posted
No sane or serious human being will call Neanderthals 'modern humans'. Only kalonjigaboo entertains this fairy tale. I imagine it is because kalongibbon very likely looks like a Neanderthal, and hence very negatively defensive to biological facts about Neanderthals.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone somehow missed the dialogue between me and Ass-Endorser, and failed to see his history of false accusations, as well as his repeated reluctance to man up and address arguments and request forwarded to him, how about a look at the following, where The Ass-endorser is essentially saying the same thing I’ve been debating all along in that post where I invoked Nikolai Valuev. For the record, what I said during that post was:
Folks, as you can see, Real life people who show the full plethora of the outward visible ''Neanderthal'' traits don't look like non-humans, despite The Ass-offerers prediction. -Swenet
In reply to that, his pongid ape like understanding ability led him to interpret that statement as saying that Nikolai would be classed with Neanderthals, craniofacially. LOL. Compare that post with what he recently said in another thread:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Interestingly, weird Neanderthal looking folks occur more amongst "whites" than "blacks".
(...)
If anyone is going to mistake some person for Neanderthal, that person is likely going to be a white dude. LOL
LOLOL. Does this guy suffer from multiple personality disorder? Is what he's saying above, sans the anti European sentiment, not compatible with what I said during my initial post, summed up here:
It has been said that if a Neanderthal were to dress up in modern attire, shaven and groomed, a layman wouldn't be able to notice it as any different from other bystanders -Swenet
What a dumb phuck Pongid ape. One of the entities in him debated me and argued that Neanderthals would be readily detected by any layman who is not blind as a bat, because of the ''radical'' craniofacial differences between them and modern humans. And now, some other, yet to be identified personality in him, is saying that Neanderthal looking folks occur among whites as well as blacks.
What personality of him am I dealing with now, the socalled ‘’objective’’ person in him that writes his wannabe blog, but cannot even understand that inbetween regions like the Sinai peninsula cannot be closer to Africa, geologically speaking, than to Asia, or the sick misogynistic, tantrum throwing teenager?
Watch as the azz beating, delivered to the Ass-endorser ensues:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: because the hunch like profile of Neanderthals stems from their relatively diminutive stocky & muscular build, particularly the thick short neck.
According to what scientific report? Or is this simply another figment of your imagination?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: doesn't even realize that most of these reconstructions are fairly recent or that several of them are photos of life-like mock ups in museums, not some "early scientific phuckups"
Where did I say that the life-like mock ups placed in museums are early scientific phuckups?
Isn’t it hilarious, that the Ass-endorser at first denied that some of his links contained Neanderthals that are not fully erect:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are also as blind as a bat, and going off on a figment of your imagination; none of these images show a non-erect Neanderthal.
And now, after being clued in, and relieved of his Pongid ape ignorance, his Pongid brained azz is acknowledging my description of some of his pics as being correct.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: because the hunch like profile of Neanderthals stems from their relatively diminutive stocky & muscular build, particularly the thick short neck.
Notice that he neglects to comment on the bend knees of some of the Neanderthal reconstructions he posted, that escaped his screening ability, because he has no knowledge about what is a result of Neanderthal myth and what is factually observed from their bodily structures.
What, are their bend knees the result of their massive craniums that take their toll on their legs? LOL. This is the level of writing and logic ''The Explorer'' craps out on his wannabe blog, that is only visited by ES posters, when he throws his links around.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LOL, the cumholic dumbfuck calls this suicidal post above "thrashing".
kalonG-Spot is a true definition of a plantation cultured fuckhead. So criminally insane is faggotzilla, that the fuckhead actually went scavenging around for an insult directed at a troll in a totally different thread, calling that an "admission" (see below), just to bolster the fuckhead's egg-headed self-inflicted confusion about Neanderthals being indistinguishable from modern humans. What a desperate shithead. LOL
faggotzilla's acne covered bony ass will be very hardpressed to produce a direct quote for this fairytale:
saying that Neanderthal looking folks occur among whites as well as blacks. - kalongibbon
Or this: led him to interpret that statement as saying that Nikolai would be classed with Neanderthals, craniofacially - kalonjigaboo
^Had the daddy-fucking sissy been able to put a letter or two of the alphabet together, the gibbon in tampon would've actually derived the very opposite, said about Mr. Valuev; instead, the point was to show that the fuckhead chose Valuev precisely because of his "peculiarity". The plantation reared fuckhead is even oddly punked by a post calling the fuckhead a full blown idiot for deliriously seeing "non-erect" Neanderthals in the pics, confusing a scolding for a gesture of "support".
cumholic moron, please do bring me more of your death-warrant gobbledygook emotional posts my way, I'll be glad to sign them, and teach you how an ass-whooping is correctly done Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:will be very hardpressed to produce a direct quote for this fairytale:
saying that Neanderthal looking folks occur among whites as well as blacks.
