Women chasing kudus

[Lee Olsen]

Page 96 Leakey gives a nice example of root-gathering Tindiga
women running after kudus and killing them with clubs.

Most know it is the female chimps that teach their young how
to crack nuts with a rock and strip a twig to use in termite
fishing. It is reasonable to assume it was the females of our
ancestors that were teaching the young to run after kudus and
kill them with weapons.

LEAKEY, L. S. B., By the Evidence. Memoirs 1932-1951. New
York, Harcourt Brace 1974

[Marc Verha]

Op 24-03-2008 14:08, in artikel 7630aef6-9a17-45e9-b738-c4e6f-
f5be464@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> Page 96 Leakey gives a nice example of root-gathering
> Tindiga women running after kudus and killing them
> with clubs.

My little little boy, nobody doubts a few humans in remote
regions sometimes run after kudus. Point is: only complete
fools believe our ancestors 2 Ma did that.

[Lee Olsen]

On Mar 24, 12:53=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Op 24-03-2008 14:08, in artikel 7630aef6-9a17-45e9-b738-c4e-
> 6ff5be...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olse=
n
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> > Page 96 Leakey gives a nice example of root-gathering
> > Tindiga women running after kudus and killing them with
> > clubs.
>
> My little little boy,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia The term pedophile is
also used colloquially to denote an adult who is sexually
attracted to young adolescents, especially younger than the
local age of consent,[2] as well as those accused or convicted
of child sexual abuse or child pornography-related offences.

> nobody doubts a few humans in remote regions sometimes run
> after kudus. Point is: only complete fools believe our
> ancestors 2 Ma did that.

Says the complete fool who thinks mountain beavers are aquatic
and our ancestors ate algae.

[Lee Olsen]

On Mar 24, 4:55=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Savanna netloon:

http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html Jim Moore: "Marc
Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an
AAT/H claim that he doesn't make himself. But then taking
umbrage seems to be a specialty with him; his online method
tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole content of
his newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same,
non-responsive, paragraphs (earning him the nickname
"macro-man" after the usual technique for doing that), and,
starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing
his position to Wegener, Galileo, etc. These methods certainly
don't help his argument, instead placing his online newsgroup
contributions in the realm of the netloon."

[Lee Olsen]

On Mar 24, 6:36=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Op 25-03-2008 01:13, in artikel d4757cf4-abbb-485b-84cb-b09-
> bac52d...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Ols=
en
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 4:55=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
> > <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> Savanna netloon:
>
> >http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html =A0Jim Moore: "Marc
> >Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an
> >AAT/H claim that =A0he doesn't make himself. But then
> >taking umbrage seems to be a specialty with him; =A0his
> >online method tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the
> >sole content of his =A0newsgroup posts, and continually
> >reposting the same, non-responsive, paragraphs =A0(earning
> >him the nickname "macro-man" after the usual technique for
> >doing that), and, starting from his very first online post
> >in 1998, comparing his position to Wegener, =A0Galileo,
> >etc. These methods certainly don't help his argument,
> >instead placing his online =A0newsgroup contributions in
> >the realm of the netloon."
>
> IOW, Moore =3D too stupid to give us 1 little arguments
> against AAT.
>
> Pathetic fool. =A0 :-D

From: "JAE" <j...@ucdavis.edu> Newsgroups:
sci.anthropology.paleo Subject: Re: Here are my thoughts about
the habitat of the wading (substitute AAR for wading) Date: 13
Aug 2005 10:20:56 -0700 Message-ID:
<1123953656.257567.239430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Algis
Kuliukas wrote: Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > If new ideas have
to be "peered" by short- sighted people like you, they will be
no new ideas.

> > I have to agree.

