quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Cite the text (Pagani et al. 2012) that mentions "SLC45A2", fuckhead monkey.
You now realize that you phucked up when your glaring obliviousness to the matters being discussed led you to confuse my mention of SLC45A2 for a mistaken identity with SLC24A5 on my part. In a desperate bid to safe face and hide your glaring blunder, you're now moving the goal post to whether SLC45A2 was singled out and specifically articulated in Pagani's text. Filthy lying ass pig, didn't I tell your filthy ass to stop lying so much?
Ok, Pagani et al.'s text does not mention SLC45A2 at all. That renders you a lying sucker of a stupid monkey.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've confused Pagani et al.'s application of "looked at" in the text for this self-interjected moronic substitution
Lying ass pig, they referenced a 2009 paper which has a section dedicated to the exact same pigmentation genes that were of interest to Pagani et al. Do your struggling neurones imagine the footnote is sitting there for decoration purposes? What is it doing there if not serving as a reference to point their readership to the genes they themselves had the samples tested for? Speak up, troll!
Of course, the footnote number is there for the benefit of the reader, so that the reader can track down what "other genes" they are referring to. But that is not what you said that raised eyebrows, fuckhead queen.
Even if Pagani et al. themselves referred to said material to get an idea of what these genes were, they would have still had to familiarize themselves with the actual locations of those genes before they actually sequenced the sites of interest. That's just common sense. They would not therefore be "looking for" the sites; they'd just go right to the sites of interest and examine them accordingly. As such, when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration, which you comically bungled up and mistook it for your own silly conception that their invocation of "looked at" must signify their "looking at literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’" (your words). LOL, you are such a dense bonehead.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: "caught red handed" in this piece, in which "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment" is nowhere to be found outside of your stunted head
...and then the lying ass troll goes on to re-confirm its shaky interpretation that Pagani state that SLC24A5 got selected in the Ethiopian Cushitic-Semitic speakers because of its light skin associated features.
These are of course your usual silly paraphrasing crap as opposed to my exact words, but in any event, saying that "SLC24A5 got selected in the Ethiopian Cushitic-Semitic speakers" is not the same thing as "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment", now is it?
Nor is saying that the authors identified skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic trait of this selection, my words, is not the same thing as "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment".
The selection does not have to be a response to the environment, which in this case, happens to be a tropically-situated one. Of course, you'd know this if you were actually clued in what was mentioned in the paper, and how genetics works, rather than manufacturing quotes just to score a point.
quote: You're stumped by 1) the fact that the implied populations are living in highly inconducive intense UV environments
As evidenced by what? Quotes, not dumb misinformed paraphrases.
quote: 2) that there are no traces of other pigmentation genes in Semitic-Cushitic speakers (despite their inferred ancient presence) and 3) that derived SLC24A5 in the other Ethiopian populations did not undergo selection.
Again evidences for these crazy accusations that only you seem to be clued in on. And again, just quotes, no misinformed paraphrase.
I did, however, chime in on the first two issues of your "three point" wimpy accusations, and there is clear evidence thereof, that you are stumped crazy, like the stupid monkey you are, on what was actually related about those two issues.
Any one with a slight nerve activity above you, which says a lot since you have none at all, can figure out that your nutty accusations and what was actually said are worlds apart.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ass-plorer is mest up by himself, for himself, with himself...
Ass-ion still has its paper-lion fuckhead up his fat Haile-Selassie worshiping ass, forcing hot-air to channel from the ass-hole to the pot-mouth, which is why stuff (as cited) come out of the pot-orifice that make less and less sense with each blurt.
What is this gibberish above? Demented nah?
By the way Superfly, I thought you went back to writing your phucked up blog?
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What blogs did you write again, Haile Selassie's ass-licking fuckhead?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tukler says: Now a decade after her publication geneticists don't have to come out up front and say North Africans are white Caucasian. They just have to include Maca-Meyer in their list of sources.
If they don't take her to task for using Caucasian then they agree with her usage.
Dialectic is stronger than explicit.
Rolling "the Cheikh," Doc Ben, Xyyman, and Zarahan all into one; so-called generalized or undifferentiated AFRICAN AMHs step across the Bab el Mendeb, stay a minute, step back across and voila! here's your Caucasian Africa(n). Nevermind whiteness, fleshless lips, rather long but paperthin noses, and multi-colored eyes and hair developing in a Arabian Peninsula or SW Asia essentially the same environmentally etc as NE Africa was at that epoch.
lol.. Amen brother... Now if only more folk would grasp what you have written and catch on to the game they are playing...
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
but who is saying, in these time periods it was across Bab el Mendeb rather than sinai ?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I come back here and this maniacal trolling is still going on. These DNA studies are only as good as the samples and methods used, compare this study to others done on South Africans and check for similarities, smh
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Ok, Pagani et al.'s text does not mention SLC45A2 at all.
Like the sick troll that you are, you're now structurally lying your way out of your phuckups. Filty lying ass pig, cite where I said that Pagani et al mention SLC45A2 explicitly in their text, rather than simply having identified it as one of the genes implicated in what they meant when they said ''we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe''. While you're at it, explain how your persistent trolling in regards to this tenacious lie of yours, rectifies your earlier fabricated lie that my mention of the gene was an accident.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As such, when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration
Cognitively challenged lying ass troll, how is the highlighted inconsistent with what I said, namely, that the authors consulted the aforementioned source? What would have preceded this ''taking into consideration'', if not getting updated on prospect genes, which they could then test their samples for?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: but in any event, saying that "SLC24A5 got selected in the Ethiopian Cushitic-Semitic speakers" is not the same thing as "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment", now is it?
Unless these people aren't actually tropical populations, it isn't going to matter whether you explicitly said they were equatorial, you phuchin' jackass. You said skin pigmentation is a ''likely phenotypic candidate of this selection'' (end quote) in populations who reside at an equatorial lattitude.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: And again, just quotes, no misinformed paraphrase
You're now asking me to quote where you were stumped? You're such a cognitively impaired sack of sh!t, LMAO. How is someone supposed to quote a non-verbal state of mind (being stumped), you filthy dumbass pig? Then again, making such braindead logically impracticable requests is right up your alley, recalling earlier crackhead requests you made, such as ''cite the accuracies in Kefi 2005''.
Explain the following specifics under your crackpot view that derived SLC24A5 got selected for in the sampled Cushitic-Semitic speakers due to its light skin associated expression:
You're stumped by 1) the fact that the implied populations are living in highly inconducive intense UV environments 2) that there are no traces of other pigmentation genes in Semitic- Cushitic speakers (despite their inferred ancient presence) and 3) that derived SLC24A5 in the other Ethiopian populations did not undergo selection. --Swenet
When you’ve mustered up the balls to do so, try tackling the following inconvenient facts as well, will ya? I have more ass whooping in store for your lying ass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Just thought I’d ’remind’ you that you ran away from this, here, too:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
Like the sick troll that you are, you're now structurally lying your way out of your phuckups. Filty lying ass pig, cite where I said that Pagani et al mention SLC45A2 explicitly in their text, rather than simply having identified it as one of the genes implicated in what they meant when they said ''we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe''. While you're at it, explain how your persistent trolling in regards to this tenacious lie of yours, rectifies your earlier fabricated lie that my mention of the gene was an accident.
That's just it, fuckhead queen. You are a moron of a unique kind for focusing on a gene that wasn't even mentioned in the paper.
quote:
Cognitively challenged lying ass troll, how is the highlighted inconsistent with what I said
fuckhead queen, you do realize by this absentminded begging, that you are in effect saying that you don't know how to read this text, don't you:
"when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration, which you comically bungled up and mistook it for your own silly conception that their invocation of "looked at" must signify their "looking at literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’" (your words). LOL, you are such a dense bonehead."
That's why you were instructed to let your care-taker do all your reading, but you are about as terribly handicapped at taking instructions as you are reading.
quote: Unless these people aren't actually tropical populations, it isn't going to matter whether you explicitly said they were equatorial, you phuchin' jackass.
Other than fuckhead crackpots, who else would be intellectually inept enough to say that quoting information correctly does not matter?
