subject:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof
	ve...

text:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest
carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need
an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2013, 1:32pm (EST-3) From:
[email] (Gunner)
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:07:07 -0500, Frank <[email]>
wrote:
On 1/25/2013 9:57 PM, Thanks for all the FREE STUFF ! wrote:
On 1/25/2013 8:50 PM, deep wrote:
You stupid ass backward gun loons don't need assault weapons, high
capacity magazines or armor-piercing bullets.
AFAIK states require a single shot bolt action rifle for deer.
Autoloaders are legal in lots of states.
never heard of a state for deer with auto loader -- that includes
shotguns.
Shotguns in Delaware can be auto-loaders but capacity is limited to
three shells. You can also use a pistol on private lands with no
limitations except caliber and barrel length. Only muzzle loading rifles
are allowed besides.
Pennsylvania varies from area to area with rifles allowed in some
regions and only shotguns in others. No auto-loaders allowed but no
magazine capacity limit.
Another comment, with multiple tags you can bag more than one deer at a
time in Delaware. Think it's been six times that I've doubled on deer
traveling together - all with my auto-loading Remington 1100.
California, 3 rd limit on migratory game birds, no distinction in action
types
Gunner

======================

IIRC, Federal law in migratory gam birds specified 3 round max load, and
must be a shotgun- no rifles for birds alowed,
-----------------------------------

The methodology of the left has always been:
1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

--
"A man who can own a gun is a citizen. A man who cannot own a gun is a
subject."--

Unknown


author: Scout

subject: Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

text:
"Gunner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

http://www.gunsamerica.com/990708422/Guns/Rifles/FNH-Fabrique-Nationale-Rifles/Semi-auto/Other/FN_49_Luxembourg_30_06_Military_Rifle.htm

A lot of FN49s have been rechambered for something other than 8mm, .308 and
30-06 are common and popular choices.


author: Michael A. Terrell

subject:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest
 carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need
 an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

text:
AmyLeVere wrote:

   And when that Chrysler Hemi blew, he had a semi-hemi.


author: RD Sandman

text:
"AmyLeVere" <[email]> wrote in news:5104440a$0$1228
$[email]:

I believe you have that backwards, but you got your point across. ;)

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?


author: Stormin Mormon

text:
That should be painful. Mixed cliches in time save nine.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  www.lds.org
.

"Tom Gardner" <Mars@Tacks> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The blind teaching the deaf how to fly.


author: Gunner

text:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:41:36 -0500, "Scout"
<[email]> wrote:

Ayup.  The barrel in my 8mm is pretty pitted, though it still shoots
ok.

But having one in .308 would be nice as they arent on the California
ban list.  Same with an M1A...but unless I could trade for one...its
out of my reach at the moment.

Anybody want to trade a M1A for a minty Browning/Sako .243 with a high
end  Leopold scope on it?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


author: David R. Birch

subject:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof
 vest carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need
 an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

text:
On 1/27/2013 6:41 PM, Scout wrote:

I collect FN49s and have seen many, but never in any caliber other than
7mm, 8mm, 30'06 and 7.62NATO.  Rechambering would be useless, you have
to install a new barrel, like the Argentines did when they converted
their 7.65x53 FN49s to 7.62NATO.

I sometimes get a hankering to rebore my least collectible 30'06 FN49 to
.35 Whelen...

David


subject: Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest  carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need  an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

text:
And then his girl friend  bought a Yugo, and
was know as the semi hemi femmie.

"Drove my hemi to the levee, but the femmie
was dry.... gonna be the day that I die!"

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  www.lds.org
.

"Michael A. Terrell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

   And when that Chrysler Hemi blew, he had a semi-hemi.


author: SaPeIsMa

text:
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1548E77B33C7hopewell@216.196.121.131...

Most likely  he meant an hemi that wasn't a stick.


author: Wayne

text:
"Gunner"  wrote in message
news:[email]...

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:41:36 -0500, "Scout"
<[email]> wrote:

# Ayup.  The barrel in my 8mm is pretty pitted, though it still shoots
# ok.

# But having one in .308 would be nice as they arent on the California
# ban list.  Same with an M1A...but unless I could trade for one...its
# out of my reach at the moment.

# Anybody want to trade a M1A for a minty Browning/Sako .243 with a high
# end  Leopold scope on it?

Funny you mention the M1A.  I just bought one because it isn't yet on the CA
banned list.
It was on order before the recent "assault weapon" hysteria, and it was a
bit pricey.  Now they are
hard to find and getting top dollar.


text:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:48:00 -0600, "David R. Birch"
<[email]> wrote:

That would be a very interesting caliber!  Might not penetrate Level 3
armor..but would Certainly leave a mark....oooo yeah

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


author: AmyLeVere

text:
"SaPeIsMa"  wrote in message news:ke3574$n58$[email]...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1548E77B33C7hopewell@216.196.121.131...

Most likely  he meant an hemi that wasn't a stick.

#####
Yup.


text:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:41:28 -0800, "Wayne" <[email]>
wrote:

Which one did you get?

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


text:
"AmyLeVere" <[email]> wrote in news:51051b0f$0$9839
$[email]:

in
any

Then the question arises......why??

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?


author: SteelBoot

subject: ee question

text:
I have a question that Mr. Dorsey made me think of some time ago. I
asked him what the load was in an electrical circuit, and he gave me
an answer that had units of amperes. This seems somewhat
unconventional, since if the voltage source changes, in many of the
circuits I have experienced, the current would also change. That was
why I was expecting an answer with units of ohms, which would not
change with a voltage source change. Perhaps Mr. Dorsey (Dr. Dorsey?)
or someone else could explain this strange answer. I raise the
question now, because someone else recently answered me with Ampere
units when I asked them of the load in their circuit. My best guess is
that this has something to do with the transformation of a circuit
from a constant voltage source to a constant current source.

Please forgive my ignorance.

Julian.


author: >parr(*>

subject: Re: ee question

text:
"SteelBoot" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
| I have a question that Mr. Dorsey made me think of some time ago. I
| asked him what the load was in an electrical circuit, and he gave me
| an answer that had units of amperes. This seems somewhat
| unconventional, since if the voltage source changes, in many of the
| circuits I have experienced, the current would also change. That was
| why I was expecting an answer with units of ohms, which would not
| change with a voltage source change. Perhaps Mr. Dorsey (Dr. Dorsey?)
| or someone else could explain this strange answer. I raise the
| question now, because someone else recently answered me with Ampere
| units when I asked them of the load in their circuit. My best guess is
| that this has something to do with the transformation of a circuit
| from a constant voltage source to a constant current source.
|
| Please forgive my ignorance.
|
| Julian.

Driven by lemons into the scrota of gormles diblets, he mongs sundry
units of electrical measure, but of so many man-made units unrealising.

There's a hole in your logic, dear Julian, dear Julian;
There's a hole in your logic, dear Julian, a hole.

You are forgiven, my son.  In this decade, the laws of physics on
talk.bizarre have been modified to allow reverse impedance fluctuation,
provided solely that the recipients of the wisdom of the laws are
nulliparous and do not reluctantly melt when subjected to phase change.

For change is the essence of your question, and of the full answer.
Ohm's mhos serve the unchanging world of electron flow well.  But in a
changing world, we should remember Lisa's words:

With a henry, dear Julian, dear Julian, dear Julian;
With a henry, dear Julian;
Dear Julian, with a henry.


author: Mark. Gooley

subject: Re: ee question

text:
"SteelBoot" <[email]> wrote:

Uh, if one is thinking like an electrician wiring a house,
one talks of (say) a 200-amp supply for the whole house,
a 30-amp circuit for the air conditioner, a 15-amp one for
the outlets in one room...is that what you're thinking of?

Mark., confused
[email]


author: Aldo Pignotti

subject: Re: ee question

text:
[email] (SteelBoot) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

all an ee has to remember is E=IR, volts=amps*ohms, where R is the
load of a circuit, I the current and E the voltage. Everything
follows from that.

all a ce has to remember is that water flows down hill.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: ee question

text:
SteelBoot wrote in message

Really big Zener. Be afraid, very afraid.

This is one of those impedance trolls, isn't it?
What impedes a troll?
Nothing, if it charges along at the right periodicity.

Oooh, transients and surge currents, transformer coupling
in multi-layered pwbs, de good stuff.

De bypass cap is a pretty good cap,
but it wanders from freq to freq...

They're the same thing with a local sense switching power
supply loading remf into the working coil and filter fat cap.

Coils cracked corn and I don't care,
Coils cracked corn...splutter, drive
Drive,drive, drive...

The forebearance of FETs.

Scott's gonna jump my ass with another diode-protected
gate lecture, yuck, yuck, yuck.

Ditto.

                             Regards,
                             Steve

Yeah, I know.


author: Scott Dorsey

subject: Re: ee question

text:
"SteelBoot" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You have been talking to power guys.  We consider power distribution
systems to be constant voltage sources; that is, the output impedance
of the source is much lower than the resistance of the load, so that
the voltage is always constant and is independant of load.

In a system like this, since the voltage is always the same, it's
reasonable to think of loads in terms of current draw from the source.
Because, after all, what you really want to know about a device is
how much current it's drawing or how much power it requires (power
being directly proportional to current since voltage is constant).
This is why typical loads have plates on the back saying how much
amps or watts they require.
--scott

Footnote:
Sadly, in the real world, constant voltage systems aren't always constant
voltage.  If you have a damaged or undersized service entry cable, the
resistance in the service entry can lower the effective output impedance
of the current source, so that when you turn a load on, there is enough
voltage drop in the line to cause the voltage seen at the panel to
change.  In this case.  all your lights dim a little when the vacuum
is turned on.  This is bad.

They should tell you this stuff in Physics class instead of making you
do hundreds of stupid problem sets about ideal resistors.


author: *Hemidactylus*

subject: lactose intolerant hunter-gatherers settled on cheese?

text:
http://news.discovery.com/history/milk-ancient-africans-120620.html

[quote] At that time, Africans had not yet developed the genetic
mutations that allow people to digest milk, according to other research.
So, the Saharaï¿½s lactose-intolerant dairy farmers were likely making
yogurt and cheese rather than drinking straight from the udders of their
animals. Only after people learned to process dairy foods did their
bodies develop the ability to drink pure milk -- through mutations that
appear to have happened independently as many as three or four times in
Africa. [/quote]


author: Glenn

subject: Re: lactose intolerant hunter-gatherers settled on cheese?

text:
On Jun 23, 9:54ï¿½am, *Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

I haven't followed the thread close enough to know if it has been
established that these dairy farmers were not just cutting the cheese
and storing milk to feed to their animals later. Is the quote not an
example of a conclusion supporting a premise, or is it an example of
cutting the cheese? Could they really distinguish between milk or
cheese in the bag, or was it a bad bag.


author: Desertphile

text:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:54:57 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<[email]> wrote:

What did their human infants do for food?