Jason: "That has got to be one of the lamest excuses I've
heard yet. Marc got eviscerated. His macro that he reposts
with the repetition of a two-year-old shouting "no" was broken
apart by Lee Olsen, who quite clearly showed that Marc's tired
claim of "still no argument against" was false. Lee presented
arguments against and noted that by-and-large Marc had no
argument *for* save the impossible demand that his opponent
prove a negative. You should follow that thread very carefully
Algis. I realize you've made up your mind that I'm
"short-sighted" or a bigot or a boogyman against AAH or
something, but, should you have any true objectivity, you
should be able to see that Marc provided nothing but empty
claims about a negative and essentially denied evidence on the
ground in favor of a scenario with no evidence on the ground
and the very loosest perversion of the comparative method.
[I've heard the BS that AAX has the comparative method when
"PA" doesn't. I would suggest that AAXers who are serious
about science actually learn what the comparative method is. I
would recommend Harvey and Pagel's *The Comparative Method in
Evolutionary Biology* as a starter. It is most certainly more
complex and more powerful than the ramblings that misrepresent
comparative biology from the wet side.] There's no scientist
at all who would look at what Marc presented in that thread
and more importantly doesn't present and think that it will
pass review. This isn't because of a closed mind. It's because
he didn't make a case beyond insisting that Lee disprove a
negative. You claim to want to do real science. Again, allying
yourself with Marc, specifically his "scientific" (quotes
because it is not scientific in the least) methods and his
utter lack of scientific reason will be your undoing. Hiding
behind the veil that peer review isn't important blah blah
blah because novel ideas won't get through peer review because
of the establishment strikes them down is a cop- out and it's
false. Novel ideas get published and inspire research when the
novel ideas have scientific promise and evidence behind them.
When they are ramblings that seemingly deny real evidence and
replace it with "scenarios" that don't have similar evidence,
when they take real concepts (like stratocladistics) and use
the namae of the concept but do not employ the concept and the
make the claim that the concept supports their "scenario,"
they will not get published and it's not because of any
indoctrination. It's because they're lame piles of crap.
Choose you path wisely Algis."

[Marc Verha]

Savanna netloon:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia The term pedophile
> is also used colloquially to denote an adult who is sexually
> attracted to young adolescents, especially younger than the
> local age of consent,[2] as well as those accused or
> convicted of child sexual abuse or child pornography-related
> offences.

[Marc Verha]

Op 25-03-2008 01:13, in artikel d4757cf4-abbb-485b-84cb-b09ba-
c52dc7b@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> On Mar 24, 4:55 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Savanna netloon:
>
> http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html Jim Moore: "Marc
> Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an
> AAT/H claim that he doesn't make himself. But then taking
> umbrage seems to be a specialty with him; his online method
> tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole content
> of his newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same,
> non-responsive, paragraphs (earning him the nickname
> "macro-man" after the usual technique for doing that), and,
> starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing
> his position to Wegener, Galileo, etc. These methods
> certainly don't help his argument, instead placing his
> online newsgroup contributions in the realm of the netloon."

IOW, Moore = too stupid to give us 1 little arguments
against AAT.

Pathetic fool. :-D

[Lee Olsen]

On Mar 25, 2:17=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

No reply.

FYI, the professionals say this:

Message-ID: <430778e6$0$6564$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> Jason:
"Lee Olsen did a rather good job of pointing out the holes to
you within the last couple of weeks. Your response was to duck
and claim that your "theory" wasn't about fossils. IOW (as
you're so fond of saying) you've got a "theory" that exists
only by ignoring contradictory evidence and doesn't actually
explain anything. You're argumentative style is to set up a
strawman, claiming that the "alternative" is the "savanna" as
if that somehow has meaning. It doesn't. You're a nutcase, a
delusional fool who passes off his correspondence to Nature
like it was a peer reviewed article, who passes off his TREE
article like it was original research and not an opinion
piece, and who pretends that he's got stratocladistic support
for things for which he does not. You're a fraud, and on top
of that, you're an asshole. And I'm not "your boy," dickhead."

http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html Jim Moore: "Marc
Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an
AAT/H claim that he doesn't make himself. But then taking
umbrage seems to be a specialty with him; his online method
tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole content of
his newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same,
non-responsive, paragraphs (earning him the nickname
"macro-man" after the usual technique for doing that), and,
starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing
his position to Wegener, Galileo, etc. These methods
certainly don't help his argument, instead placing his online
newsgroup contributions in the realm of the netloon."

http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html Mario
Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
idiosyncratic by most of the participants."

[Marc Verha]

Savanna Fools miserably unable to give 1 argument against
watertside human past:

