subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
J. J. Lodder <[email]> wrote:

AAAArrrrghh! Word processor error.
Please read '...there are only a few herds left in...'


author: cassandra

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 13, 5:12ï¿½am, [email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

Really.  I am of course referring to the infanticide.


author: Cory Albrecht

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
J. J. Lodder wrote, on 2010-09-13 05:12:

Have you never seen two outdoor cats, or two farm cats fight? The toms
can especially mutilate each other very ferociously. And do.


author: Vend

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 13 Set, 11:12, [email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

Actually they do.
Even male domesticated house cats, if they are allowed to roam, will
fight and sometimes kill each other during mating season.


author: J. J. Lodder

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Geode <[email]> wrote:

m>

It is still true for the surviving hunter gatherers
in the remote and unhospitable regions
they have been driven too.
It must have been easier still
when the still had the good lands,

Jan


author: Will in New Haven

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 12, 3:40ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

It's enough in the Kalahari and I think it would be _more_ than enough
year-around in the savanna if the herding and agricultural peoples
wouldn't object to ones presence. The long day of labor was invented
by farmers.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
cassandra <[email]> wrote:

Cats don't do that, since they lead solitary lives,
in the wild.
Mother cats wil defend their kittens ferociously,
allowing no one, not even the father, to come anywhere near.
You shouldn't compare cats with lions.
If you want a biggie for comparison
the tiger is more appropriate,

Jan


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 13, 11:53ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

In _Tribe of Tiger_ a book about observing and not interfering with
domestic cats, the author observed infanticide by the reigning female,
who would simply not allow another female to breed. She said that the
action was undertaken with massive signs of reluctance and the killer
gave every apperance of being relieved and happy when someone did
intervene and prevent her continuing to kill.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Cory Albrecht <[email]> wrote:

Yes, but kill?
Normally the loser would get lost,
without the victor pursuing
beyond the limits of his territory,

Jan


author: Geode

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 13, 1:13ï¿½am, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

the hunter gatherers had a growth population near zero.  This is due
mostly to the new of the female to store fat on his body as a reserve
to conceive a baby.  The reproductive system of the female does not
start working till the female had not a reserve of fat equivalent to
30% of his weight.
I had read a book about hunter gatherers of the Kalahari. In general,
a girl marries a boy at about his 12 years of age, his husband goes
with her and her father, learning the trade of hunting. A typical girl
gets not impregnated till she is like 20 years old. Then, after the
giving birth a baby and breast fed it for about two years, she is
almost depleted of all the fat he had stored.  She needs a new period
to accumulate fat again.  It would take perhaps like seven years more
to conceive again another baby.  In good years, with plenty of rains,
the time need to accumulate that much fat, would be three or five
years.
To imagine that hunter gatherers had a good life is a myth that comes
from the 18 century philosophers, that invented the theory of the
"happy savage" and the "earthly paradise". Well, the earthly paradise
is much older than 18 century philosophers.  The Greeks talked about
the Makarosnesia, the makï¿½rï¿½n nï¿½soi, the "happy islands" where people
has not need to work, and never is too hot or too cold, and the earth
gives off two harvest of wheat a year. Pure nonsense.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Will in New Haven <[email]> wrote:

com>

Necessity was the mother of 'invention',

Jan


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 14, 7:48ï¿½am, [email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

Both the tiger and the domestic cat have much busier social lives than
were understood until recently. While they don't cooperate in hunting,
females with nearby home ranges that overlap with that of a male do
form loose associations with more resemblance to a pride of lions than
people used to think.

Read _Tribe of Tiger_ for details about domesticus. I don't remember
where I read about tigers.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 14, 11:04ï¿½am, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

Interesting.  I knew of this behavior in hyenas, wolves, and african
wild dogs, but I was unaware of it in domestic cats.

It turns out infanticide is practiced by both sexes of many species,
and even some prey species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

It seems to be a rather common way for a species to limit its own
numbers.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Will in New Haven <[email]> wrote:

Not seen it. From reviews, and from your story I get the impression
that much of the book is rather anecdotal in content,

Jan


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
J. J. Lodder wrote, on 2010-09-14 07:48:

Slinking off to die of injury is essentially the same as getting killed
in the heat of battle.


author: William Morse

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Geode wrote:

I think you are exaggerating the difficulties of the Khoisan. In all
historical societies, the age at menarche was largely dependent on body
fat, not age. But age of first child bearing might still be delayed (as
it was in 19th century Ireland and is among the modern middle class US)
  to allow a couple to accumulate enough wealth to take care of
children. Breast feeding itself inhibits fertility, so a normal child
spacing would be at least three years. And from my reading, under normal
conditions, starvation is not a problem for the Khoisan.

However I think it is true that for most hunter gatherer populations,
under bad conditions (once every three to ten years) hunger was a
problem. It is also apparently the case that the homicide rate per
capita among the Khoisan is about the same as it is in Manhattan. On the
other hand the suicide rate is very low. So while many hunter gatherers
  had a good life, they certainly did not live in an "earthly paradise."
Especially since they didn't have hot showers :-)


author: Nick Keighley

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 13 Sep, 11:01, Geode <[email]> wrote:

*his* body?


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 13, 6:01ï¿½am, Geode <[email]> wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they had a good life. I said
that they did not work long hours. This isn't about the bullshit you
reference. No one believes in happy savage or noble savage, it's about
the number of hours they have to put in to live.

Do try to keep up.


author: Mike Lyle

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Will in New Haven wrote:

Anyway, it's a commonplace that a tom cat will kill, and eat, kittens on
his territory if he can get at them. Sure the mother will defend them,
but she can't stay in the nest all the time.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 14, 4:42ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

Sometimes it seems to cross species lines, too. Predators will often
kill the young of competing species. Maybe they eat them and maybe
they don't but the purpose may also be to reduce competition. And Cape
Buffalo, while generally gnarly-tempered and likely to gore, bite or
stomp anyone they meet, seem genuinely charmed to trample lion cubs,
thus helping future generations of nasty bad-tempered buffalo.


author: Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 1:12ï¿½am, Cory Albrecht <[email]> wrote:

On the other hand, leaving a fight before you're injured fatally gives
you a chence to recover and fight again.  Of course there is an
exception if (a) you're fighting to defend your offspring or your
mating rights, i.e. fighting for your extended-life-through-heredity,
and also, (b) if the other party doesn't let you leave, for the same
reason.

I think that stags in rut fight to exhaustion but not necessarily to
the death?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no?


author: Walter Bushell

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Cory Albrecht <[email]> wrote:

Yes, and when a lion loses his pride, he doesn't do too well and seldom
lives long.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Cory Albrecht <[email]> wrote:

Getting hurt that badly seems unlikely for a cat fight.
Of course disability from fights (like an eye gouged out)
may make staying alive more difficult,
(but that is another matter)

There really is a difference:
lions and tigers are equiped to kill animals
in their own weight range (or even heavier)
Cats are built to hunt much smaller prey animals.

Jan


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 2:53ï¿½am, William Morse <[email]> wrote:

 if starvation means to die of hunger, this is not a problem for the
Khoisan people, or it is very rarely.  Because they are spread out
widely on the land, and their growth is regulated by the amount of
food that changes little.
The sort of population that suffer frequent famines are the
agriculturalist and the herders.  They are producing a lot of food in
good years, then a lot of children.  As the weather changes for the
worse, and there are too little rain or to much rain, or floods, or
something, they began to suffer famines.
In the case of the herders because the lands to graze are limited.  In
times of good weather, there is plenty of grass for the flocks to
live.  In times of poor rains, the animals a re too many for a given
land.  Then, there are many people, and many children.  Then wars
start and they kill each other, or start a war on the lower lands,
against the farmers, and so on.

Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 14, 10:52ï¿½am, Nick Keighley <[email]>
wrote:

I am already whipping me for this error.  It seems that the Alzheimer
is already stepping on my heels.  I am feeling its stinking breath on
my nape.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 14, 10:52ï¿½am, Nick Keighley <[email]>
wrote:

They have different sexes in Geode's first language, apparently.  That
has been discussed already.

In fact, I felt that the description of love and marriage amongst the
bushmen was very sad, but also unintelligible in parts.  But the point
seemed to be made - they're hungry a lot of the time.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Will in New Haven <[email]> wrote:

And they had better health, up to the time that the Industrial
Revolution started making things better for the average person. Which
hasn't happened in many parts of the world, for many people. The hunter
gatherers live better than the poor farmer in India.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 14, 5:45ï¿½pm, "Mike Lyle" <[email]>
wrote:

Will, yes. Will always, no. My friend Bruce had many generations of
barn cats and it was very common to see a gnarled old tom playing,
nondestructively, with a litter of kittens. Of course, there was only
one breeding tom in that barn at any time and it was almost certain
those were _his_ kittens.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Mike Lyle <[email]> wrote:

That's why she defends a territory,

Jan


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 6:29ï¿½am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

Stags covers a lot of deer species but I don't know of any that fight
to the death deliberately. There are the tales, sometimes true I am
sure, of locked antlers and mutual death by starvation. There was a
moose in New Hampshire some years ago that staggered into a town and
died of what may have been injuries from a fight with another male.
I've seen a "bull elk" (actually, a male red deer or wapiti but we
call them elk) that had part of his antler broken off and obvious
minor wounds on his flanks and I figure he lost a fight. But he wasn't
seriously impaired that I could see.


author: John S. Wilkins

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

Pride goeth before a fall...


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Walter Bushell wrote, on 2010-09-14 21:00:

But that's usually staving to death, not dying of injury.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

Male lions are specialized fighting machines,
with very heavy front legs for hitting each other.
They are incapable of hunting on their own.
(stray humans excepted)

They need the females to hunt for them,

Jan


author: Dick C.

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
[email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
news:[email]:

You obviously have never tried to give a house cat a bath.:)
Try playing with a cat, it keeps its claws sharp by using
some type of scratching post. And when you play with a cat it
will grab your hand in its' mouth, wrap its' front paws around
your arm and dig in with the claws and then start scratching
with the hind legs. That is if you can stand the pain long enough.
House cats, it seems to me, are perfectly capable of killing
something their own size.

There are few animals a house cats size in most areas.
And even then there will be far more mice and such than
rabbits and such. Plus a house cats stomach is about the
right size for a meal of a mouse.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
J. J. Lodder wrote, on 2010-09-15 08:06:

No, I'm talking about vicious fights between tomcats. In my youth I
spent my summers on various family farms helping out. I found more than
one dead cat after seeing it in a fight with another earlier in the day,
as well as observing my grandfather put a cat injured in a fight out of
its misery on two occasions.

Just because the hunt relatively smaller prey doesn't mean they can't
serious injure each other or something the same size. Those fangs and
claws are still damn sharp.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Geode <[email]> wrote:

Leopoldo, you do English *way* better than your critics do Italian, so
ignore them, laugh a little, and keep at it.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 14, 11:02ï¿½am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

I often made mistakes writing these words, she, he, her, his.
As for the hunger of the bushmen... well, more or less they feel
hunger each morning before going to search for food.  It is the daily
hunger.  I remember of feeling this short of daily hunger when I was a
boy. For many years, I was feeling hunger, till my late adolescence,
when things began to change a little for the better.
geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 13, 10:30ï¿½am, Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

The reasons the poor farmer in India has a bad life has to do with
modern economics. A hunter-gatherer lifestyle typically depletes the
environment in less than a generation, forcing the humans to move
elsewhere.  This is possible only if there is someplace else to move
that isn't already occupied.  Hunter-gatherer societies simply can not
sustain large populations.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

They had better health because their numbers were too small
to sustain much of an epidemic.

And the industrial revolution did nothing of the kind.
On the contrary, it made it worse by exploiting
and impoverishing the masses, and cramming them in slums.

The first real improvement came from better sanitation,

Jan


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Will in New Haven wrote:

It actually may be the other way around. With high cat densities,
females are able to be promiscuous and most litters have more than one
father. In this situation infanticide would not be any particular
advantage to the male, since the new kittens would not be any more
likely to be his. At low densities, toms can defend a range and most
litters have a single father, so infanticide does provide a benefit.
But, at least according to the sources I checked, both males and females
tend to be more social and more apt to engage in communal rearing of
kittens at higher densities.


author: Ernest Major

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
In message
<[email]>,
Will in New Haven <[email]> writes

One of the recent top stags on the Scottish island of Rhum is
one-antlered. The result of this is that his antler doesn't lock with
his opponent's in fights, and gets through and does damage. He has
killed at least one opponent. (Normally a fight between stags during the
rut is a trial of strength, and the weaker gives up and runs away.)

I suspect that switch-horned stags (those without tines on the antlers)
are also dangerous to their opponents.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 9:29ï¿½am, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

My understanding is that you are both partially correct.  For species
that establish breeding territories, few single fights result in total
exhaustion or injury resulting in death, although it does happen
coincidentally.  But the males' time is occupied almost exclusively
with territorial fights and mating, and males spare little time for
R&R, and so exhaustion sets in eventually.  This puts the males at
risk of death by disease, predation, and exposure.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Cory Albrecht <[email]> wrote:

That's better?  -- Rocky the flying squirrel.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 14, 9:29ï¿½pm, Cory Albrecht <[email]> wrote:

The final cause of death is almost always impatient hyenas. If you are
weak enough, you are dead.
And if the injury wasn't debilitating, why would the lion starve.
Males can and do hunt. It might seem like a big demotion, like going
from being a pimp to sweeping out a liquor store but the lion hunted
before he had his pride and he could still hunt if not injured.


author: rsnorman

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:29:22 -0400, Cory Albrecht
<[email]> wrote:

The important concept here is "ecological death".  It doesn't matter
whether you are actually yet dead or what the cause; you are
essentially a goner and removed from further involvement in the
ecosystem except as food for somebody.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 4:10ï¿½am, [email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

Well, in a word, no. Lions hunt before they acquire their prides.
Lions hunt when the pride takes on very big game. Or, rather, they
kill or join in the killing. The stalking and chasing are "women's
work." But lions hunt well enough to survive in good territory with a
bit of luck.

The trouble with a surviving pride male is that _lions_ hunt ok but _a
lion_ doesn't. If he has companions, and they can be other males, they
can do ok.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 13, 9:00ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

specially, because modern farming makes food cheaper.  Then the poor
farmer cannot sell its produce and have a life.  I has happened in
many countries, i the part less productive for agriculture, like
mountains, and arid lands. The richer lands, has a modern, industrial
agriculture, and can produce cheaper, even if they are also
complaining.  For you never would find a farmer that would not
complain of the cheap prices they are paid for their produce.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 13, 4:00ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

Peasants in the middle ages had bad lives. Serfs in Nineteenth Century
Russia had bad lives. Farming is for farmers.

 A hunter-gatherer lifestyle typically depletes the

Fortunately, the Bushmen have the infinite riches of the Kalahari to
support them. A similar population of hunter-gatherers could live
practically forever in the Serengetti and never deplete anything.

This is possible only if there is someplace else to move

"Cannot sustain large populations" does not mean "cannot have a good
life." The reason they do not have good lives is not because they
cannot sustain a large population. Having a large population simply
means that there are more people to annoy one.

The hunter-gatherer lifestyle is, for the most part, unsustainable
because agricultural peoples will always have enough people to
exterminate you or drive you into the worst land.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
In article <[email]>,
 [email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

And the improved sanitation was only possible for such large numbers
when the wealth generated by the industrial revolution made the improved
sanitation possible.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 2:15ï¿½am, William Morse <[email]> wrote:

Most litters have more than one father, really?

Wouldn't they then have a genetic motive to fight each other before
birth?  (I'm glad I'm not a pregnant cat.)

But, anyway... can a tom identify his own offspring by scent?  Or does
his personal scent make that impossible...

Compared to cats that haven't been selected for life around large
primates, are domestic cats or farm cats biologically weird, by now?
I mean, un-natural?


subject: Re: We are not alone

text: On Sep 16, 9:15ï¿½pm, William Morse <[email]> wrote:


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 1:39ï¿½am, Ernest Major <{$[email]> wrote:

This brings up the interesting question "Why are they not all like
that?"

My short first-draft answer is, the contest is for the benefit of the
species, not the individual, and is to be conducted according to
proper rules (normally), one of which is, "Candidates will have not
fewer than two antlers, to be equipped with plenty of pointy bits."
It's a fitness test, and it actually isn't your antlers (alone) that
are being tested.

But I expect that there's a lot wrong with this narrative.

This top stag with the antler asymmetry, what do the females think of
him?


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
rsnorman wrote, on 2010-09-15 10:03:

But that's not what I am talking about.

I'm talking about the lion dying from the DIRECT result of injuries
sustained during the fight in which he loses his pride, like bleeding
out from a serious wound, for example. Things that kill the animal
within a couple of days.

Usually, the lion dies because he can't get enough food hunting by
himself and slowly (or less slowly) starves until he dies from hunger or
is too weak to defend himself from the hyaenas. Heck, he may fall prey
to the hyaenas even if he can hunt himself enough food, hyaenas being so
crafty.

But none of that is a direct result of injuries


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 9:56ï¿½am, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

That's how I understand it.  Male lions get kicked out of their natal
pride months or even years before they are capable of taking over a
pride of their own.  They must hunt for themselves during that time,
or they will starve.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Geode wrote:

The joke goes:

Why do they bury lawyers ten feet deep? Because deep down, lawyers are
good people. Why do they bury farmers one foot deep? So they can keep
their hand out.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 13, 4:51ï¿½pm, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

Then we agree in principle and in detail, and disagree on what to
disagree about.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 2:25ï¿½am, Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

the problem was one of a course between population growth and the
material growth to carry food to the cities. progress was difficult
because population was growing too fast to watch any progress.  The
most food was available, the most people there was to feed.  Thanks to
the imperial enterprises and several wars, like Napoleonic wars, it
was a little easier to feed so many people.  For all those young males
in the wars were not breeding.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

You really believe that building a sewer
takes more wealth than building a cathedral?

Jan


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 09/17/2010 09:06 AM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
[email] wrote:

Yes, really. You can look it up on the internet.

Well they still would share on average 1/4 of their genes, in fact
slightly higher since they may not all have different fathers. That is
probably enough for Hamilton's rule to work (although in some
situations, such as eagle offspring, it doesn't work).


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 09/16/2010 11:05 PM, cassandra wrote:

No, you misunderstand the cost/benefit ratio. The point of the
infanticide is to increase the reproductive success of the tom. But
there is a cost involved in the infanticide, namely the wounds the tom
will suffer from females defending their litters. In the case of high
cat densities, even if the females come into estrus more quickly, their
new litters are unlikely to be exclusively fathered by the new tom, due
to promiscuity. So the tom will be incurring a high cost for a low
benefit, and his net reproductive success will be lower than if he just
waited for the next round of litters. It is only in the low density
situation where litters are likely to be exclusively fathered by the new
tom that infanticide pays off.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 4:05ï¿½am, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

I was following a little your argument, I mean in general, and it
seems you are disregarding Malthus theory.  An ecological niche is
probably balanced between the number of species it can sustain.  Then,
when you see too many cubs of lions of whatever species, you had to
understand that most of the would die sooner or later. So, is is also
a question of how many cubs, or breeding are going to die, that
females should produce more or less to keep a balance.  It is
something unconscious.  Then, you had to calculate, what is the
average fertility of the females in this pride. If the females are
producing 2 cubs a year, then the next question is "what is the
average age of a lion or lioness when they die"  If it is 15 years,
then you know it needs at least, to keep the balance, as many cubs as
1/15 that is 0.0666 then it means a 6.6 % a year, is market to
survive.  If a pride is composed of 12 lioness and three males that is
15 animals. Then, 15*0.066=0.9999  that means that among the twelve
lioness they need to produce only a cub a year.  Then, as many of them
would be killed by predators, other would die some disease, pneumonia,
or other, you the females have to produce a lot more cubs. As many
cubs as had been observed.  Then 12 lioness, assuming none of them are
too old, would be an average of 20 or 24 cubs a year. But they need
only a cub to survive till the age of breeding. Then 1/24 it is 0.0416
That means 4.1% percent would be survivors among males and females.
The problem is a little more complex than I put it.  Half of the cubs
are probably males, then they have to have a more rate of early
mortality.  How much? Assuming there are only 12 males that are kicked
out of pride each year, they would be able to replace males similar to
their parents, in 8 or 9 years.  I mean the rate of mortality can be
higher among males, they they are needed less for breeding. While the
females can breed most of them, except those that die in accidents, or
diseases.  But in general, not even females can grow much faster than
males, I mean they cannot survive much better, for it would be an
excess of females, and the place would get exhausted. The more females
hunting the more scarcity of preys. So the system must keep a balance,
between produce and consumption. On average, the females must keep a
constant number, with little fluctuations, and the same can be said
for the males.
But the concept is this, a pride of 15 members, only need a cub a
year, if it would have a 100% capacity to survive.  As if it is not
this way, we need as much as 24 cubs a year, to maintain the
population in an average zero growth state.
geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 4:05ï¿½am, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

I agree with this interpretation.  it occurs only when a new male
arrives to an old territory after chasing out the older males in it.
If the new male can chase out the owner of the place, it is he who has
to fled out.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 2:19ï¿½am, Cory Albrecht <[email]> wrote:

you forget how long can survive a lion.  It is not the lion of the
Metro.
It is rare that a lion survive more than eight years. He has one year
living with the pride as a young animal. Then at year one it is chased
out to live in the outside world.  Then all the lions that have the
same age are driven out of the pride. Each years pass about the same
ceremony.  These are a lot of lions to survive them all.  You do not
remember the Malthus?  Most of these young lions would starve in less
than a year.  They are thrown out to the worse parts of the wild.
Where there is more competence among  different species of predators.
I had hear that the probability of arriving to  mature and to breed is
not over 5%  But I think this data is wrong. I consulted the google
and average life expectancy of a lion is 15 to 18 years.  Let's
imagine that is 15 years.  Then 1/15 = 0.0666  then the life
expectancy of a lion cub at birth must be around 6.6 % or perhaps
5.5%  That is 1/18=0.055...  So it was reasonable to say 5%, it is not
so far the mark.

I am in general skeptic. And sometimes, I do not believe even what
some videos are saying.  Specially when they speak of the earthly
paradises and that shit, like happy islands.
Geode
.

It happens with most species.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 10:37ï¿½am, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

That's clear. A pride male does tend to gain weight, mostly muscle-
mass, and become more specialized as a fighter, rather than as a
hunter. Depending on how old he is when he is evicted, he may still be
a good enough hunter to make it.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 3:37ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

they would starve in less than a year.  Not only that lions are not
good hunting, they get easily too hot. It is that hyenas and other
predators can rob him of his hunted prey.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Geode <[email]> wrote:

The population figures in for England in for example
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England>
don't tally with your theory,

Jan


subject: Re: We are not alone

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

Ha, ha ha. They took every chance they got and since they had weapons
and the civilians did not, it turned out to be quite often. And armies
traveled with camp followers etc. One of the big incentives for joining
an army was the prospect of being enabled to rape with impunity.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 9:10ï¿½am, [email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

I'm gonna say yes, if we're talking about equipping a moderately
prosperous town with one or the other.

And you probably want to build a sewer on a shorter, non-mediaeval
timescale.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 4:10ï¿½am, [email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

My understanding is the citizens of Rome in Jesus' time enjoyed better
public health than the citizens of London even up to the 19th
century.  Historically, public sanitation in Europe was a push-pull
thing.  On the one hand, there was a common understanding that disease
is God's punishment for sin, which still has some vocal proponents
(think Pat Robertson).   On the other hand, there was little
understanding of the link between infectious disease and public
sanitation, or even personal hygiene.  The miasma theory of foul air
led to misdirected efforts to control contagion that was only
coincidentally effective.  The gripping hand of course was an army of
enlightened doctors and Pasteur's germ theory.

It's easy for people to pretend they are immune to infectious disease,
but the main thing that keeps the ancient plagues at bay are public
sanitation and disease prevention.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 3:13ï¿½am, William Morse <[email]> wrote:

Wait, they all have the same mother, so...

"she is probably related to the fathers anyway"


author: rmacfarl

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
I just noticed this comment, so pack this reply up & mail it to last week.

In fact even brown hyenas, which are the smallest of the 3 species and which
live mostly solitary, can successfully chase leopards off. It's hyothesised
theat with the damage their jaws can do the cost benefit makes discretion
the better part of leopard valour.

This behaviour was described by Mark & Delia Owens in their book Cry of The
Kalahari, as well as in their scholarly publications...


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 9:57ï¿½pm, William Morse <[email]> wrote:

I have never met a tomcat smart enough to figure out cost/benefits
ratios.  Those might be the atheist darwinist tomcasts.  But I'm
pretty sure the majority behave instinctively.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 2:57ï¿½am, William Morse <[email]> wrote:

it seems quite right.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 9:58ï¿½am, Geode <[email]> wrote:

I was meaning,
"If the new male "can not chase out" the owner of the place, it is he
who has
 to fled out.
 Geode


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 12:37ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

Either I misunderstand you totally, or you boxed yourself into a
dilemma.  I can't tell which is more likely.

So how do you think the current crop of pridemasters managed to avoid
starvation before they became pridemasters?

Or are you suggesting this is the last generation of lions, and they
will go extinct as the current bachelor lions starve to death?


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 1:06ï¿½pm, [email] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

I have examined this page, and from the year 1811 to the year 1901,
the population of UK passed from 9.5 millions to 30.5 millions. It
multiplied by 3.21 in 90 years.  The world population had multiplied
by seven in 210 years.
The average growth of the planet in this period was 0.9% a year.
 Then as these figures show UK multiplied 3.2 times in 90 years, that
means a steep growth. If you make the calculations 3,2 times growth in
90 years it results to 1.3% percent a year average.
They had not yet steam locomotives for half this period.  And the
ships were sailing ships for most of the century.
You can add to this measure growth all the millions or people that
died y the Napoleonic and imperial wars, and you have a hidden growth
a little bigger.
Then my theory is Malthusian and explains most of the wars by an
excess of population in Europe.  It also explains the expansion around
the world founding the colonialism.
A growth of 1.3% a year could looked as nothing, when compared with
today's growth of many poor countries of the world in the 20 century.
But in the 20 century were were burning a lot of oil to make moving
our machines.  Specially in the second half century. We have been
eating oil so far.  As soon as the oil get exhausted we are going to
eat each other.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 2:43ï¿½pm, Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

it is very difficult to compute the breeding of soldiers in times of
war.
Specially when they start to die of several diseases and infections,
from wounds.  Not talking of those who die.  I do not think that
raping could produce much breeding.
geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 6:24ï¿½am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

If I understand your point, you and Walter are saying that effective
sanitation is possible only in an industrial society.  Or alternately
that it's not possible in an agricultural society.  Either way, I am
obliged to point out that most sanitation measures practiced today are
relatively low-tech preventive procedures.  As just one example, it
does wonders to strongly discourage the practice of tossing one's
garbage and night soil out the window.  Of course this implies a
necessary and complemtary action of providing sanitary methods for
removing and treating garbage and sewage from within municipal
boundaries.  Covered sewers, garbage collection, and compost treatment
are within the technical means of any society able to supply animal-
driven carts, and within the budget of any municipality able to
finance roads and buildings.

The reasons sanitation wasn't practiced consistently or effectively in
Europe until recently were not technical or financial, but because it
wasn't thought necessary for reasons I identified upthread.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc [email]"
 <[email]> wrote:

And you have to take care of water quality upstream, and treatment of
water requires a certain degree of knowledge, even industrial quantities
of chlorine for a city sized population.


subject: Re: We are not alone

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

One thing, Christians considered uncleanness as next to Godliness.
Bathing could get you outed as a Muslim or earlier pagan.

I sometimes put forth the WAG that one of the reasons Rome fell was the
closing of the public baths due to Christian pressure which made public
life much less pleasant and Rome much less worth dying for.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
cassandra <[email]> wrote:

The genetics of evolution work out more or less *as if* there were a
rational egoist planning to maximise their benefit: it's called "game
theory", and it is a branch of mathematics that applies to economics,
genetics, and international relations even when no actual rational
egoists exist.

Tomcats behave the way they do because a process of natural selection
has honed their behaviour, more or less, to maximise their genetic
interests. This is true of most species that are settled in their
instinctual behaviours (and other types of behaviours, like growth rates
of trees and so on).


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 6:33ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

To me is easy to explain.  The younger lions are survivals from their
their youth period.  This is very difficult time to survive, and only
with luck and a brother or two to make a team they can be able to
survive. Specially in good times, for the best places to hunt are
already occupied by the present prides and their lioness.  Then, if
they arrive to maturity, some of them can, they are in a position of
force to chase out an old lion and his companions, sometimes two or
more from a good place to hunt.  Then, the lions chased out of their
place, are already a little older, the most probably. They had passed
four of five years being the masters of the realm, and now they are
older and chase out of their place.  The most probably outcome is they
are going to die in a matter of months.  During the last years as
masters of a pride, they were working little, for most of the work was
done by females. Then they were getting fat and older.  The perfect
recipe to die soon, once the females are not doing any more hunting
for them.
That is easy to portrait.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 1:33ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

As with many others, he has bought into some over-simplifications. The
females do the hunting, therefore the males can't hunt.

It is, in fact, largely the presence of the big males that keeps a
pride from losing more of its kills to hyenas. While a female can kill
a hyena, a male can do it _quickly_ which prevents the rest of the mob
from rescuing it. Which makes the hyenas a lot more cautious. As for
the "and other predators," it would be interesting to see what other
predators could take food from an aware lion. A ninety-pound leopard?
A cheetah? Maybe the infamous African Brown Bear.

A croc, if the lion had his kill near the water, would be the only
candidate I can think of, given that this is "other predator" than
hyenas or other lions.


author: Kleuskes & Moos

subject: Chez Watt?! Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 6:35ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

In the category "Go figure":


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 2:37ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

I want to recognise that ancient Rome had sewers (not built in a day),
and aqueducts, and lead pipe plumbing (whoops; it's been suggested
that that's why the Empire fell.  Bubonic plague has also been
proposed.)


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 2:37ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

 I agree with you Cassandra.  The problems of cities were mostly that
sometimes they were growing to fast and the had a lot of people
crowded in small quarters.  Then the epidemics could be terrible.
Specially those that affect the respiratory tract and lungs. The
crowded conditions could be fatal for these diseases. Then, also the
contamination of the water, for the same crowded conditions.  And the
problem basically were due to scarce budgets.
Someone pointed to Roma as having a good sanitary system.  We do not
know how good it was really.  Even it could be good in some parts, the
more noble parts, and deficient in the poor neighborhoods.  Then it
could had been more or less deficient as the times passed and the
problems multiplied because of excessive population growth or by
reason of the budgetary ruins of the wars.
Geode
.


author: cassandra

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 11:04ï¿½am, [email] (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

I didn't suggest otherwise.  My point to which William Morse seems to
be responding is the triggering conditions to a male domestic cat's
infanticidal behavior, not the evolutionary reason for it.  HTH


author: odin

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 11:04ï¿½am, [email] (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

Ego is, as are so many things, and illusion. Ditto for design.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 1:40ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

How do they arrive to maturity if they can't hunt?  You didn't answer
that.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 1:40ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

But oversimplified and wrong for a fairly large percentage of ousted
males.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 2:24ï¿½pm, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

I freely admit my expertise is gleaned from years of Animal Planet and
National Geographic (IOW I am NOT an expert), but still, I must have
something right.  My understanding is male lions don't hunt as
successfully as female lions, because they are bigger with large
manes, meaning they are harder to hide.  OTOH all lions hunt better in
a group.  There was a remarkable series of a lion pride that
specialized in taking down water buffalo, and the entire pride, males
included, were needed to overpower them.

I will be interested in reading Geode's explanation to his apparent
paradox of how bachelor lions survive and thrive to adulthood without
hunting.

Yet another video captures a pridemaster chasing down a particular
hyena that gave him trouble once too often.   A male lion at full
gallop is an awesome sight.

Yet another video is of a pride 6 lionesses which attack a water
buffalo calf near water.  Before they could tear into it (buffalo hide
is very tough) a large croc challenged them for it.   Which led to a
tug-of-war with the calf as the rope.  The lions eventually won, but
the standoff gave the buffalo herd enough time to gather their courage
and charged the lions, who ultimately gave ground and abandoned the
calf.  The calf then got up and walked away from the scene.


subject: Re: Chez Watt?! Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 7:41ï¿½am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <[email]> wrote:

My impression isGeode has never been a soldier in a combat zone.  I
could be wrong.


subject: Re: Chez Watt?! Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 12:41ï¿½pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <[email]> wrote:

Our "Say What! award" draws attention to statements that particularly
attract a reader's attention.  English-as-second-language writing
certainly can qualify, it is a decision in the eye of the beholder,
and here, I have a strong sense - a misplaced sense - of one or more
words being simply not the word that you would choose to put after
careful reflection.  Hewever, I think Geode really meant to say that.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 4:12ï¿½pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

The main problem of Rome, could have several causes.  One not
explained is the excess of prosperity. The excess of prosperity
ruining the smaller farmers, for the rich used mainly slaves to work
on the farms.  Then, the smaller farmers were disappearing and the
rich landowners only had slaves.  Traditionally the slaves were not
fighting in the legions, only as servants carrying the carts with the
victuals.  Then, as the farmers were disappearing less and less free
people, with enough fighting spirit remained.  There was a period in
which they even went to some farms, and let a little corruption
function; any slave willing to go to war, only needed to answer a
question, "are you Roman?".  if the slave said, "yes, I am a Roman",
then they wrote his name in a list, and he could go to war.  If he
survived the war, a doubtful prospect, he was a free man, perhaps
disabled or something, but free.

Then, there was a time in which countless refuges were in the frontier
producing troubles.  The Romans had to enrolled them to keep save the
border.  This was the beginning of the end for the Empire.
Geode


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 09/18/2010 11:34 AM, cassandra wrote:
And, given the evolutionary reasons, the triggering condition is likely
to depend on the density of other toms in the new territory. If there
are a lot of other toms, a new tom will not attempt infanticide. If
there are few, he will. The tom doesn't have to figure out cost/benefit
ratios, he only has to respond to density, and density-dependent
behavior is widely observed in nature.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 11:10ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

I said very clearly. All the young lions (males) are kicked out at the
year 1 of age, and have to go on the wild, to the worse parts of the
land. At least most times the are a small group of young lions, so
they can try to hunt in a team.  This way is a little easier to hunt.
So, in the span of time from the year one of its life to the year
seven or eight, most of these young lions starve.  They are confined
to the less productive part of the territory.  Each time they arrive
to a good place they are kicked out by the males owners of the place.
Then, the small fraction that arrive at age 7 or 8 are survivors.  So,
they are getting stronger, they are in their prime physical form.
Then, after several tries, in a year or two, they achieve to kick out
an old team of older males. They have to check the appearances of the
males, for if they are not old, it would be difficult to win the
fight.  Then, an older lion has visible signs of old age, has scars,
has more parasites, looked more flabby or more fat.  They have a great
mane, but after a test of power they began to falter and get tired.
They got the arteries full of cholesterol and all that shit. Then the
younger lions win their place, and you know the rest of the story.
Then, these older males, that are deposed of the throne, are bound to
their death in a matter of months.  In fact they are old animals, by
the time they are kicked out of their place.

So I think I cannot explain the story more clearly. Most of the cubs
at birth had a potential or achieve maturity of 5 or 6%   Then, it
means that the rest would not make it out, will not survive. They
would starve.  Depending on the period, the amount of rains, and all
that, more young lions would die, or less. Almost all lioness can have
between one and four cubs, till they are older. Then, this are too
many cubs, if one calculates the gestation takes some 16 weeks (about
110 days) then you consider a time for feeding the cubs of four or
five months. Then, the lioness had to recuperate some fat, and then is
ready again to mate. Just imagine a lioness can have new cubs each
year. This average of 2 cubs a year are too many cubs.  You have to
imagine that most of this animals will die a way or another.
geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 9:13ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

I think I already reported my opinion.  The younger lions, most of
them, die prematurely.  Not arriving to maturity.  Naturalists has
expressed the idea that the survival probability of lion cubs is only
5%  Most of them die after being chased out arriving at adulthood.
Once the males smell they had sexually matures, they chase these young
lions out.
This is most critical period for a young lion to survive.  Most of
them could not.  Then those that survive are real winners, and once
they would get strong enough they would conquer a place to live as
masters of a pride.  I am talking of a group of brothers.  Even with a
company of brothers, it is not any easy to survive in worse places of
the wild.  The good places are all occupied by other lions.  The case
of jackals is different, for they have a very wide territory to hunt,
crossing all sort of boundaries. They breed in the less populated
parts of the wild and walk long distances to hunt.  Any solitary lion
who chase something easily loses its prey because some jackals could
hear the noise of the chase, or can see the vultures in the sky coming
to the place of a hunt.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 4:13ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

"Don't hunt as well" does not mean "will starve." Also, taking prey
from other predators is fairly easy if you are a lion.

OTOH all lions hunt better in

The travel time alone to hunt the Asiatic water buffalo must cut into
their hunting time. The buffalo in Africa are not water buffalo. They
are cape buffalo and some smaller types. They do often hang out near
water.

Buffalo are really tough, aren't they. It is amazing that lions hunt
them so often and with decent success.