On top of that, you make another stupid claim about Ethiopians not "actually tropical populations". Your mental ineptness just gets worse by the minute...and you wishfully accuse me of being the stumped one, LOL.
quote: You said skin pigmentation is a ''likely phenotypic candidate of this selection'' (end quote) in populations who reside at an equatorial lattitude.
Let's stick to what I actually said:
the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection.
I bet that the stupid monkey will scratch its head in trying to figure out the difference between what I just cited, and what the moron claims I said.
quote:You're now asking me to quote where you were stumped?
You retarded monkey. You were instructed to provide "evidence" for your crazy accusations. Naturally, that would mean first quoting (not silly misinformed paraphrases) me, and then demonstrating where I went wrong, jackass!
Somebody should sufficiently pad your small basement room for your own safety, not to leave out a straitjacket.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
You're such a cognitively impaired sack of sh!t, LMAO. How is someone supposed to quote a non-verbal state of mind (being stumped), you filthy dumbass pig?
Rather than whining about my requests, which were actually monumentally kind to your accusations, considering how illogical they were, it is your own accusations that you should be perplexed about. Given that you are tacitly saying your accusation speaks to "a non-verbal state of mind", how the heck then can you discern "a non-verbal state of mind", when you have no "verbal basis" for it? Are you into some kind of a supernatural witchcraft crap?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are a moron of a unique kind for focusing on a gene that wasn't even mentioned in the paper.
Sick lying ass troll, this is the third time that you're running away from addressing this segment of the discussion:
Like the sick troll that you are, you're now structurally lying your way out of your phuckups. Filty lying ass pig, cite where I said that Pagani et al mention SLC45A2 explicitly in their text, rather than simply having identified it as one of the genes implicated in what they meant when they said ''we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe''. While you're at it, explain how your persistent trolling in regards to this tenacious lie of yours, rectifies your earlier fabricated lie that my mention of the gene was an accident. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration, which you comically bungled up and mistook it for your own silly conception that their invocation of "looked at" must signify their "looking at literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’
You phuchin' troll, this is the 2nd time that you're desperately running away from this segment of the discussion. Explain how ''taking into consideration'', in this context, is supposedly an endeavour separated from ''consulting the literature'', to make sense of the non-existent dichotomy between ''taking into consideration'' and ''consulting the literature'', that you're desperately hoping will catch on. Surely there must be an explanation for why your crippled sh!t stained brains are attempting to discredit my interpretation of that Pagani et al citation with what can only be described as another way of saying what I said.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Other than fuckhead crackpots, who else would be intellectually inept enough to say that quoting information correctly does not matter?
Lying ass pig, it is obvious that you're not only running away from what I'm telling you, but that you apparently on the other side of the 99,9% of the educated public who know the difference between a paraphrase and a verbatim quote:
Unless these people aren't actually tropical populations, it isn't going to matter whether you explicitly said they were equatorial, you phuchin' jackass. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Let's stick to what I actually said: the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection.
Which brings us back to the fact that the paper says light skin got selected for in the case of Europeans, and makes no such explicit case for Ethiopians. Which then brings us back to the fact that what you proclaim is a view of the authors, is really your own retarded claim, hiding behind someone else’s authority. Which brings us back to the fact that it was none other than your own retarded ass that said that light skin got selected for in populations who reside in the tropics.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You were instructed to provide "evidence" for your crazy accusations. Naturally, that would mean first quoting (not silly misinformed paraphrases) me, and then demonstrating where I went wrong, jackass!
Filthy pig, your stupidity has no bounds! You asked someone to reproduce, out of a textual exchange, records of something that’s inherently non-verbal. Even worse: you then go on a full blown super stumped discourse, talking about how, if there was no record of this apparent fact in the said textual exchange, your demented neurones find it a real enigma that it could have been discerned in other ways:
Given that you are tacitly saying your accusation speaks to "a non-verbal state of mind", how the heck then can you discern "a non-verbal state of mind" --The Explorer
According to this crippled reasoning, I must not know for a fact that you're alive, simply because there is no explicit record of this in the textual exchanges in this thread! Do you have any idea how insanely retarded your barely functioning neurones must be, to be sending impulses to your crack besmirched lips that it's okay to be talking such unearthly stupid smack? Get your microcephalic head looked at, son!
When you’ve mustered up the balls to do so, try tackling the following inconvenient facts as well, will ya? I have more ass whooping in store for your lying ass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Just thought I’d ’remind’ you that you ran away from this, here, too:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
Sick lying ass troll, this is the third time that you're running away from addressing this segment of the discussion:
Like the sick troll that you are, you're now structurally lying your way out of your phuckups. Filty lying ass pig, cite where I said that Pagani et al mention SLC45A2 explicitly in their text, rather than simply having identified it as one of the genes implicated in what they meant when they said ''we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe''. While you're at it, explain how your persistent trolling in regards to this tenacious lie of yours, rectifies your earlier fabricated lie that my mention of the gene was an accident. --Swenet
You've only managed to confirm the astute observation that you are a moron with no peers. Who else reads "other genes" as specifically "SLC45A2" but a numbskull such as yourself?
Just like a quick sand, the more you try to justify your profound stupidity, the more you sink.
quote:Lying ass pig, it is obvious that you're not only running away from what I'm telling you, but that you apparently on the other side of the 99,9% of the educated public who know the difference between a paraphrase and a verbatim quote
It's no rocket science that the meaning of the word "lying" is alien to you, as are a number of other simple terms. This is what you can expect from fuckheads who can't tell "taking into consideration" apart from "consulting the literature". In a clear contrast to you, my reply is premised on firsthand evidence--an actual quote, which is hard to lie about after the fact, even though that never stops you [as I said, you are a unique moron like that].
You are not mentally competent to paraphrase just yet; leave that to thinking-people, my fuckhead queen.
quote:Which brings us back to the fact that the paper says light skin got selected for in the case of Europeans, and makes no such explicit case for Ethiopians.
Utter silliness--you were already spoon fed about the only biological function (skin pigmentation) the paper identifies in the real world, and in association, how a marker serving as gene flow (what you've been vainly wishing for) works; go back and read. Oh wait; you have trouble with reading!
Comprehending genetics is far out. You have a more pressing problem: Seek reading 101 first.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Who else reads "other genes" as specifically "SLC45A2" but a numbskull such as yourself?
You're lying again, filthy pig. If not, cite, without relapsing to your amygdala triggered habit of fleeing the scene, where I even remotely said something to the effect that SLC45A2 itself was the text's ''other genes''.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This is what you can expect from fuckheads who can't tell "taking into consideration" apart from "consulting the literature".
Produce this imaginary, cooked up, account where ''taking into consideration'' was conflated with ''consulting the literature'' in any context, other than the one implied here, where the ''taking into consideration'' of genes would have happened by way of ''consulting the literature'', wherein these genes are described.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Utter silliness--you were already spoon fed about the only biological function (skin pigmentation) the paper identifies in the real world
Dumb sack a sh!t, in addition to coding for skin color, SLC24A5 has also been found to code for eye color, among other things. Explain this under your cuckoo, sh!t stained fairy tale that Pagani et al's reference to ''biological function'' here should refer exclusively to SLC24A5's skin color associated expression. Then, when you're done performing this pre-defeated undertaking, explain to me how light skin color got selected for in an equatorial population.
What your dumbass ''forgot'' to address in the midst of the thrashing you've been submitted to:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration, which you comically bungled up and mistook it for your own silly conception that their invocation of "looked at" must signify their "looking at literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’
You phuchin' troll, this is the 2nd time that you're desperately running away from this segment of the discussion. Explain how ''taking into consideration'', in this context, is supposedly an endeavour separated from ''consulting the literature'', to make sense of the non-existent dichotomy between ''taking into consideration'' and ''consulting the literature'', that you're desperately hoping will catch on. Surely there must be an explanation for why your crippled sh!t stained brains are attempting to discredit my interpretation of that Pagani et al citation with what can only be described as another way of saying what I said.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Other than fuckhead crackpots, who else would be intellectually inept enough to say that quoting information correctly does not matter?
