San Francisco Chronicle June 8, 2001

Early humans ate their way through species Megafauna in America, Australia were killed off over time, studies say

David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor Prehistoric human hunters, wielding spears and fire, drove the giant animals of antiquity to extinction across the continents of North America and Australia thousands of years ago, two scientific studies have concluded.

It wasn't the advancing glaciers of an ice age or alien diseases that killed off so many ancestors of today's smaller mammals, birds and reptiles, the researchers say, but simple human hunger for meat and the skillful use of primitive killing techniques.

Long before vast herds of bison fell to hunters on the Great Plains, western North America was populated by woolly mammoths, armadillos the size of Volkswagens, massive antelope and at least three species of towering camels. But all disappeared within a thousand years or so after the first Americans migrated from Asia about 13,000 years ago.

The migrants moved across a dry land bridge where the Bering Sea now isolates the two continents, and found a land rich in huge prey that they hunted voraciously.

In Australia, where the fossil evidence shows that the first humans arrived more than 55,000 years ago, it took less than 10,000 years for the ancestors of today's aborigines to wipe out that continent's megafauna. Among the creatures were the largest land bird ever known, marsupials the size of hippos and a variety of giant prehistoric lizards.

Two reports in today's issue of the journal Science describe the fate of those beasts of prey and seek to resolve a long debate over just what killed off so many species of megafauna on the two continents.

One report resulted from a computer analysis based on the fossil record of extinct mammals in the American West, the discovery by anthropologists and archaeologists of primitive weapons, and the population dynamics of the early migrants from Asia.

It came from John Alroy of the National Center for Ecological Analysis at the University of California at Santa Barbara, who studied the records of people and animals during the late Pleistocene epoch some 12,000 to 13,000 years ago.

"More than half of the large mammal biota of the Americas disappeared in a cataclysmic extinction wave at the very end of the Pleistocene," Alroy said in his report. "And although humans were responsible for the extinctions, it wasn't clear to them because it happened over a 1,000-year period.

"The results show how much havoc our species can cause, without anyone at the time having the slightest idea of what was going on, much less any intention of causing harm."

The Australian scientists based their version of ancient history on the wide range of fossils. Until now, the huge die-off on the Australian continent more than 20,000 years ago had been blamed by many researchers on a long- lasting ice age.

Not so, says the team that included Richard Roberts of the University of Melbourne, Timothy Flannery of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide, and Australia-born Linda Ayliffe of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. They maintain the continent-wide expansion of humans was to blame.

The mass extinction of animal life in Australia took nearly 10,000 years, the scientists have concluded, and it reached its peak about 46,000 years ago, relatively soon after the first humans arrived.

The early migrants used spears and stone weapons, and torched wide areas of grasslands to wipe out the habitats of grazing animals and make them easier prey for the hunters, the scientists say.

Some 55 species of vertebrate animals died off during the extinction, including the 220-pound flightless "thunder bird" called genyornis, the largest bird ever known and much like today's far smaller emu.

Also extinguished was the giant marsupial called diprotodon, which at 10 feet long, 6 feet tall and 600 pounds, was the earliest relative of today's koalas and burrowing wombats.

Every land animal in Australia weighing more than 220 pounds became extinct during the long die-off, said Ayliffe, and "it's clear that the downward spiral of those animals began well after the arrival of humans."

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), June 08, 2001

Answers

If you had read the Pulitzer Prize winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, this little factoid would not come as a surprise to you.

The larger picture on this fact is the question of whether certain of these large herbivores might have been domesticable. If so, then the later progeny of those Pleistocene hunters would have been able to create wealthier and more stable societies. But, by driving those species to extinction, the hunters traded an immediate profit in wild meat for a long term impoverishment in domestic resources.

Any lessons here?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 08, 2001.

2 + 2 = 4

-- elementary (my@dear.watson), June 08, 2001.

Yes, Nipper, the lesson is that you would have not lasted long dancing on the plains singing "Give Peace a Chance." It is only modern society and the wealth it has provided that allows you to daydream about how primitive man might have improved his society.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 08, 2001.

"It is only modern society and the wealth it has provided that allows you to daydream about how primitive man might have improved his society."

Who you talking to? I never said any such idiocy. You are making things up as you go and damn if they have anything to do with what is real.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 09, 2001.

I'd like to teach the world to sing

In perfect harmony

I'd like to DA DADA DA DA in perfect company...

LAla LALA lA LALA .. (NOT TOO GOOD AT SINGING...

it's~the~real~thing~~~~~~~~

-- aQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACherri (jessam5@home.com), June 09, 2001.

???

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), June 09, 2001.

When Lewis and Clark moved upriver they found piles of aging bones of game animals at the bottom of a cliff. Seems the Indians used to mass in large numbers, stetch out in a line, make lots of noise and burn fires, and charge at all living things in a certain area. The Indians charged them, herding them into a group, and then herding them right off the cliff.

The Indians could then at their leisure climb down and munch at the carcasses. Thing was, the expedition noted the tremendous amount of waste, of meat and products never touched.

Not to mention the Indians were pretty good at genociding each other out of existence. Nearby Lake Erie was named after a tribe that was annhilated by its friendly neighbors.

-- KnownForever (Mammoths.Gone@Nothing.New), June 09, 2001.

What a coincidence, Nipper, I feel the same way.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 09, 2001.

"What a coincidence, Nipper, I feel the same way."

Earlier in this thread you plainly attributed thoughts to me. Thoughts I have never had. You did not quote any words I have posted in this forum that could possibly justify that attribution, because you can't.

Now you are attempting to justify your action by implying that I did the same to you first and you are engaging in a simple tit-for-tat and I am complaining of an offense that I have engaged in.

That implication is a lie. I have never done any such thing to you. The first lie was nasty. This one just compounds the offense.

I defy you to provide any quote from me that would justify your accusation. Either that or offer an apology. Or, lacking both, I will henceforth consider you a low, sneaking, nasty cyberweasel.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 09, 2001.

Indians are noble people who cry glycerine tears when confronted with the pollution of paleskin devils. The< a href="http://www.powersource.com/gallery/whiteb.html">White Buffalo will guide us to happy casino hunting grounds, suckers.

-- (Jay_Silverheels_@_Lone_Ranger's.teepee), June 09, 2001.

White Buffalo

-- (Tonto@Clayton_Moore's.teepee), June 09, 2001.

First of all, Nipper, you act like reading a "Guns, Germs and Steel" makes you part of the intelligentsia. Continuing like a consumate condescending little prick, you contemplate whether large herbivores might have been domesticable. Bringing the full weight of your anthropological intellect onto the problem, you wonder if these nomadic, hunter-gather tribes might have enjoyed "wealthier and more stable" societies. Of course, we stand in awe as you tie this breathtaking question into a fable for today, to wit, what can we learn from this tragic example of resource exploitation. I can see tears in Ralph Nader's eyes.

Primitive society did not offer the opportunity for this type of navel gazing. Perhaps you would have been the first human stomped into jelly trying to rope a wooly mammoth?

Your offense, Nipper, is to apply fuzzy thinking and shallow knowledge to yet another situation. Of course, this flies over your head because to you, your insights are profound. Gather 'round, children, and let me tell you the sad story of the unwise early men who killed the sabre-toothed tiger rather than turning it into a wonderful house pet.

You'll find no apology here, Nipper. Your Birkenstock-wearing, pro- hemp, collectivist nonsense is enough to make me regret the current lack of natural selection. Save your fables and faulty logic for the Gaia-worshipping, homeopathic vegans.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 09, 2001.

LOL

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), June 09, 2001.

Remember, you seem truly peeved that Nipper's kicking your ass on the "Children's Story" thread. If I cared who other posters truly were, I'd probably observe that you argue like Ken Decker. But that's neither here nor there. Is it?

Let's analyze your post and fix you up.

"First of all, Nipper, you act like reading a "Guns, Germs and Steel" makes you part of the intelligentsia."

However, Remember, reading is a prime requirement for admission into the intelligentsia. Being polite and playing nice are two other requirements, and if you don't meet them, I'm afraid that I shall have to withdraw my sponsorship for your admittance.

"Continuing like a consumate condescending little prick, you contemplate whether large herbivores might have been domesticable."

Nothing wrong with considering this. I don't see why you're getting in a twist over it.

"Bringing the full weight of your anthropological intellect onto the problem, you wonder if these nomadic, hunter-gather tribes might have enjoyed "wealthier and more stable" societies."

Again, nothing wrong with him considering that. What's your problem? Other than Nipper taking a chunk out of your behind, that is.

"Of course, we stand in awe as you tie this breathtaking question into a fable for today, to wit, what can we learn from this tragic example of resource exploitation. I can see tears in Ralph Nader's eyes."

This is pure bloviation. You have nothing substantive to say about Nipper's conjecture, so you flame it simply because you don't like it. Hardly the behavior of a future member of the intelligentsia. Have a care, Remember -- I might have to put in a call to the membership committee.

"Primitive society did not offer the opportunity for this type of navel gazing."

But modern society does. Your objection is overruled.

"Perhaps you would have been the first human stomped into jelly trying to rope a wooly mammoth?"

Perhaps. And perhaps not. New ventures of any sort are often fraught with dangers. Wilbur and Orville Wright could easily have been early aviation casualties, but their work has improved modern society tremendously. Surely you don't think that potential dangers should automatically dissuade people from undertaking new ventures, do you?

"Your offense, Nipper, is to apply fuzzy thinking and shallow knowledge to yet another situation."

You have demonstrated neither. Nipper can conjecture about whatever he wants, and fuck you if you don't like it. And as far as knowledge goes, he certainly seems to be demonstrating more than you, both on the "Children's Story" thread and this one as well. Knowledge is more than snappy comebacks and facile insults.

"Of course, this flies over your head because to you, your insights are profound."

What a ridiculous assertion. Anyone's insights are profound to them. However, since Nipper has not yet responded to you, you have no way of knowing whether or not your assertion flies over his head. Wrong again, Remember.

"Gather 'round, children, and let me tell you the sad story of the unwise early men who killed the sabre-toothed tiger rather than turning it into a wonderful house pet."

