Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01

Still up and going today …

And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/

Lynn

In article <ttobbd$1l4j$3@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
> https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>

I'll miss dilbert.com when it's gone: it has the best search engine of
any comic strip site. I wish Peanuts had something similar.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 2023-03-01 12:08, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
>    https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>
> Still up and going today …
>
> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>
> https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/

That you continue to fanboi for a racist says all anyone needs to know
about you.

On 2023-03-01 1:08 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
>    https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>
> Still up and going today …
>
> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>
> https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
>
> Lynn

He does not have my attention. He advised me to avoid black people. I
choose to avoid him.

On 3/1/2023 2:17 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-03-01 12:08, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
>>     https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>>
>> Still up and going today …
>>
>> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>>
>> https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
>
> That you continue to fanboi for a racist says all anyone needs to know
> about you.

How did you get out of my killfile ? Ah, a nymshifter. Figures. That
is easily fixed.

Lynn

On 2023-03-01 13:12, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/1/2023 2:17 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:08, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
>>>     https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>>>
>>> Still up and going today …
>>>
>>> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>>>
>>> https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
>>
>> That you continue to fanboi for a racist says all anyone needs to know
>> about you.
>
> How did you get out of my killfile ?  Ah, a nymshifter.  Figures.  That
> is easily fixed.

And just as easily broken should I choose to...

....but you're too insignificant to bother.

On Wednesday, 1 March 2023 at 20:13:28 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <ttobbd$1l4j$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
> > https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
> >
> I'll miss dilbert.com when it's gone: it has the best search engine of
> any comic strip site. I wish Peanuts had something similar.

I'll miss dilbert.com when it starts charging money.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:08:17 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>
> https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/

I *could* say: Stereotypes! Blaming the victim! ... but that wouldn't be
helpful.
Instead, I would say his helpful bullet points

- avoid crime
- avoid addiction
- no kids before ready
- focus on learning
- character

and his other chart, comparing the bad "Focus on History"
with "Focus on Future"

don't say anything that wasn't already said better before by
Booker T. Washington and Bill Cosby.

It *is* true that this is good advice to black people
with respect to their _individual_ success.
However, the problems black people face are so
enormous and serious that they will need help from
white people to solve them to an adequate extent;
this is where political action comes in, and that's
what the "Focus on History" is _for_.
For failing to understand that, I criticize him.
For him thinking that he has gotten the attention of
_black_ people, or that they could stomach taking his
advice after all this... well, that's also a bad mistake on
his part.

More could be said, but I think this is enough, as this
is quite well-trodden ground.

John Savard

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 19:36:42 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 1 March 2023 at 20:13:28 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <ttobbd$1l4j$3...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
>> > https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>> >
>> I'll miss dilbert.com when it's gone: it has the best search engine of
>> any comic strip site. I wish Peanuts had something similar.
>
>I'll miss dilbert.com when it starts charging money.

Amen to that!
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:08:17 PM UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
> https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>
> Still up and going today …
>
> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>
> https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
>
> Lynn
Much of this I am not impressed by; in particular, I find "I was being deliberately provocative" more of an admission than an excuse, especially from somebody who has the ability to sugar-coat their words with humour, if they want to. I was interested in his promotion of "don't do crime, don't get addicted, don't have kids too early, keep learning, do what you say you will do" because it strikes me that a lot of the Science Fiction that I have enjoyed is American stories of young people doing the right things as they grow up - is this an American tradition going back to Horatio Alger? Is this identified with one particular American sub-culture, and not others? I see N.K.Jemisin being lauded in related threads. I was given "The Fifth Season" as a present, and what came out to me most strongly was "If you are disrespected, you will of course retaliate". I believe this to be a less useful trait than the previous five, for the perhaps disrespected person and for society as a whole.

On 3 Mar 2023 at 05:41:51 GMT, "Andrew McDowell" <mcdowell_ag@sky.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:08:17 PM UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
>> https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>>
>> Still up and going today …
>>
>> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>>
>> https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
>>
>> Lynn
> Much of this I am not impressed by; in particular, I find "I was being deliberately provocative" more of an admission than an excuse,

Schrodinger's Asshole. Someone who says something horrible, then decides
if it was serious or a "hey it's just a joke, maaaan" depending on the
reaction.

Cheers - Jaimie

--
To every complex problem there is a solution which
is simple, neat and wrong.
-- HL Mencken

In article <k6dtboFpjcU1@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>On 3 Mar 2023 at 05:41:51 GMT, "Andrew McDowell" <mcdowell_ag@sky.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:08:17 PM UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
>>> https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>>>
>>> Still up and going today …
>>>
>>> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>>>
>>>
>https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
>>>
>>> Lynn
>> Much of this I am not impressed by; in particular, I find "I
>was being deliberately provocative" more of an admission than an
>excuse,
>
>Schrodinger's Asshole. Someone who says something horrible, then decides
>if it was serious or a "hey it's just a joke, maaaan" depending on the
>reaction.

That section of the population that feigns in any useful sense being
members of the cult of that guy who got nailed to a tree by the Romans
might be interested to know the religious text to which they pay
lip service covers Schrodinger's Asshole:

"As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,

So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not
I in sport?"
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:41:53 PM UTC-7, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> and what came out to me most strongly was "If you are disrespected,
> you will of course retaliate". I believe this to be a less useful trait than
> the previous five,

What you are missing here is the role of kin selection in evolution.

This is the same process that leads to altruism being selected for,
although that also seems paradoxical at first glance.

Individuals might have genes which predispose them to retaliate if they
are attacked, even against insurmountable odds, or they might lack such
genes.

Take, then, subgroups A and B of humans, the first of which has such
genes, and the second of which lacks them.

Given a circumstance where humans of both subgroups A and B are
subjected to mistreatment and oppression, an individual in group B
is more likely to survive, because he will be less likely to engage in
foolish acts of resistance or revenge that will most likely bring him to
an early death.

Yet, in the long term, humans in subgroup A might outcompete
humans in subgroup B? Why? Because the other dominant group of
humans... might eventually come to know better than to oppress and
abuse humans in subgroup A, it just not being worth it.

So a trait can be directly useless for the individual humans who possess it,
at least in the short term, and yet still be useful for those same humans as
a group in the longer term due to its indirect consequences.

John Savard

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 14:02:07 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <k6dtboFpjcU1@mid.individual.net>,
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>On 3 Mar 2023 at 05:41:51 GMT, "Andrew McDowell" <mcdowell_ag@sky.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:08:17 PM UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
>>>> https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
>>>>
>>>> Still up and going today …
>>>>
>>>> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
>>>>
>>>>
>>https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>> Much of this I am not impressed by; in particular, I find "I
>>was being deliberately provocative" more of an admission than an
>>excuse,
>>
>>Schrodinger's Asshole. Someone who says something horrible, then decides
>>if it was serious or a "hey it's just a joke, maaaan" depending on the
>>reaction.
>
>That section of the population that feigns in any useful sense being
>members of the cult of that guy who got nailed to a tree by the Romans
>might be interested to know the religious text to which they pay
>lip service covers Schrodinger's Asshole:
>
>"As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,
>
>So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not
>I in sport?"

Amazing how many "modern day" annoyances go back a long long time.

Perhaps its something in the genes ...
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 12:10:29 PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 14:02:07 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <k6dtbo...@mid.individual.net>,
> >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> >>On 3 Mar 2023 at 05:41:51 GMT, "Andrew McDowell" <mcdow...@sky.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:08:17 PM UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>>> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
> >>>> https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
> >>>>
> >>>> Still up and going today …
> >>>>
> >>>> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
> >>>>
> >>>> Lynn
> >>> Much of this I am not impressed by; in particular, I find "I
> >>was being deliberately provocative" more of an admission than an
> >>excuse,
> >>
> >>Schrodinger's Asshole. Someone who says something horrible, then decides
> >>if it was serious or a "hey it's just a joke, maaaan" depending on the
> >>reaction.
> >
> >That section of the population that feigns in any useful sense being
> >members of the cult of that guy who got nailed to a tree by the Romans
> >might be interested to know the religious text to which they pay
> >lip service covers Schrodinger's Asshole:
> >
> >"As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,
> >
> >So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not
> >I in sport?"
> Amazing how many "modern day" annoyances go back a long long time.

Early in Plutarch's biography of Phocion there are paragraphs which
describe today's problems quite nicely.

Yes, I did have a long wait for a dental appointment yesterday. How did
you know?

William Hyde

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 2:02:11 PM UTC, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <k6dtbo...@mid.individual.net>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> >On 3 Mar 2023 at 05:41:51 GMT, "Andrew McDowell" <mcdow...@sky.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:08:17 PM UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>> Dilbert: Honesty Versus Dogbert
> >>> https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-03-01
> >>>
> >>> Still up and going today …
> >>>
> >>> And Scott Adams says now that I have your attention:
> >>>
> >>>
> >https://www.scottadamssays.com/episode-2034-scott-adams-now-that-i-have-your-attention/
> >>>
> >>> Lynn
> >> Much of this I am not impressed by; in particular, I find "I
> >was being deliberately provocative" more of an admission than an
> >excuse,
> >
> >Schrodinger's Asshole. Someone who says something horrible, then decides
> >if it was serious or a "hey it's just a joke, maaaan" depending on the
> >reaction.
> That section of the population that feigns in any useful sense being
> members of the cult of that guy who got nailed to a tree by the Romans
> might be interested to know the religious text to which they pay
> lip service covers Schrodinger's Asshole:
>
> "As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,
>
> So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not
> I in sport?"
> --
> My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
> My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
> My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
> My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

From memory, there is a theory that Proverbs was heavily influenced by Egyptian literature of the same style, and both were intended to train people to act as courtiers, who would do well to avoid displaying their cleverness at the expense of the King. Since it predates Christ by centuries, you may find it difficult to characterise it more accurately in a way which is sufficiently dismissive to pass muster in the most progressive circles without getting yourself kicked out of those circles for dismissing a non-Christian religion.

I do wonder about the influence of taking Proverbs seriously. The two cultures of N.Ireland, although living cheek by jowl, have stereotypically different characters, semi-independently described by Tony Blair in his autobiography. One side is highly articulate and amusing, but not all of those words should be taken literally. The other side is far less outgoing, in extreme cases appearing paranoid. Possibly they are more likely to stick to their word, but since that word is very often "No" this is less of an advantage than might at first appear. For some time I considered the more articulate side as an unusual reaction to having to deal with a wide variety of authorities from a position of weakness. I have been wondering more recently if the less outgoing side was further from the typical behaviour of other cultures, as a reaction to concentration on Proverbs and other Old Testament / Jewish Bible literature. Perhaps there are similarities to the more widespread urban/rural stereotypes, but I am unsympathetic to the standard urban explanation that this exists because the rural folk are inbred ignorant yokels.

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 08:59:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:41:53?PM UTC-7, Andrew McDowell wrote:
>> and what came out to me most strongly was "If you are disrespected,
>> you will of course retaliate". I believe this to be a less useful trait than
>> the previous five,
>
>What you are missing here is the role of kin selection in evolution.
>
>This is the same process that leads to altruism being selected for,
>although that also seems paradoxical at first glance.
>
>Individuals might have genes which predispose them to retaliate if they
>are attacked, even against insurmountable odds, or they might lack such
>genes.
>
>Take, then, subgroups A and B of humans, the first of which has such
>genes, and the second of which lacks them.
>
>Given a circumstance where humans of both subgroups A and B are
>subjected to mistreatment and oppression, an individual in group B
>is more likely to survive, because he will be less likely to engage in
>foolish acts of resistance or revenge that will most likely bring him to
>an early death.
>
>Yet, in the long term, humans in subgroup A might outcompete
>humans in subgroup B? Why? Because the other dominant group of
>humans... might eventually come to know better than to oppress and
>abuse humans in subgroup A, it just not being worth it.
>
>So a trait can be directly useless for the individual humans who possess it,
>at least in the short term, and yet still be useful for those same humans as
>a group in the longer term due to its indirect consequences.

I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
relevent to biological evolution.

And how totally unfalsifiable, and so not scientific, they are.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:35:39 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
> a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
> relevent to biological evolution.

Oh. You're one of Those.

What TESTABLE hypothesis do you have for altruism and self sacrifice?

Pt

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:35:39 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 08:59:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:41:53?PM UTC-7, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> >> and what came out to me most strongly was "If you are disrespected,
> >> you will of course retaliate". I believe this to be a less useful trait than
> >> the previous five,
> >
> >What you are missing here is the role of kin selection in evolution.
> >
> >This is the same process that leads to altruism being selected for,
> >although that also seems paradoxical at first glance.
> >
> >Individuals might have genes which predispose them to retaliate if they
> >are attacked, even against insurmountable odds, or they might lack such
> >genes.
> >
> >Take, then, subgroups A and B of humans, the first of which has such
> >genes, and the second of which lacks them.
> >
> >Given a circumstance where humans of both subgroups A and B are
> >subjected to mistreatment and oppression, an individual in group B
> >is more likely to survive, because he will be less likely to engage in
> >foolish acts of resistance or revenge that will most likely bring him to
> >an early death.
> >
> >Yet, in the long term, humans in subgroup A might outcompete
> >humans in subgroup B? Why? Because the other dominant group of
> >humans... might eventually come to know better than to oppress and
> >abuse humans in subgroup A, it just not being worth it.
> >
> >So a trait can be directly useless for the individual humans who possess it,
> >at least in the short term, and yet still be useful for those same humans as
> >a group in the longer term due to its indirect consequences.
> I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
> a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
> relevent to biological evolution.
>
> And how totally unfalsifiable, and so not scientific, they are.

Which is why just-so stories do not feature in the science of evolution and
why they are in fact derided.

William Hyde

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 7:33:37 PM UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:35:39 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> >
> > I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
> > a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
> > relevent to biological evolution.
> Oh. You're one of Those.
>
> What TESTABLE hypothesis do you have for altruism and self sacrifice?
>
> Pt
There was an experiment done in this area, but I interpret as voting for something less confrontational than a culture of respect. This was Muir's psychopathic chicken study. The point of using chickens was that it is easy to measure the productivity of a chicken by counting eggs. So you could populate a hen house with chickens all of whom came from a long line of (individual) champion egg-layers, or chickens from hen houses where the productivity of the hen house as a whole was unusually high. The hen house populated by high individual achievers did poorly, with some chickens being pecked to death; the high scores had been achieved at the expense of neighbouring birds, and this tendancy was hereditary. A web search finds one account at https://www.wkms.org/science/2018-10-08/scientists-use-chickens-to-study-new-theory-of-multi-level-evolution - I think I encountered it in a book by David Sloan Wilson.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:53:49 PM UTC-5, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 7:33:37 PM UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:35:39 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >
> > > I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
> > > a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
> > > relevent to biological evolution.
> > Oh. You're one of Those.
> >
> > What TESTABLE hypothesis do you have for altruism and self sacrifice?
> >
> > Pt
> There was an experiment done in this area, but I interpret as voting for something less confrontational than a culture of respect. This was Muir's psychopathic chicken study. The point of using chickens was that it is easy to measure the productivity of a chicken by counting eggs. So you could populate a hen house with chickens all of whom came from a long line of (individual) champion egg-layers, or chickens from hen houses where the productivity of the hen house as a whole was unusually high. The hen house populated by high individual achievers did poorly, with some chickens being pecked to death; the high scores had been achieved at the expense of neighbouring birds, and this tendancy was hereditary. A web search finds one account at https://www.wkms.org/science/2018-10-08/scientists-use-chickens-to-study-new-theory-of-multi-level-evolution - I think I encountered it in a book by David Sloan Wilson.

If the cooperative chickens came from same or related bloodlines, the result suggests that an
evolutionary explanation is plausible.

Pt

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 7:59:49 PM UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:53:49 PM UTC-5, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 7:33:37 PM UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:35:39 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
> > > > a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
> > > > relevent to biological evolution.
> > > Oh. You're one of Those.
> > >
> > > What TESTABLE hypothesis do you have for altruism and self sacrifice?
> > >
> > > Pt
> > There was an experiment done in this area, but I interpret as voting for something less confrontational than a culture of respect. This was Muir's psychopathic chicken study. The point of using chickens was that it is easy to measure the productivity of a chicken by counting eggs. So you could populate a hen house with chickens all of whom came from a long line of (individual) champion egg-layers, or chickens from hen houses where the productivity of the hen house as a whole was unusually high. The hen house populated by high individual achievers did poorly, with some chickens being pecked to death; the high scores had been achieved at the expense of neighbouring birds, and this tendancy was hereditary. A web search finds one account at https://www.wkms.org/science/2018-10-08/scientists-use-chickens-to-study-new-theory-of-multi-level-evolution - I think I encountered it in a book by David Sloan Wilson.
> If the cooperative chickens came from same or related bloodlines, the result suggests that an
> evolutionary explanation is plausible.
>
> Pt
Both lines of chickens came from a selective breeding program, with the emphasis of the experiment the difference between individual selection and group selection. This comparison is apparently supported by a research program involving different species. The explanation given is inherited behaviour, but the details of what was being selected for may not have been so closely examined. A possibly not very plausible alternative explanation would be selection for blunt beaks and tough skin or feathers. A further search finds more information at https://thisviewoflife.com/when-the-strong-outbreed-the-weak-an-interview-with-william-muir/

On 3/1/2023 3:13 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> I'll miss dilbert.com when it's gone: it has the best search engine of
> any comic strip site. I wish Peanuts had something similar.

You might already be aware of this site, but this is the best site
that I am aware of for searching Peanuts.

https://licensing.andrewsmcmeel.com/search?search_comic=pe

---
Tim Chow

In article <tu0i8d$12vst$4@dont-email.me>,
Timothy Chow <tchow12000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 3/1/2023 3:13 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> I'll miss dilbert.com when it's gone: it has the best search engine of
>> any comic strip site. I wish Peanuts had something similar.
>
>You might already be aware of this site, but this is the best site
>that I am aware of for searching Peanuts.
>
>https://licensing.andrewsmcmeel.com/search?search_comic=pe
>

Thanks!

I was able to type "good days" have have this one, which I wanted, at the top:

https://licensing.andrewsmcmeel.com/features/pe?date=1969-04-30

--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 11:33:34 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:35:39?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
>> a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
>> relevent to biological evolution.
>
>Oh. You're one of Those.
>
>What TESTABLE hypothesis do you have for altruism and self sacrifice?

Nice diversion.

I don't pretend to have testable hypotheses in this area at all.

And I don't go around making up Just-So Stories to try and hide my
ignorance of the real explanation, should one actually exist.

Alternate Answer:

Two words:
Natural
Selection
that explains everything, biologically speaking.

Quantum mechanics, relativity, and psychoanalysis are able to explain
everything else.

Note that "explain" above includes "explain away".

Also note that at theory that explains everything explains nothing.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."