Lying ass pig, it is obvious that you're not only running away from what I'm telling you, but that you apparently on the other side of the 99,9% of the educated public who know the difference between a paraphrase and a verbatim quote:
Unless these people aren't actually tropical populations, it isn't going to matter whether you explicitly said they were equatorial, you phuchin' jackass. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Let's stick to what I actually said: the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection.
Which brings us back to the fact that the paper says light skin got selected for in the case of Europeans, and makes no such explicit case for Ethiopians. Which then brings us back to the fact that what you proclaim is a view of the authors, is really your own retarded claim, hiding behind someone else’s authority. Which brings us back to the fact that it was none other than your own retarded ass that said that light skin got selected for in populations who reside in the tropics.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You were instructed to provide "evidence" for your crazy accusations. Naturally, that would mean first quoting (not silly misinformed paraphrases) me, and then demonstrating where I went wrong, jackass!
Filthy pig, your stupidity has no bounds! You asked someone to reproduce, out of a textual exchange, records of something that’s inherently non-verbal. Even worse: you then go on a full blown super stumped discourse, talking about how, if there was no record of this apparent fact in the said textual exchange, your demented neurones find it a real enigma that it could have been discerned in other ways:
Given that you are tacitly saying your accusation speaks to "a non-verbal state of mind", how the heck then can you discern "a non-verbal state of mind" --The Explorer
According to this crippled reasoning, I must not know for a fact that you're alive, simply because there is no explicit record of this in the textual exchanges in this thread! Do you have any idea how insanely retarded your barely functioning neurones must be, to be sending impulses to your crack besmirched lips that it's okay to be talking such unearthly stupid smack? Get your microcephalic head looked at, son!
When you’ve mustered up the balls to do so, try tackling the following inconvenient facts as well, will ya? I have more ass whooping in store for your lying ass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Just thought I’d ’remind’ you that you ran away from this, here, too:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
You're lying again, filthy pig. If not, cite, without relapsing to your amygdala triggered habit of fleeing the scene, where I even remotely said something to the effect that SLC45A2 itself was the text's ''other genes''.
skanky piece of trash, on top of being reading-retarded, are you now suffering from Alzheimer's, so that you can't remember highlighting "other genes" in your remark, as a justification for your obsession over an allele that is not even mentioned in Pagani et al.'s paper? What will be the next misfortune of your careless simple-minded lying spree: gouging your eyes out? LOL
quote:Dumb sack a sh!t, in addition to coding for skin color, SLC24A5 has also been found to code for eye color, among other things.
Where does Pagani et al.'s (2012) text make a reference to "eye color"? Cite it, princess dufus. You are not on the same planet as either the study in question or this discussion.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: are you now suffering from Alzheimer's, so that you can't remember highlighting "other genes" in your remark
What I can't remember, lying ass troll, is the existence of neurodegenerative conditions where patients feel compelled to distort an observation as simple as ''SLC45A2 was just one of several genes implicated in Pagani et al's text'', into your lying ass allegation that ''other genes'' was said to refer ''specifically'' to SLC45A2:
Who else reads "other genes" as specifically "SLC45A2" but a numbskull such as yourself? --The Explorer
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Where does Pagani et al.'s (2012) text make a reference to "eye color"?
Dumb sack a sh!t with ADHD attention span, my invocation of other expressions of the SLC24A5 gene was a direct response to your earlier fabricated mumbo jumbo claptrap that other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious'', and your psychologically self-comforting fairy tale that the ''biological function'' of SLC24A5, referred to in Pagani's text, necessarily refers to it's skin color related expression, in the case of Cushitic-Semitic speaking Ethiopians. Where is the evidence for such a pre-conceived, entirely made up, self-serving reading of the Pagani passage?
Utter silliness--you were already spoon fed about the only biological function (skin pigmentation) the paper identifies in the real world --The Explorer
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
What I can't remember, lying ass troll, is the existence of neurodegenerative conditions where patients feel compelled to distort an observation as simple as ''SLC45A2 was just one of several genes implicated in Pagani et al's text'', into your lying ass allegation that ''other genes'' was said to refer ''specifically'' to SLC45A2
LOL, so your dumb monkey ass now figures that by saying "just one of severals genes implicated" as supposed--misguided--substitute for "other genes", you'll somehow placate the fact that you made SLC45A2 the focus of a text which says absolutely nothing about the allele? Well, you thought wrong, again, shithead.
quote:Dumb sack a sh!t with ADHD attention span, my invocation of other expressions of the SLC24A5 gene was a direct response to your earlier fabricated mumbo jumbo claptrap that other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious''
Then missy, to put it another way, you were bamboozled by--and "directly responded" to--one of your reading-retarded screw ups. Calling you out for ascribing imaginary stories to Pagani & co. is not synonymous with "other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious''".
quote: and your psychologically self-comforting fairy tale that the ''biological function'' of SLC24A5, referred to in Pagani's text, necessarily refers to it's skin color related expression, in the case of Cushitic-Semitic speaking Ethiopians. Where is the evidence for such a pre-conceived, entirely made up, self-serving reading of the Pagani passage?
Try this recap from page 1, reading-retarded donkey:
"Of the fourteen 40-SNP windows observed with a Z-score > 2, we noted one that contained SLC24A5 (MIM 113750). This gene is a major contributor to the pigmentation differences between Africans and Europeans and a strong candidate for positive selection in Europe.4"
"To further investigate the effect of admixture on the **genetic landscape of skin pigmentation** in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions."
"SLC24A5 was within the top 5% of selection signals, whereas the gene was not detected as an outlier in the other groups of Ethiopians. The unusual history of this gene was further supported by the presence of the derived A allele of the SNP rs1834640, associated with the light skin pigmentation of Europeans and western Asians..."
"This putative migration from the Levant to Ethiopia, which is also supported by linguistic evidence, may have carried the derived western Eurasian allele of SLC24A5, which is associated with light skin pigmentation."
The paper identifies skin pigmentation as phenotypic trait of the allele, not once but several times over. This has not deterred your thick monkey skull from saying that it's just my interpretation, just so your fairy tale unspecified "biological function" can have a companion. - Explorer, 12 August, 2013
PS: What's the deal with Selassie's ass-kissing pussy-cat. Just an observation: ass-ion's pink undies get in a bunch every time you get thrashed. Are you two love birds, or what?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: LOL, so your dumb monkey ass now figures that by saying "just one of severals genes implicated" as supposed--misguided--substitute for "other genes", you'll somehow placate the fact that you made SLC45A2 the focus of a text which says absolutely nothing about the allele?
Lying ass filthy pig, your permanently stumped neurones were caught red handed going from your earlier crack induced rant about a supposed mix-up of SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 on my part, to your current super stumped rant on how explicit references on SLC45A2 are supposedly missing from the Pagani text. All the while, your severely handicapped brains are still at a loss as to how to deal with footnote 46 (you know, the footnote your lying ass went to great lengths to scratch out of the undoctored text it originally appeared in)--whether to cope with it by running away from it, or by simply acting like it doesn't exist. Filthy liar, SLC45A2, among other selection candidate pigmentation genes, is explicitly mentioned in the paper associated with footnote 46. No amount of lying and buying time with your snaky deceptive ploys about what is, or isn't explicitly discussed in Pagani et al 2012 is going to change that fact.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Calling you out for ascribing imaginary stories to Pagani & co. is not synonymous with "other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious''".