Don't be a total dipshit, Remember. Nipper said this: "The larger picture on this fact is the question of whether certain of these large herbivores might have been domesticable."

Now, Remember, when you find evidence that saber-toothed tigers were large herbivores, you get riiiiiiiight back to me? Okay? I'll get you started; saber-toothed tigers were, in fact, large. See if you can prove they were herbivorous. Otherwise, your objection is overruled.

"You'll find no apology here, Nipper."

In that case, I join Nipper in his characterization of you as a low, sneaking, nasty cyberweasel. I have other words for you, but I'll hang onto them until your return.

"Your Birkenstock-wearing, pro- hemp, collectivist nonsense is enough to make me regret the current lack of natural selection. Save your fables and faulty logic for the Gaia-worshipping, homeopathic vegans."

Translation -- "gibber gibber RANT gibber Nipper BAD gibber gibber EVIL gibber."

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 09, 2001.

Remember, what a wonderfully done combination of guilt by association, appeal to emotion, and ad hominem. Of course you don't need to prove that I ever said what you attributed to me. Of course you don't need to substantiate your innuendo about me. All you have to do is attack me as a "Birkenstock-wearing, pro-hemp, collectivist" who aasociates with "Gaia-worshipping, homeopathic vegans."

Of course, the fact that none of this is true is of no moment. It is as good as all your other baseless assertions.

"I thought I was here for an argument."

"Oh, I'm sorry. You're in the wrong room. This is Abuse. Argument is down the hall, first door to the right."

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 09, 2001.

What's a Birkenstock?

-- helen (birkenstock@less.possibly), June 09, 2001.

A Birkenstock was a shorter version of a drndl made of light wool garbardine with a seersucker sash worn at the hips. It was widely worn by Eastern German communist homosexuals and by Austrian Nazi sympathizers as a badge of their everlasting hatred toward the American flag, mom and apple pie. But it was just a fad and it blew over...

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), June 09, 2001.

What's a drndl?

-- helen (worse@nd.worse), June 09, 2001.

Birkenstock -- designer footware for people who don't live in this part of the world. I had no idea. The rest of the world is thinner, richer, and better-looking already, and now I discover they are also better shod. The pain is unbearable.

-- helen (w@tch.your.step), June 09, 2001.

A drndl is a kind of high-waisted dress. It was favored by J. Edgar Hoover on occasions when he was feeling especially playful. Usually he just wore a frumpy little house dress of flowered chintz.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), June 09, 2001.

What's wrong with wearing Birkenstock sandals? Did I miss the memo?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 09, 2001.

I see economic illiteracy has not contained itself to the former thread. Nipper comes in with a post reeking of a condescending attitude and then is SHOCKED, SHOCKED MIND YOU when people take offense. Reading MORE THAN ONE BOOK is part one of becoming part of the intelligensia. Part Two is thinking the world behave exactly like it says in the selected books you have read.

I am inherently unable to become a card-carrying member because I have read books off the approved list and have seen how the liberal intellectuals grand ideas actually work in real life. Hey, Nipper, sill waiting from those Cuban dispatches.

Primitive hunter-gather societies evolved into agrarian cultures for a variety of reasons. In North America, large areas were unsuitable for Nipper's agrarian follies. For example, the extraordinarily efficient cultures of the Plains Indians used the buffalo, not as a domestic animals but as a wild food source. Had Nipper ever livestock, he might realize the grazing requirements of such large animals would quickly strip a small area. Had Nipper a background in biology, he might realize that smaller animals are much more efficient than large animals in terms of protein conversion. Had Nipper studied history, he might have realized that agrarian cultures, while perhaps more "productive," were often targets of wandering tribes of barbarians. Had Nipper studied evolutionary biology, he would realize that over 90 percent of the species that have existed on the planet are currently extinct. For our own species, extinction is a better bet than survival, statistically speaking.

One can argue the hunter-gather culture did far less resource depletion because the tribes moved from place to place. Call it a natural form of "crop rotation." Hunter-gathers did not overfarm areas, strip the topsoil from land, cut down all the trees for shelter, etc.

Why didn't the primitive hunter-gathers of North America domestic mastodons? Or buffalo? (Evidence suggest they did domesticate dogs.) Because they were smarter than Nipper, and apparently you. It is more efficent in some environments to allow these animals to live in the wild and hunt them rather than maintain them in a agrarian setting. Can you imagine the fences one would have to build? The hay or fodder one would have to raise.

Perhaps some primitive idiot tried Nipper's idea. You read about the Wright brothers because they succeeded. This takes me to my point on the other thread. The function of the private sector is to take entrepreneurial risks. Personally, I think the cultures of native americans were well adapted for their environment and that at least a few were as smart as Nipper think he/she is.

Now, since you have trouble with my sharp sense of humor, let's just exchange the obligatory "fuck you's" while you go bone up on the conversion of vegetative mass to protein. As for the sabre-toothed tiger, let me borrow Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke, son."

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 10, 2001.

My shock had nothing to do with your taking exception to my "condescending attitude". My shock was that you resorted to a caricature that not only had no relevance to what I said, but no relevance to what I have ever said.

Your response was on the same level as responding to W.E.B. DuBois on the advisability of the return of ex-slaves to Africa by mocking him for eating watermelons and doing the shuck and jive. Disregarding whether Mr. DuBois had ever eaten a watermelon in his life.

I replied, I defy you to prove I have ever eaten watermelon. If you can't do that, then apologize. If you won't do either, I'll know what kind of an opponent I am dealing with.

And now I do.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 10, 2001.

"I see economic illiteracy has not contained itself to the former thread."

And I see that bare-faced mulishness hasn't so confined itself, either.

"Nipper comes in with a post reeking of a condescending attitude and then is SHOCKED, SHOCKED MIND YOU when people take offense."

Remember comes in with a post reeking of a condescending attitude and then is SHOCKED, SHOCKED MIND YOU when people take offense. Sound familiar?

"Reading MORE THAN ONE BOOK is part one of becoming part of the intelligensia."

Your claim that Nipper has read only one book does not make it so. Nipper CITED one book. You have not presented evidence that said book is the ONLY book he's ever read, asshole.

"Part Two is thinking the world behave exactly like it says in the selected books you have read."

No, Part Two is thinking that your suppositions and presumptions are correct as they are made, even without benefit of proof or support. Close, but no cigar. In any event, does that sound like anything you've ever done?

"I am inherently unable to become a card-carrying member because I have read books off the approved list and have seen how the liberal intellectuals grand ideas actually work in real life."

Ah. Another poster claiming that anyone who opposes him simply MUST be a liberal. Well, buttplug, when you come up with evidence of my liberalism, please be certain to post it where we can all see it. In fact, also be sure to post your evidence that saber-toothed tigers were large herbivores in the same thread.

Also, please post a logical argument that supports the proposition "All Posters Who Disagree With Me Are Liberals." Be prepared to actively defend your proposition.

"Hey, Nipper, sill waiting from those Cuban dispatches."

And, Remember, I think he's still waiting for you to define "wealth" over there, too. He's asked you a number of hard questions, and your silence is deafening.

I've snipped your attempt at polite and patient analysis, because you had your opportunity for polite discussion, and you pissed it away. You can't be an asshole when your opponent is polite and then later, when your opponent's back gets up, disingenuously claim "it was only a joke," cocksucker.

"Because they were smarter than Nipper, and apparently you."

Lacking evidence of this, your comment only serves as a further insult, giving the lie to your claim that you were joking. You're an utter ass, Remember. A ridiculous churl, and, in the vernacular, a dickhead.

"Now, since you have trouble with my sharp sense of humor,"

You haven't got a sharp sense of humor for me to have trouble with. You have a sharp tongue, but that's about it. Further, you didn't post to be funny, pissant. You posted simply to be snide and insulting, and you came out of the box with both guns blazing. Yet your attempt to slam Nipper falls flat on its face because several of your comments need proof or support to get anywhere, and because you FAILED to provide that proof. Perhaps you simply don't understand that a thing is not true simply because you say it is. Perhaps you simply don't understand that claims demand proof. And perhaps you simply don't understand that vapid insults and bad behavior don't advance your position.

Never mind. I think I see why you can't get your Intelligentsia Membership Card. Let's hope you don't pull a Tim McVeigh and start blowing up libraries and colleges as revenge against your imagined enemy.

"let's just exchange the obligatory "fuck you's"

Okay. Fuck you.

"while you go bone up on the conversion of vegetative mass to protein."

I don't need to, and the only boning around here is Nipper boning you. You have already abandoned whatever tenable position you had in this discussion when you bitch-slapped Nipper instead of being a polite adult. Don't expect people to play nice with you when you're behaving like a thoroughly objectionable bastard.

"As for the sabre-toothed tiger, let me borrow Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke, son."

As for the saber-toothed tiger, let me be frank. You fucked up, son. Fucked up and got caught at it.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 10, 2001.

You people are still arguing about this?

-- shame on you (all@of.you), June 10, 2001.

Sorry, Nipper, but you read the post by Paracelus and twisted into a little Green morality play. Or did I misunderstand your point? What exactly are we to "learn" from the extinction of some large herbivores? I think I got your original point and it was as stupid then as it is now.

And, Already, another content free response. I suppose the whole protein conversion is far less interesting than mounting an attack. Oh, I am just SO wounded by your profanity. Actually, I might be wounded if I could only stop laughing at you. I never even hinted I was "shocked." It was my intent to offend Nipper because I found his little parable so offensive. I don't claim Nipper has read only book, I say it's part of becoming part of the intelligentsia. Oh, don't mind what I said. Just take offense at whatever you can twist it into.

As for liberalism, I know Nipper has the inevitable liberal impulse as he has written this on more than one thread. I also know he has a hypocritical streak. Look at the thread he posted on taxes. His ground rules were to post one's own ideas first before commenting, and then he immediately commented on my ideas, and never bothered to post his ideas. Pity.