--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself." -- Desertphile


text:
On 06/23/2012 12:54 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Blessed are the cheese makers:

http://www.livescience.com/21070-green-sahara-hosted-african-dairy-farms.html


text:
On Jun 23, 9:54ï¿½am, *Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

Sounds cheesy.


author: Ron O

text:
On Jun 23, 11:54ï¿½am, *Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

It wasn't just cheese, yogurt and butter.  Even today the lactose
intolerant cattle herders of Africa drink the blood of their cattle.
They do not kill and eat them unless they are pretty much starving.

Not only that, but juvenile humans can still drink milk.  Hunter
gatherers would breast feed their children up to the age of 4 years or
so.

Ron Okimoto


author: Kalkidas

text:
On 6/23/2012 9:54 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

I didn't know they had baby formula back then. Interesting.


author: Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

text:
On Monday, July 2, 2012 10:29:05 PM UTC+1, Glenn wrote:

It's prehistoric Africa and almost nobody had
a refrigerator.  It's reasonable to infer that
the human mutation for lactase was favoured in
evolution because the fellows who had the mutation
could hold their yoghurt.


author: Walter Bushell

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Desertphile <[email]> wrote:

Realitï¿½t ï¿½ber alles!

--
This space unintentionally left blank.


author: Mike Painter

text:
On 6/28/2012 5:59 PM, Desertphile wrote:
Even today a large portion of the population is lactose intolerant if
they go
for a few years after being weaned without drinking milk.

I'd guess the mutation was the ability to continue to drink it. My
question would be, is that a human mutation or a bacterial mutation.

(And why do we have those things living in our eyebrows?)


author: jillery

text:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:01:10 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<[email]> wrote:

Big nose!


author: wiki trix

text:
On Jun 23, 1:12ï¿½pm, Glenn <[email]> wrote:

Cottage industry?


text:
On 06/23/2012 01:14 PM, Ron O wrote:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7403/full/nature11186.html

[quote]In the prehistoric green Sahara of Holocene North Africa—in
contrast to the Neolithic of Europe and Eurasia—a reliance on cattle,
sheep and goats emerged as a stable and widespread way of life, long
before the first evidence for domesticated plants or settled village
farming communities1, 2, 3. The remarkable rock art found widely across
the region depicts cattle herding among early Saharan pastoral groups,
and includes rare scenes of milking; however, these images can rarely be
reliably dated4. Although the faunal evidence provides further
confirmation of the importance of cattle and other domesticates5, the
scarcity of cattle bones makes it impossible to ascertain herd
structures via kill-off patterns, thereby precluding interpretations of
whether dairying was practiced. Because pottery production begins early
in northern Africa6 the potential exists to investigate diet and
subsistence practices using molecular and isotopic analyses of absorbed
food residues7. This approach has been successful in determining the
chronology of dairying beginning in the ‘Fertile Crescent’ of the Near
East and its spread across Europe8, 9, 10, 11. Here we report the first
unequivocal chemical evidence, based on the δ13C and Δ13C values of the
major alkanoic acids of milk fat, for the adoption of dairying practices
by prehistoric Saharan African people in the fifth millennium bc.
Interpretations are supported by a new database of modern ruminant
animal fats collected from Africa. These findings confirm the importance
of ‘lifetime products’, such as milk, in early Saharan pastoralism, and
provide an evolutionary context for the emergence of lactase persistence
in Africa. [/quote]

Note "emergence of lactase persistence" hinted in the abstract of the
actual article in Nature. You know people who write press coverage for
research don't always focus on all the necessary background info. So the
article I quoted in the OP was incomplete on this one detail.


text:
On Saturday, June 23, 2012 6:14:39 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:

Right, but the new evidence seems to show
that milk was collected and used here.

Ideally you don't give them cow milk until
they are at least 1 year old, I think.


text:
On 06/23/2012 01:29 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
I think problems with adult milk drinking was at least implied. And
let's turn to Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/pottery-shards-put-a-date-on-africa-s-dairying-1.10863

[quote]Yoghurt may have made it on to the menu for North Africans around
7,000 years ago, according to an analysis of pottery shards published
today in Nature1.

The fermented dairy product left tell-tale traces of fat on the ceramic
fragments, suggesting a way that the regionï¿½s inhabitants may have
evolved to tolerate milk as adults."[/quote]

Ahem..."as adults"!


text:
On Jul 2, 4:48ï¿½pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

Perhaps. But I'll go out on another log here and ask why a story was
made up, if evidence of the existence of cheese was not actually
found. It is reasonable to infer that when prehistoric Africans pulled
on a teat they spilt the milk, and when other animals performed a
similar act it wasn't spilt. I don't know when it was that they
discovered a means to store materials including liquids, but cupped
hands into a stream always worked for me. Putting those observations
together doesn't seem like a hard task for dairy farmers.


text:
On Jun 28, 9:18ï¿½pm, Mike Painter <[email]> wrote:

Desertphile was apparently making fun of the science writer that did
not make the distinction between the functional enzyme in infants,
from function in adults.

The basal mammlian phenotype is to produce lactose as the main
carbohydrate source in mammal milk.  I don't know about monotremes,
but all other mammals turn off the gene that makes the enzyme that
breaks down lactose in the adult stage.  Juvenile mammals can make
lactase, but adult mammals (including most humans on earth) do not
make the enzyme as adults.  They still have the gene it is just turned
off at a stage in their life cycle where they are not likely to
encounter lactose as a food source.  Since dairy agriculture started
(only the last 10,00 years of human evolution) there has been a
selective advantage for mutations that keep the lactase gene turned on
in adult humans.  Normal non mutant humans do not produce lactase as
adults.  There are multiple independent and different mutations that
keep the gene turned on in various human populations.  We can sequence
the gene and identify the mutations in the various populations.  It is
just your usual example of random mutation and selection.  Something
that backspace keeps claiming can't happen because he claims that
natural selection is a tautology.

Ron Okimoto


author: Paul J Gans

text:
Mike Painter <[email]> wrote:

Gut, they mostly live in our guts.

My guess is that the tolerance is due to gut bacteria that are
actually able to digest it for us.  If we don't drink milk for
a couple of years, the population of those bacteria might either
drop to a very low level or vanish entirely.

What I do know is that the study of gut bacteria and their effects
on humans is about to become an enormous field with major implications
for a number of established medical notions.

--
   --- Paul J. Gans


text:
On Jun 23, 10:30ï¿½am, wiki trix <[email]> wrote:

Beats me.


author: Mark Isaak

text:
On 6/23/12 10:30 AM, wiki trix wrote:

Ghee whiz, we have a pun thread!  Let's milk it twelves wheys from Sundae.

--
  Mark Isaak          [email]
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
  honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
  pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume


text:
On Jun 23, 12:42 pm, *Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

They can't determine lactase persistence because lactose intolerant
humans can still drink milk if their gut microbiome has adjusted to
it.  You can't tell if someone is lactose intolerant by the fact that
they drink milk.  You have to do the enzyme test.  This just means
that if you keep drinking milk regularly and your gut bacteria are
geared up to utilize the carbon source in a way that isn't going to
cause diarrhea or cramps lactose intolerant adults can still drink
milk.  Not all Northern Europeans have lactase persistence, but milk
drinking is part of the culture.  Most humans can still get the fat
and protein from the milk they just can't metabolize the lactose sugar
in the milk as adults.  Even the guys that have lactose tolerance have
to compete with their gut bacteria for the sugar.  Probably why
lactose has the relatively rare beta linkage (chemical bond between
galactose and glucose).  Mammals may have evolved the beta linkage
system because bacteria likely could not break down the sugar and
babies would get more out of the milk, but the evil bacteria evolved
enzymes to utilize the carbon source and made that an even playing
field again.

Mammalian gut bacteria have evolved to be able to adjust to lactose
availability.  They did it millions of years ago before humans ever
existed.  The famous Lac Operon bacterial genetic work on elucidating
the complex regulation of lactose metabolism in E. coli regulates
lactose utilization.  E. coli only expend energy on making lactase and
lactose trans membrane transporters when there is lactose around for
them to use.  They have evolved to adjust to the fact that after a
certain age humans and other mammals no longer have lactose in their
diets.  So the bacterial enzymes that are used to metabolize lactose
are under tight control so that they are only produced when needed.

It would be better to get the bones of the people that lived in the
area and sequence the DNA of the lactase gene and see what mutations
the humans carried.  If they can identify what fat they had in their
remains they can probably get DNA.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Jun 23, 2:39ï¿½pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

The claim is that the immune system is developing and that human milk
is best for newborn humans.  It makes sense, but if you have a cow and
your wife dies in child birth, you aren't going to let the baby die
just because of an immune system that you know nothing about.

20 years ago baby formula didn't have omega 3 fatty acids in it.  You
have to wonder what we are still ignorant of.  My kids turned out all
right (both national merit scholars) and my wife was not able to
produce enough milk to feed them and we had to go to formula.  So even
though they didn't get enough omega 3 fatty acids they did OK.

There are all kinds of people and one size does not fit all.  My
brother had an allergy to cows milk and had to have goats milk.  Not
great stuff to have in the fridge.

Ron Okimoto


author: Vend

text:
On 23 Giu, 21:39, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

I think that was proposed as a way to prevent casein allergy, I don't
know if it works.


text:
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 1:06:37 AM UTC+1, Glenn wrote:

They had pottery.  And according to this version,

http://www.nature.com/news/pottery-shards-put-a-date-on-africa-s-dairying-1.10863

a /lot/ of the pottery has milk fat.