Filthy pig, if not an outright pathological lie, told by a lying pig with an axe to grind, explain how your earlier insistence that non skin color associated expressions of SLC24A5 are ''ficticious'' should be read.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Try this recap from page 1, reading- retarded donkey:
Dumbass troll, none of their excerpts pertaining to SLC24A5 based selection in Europeans automatically make it so that the same expression underwent selection in Cushitic- Semitic speakers in Ethiopia. That's precisely why your cognitively challenged ass had to be schooled earlier on the fact that they conducted their tests to picture the impact that the different Ethiopian environments had on their foreign ancestral component. Yet, being the slow, clueless phuck that you are, you apparently still don't get it. Delirious claptrap ravings about Europeans aside, man up for once, deadbeat lying ass pig, and explain, taking into account the just administered embarrassing reprimand that Ethiopians aren't subject to the same high latitude/low UV selective pressures as Northern Europeans, how your pre-defeated attempts to invoke European based SLC24A5 selection automatically advances your retarded claim that the same gene expression underwent the same (locally non-existent) selective pressures in equatorial Ethiopia.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Lying ass filthy pig, your permanently stumped neurones were caught red handed going from your earlier crack induced rant about a supposed mix-up of SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 on my part, to your current super stumped rant on how explicit references on SLC45A2 are supposedly missing from the Pagani text. All the while, your severely handicapped brains are still at a loss as to how to deal with footnote 46 (you know, the footnote your lying ass went to great lengths to scratch out of the undoctored text it originally appeared in)--whether to cope with it by running away from it, or by simply acting like it doesn't exist. Filthy liar, SLC45A2, among other selection candidate pigmentation genes, is explicitly mentioned in the paper associated with footnote 46. No amount of lying and buying time with your snaky deceptive ploys about what is, or isn't explicitly discussed in Pagani et al 2012 is going to change that
Moaning and fussing hysterically like the deranged monkey you are about how you were called out or in what form it supposedly took from one occasion to another will not wish away the fact that you made SLC45A2 the focal point of a text that does not mention it at all.
The footnote? Simply there for reader reference, not what you abused it for: to excuse your buffoonish mistaking of "looked at" in the text to mean "looking at literature first, blah blah". We've already been through this, numbnuts.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Calling you out for ascribing imaginary stories to Pagani & co. is not synonymous with "other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious''".
Filthy pig, if not an outright pathological lie, told by a lying pig with an axe to grind, explain how your earlier insistence that non skin color associated expressions of SLC24A5 are ''ficticious'' should be read.
What you cited above is all there's to know, silly monkey, and is only made more relevant by what you just babbled.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The footnote? Simply there for reader reference, not what you abused it for
Filthy lying ass troll, in the midst of all your lies, distortions, manipulations and logical fallacies, did you really think your meaningless pussyfooting around segments of my posts that aren't even focal points to what I'm saying, are going to go unnoticed? Fumbling, incompetent, asswipe, your deceptive ploy where you talk about everything other than the focal point of the excerpt you're pretending to address, aside, explain this under your brainless cuckoo theory that SLC45A2 was not among the ''other genes'' Pagani et al used in their analysis and tested the Ethiopian samples were tested for:
All the while, your severely handicapped brains are still at a loss as to how to deal with footnote 46 (you know, the footnote your lying ass went to great lengths to scratch out of the undoctored text it originally appeared in)--whether to cope with it by running away from it, or by simply acting like it doesn't exist. Filthy liar, SLC45A2, among other selection candidate pigmentation genes, is explicitly mentioned in the paper associated with footnote 46. No amount of lying and buying time with your snaky deceptive ploys about what is, or isn't explicitly discussed in Pagani et al 2012 is going to change that. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: What you cited above is all there's to know, silly monkey, and is only made more relevant by what you just babbled.
Chemically imbalanced unintelligible rants aside, one cannot help but notice the cosmic gap in between your retarded description of the other factual expressions of SLC24A5 as ''ficticious'' and what the scientific literature has to say about the non skin color related phenotypes the gene codes for. Would one be correct in resolving this discrepancy between fact and your dogmatic denial as that you're a pathologically lying ass pig, led by faith-based self-comforting inclinations, rather than readily observable reality?
This is the 8th point of contention that you're now going on record, running away from, like the little amygdala-led wussy that you are:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Try this recap from page 1, reading- retarded donkey:
Dumbass troll, none of their excerpts pertaining to SLC24A5 based selection in Europeans automatically make it so that the same expression underwent selection in Cushitic- Semitic speakers in Ethiopia. That's precisely why your cognitively challenged ass had to be schooled earlier on the fact that they conducted their tests to picture the impact that the different Ethiopian environments had on their foreign ancestral component. Yet, being the slow, clueless phuck that you are, you apparently still don't get it. Delirious claptrap ravings about Europeans aside, man up for once, deadbeat lying ass pig, and explain, taking into account the just administered embarrassing reprimand that Ethiopians aren't subject to the same high latitude/low UV selective pressures as Northern Europeans, how your pre-defeated attempts to invoke European based SLC24A5 selection automatically advances your retarded claim that the same gene expression underwent the same (locally non-existent) selective pressures in equatorial Ethiopia.
(....crickets.....) *I, Explorer, am such a panic stricken b!tch. When I'm not lying, distorting or manipulating, I run away from others' posts all the time. I make up for my lack of being unable to keep up by playing make believe. I simply profess to be adamant that my being on the run somehow doesn't mean I got my ass handed to me and use other self-deceptive tricks that inadvertently only broadcast how out of touch I am with regular folk reality!*
Filthy lying ass troll, in the midst of all your lies, distortions, manipulations and logical fallacies, did you really think your meaningless pussyfooting around segments of my posts that aren't even focal points to what I'm saying, are going to go unnoticed? Fumbling, incompetent, asswipe, your deceptive ploy where you talk about everything other than the focal point of the excerpt you're pretending to address, aside, explain this under your brainless cuckoo theory that SLC45A2 was not among the ''other genes'' Pagani et al used in their analysis and tested the Ethiopian samples were tested for
You mean another meaningless focal point (just like the meaningless emphasis on SLC45A2) of your dumb rabid monkey ass about what some supposed referenced-study mentions, which is neither the focal point of Pagani et al.'s text or this discussion. Go pick some lice, that's all you are good for, LOL.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: What you cited above is all there's to know, silly monkey, and is only made more relevant by what you just babbled.
Chemically imbalanced unintelligible rants aside
The unintelligible rant you are complaining about comes from no other but thyself, silly:
other factual expressions of SLC24A5 as ''ficticious'' - authored by swenet
You'll not track it back to any other quote (sans your nutty misinformed paraphrases) other than your own.
quote:
gene codes for. Would one be correct in resolving this discrepancy between fact and your dogmatic denial as that you're a pathologically lying ass pig, led by faith-based self-comforting inclinations, rather than readily observable reality?
"Faith-based" like your clueless nutty accusations about being "stumped":
You're stumped by 1) the fact that the implied populations are living in highly inconducive intense UV environments 2) that there are no traces of other pigmentation genes in Semitic-Cushitic speakers (despite their inferred ancient presence) and 3) that derived SLC24A5 in the other Ethiopian populations did not undergo selection. - swenet
Apparently the only way you feel like you can get away from the gargantuan mess of a flop that represents your "contribution" to this discussion, is to either bizarrely obsess yourself with things that are totally irrelevant to Pagani et al.'s text and this discussion (e.g. some undefined "non-Skin pigmentation" biological function not mentioned by Pagani et al, SLC45A2 not mentioned by Pagani et al, etc), or just make crazy harebrained accusations that amount to half baked voodooism behind a computer screen.
quote:(....crickets.....) *I, Explorer, am such a panic stricken b!tch. When I'm not lying, distorting or manipulating, I run away from others' posts all the time. I make up for my lack of being unable to keep up by playing make believe. I simply profess to be adamant that my being on the run somehow doesn't mean I got my ass handed to me and use other self-deceptive tricks that inadvertently only broadcast how out of touch I am with regular folk reality!*
stupid monkey scratch, stupid monkey sleep, stupid monkey eat, and stupid monkey poop. That's your worth in a nutshell, if you get my drift.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synopsis of what transpired, starting with this partial recap from page 1:
The easing up of skin eumelanin in San hunter-gatherers has generally been attributed to local evolution in lower UV radiation environments they frequent, as opposed to the result of gene flow. In the Ethiopian samples, on the other hand, the presence of the "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 gene was peculiar in that it was not found in tandem with other "skin-pigmentation" affiliated genes whose distribution generally paralleled that of the "derived" SLC24A5 variant, particularly in Europeans. Hence, "frequency" in itself is not a sufficient enough indicator for ascribing a single-source origin in the form of a "non-African" origin. - Extract ends
From blog entry, "What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!", May 15, 2013:
This [SLC24A5] gene, in its derived form, which is said to be under positive selection in "lightly" pigmented populations, was implicated in the San, who as noted above, tend to generally be isolated, and culturally-conservative hunter-gatherers. "Derived" variants of other pigmentation-associated genes were also cited, with respect to the San([5]). It is questionable that this gene is serving as a "non-African" marker in the San. The same issue actually surfaces with regards to its presence in Ethiopian groups:
Secondly:
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none...