And ignore the facts I posted about the efficiency of the hunter- gatherer cultures, particularly given the environment of North America. Focus on the fucking sabre-tooth tiger, as if I don't know it was a herbivore. Huff and puff and work on a better line of profanity. I disagree with Nipper on liberalism because he is WRONG. If you agree with Nipper, please join him on the WRONG side of the room. If you want proof, pick a subject like poverty and let's see if you can do anything. On second thought, just give me some more harsh language. It reminds me that inside every compassionate liberal weenie is a angry, undersized person pissed off that the world rewards the successful. The only people who dislike you more than me are those you are trying to help.

-- Remember (the@old.forum.com), June 10, 2001.

"And, Already, another content free response."

If you missed the content therein, then you're not nearly as intelligent as you would have us all believe. Do you need me to lead you around by the nose so that the content won't get past you unrecognized? Do you need me to spell it out for you? Be careful, Remember -- if you need such assistance, then you'll never get into the intelligentsia.

"I suppose the whole protein conversion is far less interesting than mounting an attack."

You attacked first, with your content-free flame of the past weekend. The fact that you now deride your opponents for attacking back demonstrates just what an ass you are. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Ridiculous.

"Oh, I am just SO wounded by your profanity. Actually, I might be wounded if I could only stop laughing at you."

Ho-fucking-hum. Better to laugh than to respond. Better to laugh than to build your responses on provable and supportable assertions. Better to flame than to engage in discourse. Easier, too. What an utter jerk you are.

"I never even hinted I was "shocked."

Aaaaaaand neither did Nipper. Yet you claimed he was. You never hinted that you were shocked, yet I claimed that you were. Do you not understand the value, in debate, of adopting your opponent's specious tactics and positions, in order to draw attention to them? You used the tactic first. You cannot object now that it is aimed at you.

"It was my intent to offend Nipper because I found his little parable so offensive."

Couldn't have occurred to you simply to keep a cool head and present some logical arguments against his position, could it? You just had to charge in with a content-free post.

"I don't claim Nipper has read only book, I say it's part of becoming part of the intelligentsia."

Your words, ratfucker. "Reading MORE THAN ONE BOOK is part one of becoming part of the intelligensia." Again you lie. If you weren't trying to intimate that Nipper had read only one book, then why write that sentence in that way? Or is it just that you can't bring yourself to either apologize or to abandon your less savory and less effective methods?

"Oh, don't mind what I said. Just take offense at whatever you can twist it into."

Not much twisting going on there, and I am reproducing EXACTLY what you said, which appears to irritate the living daylights out of you. Don't blame others if you are not articulate enough to accurately convey your meaning. And if other people mistake your heated words, kindly try harder to explain yourself -- don't be a dickhead and insist that any misunderstanding MUST be the fault of the people misunderstanding you.

Get it, Remember? If you are misunderstood, then the fault lies with YOU. Not the audience. Therefore extra effort on your part -- not on the part of the audience -- is called for.

"As for liberalism, I know Nipper has the inevitable liberal impulse as he has written this on more than one thread."

Irrelevant. Your assignment was to post a logical argument that supports the proposition "All Posters Who Disagree With Me Are Liberals," and to be prepared to defend it. However, you might now also wish to define and analyze this elusive "inevitable liberal impulse" for the gathered audience.

"I also know he has a hypocritical streak. Look at the thread he posted on taxes. His ground rules were to post one's own ideas first before commenting, and then he immediately commented on my ideas, and never bothered to post his ideas. Pity."

That's wholly another matter, which I believe you were right to point you. However, it is one which, you will notice, I haven't commented on over there. I am more concerned with your lamer-flamer tactics on this particular thread. Own up to your own misdeeds without using the misdeeds of others to excuse your own.

"And ignore the facts I posted about the efficiency of the hunter- gatherer cultures, particularly given the environment of North America."

You had your chance to talk facts politely on this thread, and you fucked it up. Try using a sincere apology, and see what happens.

"Focus on the fucking sabre-tooth tiger, as if I don't know it was a herbivore."

Your words, Remember. "Gather 'round, children, and let me tell you the sad story of the unwise early men who killed the sabre-toothed tiger rather than turning it into a wonderful house pet."

Don't be a total dipshit, Remember. Nipper said this: "The larger picture on this fact is the question of whether certain of these large herbivores might have been domesticable."

Now, Remember, when you find evidence that saber-toothed tigers were large herbivores, you get riiiiiiiight back to me? Okay? I'll get you started; saber-toothed tigers were, in fact, large. See if you can prove they were herbivorous. Otherwise, your objection is OVERRULED.

"Huff and puff and work on a better line of profanity."

You went there first, Remember. Perhaps not toward profanity, but since you dragged this thread down into huffing, puffing flames, you now have no gripe coming when it is aimed at you. What a hypocritical asshole you are!

"I disagree with Nipper on liberalism because he is WRONG."

He is not wrong simply because YOU say so. If you think he is wrong, then PROVE it. Act like you are over on the tax thread. Counter his points by making supportable points of your own. But when you spout a total flame like you did earlier this weekend, you're abandoning whatever strong position you might have had, and attacking instead from a position of weakness.

"If you agree with Nipper, please join him on the WRONG side of the room."

I didn't say I agree with Nipper, and that's another incorrect assumption on your part. But I definitely do not agree with your asinine behavior of the last couple of days. You, sir, may need another good, hard bitch-slap to remind you how to behave in public.

"If you want proof, pick a subject like poverty and let's see if you can do anything. On second thought, just give me some more harsh language."

(waves dismissively) It is your behavior on this thread that is at issue. Stop trying to deflect the issue onto others, and take your medicine like an adult, Remember.

"It reminds me that inside every compassionate liberal weenie is a angry, undersized person pissed off that the world rewards the successful."

Now, Remember, this is why you have been assigned to post a logical argument that supports the proposition "All Posters Who Disagree With Me Are Liberals." The reason for that is because I am NOT a liberal, but also because you have just AGAIN made an incorrect assumption; in this case, that I am one. People who disagree with you are not automatically liberals, and you weaken your position immeasurably when you presume that they are.

Further, I'm quite successful, and I make no apology for it. If the best you can do is to insinuate that your opponent is uneducated, unsuccessful, uninformed or -- horror of horrors -- a liberal, that's fine as far as it goes. But when you combine that with a flame, Remember, and you fail to present some proof or evidence, you're just making yourself look bad, and you're hurting your argument.

You know, Remember, if we were arguing 300 years ago, you might as well call me a "witch." The net effect is that both accusations are equally irrelevant, largely unprovable and have the same objective; to dehumanize their objects.

"The only people who dislike you more than me are those you are trying to help."

Ah. Another unwarranted and unsupported assumption. What was that you were saying about content-free responses?

Insert quarter and try again, Remember.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 11, 2001.

"Ratfucker?" Come now, Already, my profanity was more creative by the second grade. Obviously, this whole exchange has you deeply annoyed. Get over it. Do you really think you're little tantrum is going to change anything? "An anonymous Internet asshole has raised his electronic voice with. Woe is me!" Too funny. My favorite part is how you are "teaching" me good manners through your series of profane insults. Oh, sorry, you are JUSTIFIED in your behavior while I am not. Let me jot this down.

A hearty, healthy, happy piss off to you and your assignments. I'm not dancing to your tune, Already. Here's my sincere apology. I'm sincerely sorry you'll never show up at my door and try to "bitch slap" me in real life. I deeply regret your tantrum will wind down and leave me with fewer entertainment options.

Oh, next time, break down this response into single words. It's easier to distort that way.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 11, 2001.

"Ratfucker?" Come now, Already, my profanity was more creative by the second grade."

When the shoe fits, as it does so well when I call you a "ratfucker," then you should wear it, Remember.

"Obviously, this whole exchange has you deeply annoyed. Get over it."

Get over yourself, you arrogant little pissant. You bring heat, but no light. Arguments, but no proof. And I'm supposed to be the one getting over myself? You first, you arrogant dickhead. You're the one claiming that your pronouncements are truth without presenting proof that they are. You're the one claiming that anything provably incorrect in your posts is simply a "joke." And you're the one who got abusive first. Take it like a man, Remember.

"Do you really think you're little tantrum is going to change anything?"

What a dumbass you are. No, I don't expect it to change anything. But I do expect to enjoy myself with you. Do you expect your tirade against Nipper is going to change anything?

""An anonymous Internet asshole has raised his electronic voice with. Woe is me!" Too funny."

Again you say things you wish other people had said, not things they actually did say. You are a lying sack of shit, and probably unworthy of polite discussion, assuming you could even stay polite to begin with.

"My favorite part is how you are "teaching" me good manners through your series of profane insults."

Actually, I never claimed to be teaching you good manners, and if you think I did, then prove me wrong, dickhead. I said that I was going to give you what you started giving others. And I plan to keep dishing it out until you shape up or go away. You should be old enough to not NEED to be taught how to behave in public.

"Oh, sorry, you are JUSTIFIED in your behavior while I am not."

I never said I was justified. I said that you started it, and that I was going to give you what you gave out. Nothing about justification in there. You obviously have a little reading problem.

"Let me jot this down."

Psssst. It's already in print; use the "Copy" and "Paste" commands to speed the process along. I wouldn't want you to miss anything on this thread.

"A hearty, healthy, happy piss off to you and your assignments."

Because you are totally incapable of proving your claims. You claim you are right and Nipper is "WRONG," but when it comes down to brass tacks, you're a little pussy coward, and a liar to boot. If you had any proof, you'd trot it out, but you don't, so you simply refuse. Fuck you, you lying sack of shit.

"I'm not dancing to your tune, Already."

No, but you certainly do seem to expect others to dance to YOUR tune, don't you? Arrogant prick.

"Here's my sincere apology. I'm sincerely sorry you'll never show up at my door and try to "bitch slap" me in real life."

I'm sincerely sorry, too. Especially since trying would equal succeeding, and I would dearly love to give you a red cheek. If I tried to bitch-slap you, you would be bitch-slapped. Bet on it.

"I deeply regret your tantrum will wind down and leave me with fewer entertainment options."

Don't be so sure about that. I might make you my latest leash-troll.

"Oh, next time, break down this response into single words. It's easier to distort that way."

