Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:11:23 -0400 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Phosphor wrote:
> He went from my statement that aborigines could have lived
> entirely on kangaroo for a substantial length of time [as opposed to
> tubers]
> to the conclusion that all aborigines over 40,000 years ate only kangaroo
> and
> nothing else. This is not a logical kind of argument.
I'll have to take your word that this was his argument; I don't
feel like going back over it. I didn't follow that argument very
closely, since I already knew the gist of it, that reliance on
kangaroo alone for any length of time would entail discarding
large amount of uneaten kangaroo meat.
> When confronted he will say he expressing his personal view or personal
> choice only. His motivation is clearly not this, however.
Is it? Maybe I have simply been on this list too long, and have
lost perspective.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|