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions.
If this gene, in its "derived" form, was essentially serving as a "non-African" marker in the Ethiopians, then one would expect that other "derived" skin-pigmentation markers would have been introduced along with the SLC24A5 allele, by the foreign "non-African" group(s) that is supposed to have been the source. Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes, and so, it's highly unlikely that a "derived" SLC24A5 allele would be introduced without other accompanying skin-pigmentation genes.
No less, it's highly unlikely that only the derived "SLC24A5" allele would survive from a foreign "non-African" source, in a population for which the allele's presence is "potentially disadvantageous", as the authors note, on grounds of the kind of UV-radiation intensive environment they generally reside. Likewise, if as the authors note, the presence of the derived SLC24A5 allele in Ethiopians may be attributable to "socially"-promoted selection, then one would think that other skin-pigmentation genes, which would have accompanied the SLC24A5 allele in an introduction by a foreign "non-African" source, would have likely also survived in some capacity or another, so as to serve the same role that the SLC24A5 may be serving. --Extract ends
As any rational person will glean from these notes, the issues raised undoubtedly emerge from a scientific and objective groundwork. - The Explorer, June 30, 2013
These notes naturally speak to the arguments put forth by Pagani et al., but they set off mindless hysteria in the fuckhead queen called 'swenet'...
who starts babbling about some undefined "non-skin pigmentation" related "biological function" of the derived SLC24A5 variant supposedly introduced to Ethiopians via "gene flow"...
To this, the idiot was informed that a marker serving as "gene flow" would be introduced "as is", and as such, one that is under selective pressure, will continue to have that selective attribute. From there, it boils down to whether the selective trait is advantageous or deleterious--and to what degree--to the "receiving" population, which will subsequently decide the fate of an allele. The "receiving" population doesn't get to cherry pick which trait to pick and which to discard at a conference table; that's not how nature works to swenet's dismay.
Furthermore, the knucklehead doesn't understand that SLC24A5 having a "different biological function" in Ethiopians from that of an alleged external source, actually weakens the claim for "gene flow", and only reinforces the point I'm making above.
My objection to the idiot's obsession over said "different biological function" that is presumably "non-skin pigmentation related", is that it is immaterial to Pagani et al.'s case, since they make no mention of such a "biological function", other than "skin pigmentation" as the phenotypic trait associated with the SLC24A5 variant. This was turned upside down by the fuckhead queen to mean, that "non-skin pigmentation" related expressions of SLC24A5 gene are "fictitious".
I also clearly note in the blog passages above that:
Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes - from the blog
So, it is not unheard of for a population to have a skin pigmentation allele that resembles that of populations which are usually identified with said allele, and yet, have other skin pigmentation alleles that are different from said populations. The derived variant of SLC24A5 similar to the type present in Europe and "southwest Asia" can be present in Ethiopians, yet other alleles that typically accompany the variant in the said regions can be absent in Ethiopians. As such, even if SLC24A5 has a phenotypic trait that is generally disadvantageous in the tropics, by its lonesome, it is not going to have as profound an impact on skin pigmentation as it allegedly does in say, Europeans...
which brings us to the question of why then, there seems to be indication (as shown in the Z-scores) that a derived variant is "selected for" in Ethiopians. Pagani et al., apparently working with their "gene flow" theory, posit that it could be the byproduct of "socially" channeled "selection", like say, "sexual selection". I've already laid out the coherency difficulties which inflict that composite theorizing.
While the "social factor" is a plausible scenario, unlike Pagani et al., I posit that the allele could have been selected initially for a different environment, on the African continent itself (the sub-tropical Sahara), in the ancestral populations of Ethiopians in question.
fuckhead queen also turned upside down, my arguments to this end; instead fuckhead queen says "I" am making a case for "a selection of light skin pigmentation in the tropical environment", and asks me why "other genes" (skin pigmentation) typically found in Europe and "southwest Asia", were not found in Ethiopians. I told the fuckhead queen, it's because Ethiopians have their own skin pigmentation genes, otherwise they would be colorless.
By this silly question, what the fuckhead queen was really trying to say, is that other skin pigmentation alleles vanished into extinction, while the SLC24A5 variant stayed. But the fuckhead realizes that this runs into one of the problems I already identified: that it makes no sense for SLC24A5 to stick around, given the identified (in the text) phenotypic trait associated with skin pigmentation, while other skin pigmentation alleles serving a similar purpose, simply vanished. This forced the fuckhead queen to look to some other, presumably a "non-skin pigmentation" related "biological function" of the gene, that Pagani et al.'s text makes no mention of. The fuckhead queen was thereafter called out for fictitiously ascribing said unspecified "biological function" to Pagani et al.'s text, but fuckhead queen translated this to mean, "other biological functions of SLC24A5 are fictitious".
The fuckhead queen was even forced to refer to "eye color" as this supposed "non-skin pigmentation" related "biological function" at one point. That led to an obvious dead end, when the fuckhead queen was asked to cite Pagani et al.'s piece making a case of that nature.
My theory takes into account the plausibility that the "derived" SLC24A5 variant may have been initially selected for in a different African environment, but because it merely contributed to the skin tone continuum seen in said Ethiopians, as opposed to having a decisive role, SLC24A5 variant managed to survive the UV environment of the tropics. This is how my theory takes into account, the "social factor" that Pagani et al were speaking of, in an entirely different context.
You see, the ancestors of said Ethiopians living in sub-tropical African environment north of the equator may have undergone some skin pigmentation relaxation, initially as a response to the said sub-tropical environment, but not enough to have gone to the extreme relaxations seen in Europe, for instance. As such, their skin pigmentation relaxation was perhaps not extreme enough to make their survival in the tropical African environment unbearable. This will adequately account for why SlC24A5 derived variant happens to appear in Ethiopians at substantial frequencies, while other skin pigmentation alleles generally associated with Europeans do not.
The fuckhead queen proceeds to ask me why there is frequency disparity between major Cushitic-Semitic Ethiopian groups and the Omotic and Nilotic Ethiopians. To it's puzzlement, the fuckhead queen was thereof informed that it must be reflective of the different bio-histories of said groups. [BTW, I give details of these distinct bio-histories in the blog entry cited]
As if that was not bizarre enough, the fuckhead queen cites from a different study, that is totally irrelevant to Pagani et al.'s text or this discussion: the fuckhead queen cites from a study comparing Sri Lankans to several samples, including those from Europe. It is from here, that SLC45A2 was introduced into this discussion. The fuckhead queen's motive for this citation, was supposedly to show me that SLC24A5 was found in Sri Lankans along with SLC45A2, which must therefore mean that they only attained SLC24A5 from Europeans, and henceforth, supposedly refute what I said about the Ethiopian case, which no less, resembles nothing like the Sri Lankan case.
The only [unintended] thing the Sri Lankan case managed to do, is give even more fodder to my argument, since even that study--as irrelevant as it was--showed that it was SLC45A2 rather than SLC24A5 that proved to sufficiently differentiate European samples and the Sri Lankan counterparts; SLC24A5 was relatively weak in performing that role. What this means, is that between the two skin pigmentation variants, SLC45A2 would have served better as a marker of European ancestry than would SLC24A2, if such a case were to hypothetically be entertained. Simply put, SLC24A5 has a wider distribution, and hence, more generic.
Running out of ideas to con a way out of this mess of a fiasco that missy created, fuckhead queen decides to take a crack at nutty accusations about "being stumped", presumably by some "three" bulleted points. Asked for evidence, in the form of quotes, the fuckhead queen says that it is from a "non-verbal" analysis, which is beyond comical, because the only way to know anything about me, is from what I write in the thread.
fuckhead queen would have to either see me to read my body language perhaps, which any sane person knows is out of the question, or have supernatural powers to read minds afar from behind a computer screen. fuckhead queen instead compares this bizarre accusation with the prospect of "knowing that I exist", but presumably me denying this. Of course, the fuckhead queen would know I exist, only because I happen to post here and elsewhere. But try telling something that very simple to princess dufus.