Next time, don't change a thing. You're ever so simple to take apart. Rarely do I find an individual so utterly devoid of reason and proof. You rival Ain't Gonna Happen, but you don't quite measure up to his lofty standards of vapidness.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 12, 2001.

Little Nipper, I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel and know you were just echoing one of Jared Diamond's points. Have you read Ecological Imperialism by Alfred Crosby?

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), June 12, 2001.

Now that is humor! I can practically see the throbbing vein in your temple, Already. If I needle you a bit more, maybe we can go for the full cardiac arrest? You are a Pavlovian dog. I ring the bell and you come out spewing profanity. Thanks, Already, you've made it genuinely fun to jerk your chain. And what have your profane rants accomplished? Nothing, except maybe making Nipper regret he ended up with an anonymous internet punk as his True Defender. Here's a clue, stimulus-response boy. Keep the huff and puff act online. If you try this game in anyone's face, mine included, you're likely to end up stomped into something that looks like raspberry jam. Of course, in your case that may be something of an improvement.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 12, 2001.

Ummm... Getting back to the original point of this thread... What was that, again, anyway? (scrolling back)

Oh, yeah. Alrighty. It seems like the argument on the junior- varsity debate team table breaks down to the following fact, and two primary "sides", or spins on this fact:

Fact: A growing body of evidence exists to support the theory that pre-historic human hunters wiped out or contributed to the extinction of megafauna species on two continants.

spin 1) We should take this as a lesson, and make an attempt to not repeat history.

spin 2) Those pre-historic hunters were no better than us, and in fact, we eat much better now and have stuff like cars and guns. No lessons to learn here from what are really just a bunch of stupid Indians and Aboriginies anyway.

-- Moving_comfort (superman@aquaman.batman), June 12, 2001.

"Have you read Ecological Imperialism by Alfred Crosby?"

No. Sounds interesting. Based on the title it may be advancing an idea that I arrived at a few years ago, after reading a bunch of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.

"My" idea is just stating what is probably obvious to most any biologist. Viewing human activity purely from a Darwinian point of view, we are successfully occupying niches that used to be occupied by hundreds or thousands of other species. We are out-competing them for the same locations, if not the same resources.

Clearly, we humans have been bringing something wholly new to the biological competition. Nowadays, while the other animals and plants might be competing fiercely for a tiny niche on a forested mountain ridge, we humans might come along and rip off the entire top of the mountain to get at the coal underneath.

We are outcompeting other species by exploiting resources they can't even begin to use. In this race, those species don't even leave the starting line. No wonder species are dropping like flies.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 12, 2001.

Pretty good summary of Nipper's original response, i.e., we should "learn" from the "mistakes" of early man.

Not so good with my response (the one after I blew up at Nipper). It may be that hunter-gather tribes were pretty well adapted for the environment. It seems they were better adapted than the wooly mammoths. What pissed me off about Nipper's post was the assumption that large herbivores like mammoths (my example) might have been domesticated and this would have been a "better" solution than extinction. The whole idea shows pretty much a total ignorance of the dynamics of protein conversion, animal husbandry and the environment of much of North America.

What Nipper insinuates (unless I have misunderstood badly), is that extinction is a BAD THING.

Link

Extinction (including mass extinctions) existed long before our species evolved. As noted in the BBC link, it's a natural process that no one theory can fully explain. While Nipper frets about losing species, new species are emerging and adapting to man's presence.

In the end, natural selection will decide if we prevail as a species or if we're just a blip on the fossil record.

-- remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 12, 2001.

new species are emerging and adapting to man's presence.

Interesting. Examples?

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), June 12, 2001.

Well, Paracelsus, the most active form of emergence and adapation is in the smallest organisms. Disease seems to offer a good range of examples. The HIV virus is rather well known. Some strains of virus and bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. Say hello to our new friend, "Ebola." Of course, we can quibble about when an adaptation really "jumps" into a new species. Please note that I have left out any of the genetically engineered (or selectively bred) species. Care for some seedless grapes?

-- remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 12, 2001.

Good point Remember. It amazes me that the greenies believe that we humans are supposed to feel "sad" when a species dies. My comment is thank Christ! We wouldn't be here if 90% of the world's species *hadn't* become extinct. Their extinction made it possible for us to evolve.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 12, 2001.

Here's an article for you, Para:

Link

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 12, 2001.

I took a quick look at your article, and while there's a lot of intriguing talk about manipulating species in various ways (from physically moving them into new areas to altering their genes) there was no mention of new species emerging. Can you please provide a reference to new species emerging in our time?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 12, 2001.

Tarzan,

An excellent overview of speciation with specific examples in Section 5

More examples of speciation

The emergence of a new species takes many generations to happen. In most cases, the life span of species, especially large animals, is too long for us to observe changes directly. For very short-lived species such as insects and plants, the emergence of new species has been observed.

As noted, speciation is a mcuh slower process in more complex organisms. It is also a matter of some debate as to when an organism actually "jumps" into a new species. While much of the literature focues on complex flora and fauna, I think the world of microbes is quite interesting.

Duck plague: The recent emergence of new diseases and reemergence of old diseases have become a focus for increasing concerns involving human and domestic animal health

Ebola is one of many 'emerging infectious diseases' that are causing alarm among public health types

Finally, the rapid emergence of new species usually follows a mass extinction. Can I be of further assistance?

-- remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 12, 2001.

Remember, the emergence of new viral and bacterial species has and always would have happened whether or not humans ever even existed. The immediate disappearance of North American and Australian megafauna would not have... Unless you want to start disputing the evidence you were just trying to use.

Juxtaposing the emergence of a seedless grape with the extinction of several higher-level mammal species as a justification to "do what we want" now strikes me as an unseemly proposition. Your junior-varsity debate team membership (as someone put it) may not be renewed next year if you keep this up.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), June 12, 2001.

Bemused:

That's not my reading here. As I see it, Nipper is projecting current cultural mores onto a time and people living according to beliefs and practices completely unrelated to current affairs, which in turn derived from environmental imperatives unrelated to those our culture faces today. Remember seems, to me, to be saying that Nipper is regarding those early, primitive tribes down his nose, and saying "They should have eaten cake!" Only moreso.

I imagine it may have been possible for those early people to have structured their culture to be more similar to the one Nipper was brought up in, and therefore had more nearly "correct" value systems in Nipper's eyes. But so what? It's not easy to grasp that our local and temporary sensibilities are not Universal Truths, to be used as a yardstick by which we can measure the relative inferiority of everyone else. And because it's not easy, some people miss it altogether.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 2001.

Flint:"As I see it, Nipper is projecting current cultural mores onto a time and people living according to beliefs and practices completely unrelated to current affairs"

You can see it that way, but it was not what I had in mind. What I said was:

"If [some of the herbivores had been domesticable], then the later progeny of those Pleistocene hunters would have been able to create wealthier and more stable societies. But, by driving those species to extinction, the hunters traded an immediate profit in wild meat for a long term impoverishment in domestic resources."

I fail to see where I imposed any value judgement on the hunters who made that trade off. In order to make such a trade off consciously, they would have had to be aware of what "domesticability" meant. Such a knowledge was just as obviously denied to them. No one had invented the concept of domestic animals 18,000 years ago.

No such lack of knowledge afflicts us today, but the chances that there is any domesticable species that has not been discovered is approaching nil. We can eradicate species a mile a minute and probably not eliminate any that could be domesticated by our progeny.

However, I do not see the 'lesson' here as being that narrowly restricted. The hunters who hunted species to extinction during the Pleistocene were innocent of the consequences of their actions. We are equally innocent of the precise value of the species we extinguish today. God knows, the snail darter was never likely to spell life or death to the human species. But, the general principle remains.

Not that I think humankind is likely to act on the lesson here. We seem hellbent on snarfing up every scrap of wealth we can appropriate to ourselves. That seems to be the competitive imperative. Our self-knowledge doesn't seem to run as deep as our instincts.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 12, 2001.

What we have is a theory about the disappearance of megafauna rather than indisputable proof, but let's assume the theory is correct. Humans are hardly the first species responsible for the displacement of another. Like it or not, we are part of the process of natural selection.

The early hunter-gatherers were not concerned with "biodiversity." They were busy with the business of survival. As Flint notes, it is unfair to hold these early peoples to Nipper's standards. It strikes me like complaining that mammals were too hard on the dinosauria. As noted earlier, the hunter-gathers were well adapted. The wooly mammoths were not. Evolution happened.

Don't worry, Bemused. The rules of evolution apply to our species as well. Perhaps our elimination of biodiversity will result in our extinction. On the other hand, our ability to manipulate genetic material may prove our salvation. It has certainly improved my enjoyment of grapes. In the mean time, keep up the good work. You'll make the JV team yet.

And Nipper, we still need to work on the math of protein conversion. The megafauna were poorly adapted for your agrarian vision of primitive life, particularly given the climate of North America. If elephants were efficient, Nipper, we'd be running elephant ranches in New Mexico.

Your value judgement, Nipper, is that the loss of a species is a BAD THING. The fossil record, however, shows us that extinction is far more common a result than survival for a given species. As noted for Bemused, we are subject to the same laws of nature and survival. If we do not adapt as a species, we'll go the way of the dinosaurs. Seems fair to me.

Finally, man seems to have innate desires to build, create, change, explore, etc. You see this as destructive; I see it as constructive. We may become the first species that develops technologies capable of saving ourselves.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 12, 2001.

"As Flint notes, it is unfair to hold these early peoples to Nipper's standards."

I am glad you know my "standards" so much better than I do. I am thinking of a number between one and a hundred. Do you do parties, too?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 13, 2001.

"Your value judgement, Nipper, is that the loss of a species is a BAD THING."

That is your projection on what I said. The loss of species is a fact. The loss of possibly domesticable species was possibly bad for the comfort and economic resources of the later inhabitants of North America.

If you were to lose the use of motorized transport for the rest of your life, would that be a BAD THING? Depends on whose viewpoint you take. For you, it is a loss of convenience. From the standpoint of the universe, it doesn't give a rip about whether you get to ride in an automobile.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 13, 2001.