The point also is made that fresh /milk/ is
relatively uncontaminated and safe to drink -
/if/ you can digest it.


text:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 04:32:18 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

This raises a question.  What is the point in turning off the lactase
gene in the first place?  I understand it's unlikely to be of further
use in most adult mammals, but IIUC that kind of negative benefit
isn't sufficient to fix an active change like turning off a working
gene.  What's the problem with keeping the lactase gene turned on?


text:
On 06/29/2012 11:38 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:

Hmmm, I used to drink milk a lot when I was into weightlifting, often a
quart of skim at a time. Then I started drinking soy milk, for which I
developed a preference. Now I don't like the taste of cow's milk very
much and rarely drink it. I wonder if I would become more susceptible to
lactose intolerance. The Vikings had much input into my genome, so maybe
gut flora aren't all that important to me. And can't some gut flora
actually contribute to side effects of lactose intolerance?


author: Jerry Freedman

text:
On Jun 23, 5:48ï¿½pm, Mark Isaak <[email]>
wrote:

Joie de brie?


author: SkyEyes

text:
On Jun 23, 2:48ï¿½pm, Mark Isaak <[email]>
wrote:

I don't mean to be curd about it, but that's pretty silly.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes [email] OR
skyeyes [email]


text:
On Jun 23, 2:48ï¿½pm, Mark Isaak <[email]>
wrote:
Udders might get creamed.


text:
On Jun 23, 5:48ï¿½pm, Mark Isaak <[email]>
wrote:

Two Jehovah Witness mice came scurrying up to my front door this
morning. When I went to see what the commotion was, they said they
would like to talk to me about cheeses.


text:
On 06/24/2012 08:06 AM, Ron O wrote:

Could consuming live bacteria in yogurt cultures have conferred a slight
amount of lactose tolerance to non-persistent humans?

If so this could be a shift in phenotype allowing human genes to catch
up via genetic assimilation. Or at least people with the behavior of
consuming milk-products lower in lactose are the phenocopy of people who
would eventually be able to process lactose directly.

Either gut bacteria that reduce lactose without side-effects confer a
phenocopy on people or cultural practices of lactose reducing milk
processing do.

I looked at Durham's Coevolution and he's mostly talking about mythic
beliefs related to milk usage and how beneficial milk consumption is at
higher latitudes due to lower UV-Bs.


text:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:06:26 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

Until I read your post, I had assumed lactose intolerance was strictly
related to gut flora, ie intestinal bacteria break the disaccharide
bond and pass on the galactose and glucose through the intestine. IIUC
you're saying in paraphrase there are adults whose bodies can break
the disaccharide bond directly, without benefit of lactose-digesting
bacterial intermediaries.  That is the difference between
lactose-tolerant and lactase-persistent.  That's my 'something new'
lesson for the day.


text:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:24:30 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:

Of course not, you get another woman to
look after it.  Or, if you believe the
baby is a witch or something, maybe you
/do/ let it die.

We don't want a Creationist Claim that
evolutionists teach that evolution science
assures that cow milk is fine for new-born
babies, do we?  If there isn't such a
Claim already.


text:
On Jul 2, 7:43ï¿½pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

Does "milk fat" positively indicate cheese rather than milk? My point
is that, in the absence of knowing if testing could identify processed
cheese, milk held in a container like pottery could have had
applications other than for human consumption or for human consumption
regardless of a degree of intolerance.


text:
On Jun 29, 11:03ï¿½am, jillery <[email]> wrote:

There could be residual negative effects of having a beta linkage
enzyme functioning.  It could mess up other pathways for no net gain.
It is wasteful to make a protein that has no function.  You have to
make the RNA, process the RNA, transport the RNA to ribosomes, degrade
the nonfunctional RNAs, make protein, and degrade the protein.  It all
takes energy that is wasted for nothing, but this waste is likely
minimal compared to the waste that the cells deal with all the time
just because the system isn't optimal.  You have some genes where you
have to make an RNA of over a million bases just to throw all but
around 14,000 bases away to make the functional mRNA.  The gene is so
large that mutations are very common in it because random parts keep
getting screwed up at a rate over 10^-5.

So my guess is that the most likely reason that the enzyme gets turned
off is that there are some negative consequences of having the gene
turned on with nothing to do.  They probably should make the gene
always on in rats and mice and see if there is any noticeable effect
on adult animals.  You can start doing population screens and look
within human populations for those with it and without it.  You can't
really compare two different populations because they can have a lot
of differences just due to drift.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Friday, June 29, 2012 5:03:32 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:

Wild guess: it causes heart disease?  Maybe...


author: Richard Norman

text:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:57:04 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<[email]> wrote:

My impression is that gut flora contribute completely to lactose
intolerance.  That some adults stop making the enzyme, lactase, does
not produce intolerance.  It merely produces a lot of lactose in the
gut after consuming milk.  It is the gut flora feeding on the lactose
that produces the discomfort.

And those things that live in our eyebrows that Mike Painter asked
about are probably Demodex mites.


text:
*Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

I don't know.  But I do think that this is about to become a
very active research area.  So answers might be forthcoming.

--
   --- Paul J. Gans


text:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:06:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <[email]>
wrote:

That's a curdling thought.


text:
On Jun 23, 5:23ï¿½pm, wiki trix <[email]> wrote:

Cheeses yeast mite a swell.


text:
On Jun 24, 10:48 am, *Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

Such bacteria likely evolved in mammals millions of years before
humans invented the dairy industry.  My first guess is that they
adapted to juvenile guts getting lactose so that they didn't kill
their host.  It would be like killing the goose that laid the golden
egg.  There was likely further evolution once agriculture started.
They are sequencing so many bacterial genomes right now that we likely
will get a picture of what has happened in the guts of northern
Europeans compared to most Africans and Asians.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Jun 24, 12:20ï¿½pm, jillery <[email]> wrote:

Human populations that raise dairy animals often have mutations (there
are more than one that have happened independently in various parts of
the world) that allow the expression of the lactase enzyme in adults.
Normally the gene is regulated so that it is turned off in adults when
it would not be needed.  Once a mammal weans it is not likely to
encounter lactose in its diet, and mammals evolved the system where
the enzyme is only expressed in juveniles.  Agriculture changed that
for humans, so mutations that allowed the expression of lactase were
selected for in populations with access to milk as adults.  This isn't
a mutation that knocks out the gene.  It is a mutation that changes
the gene's regulation.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Jun 24, 11:04ï¿½am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

Beats me why anyone would make such a claim.  No one can deny that
there are different antigens in cows milk compared to milk from the
mother.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 4:22:43 AM UTC+1, Glenn wrote:

I repeat: if you keep milk in a pot, it soon
spoils and isn't milk any more.

A farmer today may feed milk from a pail to
an orphan calf or lamb, if he's determined to
keep it; it will have occurred to primordial
herdsmen to do this in the same situation.

Wikipedia on cheese doesn't incorporate the
new claims - and suggests that they didn't only
use p%ts, it is just that pots are the remains
that survive:

"Proposed dates for the origin of cheesemaking
range from around 8000 BCE (when sheep were
first domesticated) to around 3000 BCE.
The first cheese may have been made by people
in the Middle East or by nomadic Turkic tribes
in Central Asia.  Since animal skins and
inflated internal organs have, since ancient
times, provided storage vessels for a range
of foodstuffs, it is probable that the process
of cheese making was discovered accidentally
by storing milk in a container made from the
stomach of an animal, resulting in the milk
being turned to curd and whey by the rennet
from the stomach.  There is a legend with
variations about the discovery of cheese by
an Arab trader who used this method of
storing milk.  Cheesemaking may have begun
independently of this by the pressing and
salting of curdled milk to preserve it.
Observation that the effect of making milk
in an animal stomach gave more solid and
better-textured curds may have led to the
deliberate addition of rennet.

"The earliest archeological evidence of
cheesemaking has been found in Egyptian
tomb murals, dating to about 2000 BCE.
The earliest cheeses were likely to have
been quite sour and salty, similar in
texture to rustic cottage cheese or feta,
a crumbly, flavorful Greek cheese."


text:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

IIUC the way at least some genes work is they are turned on only in
the presence of the target chemical.  If that's the case with the
lactase gene, and I don't know that it is, then the cell would make
lactase only when it's needed, and so avoid much of the concerns you
identified above.

Again, I recognize there is likely some advantage to turning the
lactase gene off, else so many mammals wouldn't do it.  It just isn't
obvious to me what that advantage is.

As a follow-up to your previous post, would you confirm that the
source of lactase in adult humans with an active lactase gene, is the
small intestine itself, and not the bacterial flora within the small
intestine?


author: chris thompson

text:
On Jun 29, 2:16ï¿½pm, Richard Norman <[email]> wrote:

Most of the discomfort is indeed due to gas production by bacteria
utilizing the lactose in the colon. However, I recently discovered
that the loose stools are mainly due to the lactose itself- apparently
it draws water into the colon, which is exactly the opposite of that's
supposed to happen there.

Chris


text:
On Friday, June 29, 2012 7:16:57 PM UTC+1, Richard Norman wrote:

Surely the chief cause of lactose intolerance,
if you are looking at it that way, is lactose.
No lactose, no problem.


text:
On Jun 24, 7:29ï¿½am, jillery <[email]> wrote:

Ima cultured tart.


author: *Hemidactylus*

text:
On 06/24/2012 10:29 AM, jillery wrote:

I scream a blood curdling scream.


text:
On Jun 24, 9:29ï¿½am, jillery <[email]> wrote:

Much better than sour grapes over spilt milk.  Evolution is mostly
lost semen in a churning sea.  The cream floats to the top and species
get butter.

Ron Okimoto


text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Ron O <[email]> wrote:

Isn't that a genetic mutation of the regulating gene? Or perhaps in
the RNA?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.


author: Glenn

text:
On Jul 3, 2:40ï¿½am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

Why repeat it? Your reference below illustrates the fact that milk was
being kept in containers before the advent of cheese making. How soon
milk spoils and is unusable for consumption either by humans or other
applications is dependent on several factors, one of which is
temperature.


text:
On Jun 30, 3:35ï¿½am, jillery <[email]> wrote:

I believe all disaccharides are digested by enzymes released by
epithelial cells of the small intestine.

Chris


text:
On Jun 30, 2:35ï¿½am, jillery <[email]> wrote:

We can't tell what the answer is.  Mammals all inherited the system
from some common ancestor.  No mammals have modified it in order to
turn on the gene when it is needed, likely because it is never really
needed after weaning.

Instead of turning it off it could have been regulated to turn on and
off, but why?  It was likely the first solution that worked and all
descendants got stuck with it.  The mammals that didn't turn off
lactase after weaning didn't make it.  They eventually went extinct.
An intelligent designer may have made the gene able to turn on and off
when needed if the designer suspected that some mammals would
eventually evolve into dairy herders, but that is not what happened.