LOL, Pongid ape doesn’t even remember his own writings, not even when he’s confronted with his own words. I guess that’s a common symptom for people with multiple personality disorder. The direct quote where he says that Neanderthal looking folks occur among blacks and whites, is below, for those interested in a quick laugh at the pongid ape:
quote:Interestingly, weird Neanderthal looking folks occur more amongst "whites" than "blacks".
Moving on..
quote: will be very hardpressed to produce this:
led him to interpret that statement as saying that Nikolai would be classed with Neanderthals, craniofacially – kalonjigaboo’
Of course it led you to interpret that statement as saying that Nikolai would be classed with Neanderthals, cranio-facially. What I said:
Folks, as you can see, Real life people who show the full plethora of the outward visible ''Neanderthal'' traits don't look like non-humans, despite The Ass-offerers prediction. -Swenet
How else can my pretty straight forward post cause the Pongid Ape to ignore the larger implications of what I said (ie, that the traits he talks about alone are not enough to make the trait bearer look non-human to the layman), and crap out the following irrelevancies:
quote:Mr. Valuev obviously has a prominent chin, has a flat mid-face, lacks an occipital bump, overall build is certainly not diminutively stocky, his nose structure obviously outlines a "pear-like" aperture, and sans the sloping forehead, the guy's braincase is obviously in line with the modern human pattern, showcasing a narrow high braincase, giving it a more rounded profile than a typical Neanderthal skull's
My quotation (see above) talks about how the full plethora of outward visible Neanderthal traits is, in and of itself, not sufficient to render people who have it non-human, to the eye of the layman. Then the pongid ape goes on to crap out the above, which can be summed up as ‘’Nikolai doesn’t carry the full plethora of traits’’, which in turn, can be summed up as ‘’Nikolai would not class with Neanderthals’’. In the meantime, the Pongid ape ignores my post and cowers out of addressing the larger implications of what I actually said. Which he will do again in his next reply, just watch him. The pongid ape has no shame.
quote:The plantation reared fuckhead is even oddly punked by a post calling the fuckhead a full blown idiot for deliriously seeing "non-erect" Neanderthals in the pics, confusing a scolding for a gesture of "support".
What I said:
Only an idiot would post Neanderthal reconstructions that depict them as not fully erect -Swenet
What you said in return:
You are also as blind as a bat, and going off on a figment of your imagination; none of these images show a non-erect Neanderthal -Ass-offerer
So Pongid ape, you’ll get the chance to show everyone that you did NOT concede on your initial point, that none of your links show an individual that is not fully erect. Do the following links, contain Neanderthals that are not fully erect, yes or no?
Still waiting for the Pongid ape to man up, and take responsibility for what he utters, for once. When you’re done cowering and fleeing from my requests, like the little b!tch that you are, you can address the following requests, that you conveniently ignored:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Watch as the azz beating, delivered to the Ass-endorser ensues:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: because the hunch like profile of Neanderthals stems from their relatively diminutive stocky & muscular build, particularly the thick short neck.
According to what scientific report? Or is this simply another figment of your imagination?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: doesn't even realize that most of these reconstructions are fairly recent or that several of them are photos of life-like mock ups in museums, not some "early scientific phuckups"
Where did I say that the life-like mock ups placed in museums are early scientific phuckups?
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz ': Wow... a little overboard there.
Loosing ones temper when no injustice has been done, purposefully misrepresenting viewpoints, lying about thingw that were said, running away from requests repeatedly, silently dropping boldly stated arguments, are individuallyall signs of incompetence, and defeat. Let alone when displayed together during a single debate, which is the case with Pongid ape in this thread.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
How about you get a prep school teacher educate you on ABCs and then get your tampon dressing sissy ass to answer this straight to the point:
Since it is apparent to any brain-functioning human that the traits I talked about essentially amount to all the essential components of the cranium, one has to wonder what then are these "basic traits" of your's that are supposed to be "separate" from the components I talked about, and that "supposedly allow us to recognize something as human"? Shoot, potato head!