Op 25-03-2008 04:29, in artikel 60cce0fb-b79c-4985-9fbf-a66bb-
9445e26@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> On Mar 24, 6:36 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 25-03-2008 01:13, in artikel d4757cf4-abbb-485b-84cb-b0-
>> 9bac52d...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 4:55 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Savanna netloon:
>>
>>> http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html  Jim Moore: "Marc
>>> Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an
>>> AAT/H claim that  he doesn't make himself. But then taking
>>> umbrage seems to be a specialty with him;  his online
>>> method tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole
>>> content of his  newsgroup posts, and continually reposting
>>> the same, non-responsive, paragraphs  (earning him the
>>> nickname "macro-man" after the usual technique for doing
>>> that), and, starting from his very first online post in
>>> 1998, comparing his position to Wegener,  Galileo, etc.
>>> These methods certainly don't help his argument, instead
>>> placing his online  newsgroup contributions in the realm
>>> of the netloon."
>>
>> IOW, Moore = too stupid to give us 1 little arguments
>> against AAT.
>>
>> Pathetic fool.   :-D
>
> From: "JAE" <j...@ucdavis.edu> Newsgroups:
> sci.anthropology.paleo Subject: Re: Here are my thoughts
> about the habitat of the wading (substitute AAR for wading)
> Date: 13 Aug 2005 10:20:56 -0700 Message-ID:
> <1123953656.257567.239430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Algis Kuliukas wrote: Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > If new
> ideas have to be "peered" by short- sighted people like you,
> they will be no new ideas.
>
>>> I have to agree.
>
> Jason: "That has got to be one of the lamest excuses I've
> heard yet. Marc got eviscerated. His macro that he reposts
> with the repetition of a two-year-old shouting "no" was
> broken apart by Lee Olsen, who quite clearly showed that
> Marc's tired claim of "still no argument against" was false.
> Lee presented arguments against and noted that by-and-large
> Marc had no argument *for* save the impossible demand that
> his opponent prove a negative. You should follow that thread
> very carefully Algis. I realize you've made up your mind
> that I'm "short-sighted" or a bigot or a boogyman against
> AAH or something, but, should you have any true objectivity,
> you should be able to see that Marc provided nothing but
> empty claims about a negative and essentially denied
> evidence on the ground in favor of a scenario with no
> evidence on the ground and the very loosest perversion of
> the comparative method. [I've heard the BS that AAX has the
> comparative method when "PA" doesn't. I would suggest that
> AAXers who are serious about science actually learn what the
> comparative method is. I would recommend Harvey and Pagel's
> *The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology* as a
> starter. It is most certainly more complex and more powerful
> than the ramblings that misrepresent comparative biology
> from the wet side.] There's no scientist at all who would
> look at what Marc presented in that thread and more
> importantly doesn't present and think that it will pass
> review. This isn't because of a closed mind. It's because he
> didn't make a case beyond insisting that Lee disprove a
> negative. You claim to want to do real science. Again,
> allying yourself with Marc, specifically his "scientific"
> (quotes because it is not scientific in the least) methods
> and his utter lack of scientific reason will be your
> undoing. Hiding behind the veil that peer review isn't
> important blah blah blah because novel ideas won't get
> through peer review because of the establishment strikes
> them down is a cop- out and it's false. Novel ideas get
> published and inspire research when the novel ideas have
> scientific promise and evidence behind them. When they are
> ramblings that seemingly deny real evidence and replace it
> with "scenarios" that don't have similar evidence, when they
> take real concepts (like stratocladistics) and use the namae
> of the concept but do not employ the concept and the make
> the claim that the concept supports their "scenario," they
> will not get published and it's not because of any
> indoctrination. It's because they're lame piles of crap.
> Choose you path wisely Algis."

[Lee Olsen]

On Mar 26, 4:59=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Thanks a lot, my boy.

You are welcome, pervert.

> Indeed: dry apers are unable give 1 single argument
> against AAT.

Message-ID: <I%ENe.266469$5V4.165741@pd7tw3no> Rick Wagler:
"Saying this does not 'contradict' hominids living elsewhere
only indicates you have mastered one of the great logical
fallacies. You can't prove a negative so its no use asking.
What you need to do is get positive evidence for coastal,
Indian Ocean hominds. Your inability to understand this basic
point is what will forever confine you to the lunatic fringe."

Message-ID:
<1124421294.671438.286120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Jason
Eshleman: "You, Marc, are a low-life, a real sleazebag
sociopath. If it makes you feel better to repeat ad nauseum
that no one has an argument against your scenario, you really
ought to get your medication adjusted. It might actually make
you less of a dickhead. You are asking for someone to
contradict something that you've not made a case for. You are
asking someone to prove a negative. This isn't science, though
I suspect you don't know what science is and as such will
continue your mentally ill diatribes."