Ron Okimoto


text:
In article <[email]>,
 jillery <[email]> wrote:

Could be founder effect, and there was no gain from restoring it.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.


text:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 03:35:48 -0400, jillery <[email]>
wrote:

You describe the way the lac operon works in bacteria, controlled by
the presence or absence of lactose.  Eukaryotes don't control lactase
using that mechanism.  If that mechanism were to work in humans, then
you would expect lactose intolerance to be "cured" simply by
continuing to drink milk.  It isn't.  Lactase persistence in adults is
a well studied genetic phenomenon

Lactase persistence DNA variant enhances
lactase promoter activity in vitro: functional
role as a cis regulatory element

http://www.nlm.it/www.nlm.it/documents%5C2003_-_Lactase_persistence_-Olds_and_Sibley.pdf

or

  Evolutionary Genetics: Genetics of lactase persistence ï¿½ fresh
lessons in the history of milk drinking
  http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html


text:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:17:59 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<[email]> wrote:

The osmotic effect definitely results in loose stools.  Whether that
meets the clinical definition of diarrhea, for example as defined by
WHO,  is another question.  I was a little overreaching in writing
that the gut flora contribute "completely" to lactose intolerance:
they mere contribute almost all of the discomfort such as bloating,
pain and cramps, nausea and vomiting.


text:
On 06/29/2012 03:10 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
[email] wrote:

By George I think he's got it!


text:
On Jun 24, 4:37ï¿½pm, Glenn <[email]> wrote:

This must be stopped. Please give up Glenn. It's embarrassing for you
and it just makes it awkward for everyone else.


text:
On Jun 24, 12:20ï¿½pm, *Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

The Pentecostal Church has speaking in tongues, which is pretty cool.
But the Church of Ziontology takes that up a notch, screaming in
tongues, every god damned Sunday at 3:00AM in the religious service
formally known as "I Scream Sunday". How cool is that?


text:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

Ice cream to get butter every day, but nobody listens.


text:
On Jun 25, 8:47 am, Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

The ones that I have seen published are in the 5' regulatory region of
the gene.  The DNA sequence regulates when the gene is transcribed
into RNA.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:03:12 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<[email]> wrote:

Technical nit: the enzymes need not be "released" .  Some, as is the
case for lactase as well as the disaccharases sucrase and maltase, are
bound to the cell membrane.  Of course there is an enormous turnover
of these cells with them constantly breaking up with all their
cellular debris being released into the intestine.  I once learned
that you digest about a half pound per day of your own small
intestine.  But even those "released" enzymes are still bound to the
fragments of epithelial cell membrane.


text:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

???  If your answer above is to my question immediately above it, then
I am again confused.   If "we" don't know what part of the body
produces lactase, how can you say in your previous post that "...all
other mammals turn off the gene that makes the enzyme that breaks down
lactose in the adult stage."?


text:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:40:02 -0400, Richard Norman
<[email]> wrote:

Do eukaryotes use that mechanism to control *any* enzyme expression?

I know, hence my questions.

I'm sure it is, but apparently the results aren't well-known enough
that some people are still confused about the source of lactase in
humans.

Thank you for these links.


text:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:37:40 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<[email]> wrote:

Possibly, but if you just keep your distance, you aren't likely to
catch it.


text:
*Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

The rain in Spain flows mostly through the gut?

--
   --- Paul J. Gans


text:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:37:40 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<[email]> wrote:

There is a lot of things we eat that we can't digest but don't cause
discomfort.  We can all tolerate lactose in the large intestine.


text:
On Jun 24, 1:46ï¿½pm, wiki trix <[email]> wrote:

Tit for tat!


text:
On Jun 24, 12:28ï¿½pm, jillery <[email]> wrote:

The Kurds never get their whey in Iraq for the same reason.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Jun 30, 10:19ï¿½pm, Richard Norman <[email]> wrote:

The problem, of course, is that disaccharides are too large to be
absorbed into the small intestine.

When I said "released" I was using common terminology. In fact, the
enzymes that digest disaccharides are embedded in the plasma membranes
of the epithelial cells, as I am sure you know better than I.

Chris


text:
On Jun 30, 8:53ï¿½pm, jillery <[email]> wrote:

I misunderstood your post.  I thought that you wanted to know why the
gene wasn't regulated to be turned on and off like in bacteria.

If you want to know whether the gene is turned on or off, I only know
of the old test from the 1970's.  Hopefully they have better tests
today.  They used to inject a person with low level radioactive
lactose and monitor the change from radioactive lactose to radioactive
galactose and glucose.  It isn't a test that I would recommend today
even if the levels of radioisotope was acceptable for that era.  They
could probably use heavy isotope sugar and use a mass spec today.

Most of the lactase enzyme is produced in the small intestine in
humans.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:54:44 -0400, jillery <[email]>
wrote:

I was once told that eukaryotes do not use the operon concept to
regulate genes in groups.  That was some time ago and I have ignored
the question up until now, still thinking the same thing.  However
this paper rather convinces me that operons do exist in eukaryotes.
The title rather gives away the punch line:
   Operons in eukaryotes
    http://bfg.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/3/199

The source of lactase in human adults depends on definitions.  Clearly
the lactose digesting bacteria in the gut produce lactase.  However
lactase persistence is the phenomenon where the human gene for lactase
continues to be expressed so that the intestinal epithelial cells
produce a functional enzyme.  There is no question about that.


text:
On Jun 30, 3:36ï¿½am, jillery <[email]> wrote:

Jillery... what time zone are you in? I have a very chaotic sleipnir
pattern (too many legs), so I am all over the map. Are you strange
too? Or are you just in OZ?


text:
Richard Norman <[email]> wrote:

Hmm.  Are we all talking about the same direction of flow?

--
   --- Paul J. Gans


text:
On 06/29/2012 04:52 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
Cellulose is good for you, even if not digested. "They" say a high fiber
diet can work wonders.

If we had ever picked up hitch-hikers who could digest cellulose,
imagine the level of deforestation we would cause. Termites would be our
greatest competitors. But I imagine we would have ungergone and
extensive co-evolution with cellulose digesting gut flora and our
digestive systems would be different.

Or we could do what rabbits do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindgut_fermentation


text:
On Jun 24, 4:21ï¿½pm, Glenn <[email]> wrote:

Don't you mean udderly under appreciated, or a colorful metaphor about
boobs?

Just think what it would be like if we weren't mammals?


text:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:55:39 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

Are Kurds lactose intolerant?


text:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:09:06 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<[email]> wrote:

Yes, I should have specified that the membrane attachment is on the
outside of the cell so that the sugar can be split before it actually
crosses the memrane.


text:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:41:26 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

I regret any part I played in your confusion.  For my part, I remain
confused about your understanding wrt the source of lactase in humans.

In your previous post to which I originally replied, you wrote:

"They can't determine lactase persistence because lactose intolerant
humans can still drink milk if their gut microbiome has adjusted to
it."

and

"Mammalian gut bacteria have evolved to be able to adjust to lactose
availability."

IIUC you make here a distinction between lactose intolerance and
lactase persistence, that individuals with suppressed lactase genes
can still consume lactose without ill effects if they have the right
gut flora.

This raises a separate question about the primary source of lactase in
human adults.  When you write "in the small intestine", it isn't clear
if you mean the lactase is primarily from the small intestine itself,
or primarily from the gut flora in the small intestine.

I mean no criticism by my question.


text:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:34:41 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
<[email]> wrote:

The Twilight Zone?

I'm not trying to be coy.  I just don't see how it matters one way or
the other.  If I am "strange", and if it matters, and if 'strange' is
an objective characteristic, one can infer it from my posts.


text:
On Jun 24, 2:35ï¿½pm, Ron O <[email]> wrote:

The answer to both, of course, is 42.


text:
On 6/24/12 4:46 PM, jillery wrote:

They do not like getting half of their feet blown off by road mines, so
they are lack-toes intolerant.

--
  Mark Isaak          [email]
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
  honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
  pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume


text:
On Jun 24, 6:46ï¿½pm, jillery <[email]> wrote:

It wasn't methane that Saddam used on them.  We can ask Rambo.  "Yo!
Gurt! have a nice day"

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Jul 1, 9:12ï¿½am, jillery <[email]> wrote:

I don't mean to be confusing.  They can't determine lactase
persistence just observing whether someone can drink milk as an
adult.  You have to do the enzyme test.  Normal humans that can't make
lactase as adults can still drink milk if their bacterial content of
their guts have adjusted to the diet without giving them cramps or
diarrhea.

Bacteria have had around 200 million years to adapt to the lactose
diet in harmony with the mammal that the lactose was meant for.  Once
their gut flora has been established the babies have to compete for
lactose with the bacteria in their guts.

In adults the bacteria get all the lactose if the adult lacks
lactase.  This is quite a windfall if someone drinks a milk shake and
they are lactose intolerant, if they haven't had much milk for a
couple of months.  It can cause gas cramps and diarrhea as the
bacteria that can metabolize lactose bloom and grow and disrupt the
microbial ecology.

Lack of persistence causes intolerance.

Mammals were likely the first animals on earth that could make
lactase.  They make most of it in their intestinal cells so that they
can break down the lactose in their guts when they suckle.

Lactose uses a relatively rare beta linkage to join galactose and
glucose and bacteria had to evolve the enzyme in order to utilize the
lactose that mammals were providing for them.  Mammals turn off their
lactase production as adults when they don't need it.  The bacteria
inhabit the guts of both adults and juveniles and have developed a
different regulatory system where they can turn their lactase gene off
and on when they encounter lactose.

Ron Okimoto


author: Burkhard

text:
On Jul 1, 2:53ï¿½am, jillery <[email]> wrote:
<snip>

It is commonly defined thusly; The strangeness S is a property of a
thread, expressed as a quantum number, for describing the  decay of a
discussion on TO in strong and  lurking reactions, which occur in a
short period of time. The strangeness of a thread is defined as: S = -
(n (underlined)s - n(overlined) s}})

where n(underlined)s represents the number of strange posters in
favour of the OP  and n(overlined) s represents the number of strange
anti-poster to the OP


text:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:57:04 -0700, Mark Isaak
<[email]> wrote:

OMG!  What a stretch!!  I love it!!!


author: John S. Wilkins

text:
Ron O <[email]> wrote:

Well that whips me. Of course when Cheesus said "Blessed are the
cheesemakers", he didn't mean just them, but all dairy producers.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre


text:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

This isn't quite accurate.  Those bacteria are primarily in the large
intestine and, if we (or our babies) have lactase, then lactose gets
split and the pieces absorbed in the small intestine before the
bacteria have a chance at it.


text:
In article <[email]>,
 jillery <[email]> wrote:

Then you should love the comic strip "Pearls Before Swine", he has
them often, like today. Another example is the rye toast at Arg and
Tina's coffee shop. It's delicious when dunked in coffee. So Pig says,
"Dunk rye for me, Arg and Tina."!