Get a gut to answer or go back to faggotopia.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pongid ape has been beaten to pulp. What we see above are his last spasms. Additionally, I was right on point when I said the following in my previous post:
quote:My quotation (see above) talks about how the full plethora of outward visible Neanderthal traits is, in and of itself, not sufficient to render people who have it non-human, to the eye of the layman. Then the pongid ape goes on to crap out the above, which can be summed up as ‘’Nikolai doesn’t carry the full plethora of traits’’, which in turn, can be summed up as ‘’Nikolai would not class with Neanderthals’’. In the meantime, the Pongid ape ignores my post and cowers out of addressing the larger implications of what I actually said. Which he will do again in his next reply, just watch him. The pongid ape has no shame.
posted
Hey, dumb trailer trash cumholic fag, when stripped off the lifeline of lying, are you not capable of sh*t else?
kalongibbonclit, are you going to grow guts to explain yourself below, or are you going to just keep butt clinching a big tall glass of man stick up your weiner-grabbing ass, LOL:
Since it is apparent to any brain-functioning human that the traits I talked about essentially amount to all the essential components of the cranium, one has to wonder what then are these "basic traits" of your's that are supposed to be "separate" from the components I talked about, and that "supposedly allow us to recognize something as human"? Shoot, potato head!Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LOL, silenced! Yeah, that's what I thought. You big pussy.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, this is to teach kalonG-Spot a lesson, since it appears the clown is under some bizarre sense of over-achievement, the anti-thesis of what that prick has displayed here. Strange and pathetic as it may be, the clown is actually under some notion that "winning" a debate lies with being willfully stupid about what's really being said and getting out of hot water by simply assembling one crude lie after another out of thin air. To demonstrate this, consider the following:
kalonjiggabooty reasons that by saying this (aka an insult directed at a troll), Interestingly, weird Neanderthal looking folks occur more amongst "whites" than "blacks", that I'm saying/admitting that "Neanderthal looking folks occur among whites as well as blacks."
To put it in the simplest way that even the jackass just might understand, consider the following. Warning: kalonjigaboo read this very s-l-o-w-l-y to get a taste of just how stupid you really are:
Let's say person A has 3 pimples, and then person B had 0 pimples. Does this then mean...
A)that pimples occur more on person A than person B?
B)that pimples occur on both person A and person B [aka your line of reasoning]?
Or
C)Both A and B?
It's a pity that I have to resort to prep school multiple choice type of questions, just to make the dummy see its erroneous ways.
While you are at answering this, how about taking a jab at that unanswered business of what you deem "basic traits" which are supposed to "allow us to recognize when something is human", but which are supposedly "distinct" from the cranio-morphometric traits I discussed using visual aids?
As for the Valuev business, ad nauseam, you picked him precisely because you yourself sees him as being peculiar, and therefore to use him as an example of what "a living Neanderthal" could supposedly look like, even though a constellation of several traits unmistakably render him modern human. You would not have been compelled to use him as an example, if you thought his "peculiarities" were fairly standard modern human qualities. At least two people have now tried to drill this into your thick skull, but to no avail.
In summation, if one calls the appallingly shabby reasoning that kalonjiggabooty displays here "winning", then who needs "loosing"? LOL
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explorer, is this why you wanted to re-engage me?
You would have been better off play pretending to yourself, in your own little imaginary world, that you had the upper hand and supposedly silenced me. Like in the discussion about tectonic plates, I simply left because your ass is too incredibly dumb for words. Not once, not twice, not thrice, but five times in a row, your saying the stupidest things (eg your silly ideas about Ancient Egyptians adhering to Nilotic harmony based on the Book of gates, your wacky idea about the Sinai being geologically more a part of Africa than Asia, your wacky idea that ugliness is about craniometric distance, your wacky idea that all cranio-metric findings are observable through soft facial tissue and fully integrated into public awareness, and in the other thread, where your dumb azz tried to pit uniparental markers against biological relatedness as shown through full genome analysis, with your wacky question about ''which one is more informative'', lol). You've demonstrated by now that you have absolutely no idea about what the limitations are of the scientific disciplines that you keep granting super powers, so you can use their authority in instances where you are merely fuming out hot skunk gasses, that are thinning out the ozone layer, directly above your head. Perhaps acid rain drops, caused by the toxic gasses that exit your respiratory system, are affecting your thinking ability, because you make no sense whatsoever.
That you make absolutely no sense, is further exemplified by the un-earthly idiotic face saving attempt below:
quote:Let's say person A has 3 pimples, and then person B had 0 pimples. Does this then mean...
A)that pimples occur more on person A than person B?
B)that pimples occur on both person A and person B [aka your line of reasoning]?
Or
C)Both A and B?
