A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The issue is whether the state has a legitimate interest in proscribing
unprotected sexual activity by someone who is known to be infected with an
STD. Why don't you address that question?

If deliberate transmission of a disease is already forbidden, there is
no need to outlaw any sexual activity.

The question is not one of "need," it's one of societal will. I grant you
that there may be no "need" to outlaw sodomy to avoid this particular issue,
but the question is whether society is obligated to regulate in accordance
with your view of "needs" or whether it can regulate as it sees fit for
that, and/or other reasons?


If they use it differently than the textbook definition, they are misusing
the term, and thus their scientific credential are in question. I think it's
more likely that you are misusing the term, and that the scientists use the
proper terms.

They define their own textbook definition. Their scientific credentials
are not in question.

Well, since you haven't yet identified a single "scientist" in any credible
manner that would permit examination of their credentials, I judge this to
be argument by authority.

Scientific definitions are not always the same as
those used by the general public. Scientists need specific meanings to
terms in order to ensure that communication is concise and precise.

Then feel free to post an authoritative and verifiable definition of
"morphological changes" so that we can operate from the same definition.
Don't expect me to take your word for it though, some references are
required because you are facile at mischaracterizing things.


Perhaps you are using the wrong word.

Perhaps you are full of ****.

Nah, only about 1/4 full. I had a nice dump this morning.


You don't challenge any other items I posted.

I don't? I think you're mistaken. I challenge nearly everything you post,
you're just too dimwitted to realize it.

Is that an admission
that you've been lying and bull****ting all along? Or are you
too cowardly to stand up for your ridiculous claims?

I'm still waiting for you to refute them with any kind of credible rebuttal.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I don't? I think you're mistaken. I challenge nearly everything you post,
you're just too dimwitted to realize it.

Really - so then what about those points on your bull**** that you
just ignored in the preceding post?

I realize that you try to challenge me - I'm waiting for you to submit
something factual and not something you just made up.

I'm still waiting for you to refute them with any kind of
credible rebuttal.

Nice try, dickhead. You haven't provided one single bit of
evidence to support your ridiculous claims. You have posted loads
of bull**** and don't even attempt to justify it.

You are little more than a boastful bull****ter without the guts to
deal with facts. You try to bury your bull**** with other bull****
and when you run out, you hope no one notices.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I don't? I think you're mistaken. I challenge nearly everything you post,
you're just too dimwitted to realize it.

Really - so then what about those points on your bull**** that you
just ignored in the preceding post?

I realize that you try to challenge me - I'm waiting for you to submit
something factual and not something you just made up.

I'm still waiting for you to refute them with any kind of
credible rebuttal.

Nice try, dickhead. You haven't provided one single bit of
evidence to support your ridiculous claims. You have posted loads
of bull**** and don't even attempt to justify it.

You are little more than a boastful bull****ter without the guts to
deal with facts. You try to bury your bull**** with other bull****
and when you run out, you hope no one notices.

If true, that makes you a coprophager par excellence. Mmmmm, good!

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

They define their own textbook definition. Their scientific credentials
are not in question.

Well, since you haven't yet identified a single "scientist" in any credible
manner that would permit examination of their credentials, I judge this to
be argument by authority.

What a crock of ****. Scientists use their own terminology and don't need
your approval. Get over it.

Then feel free to post an authoritative and verifiable definition of

You're still short quite a few references for the crap you claim to
be true. When you catch up, get back to me.

some references are
required because you are facile at mischaracterizing things.

Trying to accuse me of what you do? That's rich. More bull****
from the weiner.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

They define their own textbook definition. Their scientific credentials
are not in question.

Well, since you haven't yet identified a single "scientist" in any credible
manner that would permit examination of their credentials, I judge this to
be argument by authority.

What a crock of ****. Scientists use their own terminology and don't need
your approval. Get over it.

It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.