"Now that is humor!"

Very much so! I have found you to be great entertainment. I think I shall keep you in my toybox.

I can practically see the throbbing vein in your temple, Already. If I needle you a bit more, maybe we can go for the full cardiac arrest?

Actually, the humor is that a little whining pissy bitch like yourself seems to believe that telling profane me where to get off is A Good Thing, when you yourself were the individual who went for the pissing match first. For some reason, you seem to think that other people who flame are liable to drop dead, but when you flame, you are not similarly at risk. You also seem to think that if I curse at you, I must have a throbbing vein in my head, but you are not likewise at risk. Your logic sucks rotten eggs.

You really aren't any good at this, Remember. Besides, if you "needle" me a bit more, you'll just give me more reason to go on playing with you. You are a toy to me. Learn it. Accept it. Live with it. Love it.

"You are a Pavlovian dog. I ring the bell and you come out spewing profanity."

No, Remember, YOU are the dog. You will play with me, with my rules, as long as it pleases me. Get into the collar, leash-troll.

"Thanks, Already, you've made it genuinely fun to jerk your chain."

Nobody's chain is getting jerked here but yours, Remember. You are my toy. You belong to me. You will do as you are told.

"And what have your profane rants accomplished? Nothing,"

As I already told you, you ignorant non-post-reading sack of shit, The only thing I planned on accomplishing with you was entertaining myself, and in that, I have succeeded. When I see an Internet asshole, I sometimes decide to make them into a toy for my amusement. You are now such a toy, belonging to me.

"except maybe making Nipper regret he ended up with an anonymous internet punk as his True Defender."

Again your lying, ignorant ass insists on painting things as you wish they were, not as they actually are. Considering I haven't defended Nipper (I've only attacked you; defended no one), and considering YOU'RE an anonymous Internet punk, your conjecture is purely hot air. You are exceptionally poor at this, Remember.

"Here's a clue, stimulus-response boy. Keep the huff and puff act online."

Here's a clue, pissy underfed runt. Keep your arrogant flame-out-of- nowhere act online. No one cares about your opinions.

"If you try this game in anyone's face, mine included, you're likely to end up stomped into something that looks like raspberry jam."

You lack that capability. The moment you think you can take me on, you let me know, and when you want to arrange a meeting, say so. I will meet you anywhere, anytime. Be sure your medical insurance is paid up. And when you see my size, and when you decide to run in fear, be sure to remind me how you were going to stomp me before you saw the error of your whiny little bitch ways.

"Of course, in your case that may be something of an improvement."

May be, may not be. Perhaps you would like to meet in person and find out for certain? And perhaps you would like to try to stomp me? I would be interested in arranging a meeting so we could settle this. You fail to present proof of your assertions, so how about we get you some painful proof of mine?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 13, 2001.

The predations of man may not have had much to do with the disappearance of large species. For instance, this year the weather patterns in part of this country produced a population explosion in a particular type of catapillar that ate cherry leaves and ultimately caused miscarriages and foal deaths. This pattern happened several years ago, although at that time I'm not sure if the explanation was apparent. What if the climate changed for several years in a row or permanently? Left on their own, the horses may simply have been unable to reproduce enough numbers to continue their species in that part of the world. The explanation for the disappearance of large species from a continent may be a combination of weather, parasites, and disease. Being hunted certainly couldn't have helped their population count, but being hunted may have been only a tiny part of their troubles.

I have a question about a term used on this thread. What is "bitch slapping"? Is this male-to-female violence or female-to-female violence? I ask because I've never heard this term. The women around here do not tend to slap, they prefer cutting. That's why I try hard to be polite at all times. :)

-- helen (not@working.one), June 13, 2001.

I am wondering if this is the same forum wherein a discussion was held (methinks by some of these very same players) regarding the merits of 'civil' disagreement?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 13, 2001.

Oh look, it's a pissing contest!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 13, 2001.

Ah ‘Remember’, looks like you have once again yanked ADH’s chain. Hard to believe a pussy like him (I guess it’s a him) could find the time to drag his punk ass away from the keyboard long enough to hit the doughnut shop. You are doing a great job of ripping him a new asshole and don’t cha just love watching him spout and pout?

ADH, stay on the porch boy…..you can’t run with the big dogs.

-- Rip (tear@and.maul), June 13, 2001.

“And when you see my size”

Run for your lives! ADH must be Dennis Olson.

Who IS this laughable fool?

-- ADH (U@R.1), June 13, 2001.

ADH = Hawk. He had the same "conversation" with Boswell.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), June 13, 2001.

Helen, for the sake of the current argument, I think we're assuming the theory is true. It may not be, but it's the assumption for this particular debate, as I take it.

Anyway. On to "bitch-slapping". It just means an open-handed slap on the face, and it's supposed to humilate the receipient more than a "manly" punch to the face would. I tend to think it would embarrass both parties, unless they both were 1) in the mafia, or 2) gay. But that's just my take.

As for appreciating the merits of a civil discussion... How about we dissallow alchohol use in the forum? :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), June 13, 2001.

Flint and Remember:

I really think a basic point is being obscured in the recent thread rhetoric, here; Certain megafauna species became exinct in the (relative) blink of an eye. We did it. Were we smart enough, visionary enough, scientific/agrarian enough back then to have done it any differently? Maybe not.

But here's the real point I think Nipper was driving at: We can discern patterns in current human behavior that mimic, in more subtle ways, the actions of our ancestors that wiped out several large mammal species in a very short time, just a little while ago. Is it possible now to get an intellectual feel for "bad" behaviorial patterns inherent in our own species and route around them? Again, maybe not. You seem to be denying the possibility of these bad behavioral patterns.

And when I say "bad", I don't mean it in the moral or ethical sense as much as the evolutionary/survival sense.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), June 13, 2001.

"Ring." "Ring." "Ring." ROTFLMAO

I think Already has been sold for a carton of smokes one too many times. So much misdirected latent homosexual rage. Sorry to interupt your whole male leather-bondage fantasy. Don't worry, Already, I'll let you get back to your photo of Richard Simmons and bath towel in a minute. Just post your name, prisoner number and where you are currently incarcerated. When you're paroled, I'll be easy enough to find.

Do you really think this is "Hawk?" Again? I thought his mother had grounded him from using the computer.

Sorry, Bemused, but I disagree. I don't think the idea domesticated megafauna is particularly smart, now or then. I'm still waiting for you or Nipper to address the issue of efficient conversion of vegatative mass to protein.

Next point, why would exinction of another species be "bad" from an evolutionary standpoint? By the fossil record, it seems extinction is a natural process.

If the mastadon had survived, do you think it would have any bearing on our survival as a species? Let me refer to my earlier point. As a species, we are subject to the same rules of the evolution game. If you assert the elimination of some species is a "bad" thing, then prove it. Show me how the extinction of some minor species will have negative evolutionary impacts for our species.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 13, 2001.

Did you ever notice that both Decker... uh, I mean Remember, and Ain't are big into posts that do nothing but attack someone else? Sure, Remember relies on big words and mischaracterizations of his opponent's position, and Ain't uses swear words and threats, but they're both just different types of ad hominem attacks. Both are capable of making cogent, intelligent arguments, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the one weapon in their arsenal they rely on is the insult.

It's sad, really. In just a couple of posts, ADH has reduced Remember to questioning his sexual orientation, and Remember has made ADH completely forget that he hasn't responded to any of ADHs point about Remember's petty attacks of LN.

-- (hmmm@hmmmm.hmmm), June 13, 2001.

"why would exinction of another species be "bad" from an evolutionary standpoint?"

You tell me. From an evolutionary standpoint, nothing is good, nothing is bad, it all just is.

"Good" or "bad" from the standpoint of any one species would be connected to its success at surviving as a species. From that standpoint, the extinction of another species could very easily be "bad" because it causes the extinction of your own species.

For example, let's say you are a specialized parasitical fungus that attachs itself to a particular species of beech tree. If that kind of beech tree goes extinct, so do you. For another example, suppose you are a species of fig that depends on a particular fig wasp to pollinate. Or consider the lynx, which preys almost entirely on one species, the snowshoe hare.

Or take the artic fox for another example. It scavenges for six months of the year exclusively on polar bear kills. If the polar bear goes extinct, the artic fox would soon starve. At the very least its population and range would greatly diminish. Bad? Yes, if you are an artic fox.

And, of course, this was my point in regard to what might have been "bad" about the extinction of the North American megafauna. As you never tire of pointing out, modern society requires a surplus of food. That allows capital formation. Well, there is a distinct chance that one of those "three species of towering camels" cited in the original article (you read it, I assume) might have been domesticable, since the two modern species of camel have both been domesticated.

Domestic animals can lead to a better standard of living. A better standard of living leads to a larger population and greater surplus. (Am I going too fast here?) A larger, more secure population is a cornerstone of evolutionary success as well as more pleasant for the individuals involved.

I hope this answers your question of how the extinction of another species could be "bad" from the standpoint of an affected species. Of course, as I said before, evolution as a process has no good or bad results - just results.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 13, 2001.

Sorry, Bemused, but I disagree. I don't think the idea domesticated megafauna is particularly smart, now or then. I'm still waiting for you or Nipper to address the issue of efficient conversion of vegatative mass to protein.

I personally never was discussing domestication of the megafauna, but Nipper gave a good example regarding that camel species. Who knows how things wold have developed economically (and militarily) among North American Indian tribes if they had domesticated camels to ride in the several thousand years before European explorers arrived? (They didn't have horses, remember, those came over later with Europeans.) Would they have had more established trade routes, larger cities, possibly even a standard feudal society more capable of banding together in times of external threats? More like their European conquerers, in other words?

Or if they were able to domesticate mastadons in the way Hannibal's ancestors were able to domesticate elephants - for battle purposes? We all know how effective these things were for Hannibal, and they were of great value in keeping Alexander's armies out of the main part of the Indian subcontinent.

There are those who maintain that the North American Indians almost became "extinct" after the arrival of Europeans (although what they're talking about isn't the precise definition of extinction,) and here you have just a couple of examples of special extictions that could have (in a farfetched way) affected that outcome.

Farfetched, indeed. I think I have the bones of a good "alternate history" novel on my hands. Hmmmmmm... Do you think having a bloodthirsty tribe of Mohawk Indians riding saber-toothed tigers is going too far? Or the "First Thanksgiving" being turned into a blood- bath by ravenous, trained giant tree sloths? Yes, that's too much.

Next point, why would exinction of another species be "bad" from an evolutionary standpoint? By the fossil record, it seems extinction is a natural process.

I meant potentially very "bad" (in an evolutionary/survival sense) for us. And I'm not even speaking strictly of causing extinctions, but, getting back to my last post, just continuing "bad" behaviorial patterns that we are able to identify archeologically and historically, but seem to not be able to identify as still existing in us currently. Behavior that could cause us to do things like over- prescribe antibiotics over decades until we get some very hard to kill bugs, and then not being able to find new medicines fast enough, because a reduction in global biodiversity caused by "unimportant" extictions has made atibacterial research that much tougher.

Examples. But it's the "bad" behavior patterns that I'm talking about owning up to and working around. The same patterns of behavior that allowed us to not care about wiping out the snail darter are just dangerous to us, and if we can think we shouldn't need to consider them inevitable any more.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), June 13, 2001.

Keep guessing, Hmmm, and don't worry about the actual conversation happening around you. As for sexual orientation, I don't have a problem with mentally stable, reasonable gays and lesbians. Already, however, has some deep-seated emotional and sexual identity problems. The whole "I'll make you my bitch" speech reeks of repressed homosexuality and rage. Let's hope the guy gets some therapy soon.

And Nipper, I guess you don't have any idea how anglo-centric you sound right now. It isn't too hard to tweak your post and come up with a "wouldn't the aboriginal Africans have done so much better if they acted mo' like white folks." This is Ugly American, writ large.

If only those foolish hunter-gatherers hadn't killed off the giant camels, by God, we'd be sitting pretty today! They might have done even better if they discovered advanced iron working, the advantages of crop rotation and used the wheel instead of the travois. Why, if we only invented cold fusion a few decades ago. It may be an interesting parlor game, Nipper, but not much more.

As for development, there are those who contend we are developing quite fast enough. In fact, it is the rate of this development that is causing the current mass extinction (depending on who you believe.) Are you suggesting we invent technologies faster so we can facilitate more rapid improvements to our standard of living despite whatever species we trample upon? Or should we be prescient enough to realize what species will be invaluable to our future survival? Or should we preserve all species, just in case?

I don't know what would have happened, Bemused, if history had been different. Neither do you or Nipper. At best, we can speculate, but do know, for example, that the Romans had invented a primitive steam engine but saw it as nothing more than a toy. Even if large species had been domesticated, why assume the aboriginal Indians would have used these species like Europeans?

Forgive me, Bemused, but I'm not quite comfortable with you defining the "bad" and the "good." Neither you nor I will know how good or bad human activity has been. We'll both be dead long before the fate of our species is resolved. What makes me really nervous is that with limited scienctific information, you and your environmental brethren are often ready to pass judgement on what is "bad" and forcibly stop me from my "bad" behaviors.

-- Remember (the@old.forum.com), June 13, 2001.

There you go again with the insults. "I don't have a problem, but my opponent is probably gay and obviously mentally unstable, " It's easy to imagine you thinking "Hey, if I deflect this criticism in just the right way, I can get a double barb on ADH and put all the blame on him," Completely transparent. But don't think I'm picking on you, I'm sure I'll have some more analysis for ADH when he comes back.

-- (hmmm@hmmmm.hmmm), June 13, 2001.

Even if large species had been domesticated, why assume the aboriginal Indians would have used these species like Europeans? They may not have, but tey wouldn't domesticate them and then say, "Well, we domesticated the camel finally. Now what should we do with them?" They would probably domesticate with a goal in mind. I don't know how far I want to go with those examples, the image of saber-tooth riding natives is still too fresh with me. My point was how the possibility of any kind of future advantage gained by domestication was killed with the species, when they thought they were doing no harm - or didn't care if they did. Were they stupid for that? Nope. But we would be.

you and your environmental brethren are often ready to pass judgement on what is "bad" and forcibly stop me from my "bad" behaviors.

I'm not an environmentalist, but I like to notice patterns and I like to think I'm not averse to looking at uncomfortable facts. But I think this statement by you sums up the crux of the conflict....

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), June 13, 2001.

The profanity and name-calling is unpleasant but THIS:

"... I'll let you get back to your photo of Richard Simmons and bath towel in a minute. "

is too much.

-- helen's eyes have been violated (dism@y.ed), June 13, 2001.

Remember, ADH never once threatened or offered to make you his bitch. That's something you apparently made up either out of some irrepressible urge to lie about ADHs position or an irrepressible urge to become ADH's bitch. Personally, I think it's a mix of both. The chemistry between you two is hotter than Angelina Jolie's mini- pad. I can tell by the way you compulsively respond to every word he says, savoring the letters as they fall from your fingers that you long to take him into your mouth. I bet you'd swallow, too.

ADH, if you're not interested in Remember I might have a meaty part for him. I'll bet he could gnaw the bark off my big log like an Oregon sawmill.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........

-- Big Gay Al (big@gay.al), June 13, 2001.

OK, the above is pretty awful too.

-- helen races for the door (more@the.thread), June 13, 2001.

Nipper, I guess you don't have any idea how anglo-centric you sound right now. It isn't too hard to tweak your post and come up with a "wouldn't the aboriginal Africans have done so much better if they acted mo' like white folks."

I am fascinated by this perspective on what I wrote. I am especially fascinated by your impulse to "tweak" my post.

I further marvel that you imagine modifying my statement about the hypothetical relationship between Native Americans and an extinct camel into a statement about aboriginal Africans and their relationship with white people, and then characterize that modification as "tweaking".

But if I had to boil down my curiosity to just one question it would be this one:

Tell me, Remember, what do white folks act like?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 13, 2001.

I'm sorry, Remember. My curiosity got the better of me and I have a whole raft of questions about your statement about Africans acting like white men.

Here are a few:

Why is it that aboriginal Africans had their own domesticated species when white men arrived? And New Guineans had their own domesticated species when white men arrived?

And Polynesians had their own domesticated species when white men arrived?

And east Asians (such as the Han Chinese) had their own domesticated species when white men arrived?

And North Americans had their own domesticated species when white men arrived?

And South Americans had their own domesticated species when white men arrived?

And how many new species did white men domesticate in these areas after they arrived? Any?

Why is it pretty much every non-white culture had already been 'acting like white men' before they ever knew white men existed?

I would love to hear you explain all this. Get your facts together and give it a try.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 14, 2001.

Your original response talks about the extinction of megafauna in North America. You wondered how these aboriginal peoples might have better prospered had they only adopted an agrarian lifestyle and domesticated these large herbivores. Oh, lest I forget, you offer the "warning" for modern society.

The wooly mammoth became extinct in North America about 11,000 years ago. The origins of horticulture can be traced to the Neolithic about 8,000 years ago and developed in different parts of the world concurrently. As you know, the "white man's" travels to the New World and African subcontinent came much later.

The framing of your question has nothing to do with the timing of European exploration and everything to do with projecting your values onto a primitive culture. Implicit in your post is the notion that the extinction of large megafauana was 1) man's fault and 2) bad. Bad, according to you, because if man had only accelerated his development time table a few thousand years he might have been able to take advantage of animals like giant camels. Hey, early man might have done even better if he had accelerated his invention of antibiotics and gunpowder.

Why didn't the Plains Indians domesticate the buffalo? Because the environment and the animal were not suitable for domestication. It was far more efficient for the tribes to hunt the buffalo than "farm" them. Your post reminds of the colonial white attitude and the notion that "our" way is the "better" way. What history has proven is that many aboriginal tribes are quite well adapted for their environment. Yapping about the benefits of earlier development of agriculture strikes me as misguided. I can picture you walking into a 1800s Sioux encampment and saying, "I think you people might be in much better shape had your ancestors not killed off the giant camels, eh?" Are you getting the point, Nipper, or do you still have no idea how your post might be offensive?

Finally, the extinction of megafaunda is still up for debate:

Link

-- Remember (the@old.forum.com), June 14, 2001.

The framing of your question has nothing to do with the timing of European exploration and everything to do with projecting your values onto a primitive culture.

I have already made it plain that I was not projecting modern values onto the Pleistocene hunters. That you persist in saying so shows bad faith.

Implicit in your post is the notion that the extinction of large megafauana was 1) man's fault and 2) bad.

The idea that it was 1) man's fault was the conclusion of the scientists whose work was cited in the original article. If you would like to refute that article, address its points. You can hardly fault me for accepting that theory, since it is well attested by available evidence.

The idea that it was 2) bad was indeed implicit. But only in a particular sense. I did not say the extinctions were a result of morally bad behavior or conciously bad choices. I said it was bad because, as we now know, some animals can be domesticated and there are benefits to having domesticated animals in one's economy. Those benefits might have been more extensively available to North American tribes, had the extinct species been alive at a later time.

Bad, according to you, because if man had only accelerated his development time table a few thousand years he might have been able to take advantage of animals like giant camels.

That is a ridiculous reading of what I said. If you read what I have said so far you would know that. To say that this travesty 'accords' with my argument is... let's just say wrong and leave it at that.

Hey, early man might have done even better if he had accelerated his invention of antibiotics and gunpowder.

This analogy makes no sense.

Why didn't the Plains Indians domesticate the buffalo? Because the environment and the animal were not suitable for domestication.

This does nothing to refute my point, but only strengthens it. Some animals can be domesticated successfully. Others cannot be. White men also have not domesticated the buffalo, they have hybridized it with Eurasian domestic cattle.

We cannot know whether there were any good candidates for domestication among the NA megafauna. I never said there were. I formed the thought as a question. We do know, however, that cultures that domesticated large herbivores had an economic edge over purely hunting cultures.

It was far more efficient for the tribes to hunt the buffalo than "farm" them.

