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