--
This space unintentionally left blank.


text:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:36:15 -0400, Richard Norman
<[email]> wrote:

I'm still confused.  Perhaps if I tried a new line of reasoning.  I
will focus on two observations: (1) With most mammals, including
humans[1], there exists a lactase gene, expressed as infants in
specific cells of the small intestine, and is somehow turned off by
the time they mature.  (2) there exist methods of culturing bacteria
which also express lactase genes.

With the above in mind, I now consider a pre-dairy human population. I
see two paths for that population to becoming a lactose-tolerant dairy
culture: (1) people drink unprocessed milk throughout their lives,
even though they suffer ever greater lactose intolerance as they age.
Then sometime somewhen some lucky person inherits a modified gene
which maintains lactase production throughout his life. He doesn't
suffer the effects of lactose intolerance; bloating, rumbling,
farting, vomiting, and squirting.  So he is way more sexually
attractive, and his genes are rapidly spread throughout the
population.  (2) people eat dairy products processed with
lactose-digesting bacteria.  This provides two addition options: (2a)
people consume these dairy products after the bacteria consume all the
lactose, and (2b) people consume these dairy products while the
bacteria are still active, and the bacteria survive in their gut and
continue to express lactase as long as lactose is present, which then
provides galactose and glucose to the host.  Either way, there is no
need to wait for a fortuitous mutation as the issue of lactose
intolerance is moot.

Genetic studies suggest that lactose-tolerance genes are most common
in populations associated with dairy cultures.  ISTM this is evidence
that (1) above is the path these populations took.  Of course these
several paths are not mutually exclusive.

As a separate concern, I still don't know how the lactase gene is
turned off.  IIUC your cites, they identify gene loci which are
associated with keeping the lactase gene turned on, but they don't
answer my question.  Does the lactase gene automatically turn itself
off, perhaps after a specific number of cell divisions?  Or is it
turned off by a separate regulatory mechanism, perhaps triggered by a
lack of lactose in the environment? Since this is "a well-studied
phenomenon", it's reasonable to hope that answer is already known.

[1] because humans are apes, and apes are mammals, even if some people
think otherwise.


author: Ron O

text:
On Jul 1, 12:36ï¿½pm, Richard Norman <[email]> wrote:

I never took human anatomy, but the avian microbiologists keep telling
us that the upper intestine has a healthy microbiome.  It likely
constantly gets diluted by the passage of food and the large amounts
of intestinal fluid secreted into the upper intestine.  That all gets
concentrated in the lower intestine when the intestinal fluid is
absorbed, and the environment is likely different with different
species proliferating in the lower intestine, but we have a project
ongoing right now where we are trying to determine if we can predict
the upper gut microflora from fecal samples.

Ron Okimoto


text:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:28:57 -0400, jillery <[email]>
wrote:

You have two concerns: the down-regulation of the lactase gene and the
evolution of lactase persistence.  You also want to relate all this to
the ability of many microbes to digest lactose and to regulate their
production of lactase.

On the first.  The gory details are available in highly technical
publications like

  The genetically programmed down-regulation of lactase in children
  http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(98)70429-9/abstract

and

  Regulation of lactase-phlorizin hydrolase gene expression by the
caudal-related homoeodomain protein Cdx-2.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1218263/?tool=pmcentrez
 The full text is available free from that site

and

  Regulation of sucrase and lactase in developing rats: role of
nuclear factors that bind to two gene regulatory elements
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1218263/?tool=pmcentrez

These publications probably won't satisfy you because they describe
the mechanisms of gene promotion and activation but never come out and
say "the reason why the gene shuts off is X".

However it is commonplace for genes to be activated only during
specific times in development and only in particular tissues and cell
types within those particular tissues.  Even in the one cell and
tissue type that produces lactase the gene is activated mainly in one
region of the intestine and only later in the relatively short life
time of the intestinal brush border cell. Regulating the time and
place of gene activation, not to mention up-regulating and
down-regulating genes at different times and places is a general
phenomenon in the way multicellular animals work and so this
particular instance is not really remarkable.  However my impression
is that none of it has to do with the amount of lactose in the diet:
it is just how the machinery of the body works.  The fact that this
particular gene is "normally" (or, more correctly, "ancestrally")
active only during one period of the life cycle just puts into the
same league as an enormous number of other genes that are also
critically time dependent.

As to the second point: the evolution of lactase persistence.  The
classic story is the selection due to the increased nutritional
benefits of milk drinking in populations that already had pastoral
cultures with milk producing animals like cattle, sheep, and goats.
Note that even without lactase persistance, these cultures would
benefit from producing cheese which are generally low in lactose,
particularly aged cheese.  That is also a way of preserving the dairy
produce.  Also, butterfat is very low in lactose.  So using these
animals for milk in addition to meat is generally useful.

One idea is that mutations followed by genetic drift resulted in
populations that had the persistence allele.  Those groups
subsequently took advantage of that fact and developed a more
intensive dairy culture.  This is opposed to your speculation about a
population all of whose members tried to drink milk and then selection
favoring those few who did it successfully.  See, for example, the
introduction section of

  Microsatellite variation and evolution of human lactase persistence
  http://www.bioquest.org/scope/projectfiles/PCR_lactase.pdf

Populations that happened to have lactase persistence but did not use
that fact to their advantage would likely lose the persistence, again
by drift, the same way they gained it.

As to your point about bacterial (and fungal) lactase:  we do benefit
from them in the production of hard cheese which is then very low in
lactose, low enough to be generally tolerated by even the intolerant.
It may also be possible to populate the gut preferentially with
bacteria that consume lactose without producing the noxious
by-products responsible for the symptoms.  But that doesn't seem to
play any role in the evolution of specific human populations with
persistent endogenous lactase.  Similarly, the mechanism bacteria use
to control lactase generation is totally unrelated to the mechanism
mammals use, even though, as I found out, eukaryotes do take advantage
of the "operon" notion for some genetic regulation.


text:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 04:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <[email]>
wrote:

You are right that there do exist bacteria in the small intestine,
generally at levels about 100,000 to more than a million times lower
than in the large.  I have seen one source that minimizes the
significance of these

   Bacterial Flora of the Human Small Intestine
   http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=660202

but that source is somewhat old and newer sources ascribe somewhat
more importance to them, as in the summary at
   MicrobeWiki: Small Intestine
   http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Small_Intestine

There is also a disease syndrome called "small intestine bacterial
overgrowth" where the bacteria are in large enough number to compete
with us for nutrients resulting in malabsorption and malnutrition.
However I have never seen mention of this competition as a normal
process of the initial development and growth of the gut flora in
infants.

You are right that this is a potential problem and, in some cases,
becomes an actual and serious problem.  But it is not the normal
situation.


text:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:45:12 -0400, Richard Norman
<[email]> wrote:

"Won't satisfy me?"  I regret that you think my question is
unreasonable.

My understanding is gene promotion and activation are separate
processes from gene deactivation.  IIUC correctly you don't.  At this
point, my acknowledgement is all I'm going to say about that.

I am aware that many genes are active at a specific points and for
specific times during an organism's development.  IIUC you argue that
the lactase gene behaves similarly.  I didn't suggest the lactase was
remarkable or special or in any way different because it deactivates.
Nor did I suggest the lack of lactose was in fact the trigger.  I
presented that as an example of the kind of process I was asking
about.  I asked a question, that's all.  You don't know the answer,
that's all.  I imply no criticism or fault with either, and I hope you
infer none.

I don't regard your idea as opposing my speculation, but I agree I
should have explicitly included it.  Thank you for doing so.

Yes, I recognize that last bit from your previous posts.  Thank you
for again affirming this most important point.

Thank you for your additional cites.

Thank you for your reply.

Please do not reply.


text:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:56:55 -0400, jillery <[email]>
wrote:

You are quite welcome.

Please do not reply to my non-reply.


text:
On Jul 2, 3:56ï¿½pm, jillery <[email]> wrote:

You should calm down. That you have an issue is no excuse.


text:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:01:15 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <[email]>
wrote:

I am calm.  I have no issue.  I wish to avoid future escalation.
Thank you for your reply.


author: Michael Ejercito

subject: Bill Levinson On How to Deal With Terrorism

text:
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/27875/comment-page-1#comment-86309

If I were running Israel, several hundred Hamas members would have
died after Hamas’ recent massacre of four Israelis. Then I would have
had the IDF drop a cluster bomb on the Hamas members’ funerals–unlike
a civilized army, Hamas has no right to bury its dead–to kill even
more of them. I would brutalize Hamas until the traumatized and glassy-
eyed survivors were wandering like zombies in the ashes of their
villages.

If I were President of the U.S., I would make it known that terrorists
had better not demand hijacking victims’ passports to select the
Americans for execution or ransom purposes. I would say that new U.S.
policy is that terrorists are to cringe in the presence of any
American (I read somewhere that inmates of particularly brutal and
degrading prisons were required to “cringe” in the presence of the
guards), and back that up by killing terrorists, e.g. Al Qaida, for
the sake of killing them as opposed to “defeating” them. Had a
suitable target been located, i.e. no innocent people in the blast
radius, I would have used a nuclear bomb to make an example of Al
Qaida after 9/11, and/or poison gas, hollow point bullets, and so on–
noting again that terrorists have no rights under the Hague or Geneva
Conventions.

