Malcolm
7/25/2009 6:53:00 PM
In article <41fm65ddt5fg911lqmjcuh9gj93tmc9bsj@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
<fjmccall@gmail.com> writes
>Malcolm <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:
>:In article <50pk65dhha7jhg1iach151gs6faobfg3j2@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
>:<fjmccall@gmail.com> writes
>:>Malcolm <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:>
>:>:
>:>:In article <c9dj65hl016ridikomj1asmbvumpj8tc7k@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
>:>:<fjmccall@gmail.com> writes
>:>:>Malcolm <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:>:
>:>:>:In article <243h651s8f0la3ft772fv690anktq7v3ds@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
>:>:>:<fjmccall@gmail.com> writes
>:>:>:>Malcolm <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:In article <oqug65tijbt66t76jn8g599sifiad1edm6@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
>:>:>:>:<fjmccall@gmail.com> writes
>:>:>:>:>Malcolm <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:In article <4jrg65hmihfjtja1pmmp26fjsiuqi322mj@4ax.com>, Fred
>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:<fjmccall@gmail.com> writes
>:>:>:>:>:>Malcolm <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:>:In article <dfbe651mbon68q94oei7gpmhlc5gd3785i@4ax.com>, Fred
>:>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:>:<fjmccall@gmail.com> writes
>:>:>:>:>:>:>"deemsbill@aol.com" <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote:
>:>:>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:>:>: The difference is a wild population usually fits into the
>:>:>:>:>:>:>:environment while a feral population doesn't. Pigs turn feral very
>:>:>:>:>:>:>:quickly.....by that I mean they take on characteristics of
>:>:>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:>:>:cousins.
>:>:>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>:>:>Feral animals are generally also more dangerous than their wild
>:>:>:>:>:>:>relatives.
>:>:>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:>:Hmm, can you quote some evidence for that?
>:>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>:>Wolves, etc, only attack for food. Feral dogs attack for sport.
>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:Animals don't indulge in "sport". Some appear to "play", but
>:>:>:>:>:not "sport"
>:>:>:>:>:and certainly not attacking for "sport".
>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>Sorry to learn of your deficient language skills.
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:So'm I, because I have no such deficiency!
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>Hint: "For sport" means "for fun" and has nothing to do with
>:>:>:>:>'sports'.
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:Wrong. Your own language skills are certainly deficient if you think
>:>:>:>:that that is the only meaning!
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>The phrase is 'for sport', not 'in sport' or 'as sport', which mean
>:>:>:>other things.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:><yawn>
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:Get some more sleep and stop attempting to split hairs that don't exist.
>:>:>:Try counting feral animals instead.
>:>:>:
>:>:>
>:>:>Try having a friend show you what a clue looks like, so you can
>:>:>recognize one in future.
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:Oh dear, you really can't cope, can you, without childish insults.
>:>:
>:>
>:>You started it with the remark immediately preceding it. If you don't
>:>like it, don't do it. You get what you give.
>:>
>:>:>:>:>:>Wild
>:>:>:>:>:>boar typically only attack when pressed. Feral hogs have been known
>:>:>:>:>:>to attack for no bloody reason at all.
>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:I doubt that very much. Animals don't do that. There is always
>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>But the reason may be that they're just bad tempered.
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:No. There has to be a reason - a cause, a stimulus, if you like.
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>It may be something as simple as "I see you"....
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:No, it won't be just that. That's not how animals behave. It will be "I
>:>:>:see you in my territory", "I see you as food", "I see you as a threat",
>:>:>:etc., but never as "I see you as something I can have 'fun' or 'sport'
>:>:>:with".
>:>:>:
>:>:>
>:>:>Why, of course not. I mean, it's not like animals have brains,
>:>:>emotions, or anything like that, right?
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:But you mustn't attribute human brains, emotions or anything like that,
>:>:right?
>:>:
>:>
>:>No, but it's not all 'instinct' like some want to claim, either.
>:>
>:
>:Some may want to claim that. I haven't. Learning is as important as
>:instinct in many cases.
>:
>
>But you still seem insistent on the idea that they don't have
>'emotions', 'character traits', or any of that. Why, they never do
>anything just because they enjoy it...
>
I go on the evidence. If you know better, produce it.
>:
>:>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>:>Plus, as Deems noted, wild animals tend to be more wary of human
>:>:>:>:>:>beings.
>:>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>:That's far too sweeping a statement. There are a great many different
>:>:>:>:>:wild animals which have no fear of humans, or show curiosity regarding
>:>:>:>:>:them, including from my own experience a number of different
>:>:>:>:>:species of
>:>:>:>:>:primates, seals, bears, deer, birds, cetaceans, foxes, etc., etc., not
>:>:>:>:>:to mention skunk!
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>Believe what you like.
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:I like facts!
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>Yet your behaviour seems at odds with that.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:You're the one speculating, without facts, about the wariness of wild
>:>:>:animals, not me. I put forward actual examples within my own experience.
>:>:>:I await yours.
>:>:>:
>:>:>
>:>:>I live out here where we've got bears, lynxes, wolves, coyotes,
>:>:>mountain lions, etc.
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:Good for you. Perhaps those wild animals are wary of humans because they
>:>:have been hunted for too long.
>:>:
>:>
>:>Nope. We're not allowed to hunt them or even shoot at them if they
>:>come into town. There was a big furor here over a mountain lion that
>:>came down after some fires and staked out a local school as its new
>:>territory being shot by authorities.
>:>
>:No, I didn't say you still hunted them, but they were hunted over a very
>:long period, were they not?
