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]