This is not something I would do for enjoyment–I would not enjoy it
although, if forced to choose between executing terrorists,
slaughtering animals in a meat packing factory, or euthanizing
unwanted pets in an animal shelter, I would kill the terrorists–but
rather out of duty to people for whose protection I was responsible.
There was a time when a virgin could carry a bag of gold, alone and
unarmed, from one end of the Roman Empire to the other without
anything happening to her or the gold, and that any terrorist or
bandit would cringe when she said “Civis Romana Sum” (“I am a Roman
citizen”). The terrorists and bandits had doubtlessly seen enough non-
citizens hanging from crosses for so much as lifting a finger to a
Roman, so it was in their best interests to cringe for the sake of
self-preservation. The Romans were also quite capable of leveling any
city that gave them trouble (e.g. Carthage) and killing or enslaving
all the inhabitants so nobody mucked around with them very much, at
least not until the counterparts of Obama, Harry Reid, and so on got
in charge of the place. The Roman Empire was therefore a VERY safe
place for its law-abiding citizens.


author: CUNTICA

subject: Re: Having Endless Fun with our Resident Psychopath, The Retard! <BG>

text: ...........................kill them all & let Allah sort them out!


author: Harold Black

subject: Re: Bill Levinson On How to Deal With Terrorism

text:
"Michael Ejercito" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Bill Levinson is a Jew who does not allow that people have the right to free
speech.


text:
On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, "Harold Black" <[email]> wrote:
  Prove it.

 Michael


subject: Re: GRIK IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Sep 17, 4:14 am, The Peeler <[email]> wrote:
   It is hardly surprising that a Nazi nithing like you would equate
defending the truth with sucking asses.

   More wisdom from Bill.

   http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=9446

Define and Dehumanize the Enemy: Jihadists as Nithings or Nidings

by Bill Levinson
It is an ancient principle of magic (which modern people recognize as
stories that reflect a society’s culture and psychology) that
knowledge of a person’s real or True Name delivers power over that
person. What it really means is that, if you know the person’s
psychology, you can gain an advantage over him. It is also well known
that the side that controls the language of an argument controls the
argument. As an example, Hamas terrorists and their enablers refer to
Israel’s military as an “occupation force” and terrorisitic violence
against civilians as “resistance.”

We have long sought a single word that strips the enemy of all
humanity, and reduces him to something less than an animal that is
worthy of nothing less than extermination. As far as we know, the
English language contains no such word, although “dreck” (garbage or
refuse) comes close. “Homo sapiens by BIRTH, subhuman by CHOICE”
describes Islamic supremacists perfectly, but it is a phrase and not a
word. We now propose to refer to Islamic supremacists as nithings or
nidings: a Scandinavian word that strips its object of all humanity.
Webster’s dictionary (1913) defines it as “A coward; a dastard; — a
term of utmost opprobrium.”

We remind readers who object to the dehumanization of Islamic
supremacists that those enemies are already attempting to dehumanize
Jews, and to a lesser degree Christians, with images that could have
come directly from Adolf Hitler. As they have chosen to sow the
dragon’s teeth, our position is that they must now reap their rightful
harvest: the complete hatred and loathing of all civilized human
beings.
nithings

Nithing or niding was more than a common insult, because Scandinavian
culture required its subject to fight a duel with the accuser or
become an outlaw: totally devoid of rights, honor, and even
recognition as a human being. Per the Wikipedia entry,

      The actual meaning of the adjective argr or ragr [= Anglo-Saxon
earg] was the nature or appearance of effeminacy, especially by
obscene acts. Argr was the worst, most derogatory swearword of all
known to the Norse language. According to Icelandic law, the accused
was expected to kill the accuser at once. …If the accused did not
retort by violent attack yielding either the accuser to take his words
back or the accuser’s death, he was hence proven to be a weak and
cowardly nithing by not retorting accordingly.

A nithing was devoid of all human rights, and he was considered the
enemy of civilized humanity: a perfect depiction of Islamic
supremacists. The word therefore strips the enemy of all humanity, and
degrades him to the status of a wolf or strangler (per Scandinavian
tradition) or a virulent disease like the Black Plague. Black Plague
is a deadly and contagious disease whose vector consists of plague-
carrying rats, while the Green Plague of militant “Islam” is a deadly
and contagious ideology that is spread by bipedal rats: nidings or
nithings, non-humans that raise violent hands to all of civilized
Humanity.

      The immediate consequence of being proven a nithing was
outlawing. The outlawed did not have any rights, he was exlex (Latin
for “outside of the legal system”), in Anglo-Saxon utlah, Middle Low
German uutlagh, Old Norse utlagr. Just as feud yielded enmity among
kinships, outlawry yielded enmity of all humanity.[63] …”Yet that is
but one aspect of outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the
kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind.”

The actual definition of a nithing is somewhat more involved and
complex, and it gets into sexual perversions and zoomorphical
transformations (Loki’s transformation of himself into a mare to have
sexual intercourse with a stallion, and thus beget Odin’s horse
Sleipner is probably an example), but the following line is pertinent:
“The nithing used its malicious seid magic to destroy anything owned
and made by man, ultimately the human race and Midgard itself[6], due
to its basically unlimited envy, hate, and malice that were nith.”

“Destruction of everything owned and made by Man” (the Palestinians’
destruction of the greenhouses in Gaza comes to mind immediately) and
“unlimited envy, hate, and malice” describe militant “Islam”
perfectly, and further underscore the application of nithing or niding
to describe it. The propensity for mindless destruction also appears
in Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series, in which a supernatural
enemy is known as the Unmaker: a personification of evil that is the
total antithesis of God the Creator.

      The Unmaker is the main antagonist in Orson Scott Card’s
alternate history/fantasy series The Tales of Alvin Maker. Never
directly confronted, it is a supernatural force that breaks apart
matter and aims to destroy and consume everything and everyone. …To
make something is to oppose the Unmaker, but a point often made is
that this is futile. By natural law the Unmaker can tear down faster
than any man can build.

This also is an outstanding definition of militant “Islam” or Islamic
supremacy: an ideology that seeks to destroy everything into which it
comes in contact, and with which no reason, negotiation, or compromise
is possible.

In summary, a nithing or niding is the enemy of Civilization, a
subhuman (through its behavioral choices, and emphatically NOT due to
its racial or ethnic origin) monster with total hatred and malice
toward all human industry and arts, and worthy of nothing but
extermination like any virulent disease. This is the word we will now
apply to Islamic supremacists and their enablers, and we encourage
others to do likewise.


author: The Peeler

text:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<[email]> wrote:

Bill Levinstein is a jew asshole who doesn't even live in 'Israel'.

<b'rissed>


author: Doug

text:
"Michael Ejercito" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/27875/comment-page-1#comment-86309

If I were running Israel, several hundred Hamas members would have
died after Hamasï¿½ recent massacre of four Israelis. Then I would have
had the IDF drop a cluster bomb on the Hamas membersï¿½ funeralsï¿½unlike
a civilized army, Hamas has no right to bury its deadï¿½to kill even
more of them. I would brutalize Hamas until the traumatized and glassy-
eyed survivors were wandering like zombies in the ashes of their
villages.

If I were President of the U.S., I would make it known that terrorists
had better not demand hijacking victimsï¿½ passports to select the
Americans for execution or ransom purposes. I would say that new U.S.
policy is that terrorists are to cringe in the presence of any
American (I read somewhere that inmates of particularly brutal and
degrading prisons were required to ï¿½cringeï¿½ in the presence of the
guards), and back that up by killing terrorists, e.g. Al Qaida, for
the sake of killing them as opposed to ï¿½defeatingï¿½ them. Had a
suitable target been located, i.e. no innocent people in the blast
radius, I would have used a nuclear bomb to make an example of Al
Qaida after 9/11, and/or poison gas, hollow point bullets, and so onï¿½
noting again that terrorists have no rights under the Hague or Geneva
Conventions.

This is not something I would do for enjoymentï¿½I would not enjoy it
although, if forced to choose between executing terrorists,
slaughtering animals in a meat packing factory, or euthanizing
unwanted pets in an animal shelter, I would kill the terroristsï¿½but
rather out of duty to people for whose protection I was responsible.
There was a time when a virgin could carry a bag of gold, alone and
unarmed, from one end of the Roman Empire to the other without
anything happening to her or the gold, and that any terrorist or
bandit would cringe when she said ï¿½Civis Romana Sumï¿½ (ï¿½I am a Roman
citizenï¿½). The terrorists and bandits had doubtlessly seen enough non-
citizens hanging from crosses for so much as lifting a finger to a
Roman, so it was in their best interests to cringe for the sake of
self-preservation. The Romans were also quite capable of leveling any
city that gave them trouble (e.g. Carthage) and killing or enslaving
all the inhabitants so nobody mucked around with them very much, at
least not until the counterparts of Obama, Harry Reid, and so on got
in charge of the place. The Roman Empire was therefore a VERY safe
place for its law-abiding citizens.

*************************************
All of the Jewish people who inhabited Jerusalem after the failed
Bar Kova Revolt had a VERY hard time of it at the hands of the
Romans. In effect everyone was punished and the Temple destroyed
by the Romans. The Romans also initiated a diaspora of all Jews
from Judea (which they renamed Palestinia). Of course, this all happened
after the fall of the Roman Republic.


text:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT), CUNTICA
<[email]> wrote:

Especially the jews!

Yup!


subject: Re: GRIK IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:23:37 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<[email]> wrote:

It is hardly surprising that a shabbos goy like you would equate jew
lies with the truth.

LOL

This link explains Bill.

http://bill_levinstein_is_a_jew_asshole


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Sep 18, 4:25 pm, The Peeler <[email]> wrote:
   You are a Nazi and a nithing.

 Michaek


text:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:09:36 +0800, Hallucinating The Retard, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj, IMPERSONATING his master, The Peeler, wrote:

<BG> You are a miserable housebound sick psychopathic swine that doesn't
even know how to live outside its dark stinking room.

Poor The Retard: it's about time you started thinking about and working on
YOUR problems that you can't ever hide! Ranting about "the Jews" 24/7 isn't
going to help you AT ALL ...as we can witness here every day!!! LOL


author: Ray Fischer

text:
Doug <[email]> wrote:

That's the way of the nazi - exterminate any opposition.  Inflict mass
suffering and hate and death.


subject: Re: GRIK IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Sep 17, 9:11 am, The Peeler <[email]> wrote:
   Nazi nithings' ideology is based on lies and invincible ignorance.
   He is wiser than you.

   That would be better than being a Nazi nithing.

   This link explains what you are.

   http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//m/morton.chris/what-is-a-nazi

 Michael


text:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:30:37 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<[email]> wrote:

LOL!  Why isn't he in 'Israel' fighting this alleged sand terror?

