci.anthropology.paleo
was what got you going on AAT. In what way is Hardy and Morgan's
theory different from his?
Peter Nyikos
The one he linked was indeed only a few days old. But since he didn't
read it (!) he's unlikely to have understood what it says.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like >>>>>> you draw to little children.
With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
you do not identify. What is it?
> Other than that they
don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
(unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive,
especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
Why is your un-named forum so different?
So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about
them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
persona, this is not kindergarten.
Paid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.
What happened in La Brea Tar pits
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.
I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
this should be a seminal paper.
Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.
happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is >>>>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made >>>>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and >>>>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because >>>>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New >>>>>> World.
All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they >>> must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
years), exactly in this very news group.
Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
I knew that things are like
that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),
Not from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
of their paper.
I don't need them, I
don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the
next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I
didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of
them.
So far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that.
The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory >>>>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't >>>>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators,
Here is where I started to suspect the influence of Marc Verhaegen.
Sure, jaguars swim, but they are only distantly related to Smilodon.
> >>>> they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey >>>>>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines >>>>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have >>>>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of >>>>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes. >>>>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they >>>>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
so you both may have been right.
Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
but for once he was on the right track:
give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
Marc's spam spans three groups.
After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat,
sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me, >>> but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion, >>> and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.] >>> The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT),
later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.
OK, I thought that all your exposure to Marc in sci.anthropology.paleo
was what got you going on AAT. In what way is Hardy and Morgan's
theory different from his?
On 23.8.2023. 0:45, John Harshman wrote:
The one he linked was indeed only a few days old. But since he didn't
read it (!) he's unlikely to have understood what it says.
I don't see a single reason to read that paper. Papers are technical stuff. There were very educated peers that examined paper, it
was issued in Science magazine. Can you tell me a single reason why
would I read that paper? I think that you are a crackpot, you would read
that paper. Don't you have anything else to do in your life, for god's
sake? Have you read any paper in your life at all? You are reading all
those technical things? Why, for god's sake? Do you think you have to,
that it is your duty, or whatever? That you are not "credible" if you
don't read it? What do you think is written there? I've read a lot of
papers, I know how they look like. Do you know how they look like? Do
you think that two thorough articles about this paper, that authors of
those articles are inventing things? And you call me a crackpot? Lol.
Have you read this paper? If you didn't, why are you commenting on
something you know nothing about? You have a perception of it? Ah, I understand, lol.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
years), exactly in this very news group.
Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
On 22.8.2023. 23:52, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>> No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
years), exactly in this very news group.
Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
Then thread was called "Deforestation, the main cause of extinctions", it is from October/November 2018. You participated, too.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:52:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like >>>> you draw to little children.
With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
you do not identify. What is it?
Other than that they
don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply (unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive, especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
Why is your un-named forum so different?
So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their persona, this is not kindergarten.
Paid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.
What happened in La Brea Tar pits
... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.
I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that this should be a seminal paper.
Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.
happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called >>>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and >>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
World.
All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20 years), exactly in this very news group.
Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
I knew that things are like
that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them, it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),
Not from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
of their paper.
I don't need them, ISo far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that.
don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt, and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of them.
The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators,
Here is where I started to suspect the influence of Marc Verhaegen.
Sure, jaguars swim, but they are only distantly related to Smilodon.
they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines >>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have >>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
so you both may have been right.
Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment, but for once he was on the right track:
give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
Marc's spam spans three groups.
After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat, sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.]
The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT), later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different, and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.
OK, I thought that all your exposure to Marc in sci.anthropology.paleo
was what got you going on AAT. In what way is Hardy and Morgan's
theory different from his?
Peter Nyikos
Mario is a badly-educated man with a hyperactive imagination. He is a fountain of
misinformation.
Can't you see that? in addition, I'd like to call your attention to your own fountain of insults. Can't you see that's what you're doing?
I can't believe you're
as unpleasant in real life,
since you have a family and a job.
"Give ir a break".
On 22.8.2023. 23:52, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like >>>>>> you draw to little children.
With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
a book that the guy wrote.
So he feels the obligation to reply, because
I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
you do not identify. What is it?
Generally I was writing in sci.anthropology.paleo (I don't write there
for a long time) and in Marc's AAT Yahoo! group (Yahoo! groups
terminated, Marc organized another group, but I was expelled out of it
very soon).
I also wrote in this particular group about those things. Of
course, you don't remember,
because in general you are here to correct
me in my "wrong views", to steer me, not to take care of what I am
actually writing.
But I presume some people here still remember, Eric
Simpson said that it is time to stop with this tedious nonsense, but
you, on the other hand, for you it is the first time you noticed it, although you are discussing with me all the time.
I also commented on various YouTube videos, few times I presented this
in comments of Milo's videos, but I also wrote to some
paleoanthorpologists if a paper with similar subject emerges, just like
this time.
Other than that they
don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
(unless I mention their books).
Not replying is also very offensive,
especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
Because every time I mentioned their book, they always reply. I do
have some books, and I do have books of those people too. So I used to
use some parts from those books to bring the subject closer to them. And then they would reply. If I didn't mention a book, they wouldn't reply.
So I stopped to mention books, and now nobody replies.
Anyway, if I post to somebody, it is on him to reply me, the end of story.
In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:36:07 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 23:52, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like >>>>>>>> you draw to little children.
With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention >>>> a book that the guy wrote.
Which guy? one of the authors of the article that you linked above?
What book are you talking about?
So he feels the obligation to reply, because
I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
you do not identify. What is it?
Generally I was writing in sci.anthropology.paleo (I don't write there
for a long time) and in Marc's AAT Yahoo! group (Yahoo! groups
terminated, Marc organized another group, but I was expelled out of it
very soon).
I didn't know the two of you were so much at odds with each other.
That's because I very seldom read sci.anthropology.paleo and
I don't even remember whether I ever encountered you there.
I also wrote in this particular group about those things. Of
course, you don't remember,
I get the impression that we are talking about different things here.
I've been looking for some evidence that the animals in the LaBrea
tar pits burned to death, whereas you seem to be talking about
the general theme of human deforestation by the use of fire,
on which we have always been in agreement about.
because in general you are here to correct
me in my "wrong views", to steer me, not to take care of what I am
actually writing.
I always try to address what you are writing. Sometimes I disagree,
sometimes I agree, sometimes I adopt a "wait and see" attitude.
But I presume some people here still remember, Eric
Simpson said that it is time to stop with this tedious nonsense, but
you, on the other hand, for you it is the first time you noticed it,
although you are discussing with me all the time.
Not the burning to death in the La Brea tar pits. Might your thread
title been misleading me? Maybe it should have read, "The megafauna
found in the LaBrea tar pits are of the same species as others who burned
to death elsewhere" with an explanation at the beginning of the
post that the fires that burned the latter ones were man-made.
I also commented on various YouTube videos, few times I presented this
in comments of Milo's videos, but I also wrote to some
paleoanthorpologists if a paper with similar subject emerges, just like
this time.
Other than that they
don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their >>>> books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
(unless I mention their books).
I got the impression from this that the same people who wrote that article in _Science_
were actually reading what you write in a forum that I would love to participate in,
but it appears that you are merely talking about the regular participants of sci.anthropolgy.paleo and sci.bio.paleontology. But I've never seen ANY
of the 19 authors of that _Science_ article here, unless one of them uses the pseudonym Pandora.
Not replying is also very offensive,
especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
Because every time I mentioned their book, they always reply. I do
have some books, and I do have books of those people too. So I used to
use some parts from those books to bring the subject closer to them. And
then they would reply. If I didn't mention a book, they wouldn't reply.
So I stopped to mention books, and now nobody replies.
I don't get it. Did you stop mentioning their books because you *don't*
want them to reply?
Anyway, if I post to somebody, it is on him to reply me, the end of story.
In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
The only aspect of these two jerks that this analogy expresses is the constancy
of their loyalty to each other, resulting in a lot of comical behavior. Harshman
is about as far in spirit to the sentiments in the song "The Impossible Dream"
from "The Man of La Mancha" as it is possible for an adult to be.
On 31.8.2023. 22:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
I don't get it. Did you stop mentioning their books because you *don't*
want them to reply?
I mean, it is up to them if they want to reply or not. I, definitely, like to discuss my ideas with whomever.
On 31.8.2023. 22:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
I don't get it. Did you stop mentioning their books because you *don't*
want them to reply?
I mean, it is up to them if they want to reply or not. I, definitely, like to discuss my ideas with whomever.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 98:53:50 |
| Calls: | 6,767 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,396 |
| Posted today: | 1 |