Well, of course. Something that can and does work is always more successful than something that can't possibly work. Buffalo are not domesticable. It is a sign of intelligence to recognize this fact and accomodate oneself to it.

But I'll bet you a nickel that if buffalo were suitable for domestication, they would have been domesticated during pre-Columbian times. Same with any of the megafauna that might have escaped the Pleistocene extinction. History proves that by 1500, nearly 100% of domesticable plants and animals had already been exploited.

Your post reminds of the colonial white attitude and the notion that "our" way is the "better" way.

What you call "our" way was the way that provided the economic and technical weapons that defeated the natives of this and other continents, dispossessed them of mnost of their lands and placed in them in a subject position they resisted. That much is a fact all sides agree on.

If you would read the book I cited, Guns, Germs and Steel, you would learn that what you call "our" way was pretty much universal. The limiting factor was not the human propensity to exploit natural resources, but the availability of resources to exploit. The resource of the first importance was domesticable plants and animals. Without them, it was difficult or impossible to achieve the capital formation that leads to exploitation of mineral and other resources.

As for your being reminded of the colonial white attitude, I have no control over what reminiscences arise in your mind. Those are your own responsibility.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 14, 2001.

Why didn't the Plains Indians domesticate the buffalo?

Have you ever stood next to one? Have you ever worked with normal size cattle? Buffalo are just as likely to hurt you as any domesticated cattle breed, plus they're big enough to hurt you worse.

The big cattle herds in this country were originally free range like the buffalo. They got herded to railheads to be sent somewhere else for processing. The indians followed rather than herded and processed on site instead of at a remote location. Not a huge difference.

-- helen faced a mad cow once too often (look@it.my.way), June 14, 2001.

Folks:

You will need to read the literature. If I interpret your definition of "Plains Indians" correctly; well, there weren't, really any, until the introduction of the horse by the Spanish. The information is out there; read it. Yes, they do have electricity and phone lines here. I can reach my server. Tomorrow, skiing.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 14, 2001.

ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THIS? SHAME ON YOU!

-- shame on you (all@of.you), June 15, 2001.

This was another interesting thread, Paracelsus. I never did understand what LN's opinion on it had to do with folks who wore Birkenstock sandals, but someday I might get the memo.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 15, 2001.

"I never did understand what LN's opinion on it had to do with folks who wore Birkenstock sandals..."

In ADH's immortal word: bloviation.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 15, 2001.

LN: I can't find that word in my dictionary. Can you provide a clue?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 15, 2001.

To bloviate (pronounced BLOW-vee-ayt) is to speak or write overexpansively or with undue grandiosity. It suggests a derivation from to blow, meaning to boast. The term has gained some currency through distribution over Web chat forums and on Web sites. American writer H. L. Mencken, always bordering on bloviation himself, described a less interesting bloviator, President Warren G. Harding, thusly:

He writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 15, 2001.

The sponsor of this thread is the letter "B". This week's new words: Birkenstock, Bitch-slap, and Bloviate.

The Plains Indians developed their culture as a direct result of acquiring horses from Europeans, and their horse culture is relatively young. Even with horses, it would be nearly impossible to domesticate an animal as large as a buffalo. Anyone who thinks it could have been done with the spears and stone tools of that era really ought to stand beside a buffalo and contemplate domesticating it barehanded. It's foolishness to suggest that humans with little more than their own teeth and rudimentary weapons could take on the domestication of giant herbivores. Horses made it easier to prey on herds of buffalo, but they didn't offer any solutions regarding the domestication of buffalo. Cultures without horses in Australia didn't even have the luxury of quick mobility.

Why weren't buffalo domesticated? Somebody walk in that pasture and show me how to milk one.

-- helen stood next to a BIG buffalo, also words that begin with "b" (words@nd.more.words), June 15, 2001.

Helen: I think you may be watching too much Sesame Street [been there and done that.] I'm a little hung up on these Birkenstock's because I've worn them for so many years. It's true that they cost a lot, but each pair lasts a good 10 years even if one doesn't take care of them, and would probably last 20 years if one treated them well. It's a comfort thing, I think. I don't want my feet to EVER hurt. I cracked the medial cuneiform bone in my left foot this past week hanging a picture above my mom's bed at her new place. I'm not sure whether I lost my balance while standing on her bed or intended to exit her bed in this way, but I can adjust the Birkenstock straps to handle the swelling.

The bitch-slapping and Buffalos are a bit beyond my experience, but I grew curious about the Birkenstock comment. Everyone here knows I'm a liberal, but did I become a liberal when I put on a Birkenstock sandal, or was it because I was a liberal that I even considered a Birkenstock? I'd always considered it a "conservative" choice. When one finds a shoe one enjoys that seems to last forever, why would one consider something else? In "normal" times [as in when the medial cuneiform is not broken], I can walk for miles in this shoe, jump maybe as high as a teenager, and never suffer from foot problems.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 15, 2001.

Anita, I hope your foot heals quickly. Grover Monster is my patron saint. He and I get hung up on syntax while semantics whistle overhead.

-- helen (its@not.easy.being.green), June 16, 2001.

Helen--

The horse is a puzzle. According to this link , the horse originated in the Americas 50 million years ago, evolved to its present form only 10000 years ago. However, by then, horses existed only in Europe, Asia and Africa. What happened?

No one is really sure of the answer to this question, but is believed that some of the early horses crossed a land bridge to reach Asia, and then spread out to Europe and Africa as well. As for the horses left in the Americas, it is believed that they were either hunted to extinction, or wiped out by some climatic catastrophe. A lot happened to the horse before he returned to the Americas. (courtesy of the Europeans)

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 16, 2001.

Lars: I'm not convinced the information on that link is correct. I remembered horses being a prime example of cladogenesis [branching evolution], so whipped out my textbook to compare some of the data from the link with the family tree provided in the book. My text has no mention of Eohippus or Protohippus, even as one of the branches that the modern day Equus didn't take. It begins with Hyracotherium in the Exocene epoch and branches through various browsers until the first grazer showed up [Merychippus] in the Miocene epoch. Other grazers branched off and died, with the horse ancestry moving on to the Pliohippus in the Pliocene epoch and finally the Equus right on the edge of the Pleistocene and Recent epochs. If I have the time and inclination, I'll look into the Eohippus and Protohippus. My curiosity is only mildly piqued.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 16, 2001.

As though following the "hippus" paths weren't complicated enough, it seems that Eohippus is just another name for Hyracotherium. There also seems to be some debate on whether the Equus descended from the Merychippus or the Protohippus. Fossils tend to favor the Merychippus, but I found several sites that thought otherwise. You may enjoy this site, Lars. Thanks, BTW. I don't open these Biology books nearly enough, and it's not like I can dance around with this damn broken bone.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 16, 2001.

Interesting link Anita but it has nothing to say about the Greek winged horse or the unicorn horse.

If this link is correst, the early American hunters not only destroyed mastodons etc, but they also destroyed the American horse. It took those nasty Europeans to restore the horse to its original 'hood. From the link---

Pliocene

The genus Equus appeared in early Pliocene of Northern America; around 2.5 Million years ago it dispersed to Asia ( E. sanmeniensis, E. sivalensis, E. namadicus ), Europe (E. stenonis, E. livenzovensis ) and then Africa ( E. koobiforensis ). A later invasion brought to Eurasia E. hemionus and E. caballus. Equus also dispersed in the middle and late Pleistocene into Southern America. With the exception of Australia and Antarctica, it had a worldwide distribution and survived undisturbed until about 10,000 years ago, when overhunting by praehistoric men brought it to a drastic reduction in Eurasia and to extintion in the Americans, where it was reitroduced in post-Columbian times.

Apropos to nothing, but when I lived in Milwaukee there was a popular bar-dice game called "horse". The only other place I encountered "horse" was in working-class bars in San Francisco. I wonder if DJS is involved in some way.

Hope your foot heals.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 16, 2001.

Little Nipper,

Ecological Imperialism describes how European plants colonized North America even faster than the people did so that nowadays about 70% of the plants in America are of European origin. It is a forerunner to Diamond's book in the sense of treating peoples and their plants and animals as a package deal.

and for anyone else reading this long thread

Part of Diamond's thesis is that the east-west shape of Eurasia gave a much bigger region of the same climatic zone for a variety of plants and anumals compatible with domestication to develop. The Americas and Africa are split up into incompatible zones by their north-south structure. Moreover Africa had plenty of animals but they turned out to be too fierce--maybe from having to learn to survive with humans around from the start while the Americas were impoverished in terms of animals. Perhaps, being too far from the origins of humans, they were too easy to kill off. Diamond, by the way, thinks humans from these impoverished cultures are slightly smarter than those from mainline civilization because they experienced more evolutionary pressure.

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), June 17, 2001.

Rip spake thusly:

"Ah ‘Remember’, looks like you have once again yanked ADH’s chain."

Noooooo. ADH jerked Remember's chain. Do try harder to keep all this straight, because I don't always have the time to straighten your ass out.

"Hard to believe a pussy like him (I guess it’s a him) could find the time to drag his punk ass away from the keyboard long enough to hit the doughnut shop."

Pussy? Moi? No, but I DO love the taste! And I don't eat doughnuts, as they don't help one's physique. And as regards dragging my "punk ass away from the keyboard," well, I've been away on vacation without my laptop, and therefore gone from this board for about a week. Done! Any further objections, shitwit?

"You are doing a great job of ripping him a new asshole"

No. Remember is a liar and is bereft of reason and logic. He is unable even to wipe his own asshole, let alone rip me a new one.

"and don’t cha just love watching him spout and pout?"

That would be Remember who spouts and pouts. What a liar he is! Do you need me to recap that for you?

"ADH, stay on the porch boy….."

No. And thanks for identifying yourself again. Those fucked-up ellipses make it easy to trace your movements as you follow me around, leash-troll.

"you can’t run with the big dogs."

Wrong. I have all you little yappy rat-dogs on one big leash. You do not run at all without permission from me. Get used to it.

Some dipshit trying to use my handle prattled in this manner:

"Run for your lives! ADH must be Dennis Olson."