Makouli recommends you study this for a while:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html

Complements of Jim Moore http://www.aquaticape.org/

[Marc Verha]

Thanks a lot, my boy. Indeed: dry apers are unable give 1
single argument against AAT.
:-)

Op 25-03-2008 22:54, in artikel 37181dce-24c7-4cd6-bf56-39ca8-
0d8610c@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> On Mar 25, 2:17 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> No reply.
>
> FYI, the professionals say this:
>
> Message-ID: <430778e6$0$6564$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> Jason:
> "Lee Olsen did a rather good job of pointing out the holes
> to you within the last couple of weeks. Your response was to
> duck and claim that your "theory" wasn't about fossils. IOW
> (as you're so fond of saying) you've got a "theory" that
> exists only by ignoring contradictory evidence and doesn't
> actually explain anything. You're argumentative style is to
> set up a strawman, claiming that the "alternative" is the
> "savanna" as if that somehow has meaning. It doesn't. You're
> a nutcase, a delusional fool who passes off his
> correspondence to Nature like it was a peer reviewed
> article, who passes off his TREE article like it was
> original research and not an opinion piece, and who pretends
> that he's got stratocladistic support for things for which
> he does not. You're a fraud, and on top of that, you're an
> asshole. And I'm not "your boy," dickhead."
>
> http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html Jim Moore: "Marc
> Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an
> AAT/H claim that he doesn't make himself. But then taking
> umbrage seems to be a specialty with him; his online method
> tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole content
> of his newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same,
> non-responsive, paragraphs (earning him the nickname
> "macro-man" after the usual technique for doing that), and,
> starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing
> his position to Wegener, Galileo, etc. These methods
> certainly don't help his argument, instead placing his
> online newsgroup contributions in the realm of the
> netloon."
>
>
> http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html Mario
> Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
> idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
>
>

[Lee Olsen]

On Mar 26, 4:46=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

>
> Op 26-03-2008 15:43, in artikel 839b1b35-6e2e-4e51-a181-e5c-
> b3ff62...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee Ols=
en
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 4:59=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
> > <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> Thanks a lot, my boy.
>
> > You are welcome, pervert.
>
> >> Indeed: dry apers are unable give 1 single argument
> >> against AAT.
>
> > Message-ID: <I%ENe.266469$5V4.165741@pd7tw3no> Rick
> > Wagler: "Saying this does not 'contradict' hominids living
> > elsewhere only indicates you have mastered one of the
> > great logical fallacies. You can't prove a negative so its
> > no use asking. What you need to do is get positive
> > evidence for coastal, Indian Ocean hominds. Your inability
> > to understand this basic point is what will forever
> > confine you to the lunatic fringe."
>
> > Message-ID:
> > <1124421294.671438.286...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> > Jason Eshleman: "You, Marc, are a low-life, a real
> > sleazebag sociopath. If it makes you feel better to repeat
> > ad nauseum that no one has an argument against your
> > scenario, you really ought to get your medication
> > adjusted. It might actually make you less of a dickhead.
> > You are asking for someone to contradict something that
> > you've not made a case for. You are asking someone to
> > prove a negative. This isn't science, though I suspect you
> > don't know what science is and as such will continue your
> > mentally ill diatribes."
>
> > Makouli recommends you study this for a while:
> > http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html
>
> > Complements of Jim Moore
> > http://www.aquaticape.org/-
>

> Dry apers miserably unable to give 1 single little argument
> against AAT:

You haven't explained how you give 1 single little argument
against no algae, no coconuts, no crayfish.

Nothing out there but stone tools, kudu bones, ostriches, and
land tortoises all the way to China.

[Marc Verha]

Dry apers miserably unable to give 1 single little argument
against AAT:

Op 26-03-2008 15:43, in artikel 839b1b35-6e2e-4e51-a181-e5cb3-
ff621e0@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> On Mar 26, 4:59 am, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Thanks a lot, my boy.
>
> You are welcome, pervert.
>
>> Indeed: dry apers are unable give 1 single argument
>> against AAT.
>
> Message-ID: <I%ENe.266469$5V4.165741@pd7tw3no> Rick Wagler:
> "Saying this does not 'contradict' hominids living elsewhere
> only indicates you have mastered one of the great logical
> fallacies. You can't prove a negative so its no use asking.
> What you need to do is get positive evidence for coastal,
> Indian Ocean hominds. Your inability to understand this
> basic point is what will forever confine you to the lunatic
> fringe."
>
> Message-ID:
> <1124421294.671438.286120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> Jason Eshleman: "You, Marc, are a low-life, a real sleazebag
> sociopath. If it makes you feel better to repeat ad nauseum
> that no one has an argument against your scenario, you
> really ought to get your medication adjusted. It might
> actually make you less of a dickhead. You are asking for
> someone to contradict something that you've not made a case
> for. You are asking someone to prove a negative. This isn't
> science, though I suspect you don't know what science is and
> as such will continue your mentally ill diatribes."
>
>
> Makouli recommends you study this for a while:
> http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html
>
> Complements of Jim Moore http://www.aquaticape.org/

[Lee Olsen]

On Mar 27, 6:25=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Sigh. =A0Our little boy

Pervert writes:

>now sees cocos growing in Europe...