From here, everything only becomes repetitive, as fuckhead queen tries to salvage whatever's left of that tattered ego from merciless defeat. Going in circles, with wimpy posts about how I supposedly did the fuckhead queen wrong, left something said (usually pure crap) unadressed or how I "lied" about some post or another, is what fuckhead queen usually does after humiliating defeat in every discussion.
For the finer details, spectators need to just turn to the first page, but this sums up what happened.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You mean another meaningless focal point (just like the meaningless emphasis on SLC45A2) of your dumb rabid monkey ass about what some supposed referenced-study mentions, which is neither the focal point of Pagani et al.'s text or this discussion.
Dumb, lying ass, vegetative pig, without reverting to your snaky pathological habit of running away from the facts, how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), which Pagani et al formulate in the following manner, not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''?
''other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe 46 [...]''
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The unintelligible rant you are complaining about comes from no other but thyself, silly:
This brainless attempt to disguise your inability to save your hide in the face of being made out for the fraudulent liar you are aside, one cannot help but notice the cosmic gap in between your retarded description of the other factual expressions of SLC24A5 as ''fictitious'' and what the scientific literature has to say about the non skin color related phenotypes the gene codes for. Would one be correct in resolving this discrepancy between fact and your dogmatic denial as that you're a pathologically lying ass pig, led by faith-based self-comforting inclinations, rather than readily observable reality?
how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), which Pagani et al formulate in the following manner, not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''?
Easy, queen of skank: SLC45A2 was not mentioned in the text you want to wish it in, that's how irrelevant it is.
The real question is, how many more times must your retarded dry ass be clued in on this. Endless times, that's what, because you are fuckhead queen.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
which brings us to the question of why then, there seems to be indication (as shown in the Z-scores) that a derived variant is "selected for" in Ethiopians.
I'd like to add another thing about these Z-scores, with regards to technicalities. Given the cut-off points picked by Pagani et al., there is no telling of whether say, any skin pigmentation alleles outside of SLC24A5, which may resemble variants of Europeans or "southwest Asians", could have had neutral-seeming occurrences across the tropical African populations analyzed; the only thing is, such occurrences will neither point to a drifting out (of deleterious alleles) event nor a natural selection event (for biologically or socially advantageous alleles), if that makes any sense or is even possible. Pagani et al.'s readers are only informed about the regions they deemed outliers, of which said alleles (outside of SLC24A5) would not have been a part. In any event, the prospect seems very unlikely given that Pagani et al. did not capitalize on it in any capacity, to bolster their "gene flow" theories. And in such a hypothetical scenario, even if they did, they'd run into a problem similar to the one outlined in my blog notes, with regards to the prospects of negative drift or natural selection.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: SLC45A2 was not mentioned in the text you want to wish it in, that's how irrelevant it is.
Lying ass fraud, you're quite uncreative with your repetitive, shaky-legged, amygdala triggered non- replies to my very simple question:
how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''? --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'd like to add another thing about these Z-scores
Dumbass, your uninformed input is not needed, your dumbass is arguing from a position of cluelessness. You will not post evidence that Ethiopians have derived SLC45A2, because you can't. Your worthless super stumped pussyfooting speculations are already pre-defeated by the literature.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Given the cut-off points picked by Pagani et al.
What would these ''cut-off points'' be?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This back and forth is boring.........
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What? Yr actually reading it?
I keep checkin in hopin ta learn sumpin but I cyaan wade thru all thaa **** even if a pearl or two might be buried in it.
But slong as they enjoy it let em carry on, they made this thread into a series of PMs.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bored? Aint concerned with the next man's entertainment. You're not contractually obligated to read anything, nor are forcefully spoon-fed the ''boring'' exchanges that you (for some strange reason) seem unwilling to tune out of.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Synopsis of what transpired, starting with this partial recap from page 1:
The easing up of skin eumelanin in San hunter-gatherers has generally been attributed to local evolution in lower UV radiation environments they frequent, as opposed to the result of gene flow. In the Ethiopian samples, on the other hand, the presence of the "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 gene was peculiar in that it was not found in tandem with other "skin-pigmentation" affiliated genes whose distribution generally paralleled that of the "derived" SLC24A5 variant, particularly in Europeans. Hence, "frequency" in itself is not a sufficient enough indicator for ascribing a single-source origin in the form of a "non-African" origin. - Extract ends
From blog entry, "What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!", May 15, 2013:
This [SLC24A5] gene, in its derived form, which is said to be under positive selection in "lightly" pigmented populations, was implicated in the San, who as noted above, tend to generally be isolated, and culturally-conservative hunter-gatherers. "Derived" variants of other pigmentation-associated genes were also cited, with respect to the San([5]). It is questionable that this gene is serving as a "non-African" marker in the San. The same issue actually surfaces with regards to its presence in Ethiopian groups:
Secondly:
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none...
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions.
If this gene, in its "derived" form, was essentially serving as a "non-African" marker in the Ethiopians, then one would expect that other "derived" skin-pigmentation markers would have been introduced along with the SLC24A5 allele, by the foreign "non-African" group(s) that is supposed to have been the source. Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes, and so, it's highly unlikely that a "derived" SLC24A5 allele would be introduced without other accompanying skin-pigmentation genes.
No less, it's highly unlikely that only the derived "SLC24A5" allele would survive from a foreign "non-African" source, in a population for which the allele's presence is "potentially disadvantageous", as the authors note, on grounds of the kind of UV-radiation intensive environment they generally reside. Likewise, if as the authors note, the presence of the derived SLC24A5 allele in Ethiopians may be attributable to "socially"-promoted selection, then one would think that other skin-pigmentation genes, which would have accompanied the SLC24A5 allele in an introduction by a foreign "non-African" source, would have likely also survived in some capacity or another, so as to serve the same role that the SLC24A5 may be serving. --Extract ends .. a marker serving as "gene flow" would be introduced "as is", and as such, one that is under selective pressure, will continue to have that selective attribute. From there, it boils down to whether the selective trait is advantageous or deleterious--and to what degree--to the "receiving" population, which will subsequently decide the fate of an allele. The "receiving" population doesn't get to cherry pick which trait to pick and which to discard at a conference table; that's not how nature works to swenet's dismay. ..
Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes - from the blog
So, it is not unheard of for a population to have a skin pigmentation allele that resembles that of populations which are usually identified with said allele, and yet, have other skin pigmentation alleles that are different from said populations. The derived variant of SLC24A5 similar to the type present in Europe and "southwest Asia" can be present in Ethiopians, yet other alleles that typically accompany the variant in the said regions can be absent in Ethiopians. As such, even if SLC24A5 has a phenotypic trait that is generally disadvantageous in the tropics, by its lonesome, it is not going to have as profound an impact on skin pigmentation as it allegedly does in say, Europeans...
which brings us to the question of why then, there seems to be indication (as shown in the Z-scores) that a derived variant is "selected for" in Ethiopians. Pagani et al., apparently working with their "gene flow" theory, posit that it could be the byproduct of "socially" channeled "selection", like say, "sexual selection". I've already laid out the coherency difficulties which inflict that composite theorizing.
While the "social factor" is a plausible scenario, unlike Pagani et al., I posit that the allele could have been selected initially for a different environment, on the African continent itself (the sub-tropical Sahara), in the ancestral populations of Ethiopians in question.
My theory takes into account the plausibility that the "derived" SLC24A5 variant may have been initially selected for in a different African environment, but because it merely contributed to the skin tone continuum seen in said Ethiopians, as opposed to having a decisive role, SLC24A5 variant managed to survive the UV environment of the tropics. This is how my theory takes into account, the "social factor" that Pagani et al were speaking of, in an entirely different context.
You see, the ancestors of said Ethiopians living in sub-tropical African environment north of the equator may have undergone some skin pigmentation relaxation, initially as a response to the said sub-tropical environment, but not enough to have gone to the extreme relaxations seen in Europe, for instance. As such, their skin pigmentation relaxation was perhaps not extreme enough to make their survival in the tropical African environment unbearable. This will adequately account for why SlC24A5 derived variant happens to appear in Ethiopians at substantial frequencies, while other skin pigmentation alleles generally associated with Europeans do not.