My favorite video of this type was when a group of five lionesses took
all day to separate a young rhino from his mother. Eventually, they
got her going the wrong way and got the calf surrounded. He was pretty
husky but had no useful horn yet. He _still_ kicked their asses and
they were probably not all that unhappy when his mom caught up and
they could retreat and try to forget what had happened.


subject: Re: Chez Watt?! Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 3:03ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

This is not the problem.  The problem is "what is the probability that
a rape results in a pregnancy".  If you compute as a random variable
that a rape could occur at any time of the month, a woman only has a
period of fertility of 4 or 5 days in a month.  Let's take the five
figure. 5/30=0.1666  then it is over 16% but in general it does not
occur like this.  The woman has to have a reasonable quantity of fat
in her body.  Not less than 30% not over 45 or 50%  Then there are
problems genetics and histocompatibility.  Some conceptions get wrong
and are aborted in a few days. The women is not aware of this
automatic abortion.  Someone has said, I don't remember you said that,
that about 75% of all conceptions are rejected before developing.  I
am not sure of the figure.  It could be more or less.  Then if you
multiply the number 0.166 by 0.75 it gives you 0.125  then 12,5% it is
almost the same thing.  I figure it can be even lower than that.  Not
counting even, that if the war is prolonged many of those women could
have less than a 30% of fat as body weight. So, it is a something
difficult to calculate.
Geode
.


subject: Re: Chez Watt?! Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 4:19ï¿½pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

I should had write, "it is very difficult to 'calculate' the breeding
'success' of soldiers in times of war."  I am not good at writing this
language.  So many times I commit errors due to my hast or my lack of
training in writing.  I am a self taught man. An autodidact that one
says in in this part of the world.

Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 10:25ï¿½pm, William Morse <[email]> wrote:

Will not?  Are you sure?  That is not my understanding.  If you have a
supporting cite I would like to read it.

Again I didn't suggest otherwise.  You and John seem to want to argue
issues I do not contest.  Is there some overarching theme to this
behavior you want to to talk to me about?


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 8:04ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

Your problem here is more than dealing with a second language, but you
use that as an excuse.  I won't bother you again.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 9:50ï¿½pm, Will in New Haven

I wonder, if lionesses made spears to throw at their prey in the hunt,
would our sympathies when watching these shows be located
differently.  After all, they have to eat.

Then again, if lionesses could do that, then our own ancestors who
apparently populated the world by moving out of Africa either would
have had to move a lot faster, or else they wouldn't have made it at
all.  I guess lions and lionesses would be sitting around now
discussing MewTube videos of, I dunno, whales hunting fish... yum,
fish.  (Yum, whale.)


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 9:50ï¿½pm, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

In the basin of the Okavango there are some places full of water in
the times of the rains.  I had seen videos of the Okavango where some
lioness were trying to hunt a buffalo.  I am not sure what sort of
buffaloes were, in case their is more than one class. But they were
not gnus.  This are more to the east, on Kenia y Tanzania.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 4:50ï¿½pm, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

Your point is my point.

Oopsie, brain fart.  Thanks for that correction.


subject: Re: Chez Watt?! Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 2:38ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

No.  The problem is "what do soldiers do with themselves for the 99%
of the time they aren't involved in combat.  Rape is the least common
of many, many options.  A much more common alternative is a commercial
exchange by mutual consent ie prostitution.


subject: Re: Chez Watt?! Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 4:06ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

As you can tell, even native speakers have similar problems.  It isn't
a problem unless it gets in the way of communicating.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 09/19/2010 01:08 AM, cassandra wrote:

There are several. I won't claim they are definitive, but they paint a
consistent picture.

High variation in multiple paternity of domestic
cats (Felis catus L.) in relation to environmental
conditions

Feeding-order in an urban feral domestic cat colony: relationship to
dominance rank, sex and age
(The article was behind a paywall but the quote from Google was:
"Thus, for a male domestic cat infanticide is not crucial for speeding
up the reproductive cycle of females")

Infanticide in rural male cats (<I>Felis catus</I> L.) as a reproductive
mating tactic

The quote from the abstract is: Here we report six cases of infanticide
in the domestic cat directly observed in populations located in the
rural environment. This is the first time that infanticide in domestic
cats has been witnessed directly and described

Note also: Influence of oestrus synchronization
on male reproductive success in the domestic cat
(Felis catus L.)

as a reason why infanticide by a new tom in a high density situation
would be counter-productive.

But I am not any kind of expert on cat behavior, so if you have research
supporting your position I would be happy to know of it.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 3:55ï¿½am, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

I do not understand what is the reason of your complain.  What part do
you not understand?  The lioness are producing too many cubs a year.
Then, a way or another, most of them had to die, or they would by
multiplying like rabbits in Australia. So, the question of infanticide
of cubs, occurs only when the master lions of a pride change from
older lions to the younger group.  They challenge the owners of a
place forming a team, not as loners.
It occurs mostly each five or six years.  I am not sure about how much
last a mature lion as master of a pride.  The longer that last their
ruling, the less infanticide of cubs there are.

As for the very younger lions kicked out at your one or so, I am not
sure of the exact age of the young lions, when they are out, they
start a very difficult way to survive.  Even if they go out forming
teams of four or five, they are too inexperienced to succeed.  They
had been thrown out of a sort of paradise to a sort of desert.  All
the best places to hunt are already occupied, and they had to compete
with innumerable harsh predators.  It is a life full of dangers, and
most of the times this animals, the lions, are weak enough to have
serious problems.  They are being pushed and kicked out everywhere
they are except in the most bare and poor lands.  Then, it is not easy
for a lion to hunt rabbits or rodents. They are too clumsy or too slow
for that.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 8:59ï¿½am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

My sympathies were not (heavily) engaged. It was _funny_ It resembled
a comic caper film where the criminals work out an elaborate scheme
and are foiled in an amusing manner.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 1:58ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

They are buffalo and they are often near the water but "water buffalo"
is a species name and they are not water buffalo. The African buffalo
is often called Cape buffalo. Water buffalo is an Asiatic species.
Some water buffalo are domesticated and used for work and milk. I
don't think that has been done with African buffalo.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 2:16ï¿½am, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

I have commenting something on buffaloes on the the water in the
Okavango Basin.  Are not the Asiatic buffaloes, but African.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 15, 9:16ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

It's really annoying when _Animal Planet_ or one of its sister
channels makes that error. Anyone can say something like that, the
words water buffalo seem to go together, but the TV network is
supposed to be working from a written script.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 19, 10:51ï¿½pm, William Morse <[email]> wrote:

<snip to focus>

Interesting you don't copy the urls.  I can use the titles and quotes,
but I may not get exactly the same results as you.

This is about mutiple paternity in cat litters.  Yes, you mentioned
this.  Yes, it's interesting..  No, I didn't challenge this point, nor
is it related to the question I asked.  I didn't see anything about
infanticide in it.  Next.

Based on the title and abstract, this is about feeding behavior, not
mating behavior.  The abstract makes a reference to infanticide as
follows:

"It is suggested that the results are not an artifact of
domestication: unlike male lions, Panthera leo, which usually dominate
both females and cubs at kills, male domestic cats may value the food
less than females and juveniles, because they do not need to maintain
constantly a peak physical condition to defend a group of females and
protect offspring from infanticide."


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 4:55ï¿½am, Geode <[email]> wrote:

<snip for focus>

The topics in this newsgroup usually involve arcane and subtle
issues.  That's one reason why I'm interested in them.  That may be
true for you too.  If you read other people's posts you know that even
native English speakers regularly make several passes before they are
fully understood.  You say you are aware of your challenges as a non-
native English speaker posting here, and ask for grace.  And then you
say "I said very clearly..."  I have no doubt you are clear to
yourself.  It's likely you are clear to everybody but me.
Nevertheless, I said you were not clear to me.  Repeating yourself
doesn't help me, especially when it doesn't answer the question I
asked.  I don't know what else to do to continue the discussion.

I hope this post is clear to you.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 9:22ï¿½pm, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

Ok, But I had watched the video of several lioness in the Okavango
working to catch a buffalo that was most of the times trying to flee
by the water.  After a lot of work, they were able to trap the buffalo
and kill it.
If Casandra said water buffalo it was a mistake, for he saw the
hunting of buffalo in the water. In the case he had watched the same
documentary as me.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 2:00ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

I already acknowledged my mistake.  I guess it's gnus to you (that's a
pun).


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 20, 2:24ï¿½am, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

I'm back with the full text of the paywalled articles.  Not
surprisingly, we are both wrong.  It turns out the behavioral
similarities between cats and lions are balanced by their
differences.   With domestic cats, the male doesn't face the pressures
of a male lion to reproduce as quickly as possible.  Removing the
kittens doesn't force the female into oestrus, and a nursing litter
doesn't prevent the female from going into oestrus.  So infanticide
offers little reproductive benefits in any case.  According to one
article, infanticide within domestic cats is statistically rare, even
among rural cats, where it was observed 13 times out of 198 litters
over 4 years.  It hypothesized that the infanticide that is observed
may be an artifact of the higher population densitites as compared to
their wild relatives, although contrarily it points out that in urban
cat colonys with even higher population densities, infanticide has
never been observed.


author: Burkhard

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
,snip>

Don't know if you all saw this recent piece of news,, sort of on
topic;

http://www.greenmuze.com/animals/wild/3032-toxic-killer-welsh-swan-.html


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 2:37ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

My example, my former post had some errors of typing.  I realized this
after posting them. But I assumed there was not any problem to
understand the text, because what I was saying was logical. That's why
I said, I made it clear.