No. And bear in mind that "size" does not mean "obesity." Many members of the NFL are sizable men, yet not fat.

"Who IS this laughable fool?"

I am your owner, that's who.

Some alchemist claimed that:

"ADH = Hawk. He had the same "conversation" with Boswell."

Wrong. I am not Hawk. Hawk is as bereft of reason as Remember. Hawk had naught but vitriol, whereas I have vitriol and intelligence.

Some little pussy named Remember said that:

"I think Already has been sold for a carton of smokes one too many times. So much misdirected latent homosexual rage."

For someone who claims to have grown out of adolescent insults in the eighth grade, you sure do call people "fag" an awful lot. And for an alleged heterosexual, you sure do use a lot of gay imagery.

Latte, meet Remember. Remember, meet Latte. You're both a couple of repressed fagboys, but don't sweat it. There are a lot of straight people on this board who will accept you for what you are. I'm straight and I'll certainly accept you. Just keep your Palmolive- oiled hands off me.

"Sorry to interupt your whole male leather-bondage fantasy. Don't worry, Already, I'll let you get back to your photo of Richard Simmons and bath towel in a minute."

No, Remember, I am not gay. Remember how you said you were beyond grade-school insults? You have again proven yourself a liar. Do you not see the hole you have dug for yourself?

"Just post your name, prisoner number and where you are currently incarcerated. When you're paroled, I'll be easy enough to find."

I have never been incarcerated, and I am ready to meet you immediately. Now stop lying and dodging, Remember. You yourself said that it was a "shame" that I would never show up on your doorstep. Well, there's no need for it to be a shame! I am ready and willing to show up on your doorstep and give you the asskicking you so richly deserve, so drop the coward shit and tell us all where you live.

Pussy.

"Do you really think this is "Hawk?" Again? I thought his mother had grounded him from using the computer."

No. I am not Hawk. And my mother stopped having any say-so over my life a long, long time ago.

And then Hmmmmm chimed in:

"It's sad, really. In just a couple of posts, ADH has reduced Remember to questioning his sexual orientation,"

Because Remember has no reason to attack me or Nipper so. And when confronted with evidence of his lies, he seeks to deflect attention from himself. QED.

"and Remember has made ADH completely forget that he hasn't responded to any of ADHs point about Remember's petty attacks of LN."

I haven't forgotten. The more I make Remember rave, the more he spotlights those very attacks. He's just helping me along, and I am making him do it. Internet Judo.

Then Remember comes back with:

"Keep guessing, Hmmm, and don't worry about the actual conversation happening around you. As for sexual orientation, I don't have a problem with mentally stable, reasonable gays and lesbians."

Sure you do. If not, then you wouldn't insinuate that someone is gay as a way to insult them. But you're the one bringing homosexuality up, and you bring it up a LOT. I don't think it would be out of line to observe that you yourself may be a latent homosexual, for whatever that's worth.

But whatever your sexual orientation may be, the point is that you are a liar, and you have smeared the character of posters here without reason and without regard to the truth. You are an ass, Remember, and you are now my leash-toy. And you might be gay, but I don't really care if you are.

"Already, however, has some deep-seated emotional and sexual identity problems."

No. And how you might know that from a few posts on an Internet message board is beyond all reason. Do the little fairies speak to you at night, too? Are there trolls living under your bed?

"The whole "I'll make you my bitch" speech reeks of repressed homosexuality and rage."

Thaaaaaaaaaat's VERY interesting. Never once did I say "I'll make you my bitch." Never once did I suggest it. Show me where I either said it or suggested it, lying sack of shit. SHOW ME.

"Let's hope the guy gets some therapy soon."

Actually, Remember, I think you need some worse than I do. You seem to have an almost pathological aversion to the truth, and you seem to need to invent things that you wish your opponents had said, but which they did not actually say.

To which Hmmmmmm responded:

"There you go again with the insults. "I don't have a problem, but my opponent is probably gay and obviously mentally unstable, " It's easy to imagine you thinking "Hey, if I deflect this criticism in just the right way, I can get a double barb on ADH and put all the blame on him," Completely transparent."

Exactly right, Hmmmm.

"But don't think I'm picking on you, I'm sure I'll have some more analysis for ADH when he comes back.

Well, I'm all ears. Please share.

Then someone named Big Gay Al says:

"Remember, ADH never once threatened or offered to make you his bitch. That's something you apparently made up either out of some irrepressible urge to lie about ADHs position or an irrepressible urge to become ADH's bitch."

BINGO, Al.

So which is it, Remember?

"ADH, if you're not interested in Remember I might have a meaty part for him. I'll bet he could gnaw the bark off my big log like an Oregon sawmill."

Um, Al, whatever floats your boat. I only keep Remember around to use as a punching bag. As far as anything else goes, you can have him for whatever you want.

Then some irritated person said:

"ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THIS? SHAME ON YOU!"

Fuck you, pal.

At which point Anita responded:

"This was another interesting thread, Paracelsus. I never did understand what LN's opinion on it had to do with folks who wore Birkenstock sandals, but someday I might get the memo."

Well, Anita, I never got that memo either. But Nipper explained thusly:

"In ADH's immortal word: bloviation."

Nipper, that's a big 10-4, good buddy.

And then someone who may or may not have been Helen posted this gem:

"The sponsor of this thread is the letter "B". This week's new words: Birkenstock, Bitch-slap, and Bloviate."

(ADH applauds earnestly and enthusiastically)

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 19, 2001.

Well, well, look what came up for air!

-- This (fool@will.drool), June 19, 2001.

"YOU obstruct the evacuation of your bowels with your own cranium!"

-- "YOU evacuate your bowels through your posts!"

-- I'll have the regular, please. (s@me.sdd), June 19, 2001.

And look what crawled out from under its rock!

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 19, 2001.

Dandelion:

Ecological Imperialism describes how European plants colonized North America even faster than the people did so that nowadays about 70% of the plants in America are of European origin.

Where did you get that piece of information? I can tell you that it totally incorrect; unless you can justify it from some obscure journal that I haven't seen.

I am interested in your response and data.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 19, 2001.

By-the-by:

To get a feeling of the meaning of the original post, you need to visit the "jumps" in Montana. Two hundred foot thick layer of bones. They drove the animals over the cliffs and collected what they wanted. Very wasteful. Some funny stories here that I got from a Cheyenne chief. But another time.

Oh, well, they were the noble savages, in complete equilibrium with their environment.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 19, 2001.

“I can tell you that it totally incorrect; unless you can justify it from some obscure journal that I haven't seen.”

Implying of course that you have read most of the others. I can only hope that you are not this big of an asshole IRL.

-- I'm (Z@C.me), June 20, 2001.

Z, It's been several years since I read Ecological Imperialism (Alfred Crosby) so I went over to the library to get a copy to see if I remembered it adequately. His references are mostly other books although I did notice "The Population Biology of Dandelions" from American Scientist 59 (1971). I'm not up to chasing the references to his set of books and light journal articles, so I will try to make more precise what he says. First off he restricts himself to so-called Neo-European areas which would include the eastern third of the US but not the deserts in the southwest. Secondly he counts only "weeds", so the claim is not about numbers of species. Presumably a lot of individual plants are either weeds or crops.

Here is a quote from the book. "A twentieth century reconnaissance of the San Joaquin Valley revealed that introduced plants 'constituted 63 per cent of the herbaceous vegetation in the grassland types, 66 per cent in the woodland, and 54 per cent in chaparral.'" (He is quoting a source, but the footnote lists 7 different sources (maybe they all agree?).

Another quote. "Sixty percent of the more important farmland weeds in Canada are European. Of the 500 equivalents in the United States, 258 are from the Old World, 177 specifically from Europe.

The discussion of weeds constitutes one chapter. There are other chapters on animals and diseases. The first half of the book is more introductory.

In recalling a figure of 70%, I probably remembered an approximate upper extreme from the examples.

dandelion

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), June 20, 2001.

Dandelion:

Thanks for the trouble. The question is what does he mean by 70%. Is that 70% of the species, or 70% of the total plants [I'm not sure how one would get those numbers]. In some crops he could be correct species-wise. Looking at the major crops which take up most of the land: Wheat is Asian-European. Soya beans are from Asia. Maize is from North America. Milo African. When we look at pasture [which takes up more land than the above crops] it is mostly European or Asian [the separation between those two continents is somewhat artifical] or from North Africa. Indeed we have a fescue belt. If we look at trees, the argument is not so good. Of course many of our vegetable crops originated in North or South America [remember that Central America is North America]. These don't use all that much land.

I will have a look at how he arrived at those numbers when I get home. I doubt that he is correct when dealing with the % of species, but I could be wrong.

It is clear that we have a lot of introduced species, but here the native warm season grasses are taking the land back from the introduced grasses as soon as management stops. I expect to see more of this. Of course, very little stops endophyte infected fescue.

Once again, thanks for the reference.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 20, 2001.

Z,

I have another book by Alfred Crosby titled The Measure of Reality which I haven't read. In the credentials on the back it says he is a Professor of American Studies, History, and Geography at the University of Texas in Austin. Ecological Imperialism won the 1986 Phi Beta Kappa book prize and has been translated into 6 other languages. His first sentence in this other book sets out his agenda. "This is the third book I have written in my lifelong search for explanations for the amazing success of European imperialism." This is the same agenda as in the Jared Diamond book that started this thread.

The 70% was my rough summary. As far as total plants vs. species, I suspect there may be some of each type of estimate in his details, but I had in mind total plants in trying to summarize. In any case, he would make his point with some other figure like 30% since he just wants to say that the invading plants played a significant role. I thought it interesting that the introduced plants spread west faster than the colonists.

I'll keep an eye on this thread in case you have any comments after looking at where his figures came from.

dandelion

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), June 21, 2001.

Dandelion:

Yes, I agree with your analysis. I will be interested in reading this information. I should be home this weekend and will be able to look at his comments. Hopefully, I will have the time. Your points are well taken.

I will see what he has to say and get back to you on this thread or a new one; what ever is appropriate.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 21, 2001.