Here you attempt to twist the meaning of what you initially meant, and in doing so, your whole post about "Neanderthal looking folks, more in whites than in blacks" stops making sense. The same cranial patterns that could make a white person look "Neanderthal-like" would make a black person look "Neanderthal-like". Unless you are going to argue that whites and blacks don't overlap, cranio-metrically, your silly example makes no sense whatsoever If blacks and whites overlap in the traits that are visibly Neanderthal-like to the layman, there is no other possible reading of your post than the one I forwarded. If blacks are just as capable as whites like Nikolai, of displaying the outward visible traits that would be reminiscent of Neanderthals in one way or another (and they obviously are), your example or 3 vs 0 pimples make zip sense, wouldn't you say?
Lets see you address this before moving on to the rest of your ass chatter, since your deadbeat ass has proven to habitually run away from addressing any part of my post that doesn't allow for misrepresenting and stretching beyond what it was initially saying.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew you were too much of a friutcake to really make good on the consequence of your provocation in a different thread. This is what you've been reduced to, some wussy post, just bitching and weeping like a little girl whose lollipop has been taken away. The multiple choice demonstrations show just how much rare of a specimen you are, which would otherwise belong to an extinct pre-hominid line. It shows that you cannot fathom simple human language without totally bungling it up, not to leave out the frantic desperation that drove you to work very strenuously in seeking out what was apparently nothing more than an insult directed at some moron in another thread. How about making a fuss about the fact that I also call you a total fuckhead among other colorful names, while you are at "scientifically" analyzing insults. LOL
And despite all the wussy whining, you have still not been intellectually capable of defending your post, as required below:
Question: While you are at answering this, how about taking a jab at that unanswered business of what you deem "basic traits" which are supposed to "allow us to recognize when something is human", but which are supposedly "distinct" from the cranio-morphometric traits I discussed using visual aids?
Your provocation and incessant begging in a different thread, in an effort to lure me into entertaining more of your numbheaded nonsensical views on Neandethals, was a grave miscalculation on your part. You are nothing more than an insignificant fruitcake with sour grapes from serial ass-whooping brought on by your chronically stupid posts. You are nothing but all emotion, that you even make a bitch with pms seem very emotionally-collected.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why they call you ''the black knight''. Why do you go out of your way to write a post in response to what I said, if you're not going to address the content that is supposedly ''stupid''? Obviously because talking to the wall is your way of admitting that my previous post smacked the Ish out of your face saving pimple example. LOL.
Refuting you in baby steps is required, because your coward ass has shown time after time again, that it cannot be trusted with a full reply. Don't make me go back and give examples of all your hide and seek games, and chronic fear of addressing the arguments I feed you, little b!tch.
Before I move on to that section, that you so desperately want me to respond to, first explain how your idiotic pimple example applies to your ''insult'' directed at Casserites. Are you saying that Whites and blacks fall out of eachothers range, that the outward visible Neanderthal-like features in question could occur in a white population yet be totally absent in a black population?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
fruitcake wimp, that's what you've been doing all along, bitching and weeping endlessly about how you've been victimized in previous topics, instead of squarely addressing what's confronting you here. So why stop now, or even bother asking me to give you permission do what you've being doing to this point?
Forget about being a repeated victim from previous discussion and explain yourself, fruitbooty princess:
What you deem "basic traits" which are supposed to "allow us to recognize when something is human", but which are supposedly "distinct" from the cranio-morphometric traits I discussed using visual aids?
Your repeated inability to answer this simple question is vindication that I'm dealing with a full blown emotional wimp.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already told you I'd address that part, as soon as you publically concede to the fact that your ass was wrong, either that, or refute the contention that your pimple example was nothing but a bitch made face saving attempt.
What a public display of someone who likes to tout himself as being the centre of objectiveness, LOL. This ass beating, delivered to Pongid Ape is right up there with the ones delivered to the Lioness.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are a certified liar, clown. Your ass has been owned. You have no answer for this:
What do you deem "basic traits" which are supposed to "allow us to recognize when something is human", but which are supposedly "distinct" from the cranio-morphometric traits I discussed using visual aids?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice how desperate he is to avoid commenting on his pimple example, at all cost. Its like he developed an acute phobia of my post. In the meantime, my response to this:
quote:What do you deem "basic traits" which are supposed to "allow us to recognize when something is human", but which are supposedly "distinct" from the cranio-morphometric traits I discussed using visual aids?
Has been posted on the previous page, on the following dates, to be specific:
27 June, 2011 06:26 28 June, 2011 17:50
I'm done here, I'm wasting my time with this disingenuous troll. What an ass beating Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are done; in fact, you were done long before you provoked and begged me to give your fruitbooty another try. You are toast, bitch.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic