Lake Ontario
 

Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Wolfgang wrote:

sanctimony sucks.



(But pomposity rules?)

Nah, that's just a hobby.

Nah, I'm just a "sinner", so you're probably right.

But I don't think I've ever reveled in "gang banging" a clueless
newby,
but I could be wrong.

Well, yeah, you could be. On the other hand, I don't recall that any
newby here has been gang banged simply for being clueless. Oh, there
have certainly been a number of cases in which one psychopath or
another has gone off on a newby for no apparent reason, but in cases
where a diverse group of individuals who have demonstrated an absolute
incapacity to agree on anything else have concurrently fired upon a
newby the, cluelessness has invariably been merely one more factor
exacerbating some other egregious offense. Besides, while I can't
speak for others, I have personally never reveled in it......I
consider it a solemn duty.

Wolfgang
not that there's anything wrong with deriving a bit of amusement from
the performance of a solemn duty. :)

Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Wolfgang wrote:



Man has been around for awhile but his impact on the world's
environment
has been anything but constant during that time. Man has made more
changes to the world's environment in the last 200 years than the
rest
of the time he has been on this planet.


Well, maybe. I mean, I guess it depends, at least in part, on how
you
define "more changes".....or who does the defining, for that
matter. I've
been meaning to ask that very question of the Pleistocene
megafauna......but
they never return my calls. :(

Then too, there's that distressing business of grazing animals and
deserts
and all that ****.


Give me a break. That's pretty weak.

Think so? Well, I guess I'll bow to your familiarity with the
literature which, if I'm not mistaken, is right up there on the top
shelf.......next to your beloved twin studies. :)

However, I don't think either method can produce
native plants or animals.


Human chauvinism, no different than that which informs the
biblical
imperative to subjugate the Earth and its multifarious
inhabitants. From a
geological perspective the difference between natives and invaders
doesn't
amount to half a jar of cold ****. Or, to put it another way,
what
you....or I....think is less than irrelevant absent a
consensus....or....to
put it yet another way, see the paragraph immediately below.


Not sure why one should take a geological perspective.

I'm not either......but several possibilities come to mind. Maybe we
could ask a geologist?

From a geological
perspective, the extinction of man wouldn't amount to half a jar of
****.

Probably true......but I'm not sure why one would take a geological
perspective in this matter.....but you probably already knew that.

It may be human chauvinism, but we're talking about the definition
of human words. (at least I think we are)

Given the paltry list of possible alternatives, I'd say it's a safe
bet.

Wolfgang

Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
 

Wolfgang wrote:

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Wolfgang wrote:


Man has been around for awhile but his impact on the world's

environment

has been anything but constant during that time. Man has made more
changes to the world's environment in the last 200 years than the

rest

of the time he has been on this planet.


Well, maybe. I mean, I guess it depends, at least in part, on how

you

define "more changes".....or who does the defining, for that

matter. I've

been meaning to ask that very question of the Pleistocene

megafauna......but

they never return my calls. :(

Then too, there's that distressing business of grazing animals and

deserts

and all that ****.


Give me a break. That's pretty weak.


Think so? Well, I guess I'll bow to your familiarity with the
literature which, if I'm not mistaken, is right up there on the top
shelf.......next to your beloved twin studies. :)


Even weaker.

Willi

Lake Ontario
 

"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in message
...
Here just for your entertainment, Mr. Wolfie. After all, all the
world is;
is it not?

Reasons for the existence of the world have the subject of much
speculation and debate among theologians, cosmologists, philosphers,
scientists, and a host of others at least since the dawn of
civilization....and probably for a good while before that. The fact
that all of them rest on the as yet unproven assumption that any sort
of reason or reasons actually exist hasn't deterred the participants
one whit. In fact, it's really what spurs the discussion. Naturally,
it follows that if no one really know whether or not ANY reason exists
or, if so, what that reason or those reasons might be, then any
postulated reason cannot simply be rejected out of hand. Thus, I have
to allow the possibility that the world exists solely for my
amusement. However, before today, I never encountered any suggestion
that this is indeed the case, nor am I aware of any evidence to
support such a suggestion. I've always considered the fact that the
world IS entertaining a fortuitous coincidence. I realize, of course,
that your selfless efforts (as well as those of so many others) to
make the world entertaining for me weakens the case for pure
coincidence, but they do so only inferentially, and thus marginally.
For the moment, at least, I will stick with the coincidence theory.

Diverse? Nah, the more you post, the more you all sound the same.

WHAP! goes the clue bat.......and with no discernible effect. You
see, your respondents ARE diverse, and yes, they DO all sound the
same.....more or less, allowing for stylistic differences. THAT was
the point! Get it? :)

Take a read sometime.

Ooh! I LOVE reading! What would you recommend?

Wolfgang

Native Species/Natural Environment was Lake Ontario
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Wolfgang wrote:

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Wolfgang wrote:


Man has been around for awhile but his impact on the world's

environment

has been anything but constant during that time. Man has made
more
changes to the world's environment in the last 200 years than
the

rest

of the time he has been on this planet.


Well, maybe. I mean, I guess it depends, at least in part, on
how

you

define "more changes".....or who does the defining, for that

matter. I've

been meaning to ask that very question of the Pleistocene

megafauna......but

they never return my calls. :(

Then too, there's that distressing business of grazing animals
and

deserts

and all that ****.


Give me a break. That's pretty weak.


Think so? Well, I guess I'll bow to your familiarity with the
literature which, if I'm not mistaken, is right up there on the
top
shelf.......next to your beloved twin studies. :)


Even weaker.

You're about THIS close to hurting my feelings here, Willi, and I
think that's just mean. :(

Wolfgang