https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520

On 13.10.2021. 20:47, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520

You are the one who lies.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
> You are the one who lies.

Nobody mentioned lies but you.

"A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520

On 14.10.2021. 0:29, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
>
>> You are the one who lies.
>
> Nobody mentioned lies but you.
>
> "A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."

I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.

I stated a well established fact, discussed here in depth in past threads
going back years.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664978076018556928

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

[...]

Hey, nym shifting troll!

Here's 2017:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/mvoixOqRMYA/m/nNdMJlwaCgAJ

Here's 2013:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/KglHmgD66V0/m/6C_krFYgTFUJ

Take your meds, ask a nurse to help you with the spelling and I bet you can finds lots
more. Well. In your case that is probably a mite optimistic so you can read all this as
a rhetorical statement.

R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C-A-L

Look it up.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664978076018556928

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:09:05 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 14.10.2021. 0:29, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> >>> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
> >
> >> You are the one who lies.
> >
> > Nobody mentioned lies but you.
> >
> > "A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."

> I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.

Would you mind letting me in on your reason, Mario? I see no evidence of lying in this post.

Sorry to be so late in responding. I've been deeply involved in talk.origins all this past month,
being hit by torrents of *demonstrable* lies, including one post by jillery where the *internal* evidence
clearly showed that jillery was lying.

But I believe that you do not like to know about disputes that don't involve you.
I can very readily appreciate that, but I am unlike you, and I would like to know
why you said that about JTEM at this particular time.

Peter Nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Would you mind letting me in on your reason, Mario? I see no evidence of lying in this post.
>
> Sorry to be so late in responding. I've been deeply involved in talk.origins all this past month,
> being hit by torrents of *demonstrable* lies, including one post by jillery where the *internal* evidence
> clearly showed that jillery was lying.
>
> But I believe that you do not like to know about disputes that don't involve you.
> I can very readily appreciate that, but I am unlike you, and I would like to know
> why you said that about JTEM at this particular time.

The truth is that mainstream "Evidence" like man-made tools and cut marks,
which are only identified using the most rigorous scientific methods, actually
come down to where they are found. There are cut marks in places like north
American, and tools that pass muster here and elsewhere, but they're not in
the right place, and too old, so they're ignored.

I'm not saying that these really are tools and cut marks, I'm just saying that
mainstream paleo anthropology is telling us that they are lying their asses
off when they claim these things are empirical, totally objective and not the
least bit subjective...

The assure us that cut marks & deliberate tool making are determined
objectively, only ever using empirical methods, but reject "Evidence"
confirmed by those self same methods when they pop up in the wrong place
or with the wrong date.

And they do insist on sites -- more than one -- littered with BILLIONS of tools,
literally BILLIONS in a single site, with no greater argument than there are
a lot of rocks in the area.

It happened. It's happening. It will continue to happen.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/30289826006

On 4.11.2021. 21:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:09:05 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 14.10.2021. 0:29, I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>>>> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
>>>
>>>> You are the one who lies.
>>>
>>> Nobody mentioned lies but you.
>>>
>>> "A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."
>
>> I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.
>
> Would you mind letting me in on your reason, Mario? I see no evidence of lying in this post.
>
> Sorry to be so late in responding. I've been deeply involved in talk.origins all this past month,
> being hit by torrents of *demonstrable* lies, including one post by jillery where the *internal* evidence
> clearly showed that jillery was lying.
>
> But I believe that you do not like to know about disputes that don't involve you.
> I can very readily appreciate that, but I am unlike you, and I would like to know
> why you said that about JTEM at this particular time.

See what she wrote as response to your post. She is *creating*
imaginary questionable situations, and after that she states that those
situations are questionable,
Evidence about stone tools is nothing like what she claims it to be,
but they look questionable to a laymen when she presents them as such.
No, the evidence of stone tools isn't a photograph of a bunch of stones.
This bunch of stones only *look like* stone tools from a distance, to a
layman. And it is she who is creating such a questionable situations.
And you mention to her, time after time, that evidence is nothing like
that. She, after writing about this for decades, should know much more
about this, than this photograph of a pile of rocks. But time and time
again she acts like this photograph is everything that she knows about
this. And this is the main subject that she holds on to, for decades, in
this news group, yet, all this time she "discuss" only this one
photograph, and for the whole time she "claims" that this photograph is
questionable. And you tell her again, well, this isn't all. And again,
she acts like she doesn't hear you, and again she doesn't inquire it
just a bit more, even though this is her main subject, and after decades
she still stands firmly on this photograph, claiming that it is
questionable. And yes, she is right, this particular photograph really
is questionable. Only, this photograph *isn't* the evidence about tool
use, although it may look like it to a laymen.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 6.11.2021. 0:50, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 4.11.2021. 21:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:09:05 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>> wrote:
>>> On 14.10.2021. 0:29, I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>>>>> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
>>>>
>>>>> You are the one who lies.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody mentioned lies but you.
>>>>
>>>> "A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."
>>
>>> I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.
>>
>> Would you mind letting me in on your reason, Mario?  I see no evidence
>> of lying in this post.
>>
>> Sorry to be so late in responding. I've been deeply involved in
>> talk.origins all this past month,
>> being hit by torrents of *demonstrable* lies, including one post by
>> jillery where the *internal* evidence
>> clearly showed that jillery was lying.
>>
>> But I believe that you do not like to know about disputes that don't
>> involve you.
>> I can very readily appreciate that, but I am unlike you, and I would
>> like to know
>> why you said that about JTEM at this particular time.
>
>         See what she wrote as response to your post. She is *creating*
> imaginary questionable situations, and after that she states that those
> situations are questionable,
>         Evidence about stone tools is nothing like what she claims it
> to be, but they look questionable to a laymen when she presents them as
> such. No, the evidence of stone tools isn't a photograph of a bunch of
> stones. This bunch of stones only *look like* stone tools from a
> distance, to a layman. And it is she who is creating such a questionable
> situations.
>         And you mention to her, time after time, that evidence is
> nothing like that. She, after writing about this for decades, should
> know much more about this, than this photograph of a pile of rocks. But
> time and time again she acts like this photograph is everything that she
> knows about this. And this is the main subject that she holds on to, for
> decades, in this news group, yet, all this time she "discuss" only this
> one photograph, and for the whole time she "claims" that this photograph
> is questionable. And you tell her again, well, this isn't all. And
> again, she acts like she doesn't hear you, and again she doesn't inquire
> it just a bit more, even though this is her main subject, and after
> decades she still stands firmly on this photograph, claiming that it is
> questionable. And yes, she is right, this particular photograph really
> is questionable. Only, this photograph *isn't* the evidence about tool
> use, although it may look like it to a laymen.

This is exactly like if somebody would claim that there are channels
on Mars, and present to you some 100 years old photograph which shows
some "channels" on Mrs. And you tell to him, well, look guy, people sent
probes on Mars, and those probes saw no channels. But time and time
again this guy shows this 100 years old photograph, claiming that there
are channels on Mars. And this is not something aside, this is his main
subject, about which he has no knowledge at all.
And you ask yourself, why he is presenting this 100 years old
photograph as the evidence of channels? Well, because it suits his
agenda. In other words, he is deliberately *lying*. He *should* know
that this old photograph isn't the only evidence, if this is his main
subject.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> This is exactly like if somebody would claim that there are channels
> on Mars, and present to you some 100 years old photograph

Oh. So you're batshit crazy. Why didn't you just say so?

Google: Calico early man site

Amongst it's proponents was the famous Leaky, btw.

I've also brought up the Nova episode on the "Meat Cache" which is
significantly older than paleo anthropology says anything can be in
the Americas, and the "Cut Mark" identified there...

Nobody has retracted the claims about the BILLIONS (plural) of hand
axes at each of multiple sites in Africa...

If you ever get internet access you might try searching for this stuff
on the Google Groups archive.

And, yes, that was meant to be sarcastic.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667071109600018432

On 6.11.2021. 5:09, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> This is exactly like if somebody would claim that there are channels
>> on Mars, and present to you some 100 years old photograph
>
> Oh. So you're batshit crazy. Why didn't you just say so?
>
> Google: Calico early man site
>
> Amongst it's proponents was the famous Leaky, btw.

Ok, I'll address this, and I will not go any further, because
discussing with you is a waste of time.
So, you are claiming that stone tools aren't stone tools, and you have
one example where rocks "bear a strong resemblance to prehistoric
tools", but whether they are or not is a point of discussion. Do you
claim that other examples of stone tools are also questionable, only
because these ones are questionable?
Well then, you are the only one who claims this. Other sites aren't
questionable. Yes, some rocks that resemble stone tools can be
questionable, why not? But, you are claiming that *all* are
questionable. Well, they aren't. And you should know that. But you are
using one questionable example to impose that all examples are
questionable. And this you are doing time after time. In other words,
you are lying. Deliberately.

> I've also brought up the Nova episode on the "Meat Cache" which is
> significantly older than paleo anthropology says anything can be in
> the Americas, and the "Cut Mark" identified there...
>
> Nobody has retracted the claims about the BILLIONS (plural) of hand
> axes at each of multiple sites in Africa...
>
> If you ever get internet access you might try searching for this stuff
> on the Google Groups archive.
>
> And, yes, that was meant to be sarcastic.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > Oh. So you're batshit crazy. Why didn't you just say so?
> >
> > Google: Calico early man site
> >
> > Amongst it's proponents was the famous Leaky, btw.

> Ok, I'll address this

You didn't address anything at all. You just made up stupid shit
because that's what you do.

> So, you are claiming that stone tools aren't stone tools, and you have
> one example where rocks "bear a strong resemblance to prehistoric
> tools", but whether they are or not is a point of discussion.

No.

I never claimed that. I never so much as implied that.

What I pointed out is that paleo anthropology claims that determinations
are made only in the must objective, empirical manner, while what they
demonstrate is that it really comes down to where it's found, and also its
age in many cases.

An example is the Calico Early Man Site where even Leaky saw "Tools"
and not broken rocks. Another example I gave was the Nova episode
where a distinct "Cut Mark" was identified using the imaginary methods,
and dismissed because of it's age and where it was found.

So there's two examples where objective, empirical methods said "Tools"
and paleo anthropology said "No, these methods suck and you can't go
my them."

If you want a parallel example outside the field, one that you still won't be
able to grasp, there's how for some decades the FBI insisted that it could
tell if two bullets came from the same badge, making it highly unlikely
that a different person/gun could have fired the bullet in a murder.

It was all rubbish.

Fact of the matter is they tested unfired bullets from a suspect because
they believed the suspect was guilty. They believed the bullets did match.
So they found similarities because that's what they wanted/expected to
find.

Same thing with so called "Tools."

When and where they expect tools, their methods are sound. They're
objective, not the least bit subjective, empirical. And, when/where the
narrative says they won't find tools, those methods are junk.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667071109600018432

On 6.11.2021. 7:20, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>> Oh. So you're batshit crazy. Why didn't you just say so?
>>>
>>> Google: Calico early man site
>>>
>>> Amongst it's proponents was the famous Leaky, btw.
>
>> Ok, I'll address this
>
> You didn't address anything at all. You just made up stupid shit
> because that's what you do.
>
>> So, you are claiming that stone tools aren't stone tools, and you have
>> one example where rocks "bear a strong resemblance to prehistoric
>> tools", but whether they are or not is a point of discussion.
>
> No.
>
> I never claimed that. I never so much as implied that.
>
> What I pointed out is that paleo anthropology claims that determinations
> are made only in the must objective, empirical manner, while what they
> demonstrate is that it really comes down to where it's found, and also its
> age in many cases.
>
> An example is the Calico Early Man Site where even Leaky saw "Tools"
> and not broken rocks. Another example I gave was the Nova episode
> where a distinct "Cut Mark" was identified using the imaginary methods,
> and dismissed because of it's age and where it was found.
>
> So there's two examples where objective, empirical methods said "Tools"
> and paleo anthropology said "No, these methods suck and you can't go
> my them."
>
> If you want a parallel example outside the field, one that you still won't be
> able to grasp, there's how for some decades the FBI insisted that it could
> tell if two bullets came from the same badge, making it highly unlikely
> that a different person/gun could have fired the bullet in a murder.
>
> It was all rubbish.
>
> Fact of the matter is they tested unfired bullets from a suspect because
> they believed the suspect was guilty. They believed the bullets did match.
> So they found similarities because that's what they wanted/expected to
> find.
>
> Same thing with so called "Tools."
>
> When and where they expect tools, their methods are sound. They're
> objective, not the least bit subjective, empirical. And, when/where the
> narrative says they won't find tools, those methods are junk.

In the very selective examples that you present as a standard.
I agree that paleoanthropology, just like the whole science, is very
controlled, but to claim that stone tools don't exist is, simply, too
much. Some, or even, a lot, of things can be of a questionable nature.
You, though, are questioning every tiny bit of paleoanthropology.
*Whatever* paleoanthropology claims, you question. Without any criteria,
you just question everything.
Except the existence of God, I presume.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> In the very selective examples that you present as a standard.
> I agree that paleoanthropology, just like the whole science, is very
> controlled, but to claim that stone tools don't exist

I didn't say that stone tools don't exist, I said that they can't tell a
stone tool from a broken rock. And they can't.

A parellel would be where the FBI claimed for many years that
they could tell when two bullets came from the same batch, and
they couldn't. This is not to say that bullets don't exist or that
nobody has ever been murdered with one.

"Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667173745630281728/you-explain-its-significance-but-lets-be-honest

On 7.11.2021. 8:25, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> In the very selective examples that you present as a standard.
>> I agree that paleoanthropology, just like the whole science, is very
>> controlled, but to claim that stone tools don't exist
>
> I didn't say that stone tools don't exist, I said that they can't tell a
> stone tool from a broken rock. And they can't.
>
> A parellel would be where the FBI claimed for many years that
> they could tell when two bullets came from the same batch, and
> they couldn't. This is not to say that bullets don't exist or that
> nobody has ever been murdered with one.
>
> "Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
> one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
> fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.

Of course you are wrong, they can tell exactly if some of the stones
is a tool. Just because you cannot discern them on your photograph, and
just because this thing about bullets (which I will not bother to check
out), it doesn't mean that they cannot discern them. And you should know
that, if this is your main subject.
You "argument" is like, because this thing with bullets, the whole
science is *completely* bogus. This is what you are doing. And, you are,
clearly, lying. You have anti-science agenda, and you try to "prove"
your agenda by unfair means, which is a typical behavior of a Catholic
fanatic.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:

> > "Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
> > one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
> > fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.

> Of course you are wrong

No. You're an idiot. I gave you two examples in this thread alone which
you acknowledged.

> they can tell exactly if some of the stones
> is a tool.

No. Again, I gave you two examples in this thread. Going by their totally
object, empirical methods means a 25,000 year old "meat cache" in,
where was it? Colorado? And then the Calico Early Man Site which
would have to be pre modern man, it's so old.

> Just because you cannot discern them on your

I've never been to the Calico Early Man Site, or Colorado for that matter.

You need to make it about me, your emotional state, else you can't deal
with things.

You can't engage in a civil discussion on facts, on evidence. You need
to make it about personalities. You did need to. You did do that. More
than once in this thread alone.

And, yes, I am calling you an idiot BECAUSE you did that.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667178430374215680

On 7.11.2021. 22:08, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>>> "Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
>>> one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
>>> fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.
>
>> Of course you are wrong
>
> No. You're an idiot. I gave you two examples in this thread alone which
> you acknowledged.
>
>> they can tell exactly if some of the stones
>> is a tool.
>
> No. Again, I gave you two examples in this thread. Going by their totally
> object, empirical methods means a 25,000 year old "meat cache" in,
> where was it? Colorado? And then the Calico Early Man Site which
> would have to be pre modern man, it's so old.
>
>> Just because you cannot discern them on your
>
> I've never been to the Calico Early Man Site, or Colorado for that matter.
>
> You need to make it about me, your emotional state, else you can't deal
> with things.
>
> You can't engage in a civil discussion on facts, on evidence. You need
> to make it about personalities. You did need to. You did do that. More
> than once in this thread alone.
>
> And, yes, I am calling you an idiot BECAUSE you did that.

Everything that I said still stands. You gave me two examples? Even
two? Don't you say.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 7.11.2021. 8:25, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>> In the very selective examples that you present as a standard.
>> I agree that paleoanthropology, just like the whole science, is very
>> controlled, but to claim that stone tools don't exist
>
> I didn't say that stone tools don't exist, I said that they can't tell a
> stone tool from a broken rock. And they can't.
>
> A parellel would be where the FBI claimed for many years that
> they could tell when two bullets came from the same batch, and
> they couldn't. This is not to say that bullets don't exist or that
> nobody has ever been murdered with one.
>
> "Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
> one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
> fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.

"Bulbs of applied force are not usually present if the flake has been
struck off naturally. This allows archaeologists to identify and
distinguish natural breakage from human artistry."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulb_of_applied_force

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> "Bulbs of applied force are not usually present if the flake has been
> struck off naturally.

What does "Not usually" mean?

Because at a 1-in-a-million chance there are 1,000 in a site with a billion
rocks.

There are COUNTLESS sites with MULTIPLES of that figure.

The sky is the limit.

And this is assuming a 1-in-a-million incidence rate. If you knock that
down to 1-in-a-100,000 then we're talking 10x the number of false
positives...

AND THEN consider that the "Not Usually" is a circular argument. It's
based on THEIR CONCLUSIONS. They some rocks are man made
tools so they have to be man made tools. They say they don't usually
get it wrong based on the conclusion that they don't usually get it
wrong.

So we have a fictitious claim -- "not usually" -- a circular argument,
which even at face value is deceptive anyway as 1-in-a-thousand
or 3-in-a-hundred or even 6-in-50 constitutes "Not usually," but they
all result is STAGGERINGLY huge numbers.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667225468856041472

On 9.11.2021. 5:24, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> "Bulbs of applied force are not usually present if the flake has been
>> struck off naturally.
>
> What does "Not usually" mean?
>
> Because at a 1-in-a-million chance there are 1,000 in a site with a billion
> rocks.
>
> There are COUNTLESS sites with MULTIPLES of that figure.
>
> The sky is the limit.
>
> And this is assuming a 1-in-a-million incidence rate. If you knock that
> down to 1-in-a-100,000 then we're talking 10x the number of false
> positives...
>
> AND THEN consider that the "Not Usually" is a circular argument. It's
> based on THEIR CONCLUSIONS. They some rocks are man made
> tools so they have to be man made tools. They say they don't usually
> get it wrong based on the conclusion that they don't usually get it
> wrong.
>
> So we have a fictitious claim -- "not usually" -- a circular argument,
> which even at face value is deceptive anyway as 1-in-a-thousand
> or 3-in-a-hundred or even 6-in-50 constitutes "Not usually," but they
> all result is STAGGERINGLY huge numbers.

So what?

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> > So we have a fictitious claim -- "not usually" -- a circular argument,
> > which even at face value is deceptive anyway as 1-in-a-thousand
> > or 3-in-a-hundred or even 6-in-50 constitutes "Not usually," but they
> > all result is STAGGERINGLY huge numbers.

> So what?

So you don't have an argument. You have a circular claim. They know
what happened "usually" because that's what they said. Their position
is proving itself. AND, they (you) use undefined term which itself does
support the idea that they are misidentifying geofacts as archaeological
artifacts.

"Not usually?" Honey, when you pick up a rock it's "Not usually" a paleo
tool shaped by early man.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667352657800871936

On 9.11.2021. 21:28, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>>> So we have a fictitious claim -- "not usually" -- a circular argument,
>>> which even at face value is deceptive anyway as 1-in-a-thousand
>>> or 3-in-a-hundred or even 6-in-50 constitutes "Not usually," but they
>>> all result is STAGGERINGLY huge numbers.
>
>> So what?
>
> So you don't have an argument. You have a circular claim. They know
> what happened "usually" because that's what they said. Their position
> is proving itself. AND, they (you) use undefined term which itself does
> support the idea that they are misidentifying geofacts as archaeological
> artifacts.
>
> "Not usually?" Honey, when you pick up a rock it's "Not usually" a paleo
> tool shaped by early man.

Read it whichever way you want (which you do).

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> Read it whichever way you want (which you do).

It's an undefined term. Period. It's literally meaningless. Or, if you
prefer, it can mean anything you damn well please. AND it's also
circular. It defends the accuracy of the determinations by insisting
that the determinations are accurate.

Put short: It's just plain stupid.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667412542217502720

On 10.11.2021. 0:24, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> Read it whichever way you want (which you do).
>
> It's an undefined term. Period. It's literally meaningless. Or, if you
> prefer, it can mean anything you damn well please. AND it's also
> circular. It defends the accuracy of the determinations by insisting
> that the determinations are accurate.
>
> Put short: It's just plain stupid.

I mean, you have all the necessary info. Out of this info you can make
smart conclusion, or stupid conclusion. It all depends on you. What is
smart to a smart man, this is stupid to a stupid man (and vice versa).

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com