>:
>
>People haven't lived out here for "a very long period". Besides
>which, all those animals are long dead. Are you proposing 'ancestral
>memory' now?
>
I've no idea what you mean by "ancestral memory" in this context. What
does happen is that behavioural traits are passed down through the
generations. See my earlier remark about "learning".
>:>:>:>:>However, personally, I'd much rather face a
>:>:>:>:>pack of wolves than a pack of feral dogs, all other things being
>:>:>:>:>equal.
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:Wolves are well known to only very rarely attack humans. Packs of feral
>:>:>:>:dogs, however, are indeed known to attack humans but they do it for food
>:>:>:>:and certainly not for "fun".
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>They do it for food EVEN WHEN THEY'RE NOT HUNGRY????
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:Oh dear, why are you shouting?
>:>:>:
>:>:>
>:>:>Because you're apparently too stupid to get it otherwise.
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:And now ad hominem remarks. Clearly you are not capable of carrying on a
>:>:discussion and making your points without indulging in them. But then
>:>:that's your style here, isn't it? In thread after thread, you put
>:>:forward your views and then as soon as someone with a better grasp of
>:>:the subject puts forward an alternative view, you start throwing your
>:>:toys out of the pram.
>:>:
>:>
>:>Again, you started it. If you don't like it, don't do it. If you do
>:>like it, you'll likely be killfiled shortly, as folks who enjoy that
>:>sort of thing are generally too fuckwitted to be worth bothering with
>:>except to poke occasionally.
>:>
>:
>:I did not start ad hominem remarks. You did as you do in thread after
>:thread.
>:
>
>Generally because one finds insulting snots in thread after thread and
>I give them what they merit.
>
Yes, like this:
"Poor stupid little git. This is why I said STUPID and ignorant. The
single thing that's even close to being right (although it's not) in the
paragraph and THAT is the one you fixate on.
Ignorance is correctable. Stupidity is not and will prevent you from
ever correcting the ignorance.
Run along now. You're obviously too stupid to seriously bother with."
"See what I mean about never learning anything from you? It's because
you're such a bloody liar that nothing you says can be given any
credence."
"You just get stupider and stupider and stupider. You're like the
energizer bunny of dumb."
"But then, we understand that. It's just that you're SO bloody thick is
all.."
"You just never get any brighter, do you?"
"The Phlatulant Pillock thinks there is 'Truth' (with a capital 'T').
I'll stick with the facts and leave 'Truth' to boronic idiotlogues like
him, thanks... "
That's the "Fred J. McCall" method of "discussion". Full of swearing,
insults, intolerance and downright ignorance in the face of points being
made. Still, if that's all you can manage, I guess that one should feel
sorry for you. Certainly, you barely worth wasting time on trying to
educate you.
>:>:>:
>:>:>:You must feel very insecure about the
>:>:>:points you are making if you have to emphasise them in that way.
>:>:>:
>:>:>
>:>:>Retaking Stupid Usenet Tricks 101, are you?
>:>:>
>:>:There you go again. Was it teddy this time or your rattle?
>:>:
>:>:>:Yes, many predatory animals and birds kill when they're not hungry
>:>:>:enough to eat it at the time of killing.
>:>:>
>:>:>Then they're hardly "doing it for food", are they?
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:Usually. There are circumstances where adults do it to teach their
>:>:young. There are also a great many animals and birds which cache food to
>:>:consume later. Examples of killing and then abandoning are rare.
>:>:
>:>
>:>Name a feral animal species (what we're talking about here) that does
>:>that.
>:>
>:
>:Mink have been reported as doing so, but not regularly.
>:
>
>I don't believe I've ever heard of the vast herds of feral mink going
>about attacking people and storing them up for later.
>
No, you wouldn't have.
>:>:>DOH!
>:>:>
>:>:You do have a *big* problem, don't you, with anyone who disagrees with
>:>:you.
>:>:
>:>
>:>Not really. I do have a big problem with people who think their
>:>assertions count as evidence.
>:>
>:
>:So what have you been doing other than making assertions and failing to
>:back them up with evidence?
>:
>
>You're the one claiming to know far more than I. Little evidence of
>it so far, I must say. See your very next remark, below.
>
It has become increasingly obvious, the more you post, that I know far
more on this subject than you do. Live with it and learn.
>:>:Try taking into account that your knowledge is not necessarily superior
>:>:to other people's. In this particular case, it is definitely inferior.
>:>
>:>I'd suggest you go read what you just wrote and take it to heart.
>:>
>:I have read what I wrote. I have also read what you wrote. I have
>:provided facts and mentioned my personal observations of a wide range of
>:species in many different countries.
>:
>
>Gee, me too.
>
But strangely reluctant to produce some actual evidence based on
personal experience. More bullshitting, perhaps?
>:
>:I am a biologist who has studied
>:mammals and birds for many years. I also try and keep abreast of the
>:literature on animal behaviour.
>:
>
>I, on the other hand, just stayed alive around them.
>
But obviously didn't acquire any knowledge of animal behaviour.
>:
>:Readers can determine whether this
>:counts for anything against unsubstantiated comments about what you
>:believe to be differences between wild and feral animals using
>:anthropomorphic comparisons.
>:
>
>I'm not using 'anthropomorphic comparisons'. That's just your claim
>of what I'm doing. It's a pure bullshit debating tactic on your part.
>
You have more than once mentioned animals doing things for "sport", for
"fun" and other decidedly anthropomorphic comparisons.
--
Malcolm