Then feel free to post an authoritative and verifiable definition of

You're still short quite a few references for the crap you claim to
be true. When you catch up, get back to me.

some references are
required because you are facile at mischaracterizing things.

Trying to accuse me of what you do? That's rich. More bull****
from the weiner.

How's it taste? You must really like it.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.

Given your lack of evidence to support your bull****, evasion
seems to be your specialty.

I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and
form, not size. You don't understand that and are using the
term incorrectly. When you discuss sizes, you are entering into
the realm of biometry. Something you would know nothing about,
since you know virtually nothing about science.

You want a reference - here's one from the first book I grabbed
off my bookshelves. It discusses the use of morphology and biometry
specifically in the context of paleoanthropology.

Johanson, Donald, and Edey, Maitland A., "Lucy, The Beginnings of
Humankind", Simon and Schuster, 1981, pp74-75. ISBN 0-671-25036-1

Now how about you providing the references to back up your ridiculous
claims? Here's the bull**** you're trying to avoid. Go ahead,
dickhead, put yout money where your mouth is. Prove your ridiculous
assertions. Cut the bull**** and post some facts for a change.


Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus.

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Have you? You made the claim - you have to back it up. You have not
been able to do so. I have studied a lot about the history of science
and can tell you that there is nothing that suggests that Galileo was
not well respected. Ditto Newton.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. In fact is
is a myth that most people believed the earth was flat. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.

Given your lack of evidence to support your bull****, evasion
seems to be your specialty.

I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and
form, not size.

Not according to the only authoritative definition of the word posted so
far.

You don't understand that and are using the
term incorrectly.

That you claim it to be so does not prove it to be so. You refuse to cite
any credible authority that defines "morphology" differently than Websters,
so I conclude that it's you that are full of bull****.

When you discuss sizes, you are entering into
the realm of biometry. Something you would know nothing about,
since you know virtually nothing about science.

Main Entry:mor£phol£o£gy
Pronunciation:m*r-*f*-l*-j*
Function:noun

Etymology:German Morphologie, from morph- + -logie -logy
Date:1830

1 a : a
branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a :
a study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language b : the system of word-forming elements and
processes in a language
3 a : a study of structure or form b : STRUCTURE,
FORM
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of
erosional forms or topographic features
ñmor£pho£log£i£cal
\*m*r-f*-*l*-ji-k*l\ also mor£pho£log£ic \-*l*-jik\ adjective

ñmor£pho£log£i£cal£ly \-k(*-)l*\ adverb
ñmor£phol£o£gist
\m*r-*f*-l*-jist\ noun

Size is a part of "form and structure." Without size, there is no form or
structure. Form and structure have size. Thus, you're proven wrong again.


You want a reference - here's one from the first book I grabbed
off my bookshelves. It discusses the use of morphology and biometry
specifically in the context of paleoanthropology.

Johanson, Donald, and Edey, Maitland A., "Lucy, The Beginnings of
Humankind", Simon and Schuster, 1981, pp74-75. ISBN 0-671-25036-1

I see no discussion of any of the subjects you claim. I see only a book
title.


Now how about you providing the references to back up your ridiculous
claims? Here's the bull**** you're trying to avoid. Go ahead,
dickhead, put yout money where your mouth is. Prove your ridiculous
assertions. Cut the bull**** and post some facts for a change.

Main Entry:mor£phol£o£gy
Pronunciation:m*r-*f*-l*-j*
Function:noun

Etymology:German Morphologie, from morph- + -logie -logy
Date:1830

1 a : a
branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a :
a study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language b : the system of word-forming elements and
processes in a language
3 a : a study of structure or form b : STRUCTURE,
FORM
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of
erosional forms or topographic features
ñmor£pho£log£i£cal
\*m*r-f*-*l*-ji-k*l\ also mor£pho£log£ic \-*l*-jik\ adjective

ñmor£pho£log£i£cal£ly \-k(*-)l*\ adverb
ñmor£phol£o£gist
\m*r-*f*-l*-jist\ noun



Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. In fact is
is a myth that most people believed the earth was flat. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

Except that you have elided the context, which clearly indicated that we
were discussing the precursors of homo sapien.


Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Um...make me.


Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

Well, I'm sure you'd be happy to misquote me again...


It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

And you still gobble it down like it was ambrosia. What does that make you?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts

I don't see the word "size" or "dimension" anywhere in here.
Biometry is specifically related to measurements and the statistical
analysis of such.

Size is a part of "form and structure." Without size, there is no form or
structure. Form and structure have size. Thus, you're proven wrong again.

You prove nothing. Two items can have the same form and yet be different
sizes - that's what scale is all about.

I see no discussion of any of the subjects you claim. I see only a book
title.

That's what references are all about, dickhead. You have to read the
pages referenced in the book. I know that represents a serious difficulty
for you, since your reading skills are so poor, but that's life.

Except that you have elided the context, which clearly indicated that we
were discussing the precursors of homo sapien.

Bull**** again. You won't quit until you've proved you're a pathological
liar. Here's the preceding section:

If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history.

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

The only species of human are H. sapiens. You are still full of ****.

Um...make me.

Coward.

Well, I'm sure you'd be happy to misquote me again...

Again? When have I misquoted you? Provide proof, dickhead.

It reamins that you are consistently lying and refuse to provide any
substantive proof of your ridiculous claims. You will say anything
and don't give a damn for facts.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts

I don't see the word "size" or "dimension" anywhere in here.

That's because you're an idiot, ****-brick.

Biometry is specifically related to measurements and the statistical
analysis of such.

Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology. One measures the relative sizes of
the form and structure of organisms. Without the form and structure of the
organism, there is nothing to measure, and biometry is pointless. Thus,
morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure.

Morphology is not, however, a sub-part of biometry.

Tastes yummy, dip-****?

Size is a part of "form and structure." Without size, there is no form or
structure. Form and structure have size. Thus, you're proven wrong again.

You prove nothing. Two items can have the same form and yet be different
sizes - that's what scale is all about.

And those are morphological differences that are measured and analyzed using
biometric methods. Cart horse, not the obverse, ****-head.


I see no discussion of any of the subjects you claim. I see only a book
title.

That's what references are all about, dickhead. You have to read the
pages referenced in the book. I know that represents a serious difficulty
for you, since your reading skills are so poor, but that's life.

You mistake the Usenet for real life. I have no interest in tracking down an
obscure textbook just to satisfy you. If you think that there are pertinent
quotes that support your argument, then YOU may type them in and post them.
Until then, your reference is nothing but an empty argument.

Besides, it's the work of less than ten seconds to come up with a
categorical and authoritative refutation of your idiocy using Google. Read
on, ****- breath.

If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history.

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

The only species of human are H. sapiens. You are still full of ****.

Hm. Amusing but uninteresting display of ignorance. How about Ardipithecus
ramidus and australopithecus anamensis and australopithecus afarensis and
australopithecus africanus and australopithecus garhi and paranthropus
aethiopicus and paranthropus boisei and paranthropus robustus and homo
rudolfensis and homo heidelbergensis and homo erectus and homo habilis and
homo ergaster and homo neanderthalensis?

Seems like the real scientists at the Smithsonian Institution, as opposed to
Netwits like you, classify them all as "humans."

"The species to which you and all other living human beings on this planet
belong is Homo sapiens. Anatomically, modern humans can generally be
characterized by the lighter build of their skeletons compared to earlier
humans."

Source: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ha/a_tree.html

Re-read the last two words of that quote: "earlier humans."

How's it taste, ****-eater?

Well, I'm sure you'd be happy to misquote me again...

Again? When have I misquoted you? Provide proof, dickhead.

It reamins that you are consistently lying and refuse to provide any
substantive proof of your ridiculous claims. You will say anything
and don't give a damn for facts.

How's them "human facts" from the Smithsonian taste, ****-for-brains?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser