I'm just experimenting. I hate the word "blog" and am fascinated with how the net seems to nurture *everyone's* vanity.
dedicated to Evil Stormbringer and Wheeloffire
Published on January 17, 2007 By Philocthetes In Off-Topic
Evil did me right by starting his own thread on the "what's a thief" question. But a few posts later in that Grammar nazi sprawl thread, QuietlyObserving says "If we are to be a society founded on the Rule of Law, it would be prudent to maintain a healthy respect for language and the meaning of words, lest we slip into a dictatorship of unelected Judges."

This gives me a painfully beautiful opportunity to start a sister thread to Evil's, and ask you all to sink your fangs, fingers, etc., into the basic question "How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"

That's my latest hasty attempt at a longstanding interest in the gov't-of-law-and-not-men notion that's very popular here in the US. I've also known a few linguists and flirted with other philosphies enough to be taken aback by anyone who has too much certainty about the meaning of a particular word or phrase.

Unless you're a minor with parents who don't want you seeing PG-13 movies (I know we have some sharp youth out there, just want to respect your folks), I suggest finding and playing fword.wav before you finish a reply here.
Comments (Page 33)
44 PagesFirst 31 32 33 34 35  Last
on Feb 07, 2007
i didn't say that follow the link

on Feb 07, 2007
More evidence that theres global cooling, not global warming.

The funny thing is, the White House's only intelligable defense is "Its all a conspiracy to raise the Weather Channels raitings"
on Feb 07, 2007
that is better than blaming the whole thing on mankind
on Feb 08, 2007
a chimp can laugh but only if a human tickles


That depends entirely on how you define "laugh."

This is yet another open question that is driving animal behavior research. The Wiki isn't a bad place to start. I hadn't ready anything like it before, but it seems like *rats* might also laugh
on Feb 10, 2007
here is a new discussion idea

there are right now two human species on the planet
on Feb 10, 2007
there are right now two human species on the planet


Sorry but the definition of a different species requires the inability to procreate, or produce fertile offspring.
on Feb 10, 2007
sorry in the 70's 80's and 90's we were homo sapiens

now in 2006 they are using sapien sapien

and that is two species since i am sure that all of the homo sapiens haven't died yet

on Feb 11, 2007
Wait what, first we were Homo Sapiens now we are Sapien Sapiens...

Doesnt Homo Sapien, mean wise man or something. Doesnt Sapien Sapien mean wise wise.

That makes no sense.

Or maybe it means same man, i dont remember. Still doesnt make sense.
on Feb 11, 2007
acctually i just read the discription

sapien sapein means wise man

and

homo sapien has been reassinged to a group that lived 100,000 years ago


or it could just mean modern man

on Feb 11, 2007
what i have abserved tho is that non of the so called pre humans lead to us

we just appear in the fossol record some 10,000 years ago

almost the same timing that the bible says it happened

the last two pre humans neanderthal and cro magnum neither lead to mordern man although they try to make it sound like we come from cro magnum

on Feb 11, 2007
never mind the experts cant agree on who we are we are either homo sapiens or sapien sapiens or homo sapien sapien


all of which may mean wise man
on Feb 11, 2007
Don't confuse evolving standards for taxonomy (formal naming in biology) with changing "facts," and don't confuse the rise of "civilization" with the evolution of our species.

The fossil record shows that anatomically modern humans first appeared about 200,000 years ago. The agricultural revolution was about 10,000 years ago.
on Feb 11, 2007
so we came about before our ancesters the neanderthals and cromagnams

and don't forget that the neanderthals had a bigger brain than we do

the only problem they had was that they had to spend all their time looking for food

so no time to think ie dream
on Feb 11, 2007
Neanderthals are not an ancestor of Homo sapiens sapiens. They were a related species in the hominid family.

Cro-Magnon is a term used to describe the earliest modern humans in Europe, and since I'm of European descent, they are probably among my ancestors.
on Feb 11, 2007
the only problem they had was that they had to spend all their time looking for food


yes, all the nations that were blessed with native grain, became great. Aztecs, incas etc owe their might to corn. Egypt, Babylon, Israel etc owe their might to wheat. Then the Asian powers owe theirs to rice.

Anyone missing out on rich grain stayed tribal... good example being here in Australia. We have arguably the oldest civilisation - Aboriginal. And what do they have to show for themselves after all that time? Nothing! nothing but a few clever hunting techniques and thats it!

good grain makes all the difference, not race.
44 PagesFirst 31 32 33 34 35  Last