"unable to give 1 single little argument against AAT"

Did you say "Europe" here, or does AAT only apply to Europe?

Wetloons are stupid, stupid, stupid...

>
> Op 27-03-2008 03:17, in artikel f28c7085-9349-40c6-a899-b91-
> c6c3b9...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olse=
n
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 4:46=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
> > <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >> Op 26-03-2008 15:43, in artikel 839b1b35-6e2e-4e51-a181--
> >> e5cb3ff62...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee =
Olsen
> >> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> >>> On Mar 26, 4:59=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
> >>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>> Thanks a lot, my boy.
>
> >>> You are welcome, pervert.
>
> >>>> Indeed: dry apers are unable give 1 single argument
> >>>> against AAT.
>
> >>> Message-ID: <I%ENe.266469$5V4.165741@pd7tw3no> Rick
> >>> Wagler: "Saying this does not 'contradict' hominids
> >>> living elsewhere only indicates you have mastered one of
> >>> the great logical fallacies. You can't prove a negative
> >>> so its no use asking. What you need to do is get
> >>> positive evidence for coastal, Indian Ocean hominds.
> >>> Your inability to understand this basic point is what
> >>> will forever confine you to the lunatic fringe."
>
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>> <1124421294.671438.286...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> >>> Jason Eshleman: "You, Marc, are a low-life, a real
> >>> sleazebag sociopath. If it makes you feel better to
> >>> repeat ad nauseum that no one has an argument against
> >>> your scenario, you really ought to get your medication
> >>> adjusted. It might actually make you less of a dickhead.
> >>> You are asking for someone to contradict something that
> >>> you've not made a case for. You are asking someone to
> >>> prove a negative. This isn't science, though I suspect
> >>> you don't know what science is and as such will continue
> >>> your mentally ill diatribes."
>
> >>> Makouli recommends you study this for a while:
> >>> http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html
>
> >>> Complements of Jim Moore
> >>> http://www.aquaticape.org/-
>
> >> Dry apers miserably unable to give 1 single little
> >> argument against AAT=
:
>
> > You haven't explained how you give 1 single little
> > argument against no algae, no coconuts, no crayfish.
>
> ??
>
> SFs are stupid stupid stupid.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Marc Verha]

Sigh. Our little boy now sees cocos growing in Europe...

Op 27-03-2008 03:17, in artikel f28c7085-9349-40c6-a899-b91c6-
c3b9be6@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> On Mar 26, 4:46 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>>
>> Op 26-03-2008 15:43, in artikel 839b1b35-6e2e-4e51-a181-e5-
>> cb3ff62...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 4:59 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Thanks a lot, my boy.
>>
>>> You are welcome, pervert.
>>
>>>> Indeed: dry apers are unable give 1 single argument
>>>> against AAT.
>>
>>> Message-ID: <I%ENe.266469$5V4.165741@pd7tw3no> Rick
>>> Wagler: "Saying this does not 'contradict' hominids living
>>> elsewhere only indicates you have mastered one of the
>>> great logical fallacies. You can't prove a negative so its
>>> no use asking. What you need to do is get positive
>>> evidence for coastal, Indian Ocean hominds. Your inability
>>> to understand this basic point is what will forever
>>> confine you to the lunatic fringe."
>>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <1124421294.671438.286...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>>> Jason Eshleman: "You, Marc, are a low-life, a real
>>> sleazebag sociopath. If it makes you feel better to repeat
>>> ad nauseum that no one has an argument against your
>>> scenario, you really ought to get your medication
>>> adjusted. It might actually make you less of a dickhead.
>>> You are asking for someone to contradict something that
>>> you've not made a case for. You are asking someone to
>>> prove a negative. This isn't science, though I suspect you
>>> don't know what science is and as such will continue your
>>> mentally ill diatribes."
>>
>>> Makouli recommends you study this for a while:
>>> http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html
>>
>>> Complements of Jim Moore http://www.aquaticape.org/-
>>
>
>> Dry apers miserably unable to give 1 single little argument
>> against AAT:
>
> You haven't explained how you give 1 single little argument
> against no algae, no coconuts, no crayfish.

??

SFs are stupid stupid stupid.