Just to clarify here:
^^(1) Under what scenario could the derived SLC24A5 variant have been selected for? Climate zone variations over log time spans? Differing micro-clime zones spread over a broad Saharan/NE African geographic space?
2) Does your approach absolutely reject any outside gene flow or do you still leave the door open for such, while holding that the primary pattern of variation or diversity could well be indigenous, from within the African continent or the NE African region?
3) On your blog you take issue with Pagani's definitions of a so-called "African" versus "non-African" component. Does the use of Yoruba samples as the primary "African" Exhibit represent a variation of the old "true negro" game, as you see it?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Bored? Aint concerned with the next man's entertainment. You're not contractually obligated to read anything, nor are forcefully spoon-fed the ''boring'' exchanges that you (for some strange reason) seem unwilling to tune out of.
I fail to see what you're both arguing about, are you arguing that this gene came out or is it indigenous? If it came from outside please explain how Somalis, who were tested in that genetic study by Pangani are darker than Ethiopians despite having nearly the same amount of genetic admixture as Ethiopians. I really do care for this back and forth name calling and trolling, you both sound like punks for real.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dumbass, your uninformed input is not needed, your dumbass is arguing from a position of cluelessness.
You must be basing this "uninformed input" on some creepy "non-verbal state of mind" supernatural intuition, rather than unemotional evidence-based premise?
quote: You will not post evidence that Ethiopians have derived SLC45A2, because you can't.
LOL, why note the obvious only now...after endless attempts to clue your fuckhead to no avail! If I can't quote Pagani & co. on "Ethiopians having derived SLC45A2", then naturally, a useless skank as yourself doesn't stand a chance to do better.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Synopsis of what transpired, starting with this partial recap from page 1:
The easing up of skin eumelanin in San hunter-gatherers has generally been attributed to local evolution in lower UV radiation environments they frequent, as opposed to the result of gene flow. In the Ethiopian samples, on the other hand, the presence of the "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 gene was peculiar in that it was not found in tandem with other "skin-pigmentation" affiliated genes whose distribution generally paralleled that of the "derived" SLC24A5 variant, particularly in Europeans. Hence, "frequency" in itself is not a sufficient enough indicator for ascribing a single-source origin in the form of a "non-African" origin. - Extract ends
From blog entry, "What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!", May 15, 2013:
This [SLC24A5] gene, in its derived form, which is said to be under positive selection in "lightly" pigmented populations, was implicated in the San, who as noted above, tend to generally be isolated, and culturally-conservative hunter-gatherers. "Derived" variants of other pigmentation-associated genes were also cited, with respect to the San([5]). It is questionable that this gene is serving as a "non-African" marker in the San. The same issue actually surfaces with regards to its presence in Ethiopian groups:
Secondly:
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none...
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions.
If this gene, in its "derived" form, was essentially serving as a "non-African" marker in the Ethiopians, then one would expect that other "derived" skin-pigmentation markers would have been introduced along with the SLC24A5 allele, by the foreign "non-African" group(s) that is supposed to have been the source. Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes, and so, it's highly unlikely that a "derived" SLC24A5 allele would be introduced without other accompanying skin-pigmentation genes.
No less, it's highly unlikely that only the derived "SLC24A5" allele would survive from a foreign "non-African" source, in a population for which the allele's presence is "potentially disadvantageous", as the authors note, on grounds of the kind of UV-radiation intensive environment they generally reside. Likewise, if as the authors note, the presence of the derived SLC24A5 allele in Ethiopians may be attributable to "socially"-promoted selection, then one would think that other skin-pigmentation genes, which would have accompanied the SLC24A5 allele in an introduction by a foreign "non-African" source, would have likely also survived in some capacity or another, so as to serve the same role that the SLC24A5 may be serving. --Extract ends .. a marker serving as "gene flow" would be introduced "as is", and as such, one that is under selective pressure, will continue to have that selective attribute. From there, it boils down to whether the selective trait is advantageous or deleterious--and to what degree--to the "receiving" population, which will subsequently decide the fate of an allele. The "receiving" population doesn't get to cherry pick which trait to pick and which to discard at a conference table; that's not how nature works to swenet's dismay. ..
Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes - from the blog
So, it is not unheard of for a population to have a skin pigmentation allele that resembles that of populations which are usually identified with said allele, and yet, have other skin pigmentation alleles that are different from said populations. The derived variant of SLC24A5 similar to the type present in Europe and "southwest Asia" can be present in Ethiopians, yet other alleles that typically accompany the variant in the said regions can be absent in Ethiopians. As such, even if SLC24A5 has a phenotypic trait that is generally disadvantageous in the tropics, by its lonesome, it is not going to have as profound an impact on skin pigmentation as it allegedly does in say, Europeans...
which brings us to the question of why then, there seems to be indication (as shown in the Z-scores) that a derived variant is "selected for" in Ethiopians. Pagani et al., apparently working with their "gene flow" theory, posit that it could be the byproduct of "socially" channeled "selection", like say, "sexual selection". I've already laid out the coherency difficulties which inflict that composite theorizing.
While the "social factor" is a plausible scenario, unlike Pagani et al., I posit that the allele could have been selected initially for a different environment, on the African continent itself (the sub-tropical Sahara), in the ancestral populations of Ethiopians in question.
My theory takes into account the plausibility that the "derived" SLC24A5 variant may have been initially selected for in a different African environment, but because it merely contributed to the skin tone continuum seen in said Ethiopians, as opposed to having a decisive role, SLC24A5 variant managed to survive the UV environment of the tropics. This is how my theory takes into account, the "social factor" that Pagani et al were speaking of, in an entirely different context.
You see, the ancestors of said Ethiopians living in sub-tropical African environment north of the equator may have undergone some skin pigmentation relaxation, initially as a response to the said sub-tropical environment, but not enough to have gone to the extreme relaxations seen in Europe, for instance. As such, their skin pigmentation relaxation was perhaps not extreme enough to make their survival in the tropical African environment unbearable. This will adequately account for why SlC24A5 derived variant happens to appear in Ethiopians at substantial frequencies, while other skin pigmentation alleles generally associated with Europeans do not.
Just to clarify here:
^^(1) Under what scenario could the derived SLC24A5 variant have been selected for? Climate zone variations over log time spans? Differing micro-clime zones spread over a broad Saharan/NE African geographic space?
This has already been addressed in the very paragraph you cited. See above: initial selection in the sub-tropical region of the Sahara. Unless the spinning orientation of the Earth has dramatically shifted (as opposed to minor wobbles) time and again, such things should not change much over time.
Skin pigmentation content correlates with UV radiation intensity, not heat, or general weather.
quote: 2) Does your approach absolutely reject any outside gene flow or do you still leave the door open for such, while holding that the primary pattern of variation or diversity could well be indigenous, from within the African continent or the NE African region?
In scientific theory, there generally are no absolutes. If you are referring to SLC24A5, then I'm saying the evidence put before me does not point to "gene flow from outside"; that's what I'm saying. Rather, it points to an autochthonous origin scenario.
quote:
3) On your blog you take issue with Pagani's definitions of a so-called "African" versus "non-African" component. Does the use of Yoruba samples as the primary "African" Exhibit represent a variation of the old "true negro" game, as you see it?
It's analogous to it.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It is a self-responsibility to read preceding material. If ones so chooses not to do that, then that's on said individual, who should not be in a position to whine to others about not knowing what's going on. At any rate, I went through the trouble of writing out a synopsis--particularly for the lazy--of what the commotion in this thread is about, as briefly as possible. I tried to simplify the jargon in that synopsis for the benefit of those who might find some of the genetic stuff a little consuming.
quote:I really do care for this back and forth name calling and trolling, you both sound like punks for real.
...and you have now become a part of this club of punks.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're repeatedly logging in and clicking on a thread, solely to repeatedly spam your disapproval of what is supposed to take place on a forum. This is odd behaviour in and of itself. Why would a grown man repeatedly solicit other men's attention and lament being a witness of something he himself is making himself go through?
Then, you call the thread boring, but yet, can't recall for the life of you what is being discussed.