You are a craven gook who sucks jew ass.


subject: Re: Having Fun with our Resident Psychopath, The Retard! <BG>

text:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 00:11:14 +0800, Delirious The Retard, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj, IMPERSONATING his master, The Peeler, wrote:

Subnormal psychopaths like you do not even know the difference between truth
and lies!

Three letters only by you, and you manage to come across as a complete
retard, poor The Retard!

You only explained again that you are a complete retard. You NEVER yet
managed to explain ANYTHING else, poor The Retard! <G>


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:57:15 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<[email]> wrote:

That would be much better than being a shabbos goy gook.

You are a craven gook etc etc.


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4c9243bb$0$1635$[email]...

Yes.

Exactly what the ZioNazis are doing now. Particularly in the Middle East,
but to a lesser extent within the political proces of the United States.


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4c9243bb$0$1635$[email]...

Kinda like islamonazism has for the past 1400 years.


subject: Re: GRIK IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<[email]> wrote:

Your gook ideology is based on sucking jew and nigger ass.

He is a jew asshole.  And you are a dumb gook who sucks his ass.

Prove it, gook!

This link explains what Chrissie Morton is.

http://chrissie_morton_is_an_uppity_coon


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!!

text:
On Sep 19, 4:39 am, The Peeler <[email]> wrote:
   He keeps proving it with every post.

   He acts like a survivor of a partial birth abortion, the kind where
the baby's brains are sucked out.

 Michael


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:33:34 +0800, Delirious The Retard, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj, IMPERSONATING his master, The Peeler, wrote:

Why are your questions always as retarded as you answers, poor The Retard?
LOL

You are a sick subnormal degenerate perverted psychopathic swine who only
knows how to make a complete ass of himself online around the clock! <BG>


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!!

text:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:04:12 +0800, Delirious The Retard, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj, IMPERSONATING his master, The Peeler, wrote:

NOTHING can possibly be worse than being something like you, you miserable
subnormal degenerate perverted psychopathic swine! And the best part of it:
you know it yourself, you impotent loser! LOL


text:
Doug <[email]> wrote:

Neonazi propaganda.  It doesn't take much of an education to see that
it has been European Christians and Jews that have done most of the
killing, most recently with invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that
have killed about a half million Muslims.


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 01:34:40 +0800, Delirious The Retard, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj, IMPERSONATING his master, The Peeler, wrote:

Your Nazi ideology is based on imbecility, subnormality, perversion and
degeneration! And you KNOW it! <BG>

He is not like you, poor The Retard. Therefore he is, by definition, way
superior to you. It can't be otherwise. And deep inside yourself you know
that it is so! <BG>

LOL! YOU keep proving it here every day by your example, you hilarious
housebound impotent sexual cripple!

You only explained yet again that you are a complete retard, poor The
Retard. You NEVER yet managed to explain ANYTHING else! NEVER! LOL


subject: Re: GRIK IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:22:31 +0200, Roman The Grik Foreskin Peeler
<[email]> wrote:

Kalespera, Pants!
Why aren't *you* in 'Israel' fighting the alleged sand terror?  Think
of all the jew ass you could suck!

You are an illiterate, foreskin-peeling, overgreeked, unibrowed Grik
piece of semitic skata!  <Bugger Grease>


author: The Chief Instigator

subject: Re: GRIK IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 01:34:40 +0800, The Peeler <[email]> wrote:

Why am I not surprised, Nazi Boy Peeler?  What are you trying to do,
emulate your "hero" who's long since shuffled off the coil...like "Doc
Tavish"?


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4c92dba0$0$1611$[email]...

LOL. Tell it to the:

i. tens of millions of Hindus and Sikhs slaughtered by islamonazis in
Banglades
    and Pigistan (and still slaughtered/persecuted to this day)
ii. the millions of Christians slaughtered/enslaved by Turkish islamonazis
in Armenia in the 20th century
iii. the assorted kufars (mostly Christians) slaughtered/enslaved in the
Sudan/Darfur
    (in the 20th and 21st centuries)
iv. the Jews ethnically cleansed from Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Morocco
v. the 300,000 Iraqi Christians who have fled islamonazi persecution in Iraq
vi. the ~100,000 assorted kufars slaughtered by Indonesian islamonazis in E.
Timor
vii. the Cypriot Christians ethnically cleansed from Cyprus by Turkish
islamonazis in the 1970's

then GFY with a rusty jackhammer while raising your bunghole for allah.


text:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:34:38 +0800, Delirious The Retard, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj, IMPERSONATING his master, The Peeler, wrote:

<snip the usual psychotic garbage>

You no more realize that you keep sounding like a complete retard, do you,
poor The Retard? You've  just become toooo retarded! LMAO!

Looking forward towards your next idiotic and psychotic reply, my precious
punching bag. LOL


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Sep 17, 12:00 pm, The Peeler <[email]> wrote:
   So true.

   That would be better than being a Nazi nithing.

   He is like a survivor of partial birth abortion, the kind where the
baby's brains are sucked out.
   This article explains his pathology.

History's oldest hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
March 11, 2009

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4743/historys-oldest-hatred

ANTI-SEMITISM is an ancient derangement, the oldest of hatreds, so it
is strange that it lacks a more meaningful name. The misnomer "anti-
Semitism" -- a term coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm
Marr, who wanted a scientific-sounding euphemism for Judenhass, or Jew-
hatred -- is particularly inane, since hostility to Jews has never had
anything to do with Semites or being Semitic. (That is why those who
protest that Arabs cannot be anti-Semitic since "Arabs are Semites
too" speak either from ignorance or disingenuousness.)

Perhaps there is no good name for a virus as mutable and unyielding as
anti-Semitism. "The Jews have been objects of hatred in pagan,
religious, and secular societies," write Joseph Telushkin and Dennis
Prager in Why the Jews?, their classic study of anti-Semitism.
"Fascists have accused them of being Communists, and Communists have
branded them capitalists. Jews who live in non-Jewish societies have
been accused of having dual loyalties, while Jews who live in the
Jewish state have been condemned as 'racists.' Poor Jews are bullied,
and rich Jews are resented. Jews have been branded as both rootless
cosmopolitans and ethnic chauvinists. Jews who assimilate have been
called a 'fifth column,' while those who stay together spark hatred
for remaining separate."

So hardy is anti-Semitism, it can flourish without Jews. Shakespeare's
poisonous depiction of the Jewish moneylender Shylock was written for
audiences that had never seen a Jew, all Jews having been expelled
from England more than 300 years earlier. Anti-Semitic bigotry infests
Saudi Arabia, where Jews have not dwelt in at least five centuries;
its malignance is suggested by the government daily Al-Riyadh, which
published an essay claiming that Jews have a taste for "pastries mixed
with human blood."

Esther Confounding Haman (Engraving by Gustave Doré, 1875)
There was Jew-hatred before there was Christianity or Islam, before
Nazism or Communism, before Zionism or the Middle East conflict. This
week Jews celebrate the festival of Purim, gathering in synagogues to
read the biblical book of Esther. Set in ancient Persia, it tells of
Haman, a powerful royal adviser who is insulted when the Jewish sage
Mordechai refuses to bow down to him. Haman resolves to wipe out the
empire's Jews and makes the case for genocide in an appeal to the
king:

"There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among ... all the
provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from those of
other peoples, and the king's laws they do not keep, so it is of no
benefit for the king to tolerate them. If it please the king, let it
be written that they be destroyed." After winning royal assent, Haman
makes plans "to annihilate, to kill and destroy all the Jews, the
young and the elderly, children and women, in one day . . . and to
take their property for plunder."

What drives such bloodlust? Haman's indictment accuses the Jews of
lacking national loyalty, of insinuating themselves throughout the
empire, of flouting the king's law. But the Jews of Persia had done
nothing to justify Haman's murderous anti-Semitism -- just as Jews in
later ages did nothing that justified their persecution under the
Church or Islam, or their expulsion from so many lands in Europe and
the Middle East, or their repression at the hands of Russian czars and
Soviet commissars, or their slaughter by Nazi Germany. When the
president of Iran today calls for the extirpation of the Jewish state,
when a leader of Hamas vows to kill Jewish children around the world,
when firebombs are hurled at synagogues in London and Paris and
Chicago, it is not because Jews deserve to be victimized.

Some Jews are no saints, but the paranoid frenzy that is anti-Semitism
is not explained by what Jews do, but by what they are. The Jewish
people are the object of anti-Semitism, not its cause. That is why the
haters' rationales can be so wildly inconsistent and their agendas so
contradictory. What, after all, do those who vilify Jews as greedy
bankers have in common with those who revile them as seditious
Bolsheviks? Nothing, save an irrational obsession with Jews.

At one point in the book of Esther, Haman lets the mask slip. He
boasts to his friends and family of "the glory of his riches, and the
great number of his sons, and everything in which the king had
promoted him and elevated him." Still, he seethes with rage and
frustration: "Yet all this is worthless to me so long as I see
Mordechai the Jew sitting at the king's gate." That is the
unforgivable offense: "Mordechai the Jew" refuses to blend in, to
abandon his values, to be just like everyone else. He goes on sitting
there -- undigested, unassimilated, and for that reason unbearable.

Of course Haman had his ostensible reasons for targeting Jews. So did
Hitler and Arafat; so does Ahmadinejad. Sometimes the anti-Semite
focuses on the Jew's religion, sometimes on his laws and lifestyle,
sometimes on his national identity or his professional achievements.
Ultimately, however, it is the Jew's Jewishness, and the call to
higher standards that it represents, that the anti-Semite cannot
abide.

With all their flaws and failings, the Jewish people endure, their
role in history not yet finished. So the world's oldest hatred endures
too, as obsessive and indestructible -- and deadly -- as ever.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)


text:
Doug <[email]> wrote:

40,000,000 people who died in WWII?

Not interested in your perverted fantasies.


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:01:55 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<[email]> wrote:

You are a craven gook etc etc.

No, it wouldn't.  It would be even worse than being a gook.

You are a craven gook etc etc.

Fully justified by the behaviour of those on the receiving end.

<b'rissed>


subject: Re: IMPERSONATION ALERT!

text:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:53:55 +0800, Delirious The Retard, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj, IMPERSONATING his master, The Peeler, wrote:

<snip the usual delirious and psychotic garbage>

What's it like for you in your dark stinking room at 5 o'clock in the
morning, you sick abnormal psycho? ...lonely, desperate, frustrated and
miserable, as ALWAYS? LMAO!


author: [redacted]

subject: Lucky Dates with Bill Gates

text:
Bill Gates brings lucky days to you. We used Bill Gates horoscope and
the 10th planet

 producing a calendar of lucky days to pick for everything from stock
exchange to glamour.

 http://www.lulu.com/zodiac


subject: Re: Lucky Dates with Bill Gates

text:
E stands for Earth Zodiac, our next publication. The astronomic
zodiac, as opposed to superstition for the masses is ideal in
experimental areas such as transneptunian astrology, but also essential
in a parent.

 After a lifetime of being a "Scorpio" with astronomic Sun in Virgo or
"Capricorn ascending" when Pisces was rising at birth, one at least
spares ones children from lifetime distortions as brought by popular
astrology.

 The astronomic zodiac is based on solid ground as approved by the
astronomic elite.

 Klaudio Zic

 http://www.lulu.com/zodiac


author: Lambdascorpii

subject: Re: Lucky Dates with Bill Gates

text:
connard...

[email] <[email]> ï¿½crivit dans  le message
<[email]>:


subject: Re: Lucky Dates with Bill Gates

text:
In article <4331f122$0$59896$[email]>,
Whining crybaby Lambdascorpii <[email]> bawled because
the bullshit of astrology was being pointed out:

Putz


author: GMCarter

subject: Re: BBC Journalist -- Tibet activist

text:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 02:31:48 GMT, Tom Goodman
<[email]> wrote:

I cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of this article. Perhaps it is
all true. For the sake of argument, say that it is.

This is now 2000. Many, many nations have suffered from poor
conditions. Much improvement has happened that have helped many to
survive and thrive--regardless of the countries' particular political
system. But the fact is, REGARDLESS of the political system, none has
failed to adequately distribute wealth so that the poorest of the poor
are well-fed, house, employed (as needed), educated and their health
cared for. Our species is growing, I hope, in some wisdom. We must
hurry now, sensibly and with compassion, because a failure to do so
may result in our extinction.

But do the poor conditions described therein justify Chinese
government oppression? I do not think so. That is merely hypocrisy.

		George M. Carter


author: Matthew Salter

subject: Re: BBC Journalist -- Tibet activist

text:
GMCarter wrote in message <[email]>...

<snip>

George, don't even bother replying.  Goodman is just a hate-filled,
Westerner-hating psycopath who lives in a dream world in which the only
arbiter of truth is the ghostly voice in his head.  To treat his Han-fascist
diatribes as serious argument is to to him too much credit and demean
yourself.

Matthew


subject: Re: BBC Journalist -- Tibet activist

text:
In article <8p2j56$q8i$[email]>,
  "Matthew Salter" <[email]> wrote:
<[email]>
and
only
fascist

mathew:

Whatsï¿½s in tom goodmanï¿½s ï¿½hans facists diatribeï¿½ that u object to?

Where did he get it wrong, tell him, Iï¿½d like to know too.

Or are u only capable of hurling insults? ï¿½ is that u idea of democracy
ï¿½ calling people all kinds of names simly ï¿½cause his view differs from
yours.?

I challenge u to answer my questions to jim walsh(ï¿½to the gents whoï¿½..)

jt.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


subject: Re: BBC Journalist -- Tibet activist

text:
[email] wrote in message <8p4b6f$4ia$[email]>...

Just read Goodman's posts in the archives of the past, oooh, four years at
DejaNews.  That should give you some kind of idea of what TG is about.  Then
come back to me and we'll talk about the nature of democracy.

Oh, and by the way the word "u" is spelt "you" in case you were wondering.

Matthew


author: deep

subject: Re: #Federal judge finds probable cause Fox News reporter helped leak classified docs

text:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:26:50 -0700, George Plimpton <[email]>
wrote:

Maybe you should go learn something about ecology dumbass.  All you
can do is play the capitalist games with words to suit your sick and
clueless ideology.

"What a maroon"  Bugs Bunny


author: George Plimpton

subject:
Re: #Federal judge finds probable cause Fox News reporter helped
  leak classified docs

text:
On 5/21/2013 1:18 PM, deep wrote:

This is about economics, dumb fat fuck, not <snicker> "ecology" (which
is a fake area of study anyway.)


text:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:36 -0700, George Plimpton <[email]>
wrote:

Maybe you should look up the meaning of indefinately you dolt.  It
means you don't have any idea how long.  You want to talk about an
economy growing forever, which is what you are proposing, then that
would be infinitely.  And since you can't have infinite growth in a
finite ecosystem, then your whole proposal is fucked.  And that's
ecology you idiot.


text:
On 5/21/2013 4:10 PM, deep wrote:

You look it up, stupid ignorant fuckstain.

in·def·i·nite·ly
/inˈdefənitlē/
Adverb

     For an unlimited or unspecified period of time.

You stupid fat fuck.

No.  It wouldn't.

In any event, there is no sound reason - apart from Democrat
mismanagement of the economy - why an economy can't grow indefinitely.
There certainly is no physical or environmental reason why it can't.


text:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:16:25 -0700, George Plimpton <[email]>
wrote:

Standard usage:
inï¿½defï¿½iï¿½nite  (n-df-nt)
adj.
Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence.
c. Uncertain; undecided: indefinite about their plans.

Of course there is.  We live in a finite, closed ecosystem.  We aren't
getting any more of numerous essential resources that we can't live
without.  Clean water for one thing.  I know an asshole like you
doesn't give a shit that already a billion people don't have access to
clean water.  And it's getting worse.  Fast.


text:
On 5/21/2013 4:40 PM, deep wrote:

No.  The definition I gave is th eone.

You're still trying to tie it to physical output, which I have already
instructed you is *wrong*.  It's *value* that counts, you stupid
illiterate fat fuck, not physical units of output.  If the *same* output
is created more cheaply than before, growth has occurred.

You don't know economics.  You don't know *anything* about economics.  I do.


text:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:30 -0700, George Plimpton <[email]>
wrote:

If if if if if if if...

You keep saying if but never offer one shred of data supporting your
absurd contention.

Liar.  You're an idiot.  Just because you say doesn't make it so and
you never offer one shred of evidence.  You're a fool if you think 7
billion people are going to require less physical output simply
because of technology.  During the industrial revolution productivity
might have outpaced demand, but not any more.  We haven't found a
replacement energy source for example, and demand is way outpacing
production.

You fantastically think that somehow we can grow INFINITELY without
any impact on natural resources.

Mind boggling.

You lose.  Get over it.  Get some help if you can't cope with reality.


author: RD Sandman

text:
deep wrote in news:[email]:

Good advice.  One you should pay attention to yourself.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.


text:
On 5/21/2013 5:34 PM, deep wrote:

You seriously demand "data" to support the notion that innovation leads
to lower product costs?  Are you that badly unaware of the precipitous
fall in prices of virtually all electronics?

I'm not a liar.  You really *don't* know one fucking thing about
economics, and I know very much about it.

That's right, and I never said anything to the contrary.  What I say
isn't so merely because I say it - rather, I say it *because* it is so.
  I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.


text:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:42:09 -0700, George Plimpton <[email]>
wrote:

Irrelevent.  The data you need to provide is that increased
productivity from innovation has outpace increased demand therefore
"physical output" hasn't had to increase.

Of course you can't.  It's an absurd contention.

You keep saying that but never say one single thing ever that would
indicate that.

Prove it.  Prove physical output hasn't had to increase because of
innovation.


text:
On 5/21/2013 6:48 PM, deep wrote:

No, I don't need to show any such thing.  The mere fact that technical
innovation has caused quality to increase even as price falls is
perfectly sufficient to show that growth occurs without an increase in
physical output.

No, I keep saying things over and over that indicate it.  You don't know
anything about economic growth.  Innovation resulting in lower cost
production and higher quality (of a given output quantity) occurs all
the time, and that *is* an example of growth.

Done.


text:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:51:54 -0700, George Plimpton <[email]>
wrote:

Yes you do.

HAHAHAHAHAHAA.

Show the Hubbert curve of oil production.  Of course physical output
has had to increase you cretin.  The mere fact you have the
cluelessness to claim it hasn't only proves how totally idiotic you
are.

You lose, get over it.

Liar.  You've done nothing of the sort.  Just repeating your lies ever
and over doesn't make them true.  Only makes you look stupid.  Stupid
is as stupid does.


text:
On 5/21/2013 7:12 PM, deep wrote:

Nope - no need at all.  All I need to do is point you to Moore's Law.

This isn't about only oil, fuckstain.

No.

You lose - again.


author: Carmen

subject: Re: The world

text:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:08:19 +0100, "Pieter Douwes"
<[email]> wrote:

No such thing as "too much honor," imho.

"[Healing] is an attitude of praising God as He Himself knows praise.
He offers praise to you, ***and you must offer it to others.***"

(Didn't make it into the published version but I like it. :-) )

And I find your posts de-lightful ("full of the light").

And very sincere.  (And that's beautiful.)

Blessings of joy to you, Pieter,
always (and smiling),
Carmen


author: Jeanette

subject: Re: The world

text:
Carmen,

"No such thing as "too much honor," imho."

Which aligns itself with asking for personal emails so that you can
underhandedly attempt to do me harm.

You are one of the most malicious people I have ever met.

And what was your excuse for sending a letter to my employer? To be truly
helpful and give blessings, right?

You are a phoney baloney Carmen.

Jeanette

"Carmen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: The world

text:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:34:08 GMT, "Jeanette"
<[email]> wrote:

Jeanette:

It's time to bring this nonsense to its breaking point.  Reason and
patience have not worked.

What is your lawyer's name.

Tom and I want to talk with him today.

Most sincerely,
Carmen M. Cameron


author: Lisa Chabot

subject: a lesser autumnal meandering

text:
The leaf that falls beside the broken path
observes as little as it is observed;
its journey is not sparked by some wind's wrath
since weather's reputation's undeserved:
for nature never acts just out of spite
and seasons change according to the clock--
although such metaphors have become trite
and symptoms of interpreting post hoc.
If I instead could shake the trees, I'd shake
more than just leaves to flee; I'd shake until
you'd stop to think that perhaps a mistake
it was to step off of that steep, steep hill...
  Grant me patience through this dark, darker night:
  I hesitate to follow this rewrite.

.
.                                           "rain don't fall for the flowers
.                                            when it's falling:
.                                            rain
.                                                just
.                                                    falls"