The motive to write, was that some people showed incredulity about the
chased out males of a pride, to survive for a year after they were
ousted.  To me it was the most easy thing to understand.  The were
already older and fatter. They has past the last years of his life
eating much and working little.  Then the young fighters came, full of
energy and strength and chased out the masters of a site.
Then some people were arguing, "if they were good hunters before, why
would they go starving now?"  Well, the answer has two sides.  One is
these lions were now much older, between five and seven years older.
It was a critical moment for them, for they had to pass from being in
a privileged position to one of scarcity and greater challenges from
other predators.
This concept is clear cut to me.  I do not know if you agree with it
or not.
You had not stated what is your complain exactly.

Then, some one was arguing about the case of infanticide and reasoning
like a philosopher.  I don't know on which side you were, because I
read a lot of material here and there, and had trouble to realize who
said this or that.

The case of infanticide among lions, occurs only each time is a change
in the males of a pride.  And that happens every 4 or 7 years.  I am
not sure, what is the average.  But I would not worry for this
infanticide, for most of the cubs that are birthed each year are
doomed to die, sooner or later. The probability of survival till they
can have a pride of their own and breed is around 5% Most of the death
occur early in life, when they are bachelors that were kicked out of
the pride. This is worse time to live for the young lions, and all the
mighty that can show later, are not yet developed.

Then, I do not know what is your point exactly, and why you do not
agree with these elemental concepts.

I do not think I am writing so bad, with so many mistakes, as being
utterly  incomprehensible.

Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Geode <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Will made a statement that lions hunted water buffalo, and someone
saw that and made a joke about it. Will really meant the cape buffalo.
the water buffalo live in Asia, the cape buffalo are the animals that
lions hunt in Africa.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 16, 4:42ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

You might want to read the previous posts.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 09/24/2010 01:40 PM, cassandra wrote:
Thanks much for taking the time to follow up further. The facts are
usually  much more interesting than the Just So stories.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
In message
<[email]>,
Burkhard <[email]> writes
It's a little odd that they choose a picture of a trumpeter swan (Cynus
buccinator) to illustrate an article about what one presumes is a mute
swan (Cygnus olor).


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 20, 2:40ï¿½am, Burkhard <[email]> wrote:

I guess it depends on what you think is on topic, a phrase which
itself depends on your reference point.  I realize it's normal and a
Good Thing (c) for topics to spawn multiple threads, but recent
pendantic conflation entirely neglects the more interesting and useful
questions of how infanticide might affect species' selective fitness.
Those questions are what I had in mind when I originally mentioned
infanticide in this topic.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 11:40ï¿½am, Geode <[email]> wrote:

You are absolutely correct.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 8:03ï¿½pm, "Dick C." <[email]> wrote:

It was the other way around. "African water buffalo" is one of my pet
peeves when it is said in a TV nature show. It isn't all that odd an
error for a non-specialist but nature shows ought to be more factual.

There was a stupid case a few years ago where a student was
reprimanded or punished for admonishing some noisy young women that
they were behaving like water buffalo. This was given as evidence that
it was a racial remark because "water buffalo live in Africa," which
they don't.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 24, 8:34ï¿½pm, William Morse <[email]> wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to call your arguments Just So stories, but I
won't stop you when you do :-)


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 20 Sep, 09:05, Ernest Major <{$[email]> wrote:

Here is the perpetrator on police CCTV :o)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11353269


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 20, 4:05ï¿½am, Ernest Major <{$[email]> wrote:

Why does one presume the article is about mute swans?


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
Will in New Haven <[email]> wrote:

There used to be Asian lions. Did they hunt water buffalo? Or were they
smarter than Cape lions?


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
In message
<[email]>,
cassandra <[email]> writes
The only species resident in the British Isles (including Wales) is the
mute swan. The date argues strongly against the migratory whooper and
Bewick's swans (trumpeter swans do not occur in the wild in the British
Isles). His behaviour is being blamed on poor water quality - that
argues against a waterfowl collection. The count of victims argues
against a small collection of Cygnus atratus or Cynus melanocoryphus. So
one presumes the article is about mute swans.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 9:58ï¿½pm, [email] (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

Maybe male asian lions didn't hunt, and that's why they're extinct :)


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 17, 9:58ï¿½pm, [email] (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

Are the Gir Forest lions all gone? They weren't doing well a few years
ago but I think it would have made the news if they were no more. I
think lions would hunt water buffalos. A tiger, hunting alone, can
kill one, so I think a pride of lions could handle it. I don't think
hunting Cape Buffalo is evidence of stupidity. That's a huge supply of
food for the very large pride that tackles the job. It is worth the
tradeoff, depending on the availability of less perilous quarrys.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 2:58ï¿½am, [email] (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

i did not know there were some Asian lions.  I thought they were
extinct long ago.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 20, 4:46ï¿½pm, Ernest Major <{$[email]> wrote:

But it argues for a foul water collection.

Could it be a migratory african swan?


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 11:46ï¿½am, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

According to this:

http://www.gujaratlions.com/

there were 411 individual lions in the Gir Forest as of May 2010.

"desperate" might be a better adjective.


author: heekster

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 01:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Geode
<[email]> wrote:

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


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On 18 Sep, 09:35, Geode <[email]> wrote:

There are only about 200 left (I think I "adopted"one once through
Greenpeace) and only in one Indian state.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
cassandra <[email]> wrote:

Laden, or unladen?


author: Will in New Haven

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 12:31ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

It's clearly habitual and not an act of desperation when performed by
large prides that do it regularly. The very largest prides seem to be
the ones that hunt hippos regularly, when the big critters are out of
the water feeding at night and the ones that hunt young elephants. The
ones that hunt buffalo are much more common.

Tigers have the advantage of hunting in terrain where they can use
stealth and the further advantage that water buffalo are less
formidable but the fact that a tiger can take down an adult water
buffalo or, even more impressively, a guar or a seledang, show that
wild cattle are natural prey for the biggest cats.


author: Geode

subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 11:18ï¿½pm, heekster <[email]> wrote:

thank you.
Geode
.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 20, 9:49ï¿½pm, [email] (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

Just swallow that whole line of inquiry.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 18, 3:37ï¿½pm, Will in New Haven
<[email]> wrote:

They might be habitually desperate.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 19, 9:10ï¿½am, Geode <[email]> wrote:

Your welcome.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:49:48 -0700 (PDT), cassandra
<[email]> wrote:

What c said.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 21, 6:16ï¿½pm, heekster <[email]> wrote:

Maybe Geode can believe you.


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 22, 1:40ï¿½pm, cassandra <[email]> wrote:

what should I believe?  I am mostly an unbeliever.
Geode


subject: Re: We are not alone

text:
On Sep 23, 3:51ï¿½pm, Geode <[email]> wrote:

Don't ask me.


author: Jo Baggs

subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
"ctowers" <[email]> wrote in message
news:NgY_k.523$[email]...

What's ironic is there are more Japanese in Hawaii today than ever before.
In fact. most stores in Waikiki list everything in English and Japanese.
Japan was pretty smart when it came to Hawaii.  They got their ass spanked
for bombing Waikiki.  Now they own most of Waikiki.


subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
"ctowers" <[email]> wrote in message
news:NgY_k.523$[email]...

Ok, Ok.  Before everyone posts that Waikiki was never bombed..."Uncle".  The
point I am making is Japan ending up controlling Hawaii anyway, despite the
bomb.


author: Thomas Reynolds

subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
"ctowers" <[email]> wrote in message
news:NgY_k.523$[email]...

And it was on a Sunday too, just like today.  I was listening tonight to old
time news broadcasts announcing the attack on that Sunday in 1941, realizing
how it must have hit the average person.  Sort of like 9/11 but worse since
it was a major military power going to war against us.


author: O

subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
In article <aO%_k.411$[email]>, Thomas Reynolds
<[email]> wrote:

And at the time, it had a better Navy and Air Force than us (at least
considered by their contemporary standards, which rated battleships
higher than aircraft carriers).  Luckily for the US, our carriers were
not at Pearl that day.

-Owen


author: RI Kanaka

subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

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

Better Army, too.  By that time it had been at war in China for 10 years,
committing all sorts of atrocities.


subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
In article <9Dl%k.12340$[email]>, RI Kanaka
<[email]> wrote:

I wouldn't say that.  Guadalcanal kind of refutes that.  Those marines
held out against all kinds of attack those first days there.  The
Japanese were so infused with their Bushido military religion, they
believed they could defeat the weak Americans with their Samarai
prowess, where the US had better rifles.  The Japanese soldier was more
willing to die for his country, but Patton was right when he said no
sonuvabitch ever won a war by dying for his country.

-Owen


author: Anonymous

subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
O <[email]> wrote:

The Muslim extremists may disprove that statement.


subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

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

The key words in your original post were "at the time".  I don't think
there's any doubt that Japan had a "better" military force in all phases of
the game "at the time" of the attack on Pearl and their army was no
exception.  It was battle tested, highly disciplined, better equipped, and
stunningly successful in earlier stages of the war, e.g. in the Philippines
at Bataan/Corregidor.  By the time the Marines went ashore at Guadalcanal 8
months later, the Japanese Navy had been dealt severe blows at Coral Sea and
Midway, and US ground forces had gained a great deal more training and time
to equip themselves (e.g., trainining with actual rifles rather than
broomsticks).  It's debatable that the US forces had better rifles in
December of 1941.  I don't think the Springfield in widespread use "at the
time" was necessarily superior to the Arisaka 38 or 99; the American and
Japanese based their designs on the bolt-action German Mauser.  The M1
Garand was just not available in large enough supplies to give the US ground
forces the semi-automatic firepower superiority during those early stages of
the war.


subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
"Anonymous" <[email]> wrote in message
news:20081209151209.361F71A74AD@isole...

Suicide Bombers are a finite resource.  The muslim fanatics are running out
of men to carry out their bullshit jihad.  They are now resorting to Women
and Children.


author: T

subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
In article <20081209151209.361F71A74AD@isole>, [email] says...

Somehow I doubt that. If push comes to shove I say if they nuke a U.S.
city, then we take out Mecca, then Medina, then any of the other Muslim
holy sites.


subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
In article <d7g0l.2563$[email]>, RI Kanaka
<[email]> wrote:

It depends on how literally you hold me to that!

They had pretty easy pickings.  The Philippines were no match for the
Allies, who were pretty much R&R occupation troops, not expected or
expecting to be front line fighters.

Eight months isn't a whole lot of time for an Army to change.  The fact
that the other arm of this Army also had good success in North Africa,
in spite of the compete bungling that went on there means that the Army
was probably in better shape than anyone thought, though it was
untested.

Guadalcanal was really the first opportunity where American ground
forces met Japanese ground forces on a fairly equal footing.  The
Allies had the advantage in the beginning of taking the island by
surprise, but, everyone being on a war footing now, the surprise could
not have been as great as Pearl Harbor or the Phillipines, where
everyone believed we were in a state of peace.

While the Japanese Navy had suffered some pretty heavy defeats, the
Japanese Army had not, and they should have wiped those Marines off
Guadalcanal in a matter of days, given their supposed better
capabilities, and not excepting their tendency to fight to the death.


subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
"RI Kanaka" <[email]> wrote in message
news:d7g0l.2563$[email]...
The 30-06 of the Springfield threw a heavier round a greater distance and
with greater accuracy than either the Arisaka 38 or 99.  However, the
Arisaka 38 and 99 had stronger action designs but the metal used in later
99s was crap and they are unsafe shooters today.  The older 38s are safer
generally.  No military currently has the average grunt carrying anything
firing as heavy a round today. I think the rifles were a wash at first given
they were not taking 600 yard shots very often.


subject: Re: 67 Years Ago

text:
"Jo Baggs" <[email]> wrote in message news:ghmd0o$59u$[email]...

Not all the suicide bombers are aware they are suicide bombers.  In some
documented cases, the "bomber" thought they were simply driving a truck to a
destination where it was needed and when it passed by the target it was
exploded remotely.  One young Saudi kid survived, though horribly burned,
and described how it all happened to him.  I saw it on You Tube.  As I
recall, even his ears got burned off.  He had gone to Iraq to be a fighter
and was quite surprised when the fuel truck he was driving blew up with him
in it.


author: Brian Quincy Hutchings

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
I'd like to use these questions for my own samizdat, but
I can see plenty of probable answers to some of them,
that point away from the awful administration.  for instance,
the Pebntagon and the towers are two different sorts
of construction; and, where can you see any evidence
of nuclear explosions, in the video of the second tower
to be hit?
    we still have to get rid of Cheeny,
preferably before an election.  unfortunately,
the DNC's MacAuliffe prefers to have Cheeny in the election,
no matte what *more* will happen to us, after, because
the "islamic" fundues prefer to have him
as thier designated Great Satan Stand-up ... it could be comedy,
if it weren't so sick.

"~z~" <[email]> wrote in message news:<cdfla0$ktu$[email]>...

be a part of the rightwing gutting
of the Voting Rights ACt of 1965!...  and
that is why Gore lost in Clinton's home state,
not because he didn't ask Bill to go, there.
    Buglisosi's book proves that a)
Team Gore did *nothing* in the final arguments, and b)
the Supreme Five committed impeachable offenses
against both teh state and federal Constitutions.

the case that the Supremes refuzed to hear the appeal on,
after David Sentelle's panel agreed with teh DNC,
that the VRA was unconsitutional
-- "we're just an ordinary association of folks,
with no need of any federal ovesight" --
is LaRouche versus Fowler,
the chair of the DNC in '96, when the case was brought.
    well, there's still time to call demand an Open Convention,
for all of the Dem Ten to speak at, including Lyn

this is the lesson of "Harry Potter and PS#1," and
the art of gamesmanship; eh?

now, I recall; conveniently,
it's the outfit that flew Sir George
to Texas after graduating from Yale
-- two & a half years on the GI Bill, although
his grades were supposedly classified by the FBI --
Dresser Industries, the oil extraction services co.

--Strep Throat at Watergate ?!?
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm


author: duke

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:13:31 -0700, "~z~" <[email]> wrote:

Their names and pictures are public knowledge.  What do you want, dna on a piece of dust.

duke
*****
Matthew 11
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you
and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
*****


author: Eric Cragganmore

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
In article <cdfla0$ktu$[email]>, [email] says...

LOL @ conspiracy theory


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:

Brian Quincy Hutchings is a gay name.


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

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

go home watrous


author: Steve

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

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

They are not on any of the passenger lists.

Steve


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
Eric Cragganmore <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

You can laugh but can you refute the arguments?
No?

Stevel


author: Theorem

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
Eric Cragganmore wrote:

That's all you can say? The poster brings up good questions and asks
for answers or explanations, but all you can do is parrot "conspiracy
theory"?


author: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
Eric Cragganmore <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

That's no answer, you nutball.  EVerytime someone calls bush a liar,
you rw loonies call them conspiracy theorists.  That's lame.


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

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

Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?

Perhaps you could address and offer proof of the official version?  Are you
even able to?


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
Rich A. Work is a mantra;
doesn't mean taht you're gay, though -- neccesarily!

"Rich@work" <Rich@work> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

--Strep Throat at Watergate ?!?
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
On 21 Jul 2004 07:51:30 -0700, [email] (Steve) wrote:

Now there's a real final determinate.

duke
*****
Matthew 11
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you
and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
*****


author: Gabby

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
"Steve" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<[email]>...
a piece of dust.

If you're using that criterion, my husband died in a ferry sinking 27 years
ago since his name WAS on the passenger list and he was the only person
missing after the boat went down.

Gabby


author: Tammy

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

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

When one proposes a theory, it is the responsibility of the proposer
to provide proof of the theory. Otherwise, you end up with a person
proposing one theory, without proof. When that theory is debunked, the
person proposes another theori=y, perhaps very similar, again without
proof. A theory is proven true, if and when, it is proven true, not
when someone has yet to prove it false.


author: Mike Russell

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
~z~ wrote:

Yet I remember someone named "z" responding to several paragraphs of my
replies to some conspiracy stuff by snipping it, and responding with the
single word "Shill".  Apart from this being a misuse of the word, since a
shill supports the original pretense, rather than undermining it, it is also
an example of thevery technique you now pretend to decry.

It is fair to ask you what the form of such a proof would be.  Presumably it
would need to be a cogent series of irrefutable facts that leave nothing
whatsoever open to interpretation.  If this is what you require in the way
of proof, then you are asking for neither proof nor knowledge as we know it.

The universe is not built that way, and our science and knowledge lies,
ultimately, on a bedrock made of current theories and best assumptions,
albeit backed up with centuries of excellent results.

I doubt anyone, including yourself, could describe what would go in to such
a proof.  That, and the fact that you seem to believe our own leaders can
kill thousands, and manage the subsequent cover-up, leaves little but
laughter as the only rational response to your unreasonable assertions.


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
In article <cdfsfp$6e7$[email]>, [email] says...

I don't address such "issues" as pink elephants and businessmen losing
thier kidneys to the black market in Vegas hotel rooms either.  If you'd
like me to address something, come up with an issue I can take
seriously.

I didn't try to sidetrack anything.  I pointed to exactly what you said,
and addressed it as what it is - nor have I begun namecalling and
ridiculing you yet.


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

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

I am sorry for your loss Gabby but what is your point?

Stevel


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
"Mike Russell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:1KKKc.24026$[email]...
also
it
it.
such
More disinformation--you have no trouble doing that nor do you have trouble
fogging the issues, so I think you can intelectually defend the official
position without further explanation on how to do it from me.  Your replies,
without exception, are indicative of a shill.


author: Kuntah-Kinteh

subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:53:21 +0000, Eric Cragganmore wrote:

I think when these village Idiots post this nonsense replies we should
just ignore them.  They gain power from getting all of us sensible and
sincere people upset.  I would not take offence if a mentally retarded
person call me a dumby.


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
"Steve" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<[email]>...
dna on
years

My point is that my husband is very much alive -- he wasn't on the ferry.
His name on the passenger manifest didn't mean he drowned any more than
their names NOT being on the passenger lists meant they weren't there.

Gabby


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

text:
~z~ wrote:

I suggest you are fogging the issues by making bald assertions, then hiding
in your own credulous version of the universe, where dozens of individuals
may be recruited for one of the many arcane plots you have proposed.

If I recall correctly, some of your assertions are that the buildings were
destroyed by timed charges, the Pentagon was not hit by a plane at all
(implying a rather cold blooded offsite murder of the passengers of that
plane), and the controls of jet liners are artifically limited by a device
that may be remotely released only by the authorities.

Our society is too leakey for such plots to stay quiet for long.  Even if we
accept that you believe all this fantastic technological stuff, how can you
believe that each and every one of the people involved in the various plots
you propose would keep a secret for so long, even if it did not involve the
killing of thousands of people.

I wonder that you never stop to think how fantastic and unlikely your
proposals are simply from a physical standpoint, or that some of the people
killed would inevitably be relatives or friends of those recruited for the
plot, and they would be compelled at some point to blow the whistle.

The answer has to that you find the real world too boring, and like many
credulous individuals you enjoy playing with incredible ideas.  I agree they
are more fun than the more mundane truths the world is made up of, but this
alone is not enough to make very many people, if any, believe what you say.

And look up the meaning of the word "shill".  Typically this is someone in
the carnival audience who planted there to support the barker.  In your case
I am very much the opposite of a shill - perhaps a wet blanket for your
fevered ruminations :-)


subject: Re: The Fatal Flaw In The 9/11 Coverup

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

So by your logic all the missing passengers may be still alive!!

Stevel


author: LT Lee

subject: American democracy: It is about money

text:
A political ad has recently appeared in NewYorkTime.com and
WashingtonPost.com and probably some other websites. The ad has more
than one version. The following one is more common.

The ad begins with Bush on top a pile of gold and money with Kerry
standing on the floor. It then shows an envelope with a $50 check
inside. Next, more and more such envelopes push Kerry higher and
higher. Finally, Kerry is standing taller than Bush upon a hill of
envelopes with checks. Kerry then push Bush away. Final message from
the ad: YOU $50 GIFT NOW CAN PUT US OVER THE TOP AND HELP TOPPLE BUSH!

What can one learn from the ad? Among other things, it is clear that
American democracy is about money. Kerry can't win if Bush is on top
of a pile of money. Kerry will win if Kerry's mountain of checks is
higher than Bush.


subject: Money talks; free speech is a fascade Re: American democracy: It is about money

text:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/opinion/13KRUG.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

"Now, e-mail and other Enron documents are revealing why Tom DeLay,
the House majority leader, is one of the most powerful men in America.

A little background: at the Republican convention, most featured
speakers will be social moderates like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold
Schwarzenegger. A moderate facade is necessary to win elections in a
generally tolerant nation. But real power in the party rests with
hard-line social conservatives like Mr. DeLay, who, in the debate over
gun control after the Columbine shootings, insisted that juvenile
violence is the result of day care, birth control and the teaching of
evolution.

Here's the puzzle: if Mr. DeLay's brand of conservatism is so
unpopular that it must be kept in the closet during the convention,
how can people like him really run the party?

In Mr. DeLay's case, a large part of the answer is his control over
corporate cash. As far back as 1996, one analyst described Mr. DeLay
as the "chief enforcer of company contributions to Republicans." Some
of that cash has flowed through Americans for a Republican Majority,
called Armpac, a political action committee Mr. DeLay founded in 1994.
By dispensing that money to other legislators, he gains their
allegiance; this, in turn, allows him to deliver favors to his
corporate contributors."

----------------

[email] (LT Lee) wrote in message news:<[email]>...


author: Tom Goodman

subject: Re: American democracy: It is about money

text:
American Democracy = Amerikan The Mockcracy!!!

Amerikan The Mockcracy = you have no right to rule, you're forced to
surrender your right to rule, you're allow making one choice, vote for
a dictatorship behind door number 1, 2, or 3. And they are the same
group of murderous European colonists regardless who wins, they're in
the same mafia, they all want to grab the whole world for their turf.

One of these days those Amerikaner murderers in White House and
Pentagon will use nuclear bombs on babies, children, women, and old
people too; they almost dropped nuclear bombs on Vietnam to save face
from losing the war.

Tom Goodman

Revelation 18:24
And in her(U$ of Amerika) was found the blood of prophets, and of
saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

On 28 Jun 2004 18:25:50 -0700, [email] (LT Lee) wrote:


author: Yaofeng

text:
Chinese Communisim:  It is about lives.

To me the choice is simple.


author: the Beezy Surfer

text:
You think of money when you see things.

Others see people exist who give away money.

Still others see people who are running, but not running away with the
money, and wonder why they don't just think of the money.

[email] (LT Lee) wrote in message news:<[email]>...


author: Jim Walsh

text:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:25:50 -0700, LT Lee thought carefully and wrote:

All other things being equal, the candidate with the most money has a
better chance to win. Duh.

The candidate with the most money does not always win. (Duh.) In some
cases, being perceived as the candidate with the most money is, in fact, a
handicap.

Sadly, in the PRC, only the CCP approved candidates can win, and, having
won, their only permitted action is the approval of policies set by the
buchers of TAM.


author: Guru Google

subject: Re: Money talks; free speech is a fascade Re: American democracy: It is about money

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

What's the derived connection betwen free speech and money here?

But remember, your using NYTimes again and again will be used against
your words when you comment on reliabiligy of free speech in USA, Mr.
Lee. Hehe....


text:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:48:23 -0400, Tom Goodman thought carefully and
wrote:

Hi. Tom. Thanks for the thoughtful criticism. The world is a better place
because you care and share your thoughts.


author: lilac

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

The definition is a bit irrelevant now:  China was rejected by EU the
Market Economy Status and will keep trying at it.  Perhaps even the
founder of communisim would not totally agree that today's China will
be qualified as "communisim".

But one thing is certain in China:  No one/party/parties/blah blah
blah  will be able to succeed in the long run, if this object does not
satisfy the majority of the society in fulfulling their demands and
hope and ultimately prosperity.

Therefore the reality will speak louder than any one's debates over
democracy or not.


text:
[email] (the Beezy Surfer) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Do you not know that this is an ad made in order to raise money? Tell
me the following is not the message. Kerry can't win if Bush is on top
of a large pile of money. Kerry will win if Kerry's mountain of checks
is higher than Bush.


author: charles liu

text:
Jim Walsh <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Wrong, I cited you an article about Beijin's district people's
Congress election last month where 45 CCP candidates lost, with 33
suprise write-in winners. District deputies represent their
constituencies and participate in the "sausage making" process to
indirectly elect national people's congress deputies.

Do you want the link? I can dig it up.

Wrong. You set a bar of 90%, and I've found article showing
unsatisfactory anti-curruption policy voted in with only 55% in favor
by the NPC.


text:
Jim Walsh <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

If all other things are bing equal, why not simply draw lots? It would
be fairer.

This is not the message of the ad.

Different countries can have different way to chose successful
candidates. Should money be the criteria?


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

May be you should read the post again.

I am aware of I am using NYtimes. However, NYTimes reporting on
American issues is as best as one can get. On the other hand, NYTimes
reporting on Iraqi and Chinese affairs are different stories.


text:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 14:36:44 +0800, Jim Walsh
<[email]> wrote:

Hi. Jim.. Thanks for your unthoughtful sacrasm. The world needs to
become a better place because you helped support a brutal imperialist
excuse - promote freedom and democracy onto the world. Thanks a lot.
Now its too late to remove the US mercenaries, fleedom and The
Mockcracy in Iraq now. Dead babies and children in Iraq and
Afghanistan can now thank you very much.

Tom Goodman

Revelation 18:24
And in her(USA) was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of
all that were slain upon the earth.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


text:
I agree with you that it is very clear to Red China that its appointed
U.S. Presidential candidate will surely win every U.S. Presidential
election.  All it needs to do is to accumulate 400 billion U.S.
dollars every 4 years in its external exchange reserve and his
mountain will be bigger than anyone else's.

Now how is it my neighbour's wives are so much prettier and have much,
much larger hill tops than mine?  Should I move to the Mount
Chomulongma?

[email] (LT Lee) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

the Beezy Surfer wrote in message news:<[email]>...


text:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:02:34 -0700, charles liu thought carefully and
wrote:

Wonderful news. A free and fair election to a post of no significance. I
agree that it is a step in the right direction, tho.

Do you claim this step is big enough? I don't think so.


text:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:56:39 -0700, LT Lee thought carefully and wrote:

It is really funny when a person says that oppression by the CCP is fair
enough for Chinese and goes on to say the American system isn't fair
enough.


text:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:56:39 -0700, LT Lee thought carefully and wrote:

And, from that I am supposed to conclude?

1. The ad's message is wrong?
2. You mis-read the ad's message?

This is not a matter of the voters having different ways to choose. It is
a matter of the ordinary people having NO choice at all.

No.


author: Bill Moore

text:
In article <[email]>,
LT Lee <[email]> wrote:

Should how far one can get one's tongue up Jiang Zemin's ass
be the criterion?


subject: NY Times on USA and China

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

Do you think you have free speech here?
Do you have money? Obviously you didn't win American lottery yet.

Plz explain why there's such a diff. Why the same newspaper under the
same editori-in-chief can be accurate in one part and lying on the
other.


text:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 14:22:37 -0400, Tom Goodman thought carefully and
wrote:

No sarcasm intended. Sorry you felt that it was sarcastic. It was sincere.

I totally agree that the US has become an imperialist power. I have
opposed it longer than you have been alive.


text:
Jim Walsh <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Beg to differ, district deputy elects national deputy. That's
equivlant of electing the Congress in 1 level of indirection.

Again your ideological blinder pops up. You can't argue "it's not
free", so now you argue weither it's free enough - well that's for the
Chinese people to decide, and none of our business.

Are our improvments always made with revolutions? Or we too take small
steps in the right direction? Some would say Civil Rights have yet to
be fully realized in America, should we get rid of our deadleter
system, or should we keep on taking steps in the right direction to
make things better?

Apply that to China.