Then, to top it all off, you criticize people for their name calling, which you then comically proceed to self-righteously indulge in yourself with your own 'insults'.
Your erratic behaviour is puzzling. What is your closet reason for logging in to repeatedly express your disapproval, which you then go on to admit, is totally baseless? You know what, I don't even want your answer. Just hop off my you know what, take your see-through 'holier than thou' masquerade and go play with your friends over at Dodona, where you're known for routinely doing the same thing you're now pathetically trying knock, trying to get brownie points.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I really do care for this back and forth name calling and trolling,
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: you both sound like punks for real.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: SLC45A2 was not mentioned in the text you want to wish it in, that's how irrelevant it is.
Lying ass fraud, you're quite uncreative with your repetitive, shaky-legged, amygdala triggered non- replies to my very simple question:
how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''? --Swenet
If your balls didn't desert you, like they did the past hundred times you were asked to address the above, you can take a stab at addressing these inconvenient dumpers, that you dogmatically failed to take into account:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: See above: initial selection in the sub-tropical region of the Sahara.
The admixture event dates to 3kya. You're not going to wish this admixture event away by assigning Ethiopians a fabricated origin in the Sahara. The Syria-like genetic component would still have to become an important genetic contribution, even within your shitty scenario. Not to mention, the hard to swallow pill that this component has an obvious connection to derived SLC24A5 in Ethiopians, also seems to have slipped through the gaping holes of your ''Sahara'' figment.
Other than that, I sure would like to see the pre-defeated piece of evidence that warrants this misty ''Sahara'' scenario, where the sampled Cushitic-Speakers are somehow not the descendants of Axum era equatorial populations, but of some Northern entity that's solely the product of your rabid imagination.
Moreover, how does selection on the derived gene in Ethiopians qualify as a remnant of some imaginary proto population in the Sahara, when the other Ethiopians (Omotic speakers), who derive from the exact same ancestral populations (they only vary from Cushitic-Semitic speakers in their amount of Syrian-like ancestry), don't have excesses of the derived gene?
It would also be nice to see the ecological specifics you've gathered before you went public with that claptrap theory, so as to make sure you wouldn't be making a complete ass out of yourself, by suggesting that light skin is advantageous in the Sahara.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The admixture event dates to 3kya. You're not going to wish this admixture event away by assigning Ethiopians a fabricated origin in the Sahara.
To do that, I'd have to fabricate Ethiopian genetic profiles; thanks for the ass-kissing, but you are venerating me with way more extraordinary powers than I'm capable of.
To familiarize with "fabrication", just look no further than your mindlessly parroted 3kya date.
quote:The Syria-like genetic component would still have to become an important genetic contribution, even within your shitty scenario.
"Syria-like" genetic component, LOL; spoken like a true chump with its head up the ass.
quote:Not to mention, the hard to swallow pill that this component has an obvious connection to derived SLC24A5 in Ethiopians, also seems to have slipped through the gaping holes of your ''Sahara'' figment.
You nailed the "hard to swallow pill" bit of your comically chumpy analysis.
I bet you are just dying to tell us what "obvious connection" the San hunter-gatherer (and indeed other sub-Saharan Africans) marker of the like has to "this component". While at it numbnuts, entertain us with the juicy legendary stories of from which particular Asians the San attained the "derived" OCA2, which they apparently share with "light skin" east Asians.
quote: It would also be nice to see the ecological specifics you've gathered before you went public with that claptrap theory, so as to make sure you wouldn't be making a complete ass out of yourself, by suggesting that light skin is advantageous in the Sahara.
numbnuts, you are confusing a no-brainer for rocket science, because that's how practically stupid you are; the Sahara spans the sub-tropical area. You may confide with early primary school kids to give you a tip on the geography. Forget me; the ass you should be looking out for is you, which you just made a fool of. LOL
PS: Why don't you tell us more about how it is like to be a gullible brainwashed sap who buys into the "forest negro" concept as the true African. It obviously shapes your emotional ideas about Africans, not leaving out the false sense of duty of telling Africans who are true Africans and who aren't.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're repeatedly logging in and clicking on a thread, solely to repeatedly spam your disapproval of what is supposed to take place on a forum. This is odd behaviour in and of itself. Why would a grown man repeatedly solicit other men's attention and lament being a witness of something he himself is making himself go through?
Then, you call the thread boring, but yet, can't recall for the life of you what is being discussed.
Then, to top it all off, you criticize people for their name calling, which you then comically proceed to self-righteously indulge in yourself with your own 'insults'.
Your erratic behaviour is puzzling. What is your closet reason for logging in to repeatedly express your disapproval, which you then go on to admit, is totally baseless? You know what, I don't even want your answer. Just hop off my you know what, take your see-through 'holier than thou' masquerade and go play with your friends over at Dodona, where you're known for routinely doing the same thing you're now pathetically trying knock, trying to get brownie points.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I really do care for this back and forth name calling and trolling,
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: you both sound like punks for real.
It was a typo I made, but yes, you both do sound like punks agree to disagree and shut up and move on and last like I checked no *STRAIGHT* man would tell another man to suck his you know what so your sexuality is now in question. Funny how nether of you punks responded to my question as it pertained to the topic, smh
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charlie the sissy, which question was not already addressed, as it pertained to the ongoing exchanges, not your own diversion?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Charlie the sissy, which question was not already addressed, as it pertained to the ongoing exchanges, not your own diversion?
This one
quote: are you arguing that this gene came out or is it indigenous? If it came from outside please explain how Somalis, who were tested in that genetic study by Pangani are darker than Ethiopians despite having nearly the same amount of genetic admixture as Ethiopians.
Punk sounding people can't read?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you are living proof of this punk sounding creep, since after all, your question does not follow from anything I've argued thus far. I'm not making a case for a non-African introduction of the downstream SLC24A5 variant, swenet is.
PS: Charlie, I strongly urge you to reconsider directing your poorly-thought through silly invectives at me, just as I urged that clown swenet to refrain from the same at an earlier time, after having made several attempts to have an adult conversation with the character, which unfortunately fell on the stubborn def ears of a mule. Consequently, I approach the clown as a special case where communication at the human level is futile. So I ask: Do you want to become another such special case? Because if you do, then by all means, continue with the uncultured keyboard thuggery, and I'll make sure you are dealt with at a level you best understand. It's all on you, my friend, but don't say I didn't warn you.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol, I was calling you both clowns for going back and forth and found it funny that one of my topics was linked to, but its all good. lol. You don't have enough brains to come close to annihilating me, even though I've retired at doing this stuff.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charlie, you are such a fuckheaded sissy that you cannot tell your ass from your head, and see that you are a bigger clown than anybody for being a prime example of what you're crying like a baby about. On this point, I agree with the other fuckhead (swenet). What has your Mississippi jungle ass offered to begin with, that warrants "annihilating" your trailer trash countryside ass? LOL
Far from retiring, you are a veteran par excellence at being an idiot, who makes a good piñata to be made a complete fool of at white nationalist cult avenues?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Charlie, you are such a fuckheaded sissy that you cannot tell your ass from your head, and see that you are a bigger clown than anybody for being a prime example of what you're crying like a baby about. On this point, I agree with the other fuckhead (swenet). What has your Mississippi jungle ass offered to begin with, that warrants "annihilating" your trailer trash countryside ass? LOL
Far from retiring, you are a veteran par excellence at being an idiot, who makes a good piñata to be made a complete fool of at white nationalist cult avenues?
You sound like you have PTSD from fighting all of those bad Euros, what has Evil Euro and Horemheb done to you?
I was a vet here in the beginning and put my work in and what I've done to build here stands for itself, I don't have to trade insults with you and thus sound like a punk to prove anything, lol
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on buddy: You came at me with your insults, out of nowhere in the misguidedly-disguised form of playing some sort of a "peace-maker". My issue is with just swenet, at this point, as anybody with half a brain knows that I do partake in civil exchanges with those who conduct themselves accordingly. Anyone else who got thrashed thereby invited it upon one self when he/she decided to play the emotional cheerleader and come at me the wrong way. That suggests to me, that you are bad at lying, since you are obviously trying to "prove something", however bad at it you are.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |