Discussion:
OT: Why can't we just eat once a week like tigers?
(too old to reply)
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-16 14:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
b***@aol.com
2019-10-16 14:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Try and eat a buffalo.
Peter Young
2019-10-16 15:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Try and eat a buffalo.
And don't feed trolls.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-16 15:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Le mercredi 16 octobre 2019 16:38:38 UTC+2, Commander Kinsey a =E9cri=
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so =
much
Post by Peter Young
more convenient.
Try and eat a buffalo.
And don't feed trolls.
Peter.
Fix your own killfile.
Peter Young
2019-10-16 16:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by Peter Young
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much
more convenient.
Try and eat a buffalo.
And don't feed trolls.
Peter.
Fix your own killfile.
Done.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-16 15:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Le mercredi 16 octobre 2019 16:38:38 UTC+2, Commander Kinsey a =E9crit=
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so m=
uch more convenient.
Try and eat a buffalo.
That doesn't answer my "why".
b***@aol.com
2019-10-16 18:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Try and eat a buffalo.
That doesn't answer my "why".
Of course it does, because large predators have evolved to develop an
enormous stomach and gut capacity enabling them to have very infrequent
meals, unlike humans.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-16 19:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so
much more convenient.
Try and eat a buffalo.
That doesn't answer my "why".
Of course it does, because large predators have evolved to develop an
enormous stomach and gut capacity enabling them to have very infrequent
meals, unlike humans.
Pythons can go weeks withoute eating, but when they find a nice juicy
animal to eat they eat a great deal at once. There was once someone who
took her pet python to the vet because it had stopped eating. The vet
said that that was quite normal and that it was just working up its
appetite until it was time to eat her.
--
athel
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-18 00:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Le mercredi 16 octobre 2019 17:33:22 UTC+2, Commander Kinsey a =E9crit=
Post by Commander Kinsey
Le mercredi 16 octobre 2019 16:38:38 UTC+2, Commander Kinsey a =E9c=
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be s=
o much more convenient.
Post by Commander Kinsey
Try and eat a buffalo.
That doesn't answer my "why".
Of course it does, because large predators have evolved to develop an
enormous stomach and gut capacity enabling them to have very infrequen=
t
meals, unlike humans.
You'd think we would evolve the same way. Anyone who only has to eat oc=
casionally would have a great advantage in modern life. No interruption=
s. We should evolve bigger bladders too.
John Dunlop
2019-10-17 07:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Try and eat a buffalo.
Or everything in your house, as the tiger who came to tea did.
--
John
Peeler
2019-10-16 15:03:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:38:34 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (aka "Commander Kinsey",
"James Wilkinson", "Steven Wanker","Bruce Farquar", "Fred Johnson, etc.),
the pathological resident idiot and attention whore of all the uk ngs,
blathered again:

<FLUSH the abnormal attention whore's latest attention-baiting sick bullshit
unread again>
--
damduck-***@yahoo.co.uk about Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL)
trolling:
"He is a well known attention seeking troll and every reply you
make feeds him.
Starts many threads most of which die quick as on the UK groups anyone
with sense Kill filed him ages ago which is why he now cross posts to
the US groups for a new audience.
This thread was unusual in that it derived and continued without him
to a large extent and his silly questioning is an attempt to get
noticed again."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
--
ItsJoanNotJoann addressing Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"You're an annoying troll and I'm done with you and your
stupidity."
MID: <e39a6a7f-9677-4e78-a866-***@googlegroups.com>
--
AndyW addressing Birdbrain:
"Troll or idiot?...
You have been presented with a viewpoint with information, reasoning,
historical cases, citations and references to back it up and wilfully
ignore all going back to your idea which has no supporting information."
MID: <KaToA.263621$***@fx10.am4>
--
Phil Lee adressing Birdbrain Macaw:
"You are too stupid to be wasting oxygen."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
--
Phil Lee describing Birdbrain Macaw:
"I've never seen such misplaced pride in being a fucking moronic motorist."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
--
Tony944 addressing Birdbrain Macaw:
"I seen and heard many people but you are on top of list being first class
ass hole jerk. ...You fit under unconditional Idiot and should be put in
mental institution.
MID: <VLCdnYC5HK1Z4S3FnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>
--
Pelican to Birdbrain Macaw:
"Ok. I'm persuaded . You are an idiot."
MID: <obru31$nao$***@dont-email.me>
--
DerbyDad03 addressing Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"Frigging Idiot. Get the hell out of my thread."
MID: <4d907253-b3b9-40d4-be4d-***@googlegroups.com>
--
Kerr Mudd-John about Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"It's like arguing with a demented frog."
MID: <***@dell3100.workgroup>
--
Mr Pounder Esquire about Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"the piss poor delivery boy with no hot running water, 11 cats and
several parrots living in his hovel."
MID: <odqtgc$iug$***@dont-email.me>
--
Rob Morley about Birdbrain:
"He's a perennial idiot"
MID: <***@Mars>
--
JoeyDee to Birdbrain
"I apologize for thinking you were a jerk. You're just someone with an IQ
lower than your age, and I accept that as a reason for your comments."
MID: <***@news.eternal-september.org>
--
Sam Plusnet about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson Sword" LOL):
"He's just desperate to be noticed. Any attention will do, no matter how
negative it may be."
MID: <***@brightview.co.uk>
--
***@gmail.com asking Birdbrain:
"What, were you dropped on your head as a child?"
MID: <58ddfad5-d9a5-4031-b91f-***@googlegroups.com>
--
Christie addressing endlessly driveling Birdbrain Macaw (now "James
Wilkinson" LOL):
"What are you resurrecting that old post of mine for? It's from last
month some time. You're like a dog who's just dug up an old bone they
hid in the garden until they were ready to have another go at it."
MID: <***@news.eternal-september.org>
--
Mr Pounder's fitting description of Birdbrain Macaw:
"You are a well known fool, a tosser, a pillock, a stupid unemployable
sponging failure who will always live alone and will die alone. You will not
be missed."
MID: <orree6$on2$***@dont-email.me>
--
Richard to pathetic wanker Hucker:
"You haven't bred?
Only useful thing you've done in your pathetic existence."
MID: <orvctf$l5m$***@gioia.aioe.org>
--
***@snyder.on.ca about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
""not the sharpest knife in the drawer"'s parents sure made a serious
mistake having him born alive -- A total waste of oxygen, food, space,
and bandwidth."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
--
Mr Pounder exposing sociopathic Birdbrain:
"You will always be a lonely sociopath living in a shithole with no hot
running water with loads of stinking cats and a few parrots."
MID: <os5m1i$8m1$***@dont-email.me>
--
francis about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"He seems to have a reputation as someone of limited intelligence"
MID: <cf06cdd9-8bb8-469c-800a-***@googlegroups.com>
--
Peter Moylan about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"If people like JWS didn't exist, we would have to find some other way to
explain the concept of "invincible ignorance"."
MID: <otofc8$tbg$***@dont-email.me>
--
Lewis about nym-shifting Birdbrain:
"Typical narcissist troll, thinks his shit is so grand he has the right to
try to force it on everyone."
MID: <***@jaka.local>
occam
2019-10-16 16:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
That would be like me asking you to consolidate all your inane questions
into one question a year. Can you do that?
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-16 19:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
That would be like me asking you to consolidate all your inane questions
into one question a year. Can you do that?
Well if tigers can, so can we?
occam
2019-10-17 07:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by occam
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much
more convenient.
That would be like me asking you to consolidate all your inane questions
into one question a year. Can you do that?
Well if tigers can, so can we?
Tigers do not ask inane questions. You do.
Peeler
2019-10-17 08:19:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:42:46 +0200, occam, the mentally challenged,
Post by occam
Tigers do not ask inane questions. You do.
Tigers also don't feed trolls. You do, senile fool!
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-21 20:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by occam
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much
more convenient.
That would be like me asking you to consolidate all your inane questions
into one question a year. Can you do that?
Well if tigers can, so can we?
Tigers do not ask inane questions. You do.
It was a perfectly logical question.
s***@gowanhill.com
2019-10-16 18:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.

As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more frequent sustenance is required.

Owain
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-16 19:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
--
athel
Paul
2019-10-17 11:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".

Paul
Peter Moylan
2019-10-17 16:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Sam Plusnet
2019-10-17 17:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:39:52 PM UTC+1, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that.  Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating.  But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
Aren't there quite a number of 'insects' which have no mouth or
digestive tract in their final form?[1]

[1] The larval stage does all the work of eating.
--
Sam Plusnet
occam
2019-10-18 08:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:39:52 PM UTC+1, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey 
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that.  Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating.  But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway?
There must be better ways to spend your time.
Aren't there quite a number of 'insects' which have no mouth or
digestive tract in their final form?[1]
[1] The larval stage does all the work of eating.
Yes, nature's own disposable 'one-off' products. And you thought only
humans were wasteful.
Sam Plusnet
2019-10-18 19:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:39:52 PM UTC+1, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that.  Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating.  But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway?
There must be better ways to spend your time.
Aren't there quite a number of 'insects' which have no mouth or
digestive tract in their final form?[1]
[1] The larval stage does all the work of eating.
Yes, nature's own disposable 'one-off' products. And you thought only
humans were wasteful.
It sounds pretty efficient to me.
Design one body to be highly effective at one specific task, then
withdraw into a changing-room and emerge in a completely different body
which is highly tuned to its objective.
Rinse and repeat (if needed) until the life cycle is complete.

(Would Buddhism be a religion/philosophy amongst insects, or fall into
the "Well duh" <roll eyes> category? )
--
Sam Plusnet
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-26 23:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:39:52 PM UTC+1, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway?
There must be better ways to spend your time.
Aren't there quite a number of 'insects' which have no mouth or
digestive tract in their final form?[1]
[1] The larval stage does all the work of eating.
Yes, nature's own disposable 'one-off' products. And you thought only
humans were wasteful.
It sounds pretty efficient to me.
Design one body to be highly effective at one specific task, then
withdraw into a changing-room and emerge in a completely different body
which is highly tuned to its objective.
Am I the only one that's now thinking of naked women?
s***@gowanhill.com
2019-10-17 19:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
I've reached an age where sex has lost its appeal, but I've got a packet of thin dark chocolate Hobnobs in the cupboard I'd be cross if I missed eating before snuffing it.

Owain
Tak To
2019-10-18 20:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Peter Moylan
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
I've reached an age where sex has lost its appeal,
Even for preventing prostate problems?
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
but I've got a packet of thin dark chocolate Hobnobs in the cupboard I'd be cross if I missed eating before snuffing it.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-17 19:56:01 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
Yes, the only purpose of an adult mayfly is to reproduce.
--
Jerry Friedman
occam
2019-10-18 08:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
Yes, the only purpose of an adult mayfly is to reproduce.
Does that make sense? If all you do is reproduce -- and nothing else --
what is the evolutionary purpose of reproducing. Would it be worth
learning a subject whose only use is to be taught to others? (I'm going
to refrain from slagging off a certain academic discipline.)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-10-18 11:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
Yes, the only purpose of an adult mayfly is to reproduce.
Does that make sense? If all you do is reproduce -- and nothing else --
what is the evolutionary purpose of reproducing.
Jerry was referring to the adult mayfly. There is a problem with the
word "adult". We naturally think of it meaning the majority of an
animal's life. That is not the case for a mayfly. Its "adulthood" is
very brief. Most of its life is spent as a pre-adult: a nymph then a
sub-imago.

Information about mayflies here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayfly
Post by occam
Would it be worth
learning a subject whose only use is to be taught to others? (I'm going
to refrain from slagging off a certain academic discipline.)
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Katy Jennison
2019-10-18 14:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
Yes, the only purpose of an adult mayfly is to reproduce.
Does that make sense? If all you do is reproduce -- and nothing else --
what is the evolutionary purpose of reproducing.
Jerry was referring to the adult mayfly. There is a problem with the
word "adult". We naturally think of it meaning the majority of an
animal's life. That is not the case for a mayfly. Its "adulthood" is
very brief. Most of its life is spent as a pre-adult: a nymph then a
sub-imago.
I've sometimes thought that we have the wrong idea about mayflies and
any other creatures which have a long 'pre-adult' stage and a very short
'adult' one -- that is, we suppose, by analogy, that the so-called adult
stage is the main event, the creature's proper life-form, and the
earlier stages are all simply preparation for this. But looked at from
a different angle, the two years or so of the mayfly nymph's life might
be considered its true form, and the final hour or two when it becomes
first a sub-imago and then a male or female mayfly, when it mates and
lays eggs and dies all in the space of a day, are really just a
postscript, only there to ensure the subsequent generation.

We don't (most of us) assume that the stage of reproductive potential is
the single valid one in the human life-cycle, and that the other sixty
years or so don't count. The human reproductive phase comes at a
different point in the life cycle from the mayfly's, that's all.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayfly
--
Katy Jennison
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-10-18 16:13:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:02:02 GMT, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:39:52 PM UTC+1, Athel
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the
insect world and animals that live for only one day usually like
to spend part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to
share it with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway?
There must be better ways to spend your time.
Yes, the only purpose of an adult mayfly is to reproduce.
Does that make sense? If all you do is reproduce -- and nothing else
-- what is the evolutionary purpose of reproducing.
Jerry was referring to the adult mayfly. There is a problem with the
word "adult". We naturally think of it meaning the majority of an
animal's life. That is not the case for a mayfly. Its "adulthood" is
very brief. Most of its life is spent as a pre-adult: a nymph then a
sub-imago.
I've sometimes thought that we have the wrong idea about mayflies and
any other creatures which have a long 'pre-adult' stage and a very
short 'adult' one -- that is, we suppose, by analogy, that the
so-called adult stage is the main event, the creature's proper
life-form, and the earlier stages are all simply preparation for this.
But looked at from a different angle, the two years or so of the
mayfly nymph's life might be considered its true form, and the final
hour or two when it becomes first a sub-imago and then a male or
female mayfly, when it mates and lays eggs and dies all in the space
of a day, are really just a postscript, only there to ensure the
subsequent generation.
We don't (most of us) assume that the stage of reproductive potential
is the single valid one in the human life-cycle, and that the other
sixty years or so don't count. The human reproductive phase comes at
a different point in the life cycle from the mayfly's, that's all.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayfly
Evolution don't care; as long as the genes are passed on. What works, is
good enough, the rest? well it fails. It's a tough life, especially if
you're sentient.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-10-18 18:03:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:02:02 +0100, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
Yes, the only purpose of an adult mayfly is to reproduce.
Does that make sense? If all you do is reproduce -- and nothing else --
what is the evolutionary purpose of reproducing.
Jerry was referring to the adult mayfly. There is a problem with the
word "adult". We naturally think of it meaning the majority of an
animal's life. That is not the case for a mayfly. Its "adulthood" is
very brief. Most of its life is spent as a pre-adult: a nymph then a
sub-imago.
I've sometimes thought that we have the wrong idea about mayflies and
any other creatures which have a long 'pre-adult' stage and a very short
'adult' one -- that is, we suppose, by analogy, that the so-called adult
stage is the main event, the creature's proper life-form, and the
earlier stages are all simply preparation for this. But looked at from
a different angle, the two years or so of the mayfly nymph's life might
be considered its true form, and the final hour or two when it becomes
first a sub-imago and then a male or female mayfly, when it mates and
lays eggs and dies all in the space of a day, are really just a
postscript, only there to ensure the subsequent generation.
We don't (most of us) assume that the stage of reproductive potential is
the single valid one in the human life-cycle, and that the other sixty
years or so don't count. The human reproductive phase comes at a
different point in the life cycle from the mayfly's, that's all.
Yes.

We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes of
ourself and other mammals, and of birds. We and they can reproduce
several times during a lifetime and the newborn need to be fed and
tended for a noticeable length of time.

It is different in the case of the mayfly. The female dies after
producing eggs and when the eggs hatch the newborn are capable of living
without assistance.

Another species:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Reproduction

The reproduction of octopuses has been studied in only a few
species. One such species is the giant Pacific octopus,...

About forty days after mating, the female giant Pacific octopus
attaches strings of small fertilised eggs (10,000 to 70,000 in
total) to rocks in a crevice or under an overhang. Here she guards
and cares for them for about five months (160 days) until they
hatch. ... The female aerates the eggs and keeps them clean; if left
untended, many eggs will not hatch. She does not feed during this
time and dies soon afterwards. Males become senescent and die a few
weeks after mating.

The newborn octopuses do not need feeding or other attention.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Moylan
2019-10-19 04:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".

"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-19 04:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-19 15:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
You didn't get to the cleverest line:

Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-19 16:10:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-19 21:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.

It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-19 22:22:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Oh, you don't know?

"'Anything goes', Cole Porter declared in one of his best-loved songs,
but not everything did. He continually ran afoul of the censors."

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/11/05/hes-the-top/
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-19 22:45:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:22:36 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Oh, you don't know?
"'Anything goes', Cole Porter declared in one of his best-loved songs,
but not everything did. He continually ran afoul of the censors."
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/11/05/hes-the-top/
I guess you have to pay to read the whole article. Here is another
one:

(Quote)

Cole Porter spent much of his life battling censors, who thought jazz,
dancing and popular song lyrics were corrupting the morality of
America. Volstead, the congressman who introduced the 18th Amendment
prohibiting the sale of liquor, writes McBrien, "was a natural target
for Porter, who opposed the Puritan tendency of some Americans to try
to legislate against personal freedom." An early production of Fifty
Million Frenchmen contained Porter's song, "A Toast to Volstead," with
the lyrics: "A long life to Volstead / Our senator from heaven sent. /
Let us give our endorsement / To his act of enforcement, . . . Here's
a long life to Volstead, / And I hope he dies of thirst."

Many of Porter's songs were decried by the moralists. "Anything Goes"
was criticized by churchgoers. Cole fought back, but sometimes had to
compromise. "Because of the censorship exercised by the Hayes office
in the thirties"--writes McBrien about the song "Easy To Love"--"the
original lyric 'So sweet to awaken with, / So nice to sit down to eggs
and bacon with' had to be changed to 'So worth the yearning for / So
swell to keep ev'ry home fire burning for.' "

"In the most famous number from the musical Jubilee, 'Begin the
Beguine,' Porter, possibly feeling the oppression of censorship,
decided to change the penultimate line, 'And we suddenly know the
sweetness of sin,' to 'And we suddenly know what heaven we're in.'"

Porter's 1953 musical Can-Can was a deliberate attempt to "battle
Puritanism," and the thrust of Silk Stockings "is similar to
Can-Can's, and the theme the recurrent one of scorn for puritanism,"
McBrien observes. "The Catholic News deplored the scanty costumes of
Gwen Verdon and thought that the replica of Sacré-Coeur in some sets
'must to the discerning offer apt and eloquent comment on the rest of
the proceedings.' "

More.........

https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18440-cole-porter-out-of-both-closets
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-20 13:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:22:36 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Oh, you don't know?
"'Anything goes', Cole Porter declared in one of his best-loved songs,
but not everything did. He continually ran afoul of the censors."
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/11/05/hes-the-top/
I guess you have to pay to read the whole article. Here is another
(Quote)
Cole Porter spent much of his life battling censors, who thought jazz,
dancing and popular song lyrics were corrupting the morality of
America. Volstead, the congressman who introduced the 18th Amendment
prohibiting the sale of liquor, writes McBrien, "was a natural target
for Porter, who opposed the Puritan tendency of some Americans to try
to legislate against personal freedom." An early production of Fifty
Million Frenchmen contained Porter's song, "A Toast to Volstead," with
the lyrics: "A long life to Volstead / Our senator from heaven sent. /
Let us give our endorsement / To his act of enforcement, . . . Here's
a long life to Volstead, / And I hope he dies of thirst."
Many of Porter's songs were decried by the moralists. "Anything Goes"
was criticized by churchgoers. Cole fought back, but sometimes had to
compromise. "Because of the censorship exercised by the Hayes office
in the thirties"--writes McBrien about the song "Easy To Love"--"the
original lyric 'So sweet to awaken with, / So nice to sit down to eggs
and bacon with' had to be changed to 'So worth the yearning for / So
swell to keep ev'ry home fire burning for.' "
"In the most famous number from the musical Jubilee, 'Begin the
Beguine,' Porter, possibly feeling the oppression of censorship,
decided to change the penultimate line, 'And we suddenly know the
sweetness of sin,' to 'And we suddenly know what heaven we're in.'"
Porter's 1953 musical Can-Can was a deliberate attempt to "battle
Puritanism," and the thrust of Silk Stockings "is similar to
Can-Can's, and the theme the recurrent one of scorn for puritanism,"
McBrien observes. "The Catholic News deplored the scanty costumes of
Gwen Verdon and thought that the replica of Sacré-Coeur in some sets
'must to the discerning offer apt and eloquent comment on the rest of
the proceedings.' "
More.........
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18440-cole-porter-out-of-both-closets
Sorry, but disapproval by a church isn't "censorship."
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-20 16:02:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 06:15:33 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:22:36 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Oh, you don't know?
"'Anything goes', Cole Porter declared in one of his best-loved songs,
but not everything did. He continually ran afoul of the censors."
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/11/05/hes-the-top/
I guess you have to pay to read the whole article. Here is another
(Quote)
Cole Porter spent much of his life battling censors, who thought jazz,
dancing and popular song lyrics were corrupting the morality of
America. Volstead, the congressman who introduced the 18th Amendment
prohibiting the sale of liquor, writes McBrien, "was a natural target
for Porter, who opposed the Puritan tendency of some Americans to try
to legislate against personal freedom." An early production of Fifty
Million Frenchmen contained Porter's song, "A Toast to Volstead," with
the lyrics: "A long life to Volstead / Our senator from heaven sent. /
Let us give our endorsement / To his act of enforcement, . . . Here's
a long life to Volstead, / And I hope he dies of thirst."
Many of Porter's songs were decried by the moralists. "Anything Goes"
was criticized by churchgoers. Cole fought back, but sometimes had to
compromise. "Because of the censorship exercised by the Hayes office
in the thirties"--writes McBrien about the song "Easy To Love"--"the
original lyric 'So sweet to awaken with, / So nice to sit down to eggs
and bacon with' had to be changed to 'So worth the yearning for / So
swell to keep ev'ry home fire burning for.' "
"In the most famous number from the musical Jubilee, 'Begin the
Beguine,' Porter, possibly feeling the oppression of censorship,
decided to change the penultimate line, 'And we suddenly know the
sweetness of sin,' to 'And we suddenly know what heaven we're in.'"
Porter's 1953 musical Can-Can was a deliberate attempt to "battle
Puritanism," and the thrust of Silk Stockings "is similar to
Can-Can's, and the theme the recurrent one of scorn for puritanism,"
McBrien observes. "The Catholic News deplored the scanty costumes of
Gwen Verdon and thought that the replica of Sacré-Coeur in some sets
'must to the discerning offer apt and eloquent comment on the rest of
the proceedings.' "
More.........
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18440-cole-porter-out-of-both-closets
Sorry, but disapproval by a church isn't "censorship."
Don't troll, Daniels. It ought to be beneath you - but unfortunately,
it isn't.

Try to lose gracefully for a change instead of screaming and kicking
in your crib.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-20 17:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 06:15:33 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sorry, but disapproval by a church isn't "censorship."
Don't troll, Daniels. It ought to be beneath you - but unfortunately,
it isn't.
Try to lose gracefully for a change instead of screaming and kicking
in your crib.
Typically, when defeated as to the facts you resort to opprobrium.
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-20 18:04:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 10:57:52 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 06:15:33 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sorry, but disapproval by a church isn't "censorship."
Don't troll, Daniels. It ought to be beneath you - but unfortunately,
it isn't.
Try to lose gracefully for a change instead of screaming and kicking
in your crib.
Typically, when defeated as to the facts you resort to opprobrium.
But you display your stubborn ignorance so well, Daniels. It ought
to be casebook study.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-20 13:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Oh, you don't know?
"'Anything goes', Cole Porter declared in one of his best-loved songs,
but not everything did. He continually ran afoul of the censors."
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/11/05/hes-the-top/
"A number of his racier songs were banned from the radio, "

Not from the Broadway stage.

It goes on to mention complaints from "the authorities" IN BOSTON.

And not about double entendres.

Next misconception?
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-20 16:00:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Oh, you don't know?
"'Anything goes', Cole Porter declared in one of his best-loved songs,
but not everything did. He continually ran afoul of the censors."
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/11/05/hes-the-top/
"A number of his racier songs were banned from the radio, "
Not from the Broadway stage.
It goes on to mention complaints from "the authorities" IN BOSTON.
And not about double entendres.
Next misconception?
"He was his own lyricist, and the wittiest and most resourceful master
of the double entendre."

"Cole Porter from Peru, Indiana, (Yale ’13, Keys and Skull And Bones)
was distinctly different, and not only because he was (almost always)
“cool” and “high society”; he was his own lyricist, and the wittiest
and most resourceful master of the double entendre in the generally
uninspired body of American vers de societe."

In DuBarry Was a Lady (1939), he had Ethel Merman sing to Bert Lahr:

When the light of the day
Comes and drags me from the hay.
That’s the time
When I’m in low.

He replies: Have you tried Pike’s Peak,
my dear?
Kindly tell me, if so.

She: Yes, I’ve tried Pike’s Peak, my dear.
But in the morning, no, no-no, no,
No, no, no, no, no!

https://newrepublic.com/article/87781/parading-his-serenading

"His mischievousness would remain most of his life. His lyrics were
littered with suggestive imagery and double entendre, which often put
the songwriter at odds with censors of the day who took objection to
lines such as “I’d love to make a tour of you,” especially “the south
of you,” from the Silk Stockings number “All of You” (Ironically, the
censors missed the most obscene thing about “All of You” – the song,
about gaining “complete control” of a woman, is sung by a theatrical
agent!) as well as entire compositions such as “Love For Sale.”."

“Let’s Do It” is not just a charming double entendre, it is an anthem,
an awakening. After all, if goldfish in the privacy of bowls do it,
what’s to get so hung up about?

https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/cole-porter-and-the-gods-of-gossamer/

THE COMPLETE LYRICS OF COLE PORTER edited by Robert Kimball (Da Capo:
$19.95; 501 pp., illustrated). Cole Porter wrote more than 800 songs,
but fewer than half of them have been published, and many have
appeared only in simplified and/or censored versions. Kimball’s
delightful anthology includes some unjustly neglected lyrics laced
with delicious double entendres, e.g. “The Leader of a Big-Time Band”
(sung by Ethel Merman in “Something for the Boys” (1943): “When Cugat
comes to tea/ With Gypsy Rose/ She gets so het up she/ Puts on her
clo’es/ And she only turns one cheek while being scanned/ By the
leader of a big-time band.” A sure-fire gift for musical comedy fans.

(I have this book)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-04-bk-601-story.html

Cole Porter: “Anything Goes”

Let’s Do It (Let’s Fall in Love) — is another example of the
tremendously sophisticated lyrics of Cole Porter. It’s one long and
clever double entendre.



https://dailymusicbreak.com/2018/03/12/cole-porter-anything-goes/

"I listened to the old and new versions of Always True. In both
versions there is a line where it goes "There's an oil man known as
tex who is keen to give me checks and these checks I feel mean that
sex is here to stay"."

"But I ain't UP for my baby tonight cause it's too darn hot..".

https://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/toodarnhot.html

"If she says your behavior is heinous,
Kick her right in the Coriolanus.".

"Cole Porter (1891-1964) was a writer of songs and music for Broadway
musical theater. He was famous for literate lyrics, complex rhymes,
and sly double-entendres. Many of his songs have achieved the status
of "standards." He is noted for his "list songs," long concatenations
of surprising and humorous juxtapositions; examples include "You're
the Top," "Let's Do It," and "Brush Up Your Shakespeare."

https://www.conservapedia.com/Cole_Porter

"Porter also wrote both the music and lyrics; but he was
well-educated, capable of writing sophisticated music and witty,
clever lyrics, filled with sexual innuendo and double entendre (double
meaning, one of which was sexual)."

https://www.preserveoldbroadway.org/the-return-of-cole-porter-an-old-fashioned-garden/
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-20 17:56:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 12:00:10 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:

No one supposes that Cole Porter wasn't a great lyricist who wrote lyrics
filled with double entendre and risqué expressions.

Your time-consuming trawling (or trolling) for quotes to that effect was
pointless.

The point is simply that there was no censorship. Censorship is an activity
carried out by a government authority.

One of your examples was from *Silk Stockings*. That (like *High Society*)
was written for Hollywood, not Broadway, where conditions were different.
(And they, like *Aladdin*, which was written for TV -- even more strictly
regulated -- are among his least successful scores: they postdate his
horse-riding accident that took his legs from him and embittered him.
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-20 18:03:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 10:56:48 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No one supposes that Cole Porter wasn't a great lyricist who wrote lyrics
filled with double entendre and risqué expressions.
Your time-consuming trawling (or trolling) for quotes to that effect was
pointless.
A few minutes on a Sunday morning to prove you're a berk? Priceless.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The point is simply that there was no censorship. Censorship is an activity
carried out by a government authority.
One of your examples was from *Silk Stockings*. That (like *High Society*)
was written for Hollywood, not Broadway, where conditions were different.
(And they, like *Aladdin*, which was written for TV -- even more strictly
regulated -- are among his least successful scores: they postdate his
horse-riding accident that took his legs from him and embittered him.
Did you throw your baby rattle out of your crib?
Peter Young
2019-10-20 08:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Censorship also struck the British Music Halls. There was a song with a
line "She sits among the cabbages and peas". This was forbidden, so it
became "She sits among the cabbages and leeks".

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Peter Moylan
2019-10-20 09:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Censorship also struck the British Music Halls. There was a song with a
line "She sits among the cabbages and peas". This was forbidden, so it
became "She sits among the cabbages and leeks".
And the once-popular song "I like onions" includes the lines

"My sister Jean's always eating beans,
My little brother leeks."
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-20 13:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Censorship also struck the British Music Halls. There was a song with a
line "She sits among the cabbages and peas". This was forbidden, so it
became "She sits among the cabbages and leeks".
That really does sound like an urban legend.
Peter Young
2019-10-20 14:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-20 17:51:45 UTC
Permalink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Lloydhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Lloyd
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Censorship also struck the British Music Halls. There was a song with a
line "She sits among the cabbages and peas". This was forbidden, so it
became "She sits among the cabbages and leeks".
That really does sound like an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Lloyd doesn't think so.
'By 1895, Lloyd's risqué songs were receiving frequent criticism from
theatre reviewers and influential feminists. As a result, she often
experienced resistance from strict theatre censorship which dogged the
rest of her career.
Ah, yes, you folk really did have censorship -- we keep hearing about,
what is it, the Lord Chancellor's office? that reviews every script
before it can be put on, exercising what in American jurisprudence is
known as "prior restraint" and is forbidden.

There was (thankfully) no mechanism for preventing Mae West from putting
on her "scandalous" play at least once.

(Do you still have prior restraint hanging over your theaters' heads?)
The writer and feminist Laura Ormiston Chant, who was
a member of the Social Purity Alliance, disliked the bawdiness of music
hall performances, and thought that the venues were attractive to
prostitutes. Her campaign persuaded the London County Council to erect
large screens around the promenade at the Empire Theatre in Leicester
Square, as part of the licensing conditions. The screens were unpopular
and protesters, among them the young Winston Churchill, later pulled them
down. That November at the Tivoli theatre, Lloyd performed "Johnny Jones",
a ditty about a girl who is taught the facts of life by her best male
friend. The song, although not lyrically obscene, was considered to be
offensive largely because of the manner in which Lloyd sang it, adding
winks and gestures, and creating a conspiratorial relationship with her
audience. Social reformers cited "Johnny Jones" as being offensive, but
less so compared to other songs of the day. Upon the expiry of a music
hall's entertainments licence, the Licensing Committee tried to use the
lyrical content of music hall songs as evidence against a renewal. As a
result, Lloyd was summoned to perform some of her songs in front of a
council committee. She sang "Oh! Mr Porter" (composed for her by George Le
Brunn), "A Little of What You Fancy" and "She Sits Among the Cabbages and
Peas", which she retitled "I Sits Amongst the Cabbages and Leeks" after
some protest. The numbers were sung in such a way that the committee had
no reason to find anything amiss. Feeling disgruntled at the council's
interference, she then rendered Alfred Tennyson's drawing-room ballad
"Come into the Garden, Maud" with leers and nudges to illustrate each
innuendo. The committee were left stunned at the performance, but Lloyd
argued afterwards that the rudeness was "all in the mind".'
So there was in fact no "censorship" at all, the change from "peas" to
"leeks" was not in response to any complaint; and the objection by the
bluenose wasn't even to "obscenity" or even "indecency," but merely
"offensiveness." It was just the substitution of one bawdy line for
another and presumably generated lots of publicity and ticket sales --
the result, as always, of attempts to suppress materials of any kind
for any reason.

There's a reason there are so many copies of *Jurgen* in usedbook stores
versus the number of copies of every other book in the series. It was
actually prosecuted for obscenity.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-20 20:06:16 UTC
Permalink
[Snip]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ah, yes, you folk really did have censorship -- we keep hearing about,
what is it, the Lord Chancellor's office?
Lord Chamberlain's Office - censorship was abandoned in 1968. I was
involved in a production which was appearing in a number of different
venues. Eacxh script had to be submitted separately. The blue pencil marks
censoring various lines were different in each script!
Maybe that discrepancy was brought to someone's attention by 1968?
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-20 18:13:23 UTC
Permalink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Lloydhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Lloyd
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What kind of "censors" were there for Broadway shows? Whoever tried to
do such a thing had been made a laughing-stock by the Mae West *Sex*
fiasco/debacle years earlier.
It's unlikely that using double entendres has to do with avoiding
censorship. That could be a purpose for euphemism.
Censorship also struck the British Music Halls. There was a song with a
line "She sits among the cabbages and peas". This was forbidden, so it
became "She sits among the cabbages and leeks".
That really does sound like an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Lloyd doesn't think so.
'By 1895, Lloyd's risqué songs were receiving frequent criticism from
theatre reviewers and influential feminists. As a result, she often
experienced resistance from strict theatre censorship which dogged the
rest of her career.
Ah, yes, you folk really did have censorship -- we keep hearing about,
what is it, the Lord Chancellor's office? that reviews every script
before it can be put on, exercising what in American jurisprudence is
known as "prior restraint" and is forbidden.

There was (thankfully) no mechanism for preventing Mae West from putting
on her "scandalous" play at least once.

(Do you still have prior restraint hanging over your theaters' heads?)
The writer and feminist Laura Ormiston Chant, who was
a member of the Social Purity Alliance, disliked the bawdiness of music
hall performances, and thought that the venues were attractive to
prostitutes. Her campaign persuaded the London County Council to erect
large screens around the promenade at the Empire Theatre in Leicester
Square, as part of the licensing conditions. The screens were unpopular
and protesters, among them the young Winston Churchill, later pulled them
down. That November at the Tivoli theatre, Lloyd performed "Johnny Jones",
a ditty about a girl who is taught the facts of life by her best male
friend. The song, although not lyrically obscene, was considered to be
offensive largely because of the manner in which Lloyd sang it, adding
winks and gestures, and creating a conspiratorial relationship with her
audience. Social reformers cited "Johnny Jones" as being offensive, but
less so compared to other songs of the day. Upon the expiry of a music
hall's entertainments licence, the Licensing Committee tried to use the
lyrical content of music hall songs as evidence against a renewal. As a
result, Lloyd was summoned to perform some of her songs in front of a
council committee. She sang "Oh! Mr Porter" (composed for her by George Le
Brunn), "A Little of What You Fancy" and "She Sits Among the Cabbages and
Peas", which she retitled "I Sits Amongst the Cabbages and Leeks" after
some protest. The numbers were sung in such a way that the committee had
no reason to find anything amiss. Feeling disgruntled at the council's
interference, she then rendered Alfred Tennyson's drawing-room ballad
"Come into the Garden, Maud" with leers and nudges to illustrate each
innuendo. The committee were left stunned at the performance, but Lloyd
argued afterwards that the rudeness was "all in the mind".'
So there was in fact no "censorship" at all, the change from "peas" to
"leeks" was not in response to any complaint; and the objection by the
bluenose wasn't even to "obscenity" or even "indecency," but merely
"offensiveness." It was just the substitution of one bawdy line for
another and presumably generated lots of publicity and ticket sales --
the result, as always, of attempts to suppress materials of any kind
for any reason.

That's the reason there are so many copies of *Jurgen* in usedbook stores
versus the number of copies of every other book in the series. It was
actually prosecuted for obscenity.
Peter Moylan
2019-10-20 09:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:12:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
We humans, in general, are familiar with the reproductive processes
of ourself and other mammals, and of birds.
That reminds me of one of the better ways of explaining "the birds and
the bees".
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
"Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even educated fleas
do it....."
(Cole Porter)
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Lots of snappy lines, and Porter had a knack with the double entendre
to thwart the censors.
ObTrivia: the French word for "peddler" is colporteur.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mark Brader
2019-10-19 05:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
It's sort of the reverse of a joke I've seen:

"Martin, it's time little Pierre was told about the birds and the bees."
"All right. Hey, Pierre! You remember that session I arranged for you
with Madame Ducharme? Well, the birds and the bees do that too."
--
Mark Brader "One doesn't have to be a grammarian
Toronto to know when someone's talking balls."
***@vex.net --John Masters
RH Draney
2019-10-19 07:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
"You know how humans reproduce? Well, birds do it differently, and bees
do it even more differently."
"Martin, it's time little Pierre was told about the birds and the bees."
"All right. Hey, Pierre! You remember that session I arranged for you
with Madame Ducharme? Well, the birds and the bees do that too."
The one that tickled me the most was:

"...so the birds build nests and lay their eggs in them, and the bees
pollinate the flowers. Now be on your way son, and try not to knock up
any more of the servants."

....r
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-18 13:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Does that make sense? If all you do is reproduce -- and nothing else --
what is the evolutionary purpose of reproducing. Would it be worth
learning a subject whose only use is to be taught to others? (I'm going
to refrain from slagging off a certain academic discipline.)
As Dawkins pointed out nearly 50 years ago, a body is the genes' way of
making more genes.
occam
2019-10-18 15:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Does that make sense? If all you do is reproduce -- and nothing else --
what is the evolutionary purpose of reproducing. Would it be worth
learning a subject whose only use is to be taught to others? (I'm going
to refrain from slagging off a certain academic discipline.)
As Dawkins pointed out nearly 50 years ago, a body is the genes' way of
making more genes.
I prefer Katy's explanation. Pre-adult phase of the Mayfly *is* the main
event (under water). The rest is a last minute orgy, hoping to for some
offsprings. Talk about speed-dating.
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-17 19:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
It's great to have a resident scientist!
I had no idea about mayflies not eating, but googling seems
to verify that. Apparently, they don't need to, because they
only live for a day.
However, I'm not sure that a one-day lifespan is so rare in the insect
world and animals that live for only one day usually like to spend
part of that one day eating. But not mayflies.
If my portion of chips were too large, and I asked a mayfly to share it
with me, it would probably say "no".
What's the pointing of eating if you're going to die today anyway? There
must be better ways to spend your time.
Many species only fuck and die during their final life stage I believe.
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-17 19:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
And yet in that entire paragraph you failed to answer the question: WHY. Why are we different? Why have we not evolved to make things so much easier on ourselves, and so much safer for people who can't find food every day?
b***@aol.com
2019-10-18 14:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more
frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows what
that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that tigers'
dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's worked that
out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants to stays alive
it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat more or less
continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder. Mayflies don't eat at
all (I think).
And yet in that entire paragraph you failed to answer the question: WHY.
Why are we different? Why have we not evolved to make things so much
easier on ourselves, and so much safer for people who can't find food
every day?
Maybe because there's some sort of determinism and we didn't have to, as
it turns out that we're the dominant species on earth as we are, with an
always increasing population - whereas for tigers and the like, such
evolution was a matter of species survival.
Peeler
2019-10-18 15:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Maybe because there's some sort of determinism and we didn't have to, as
it turns out that we're the dominant species on earth as we are, with an
always increasing population - whereas for tigers and the like, such
evolution was a matter of species survival.
Now, which of the two of you is the bigger asshole? LOL
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-10-18 16:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:39:48 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work,
more frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows
what that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that
tigers' dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's
worked that out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants
to stays alive it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat
more or less continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder.
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
WHY. Why are we different? Why have we not evolved to make things so
much easier on ourselves, and so much safer for people who can't find
food every day?
Maybe because there's some sort of determinism and we didn't have to,
as it turns out that we're the dominant species on earth as we are,
with an always increasing population - whereas for tigers and the
like, such evolution was a matter of species survival.
Maybe God prefers beetles: in the long run. (Note: statement assumes an
axiom)
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-18 16:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by b***@aol.com
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:39:48 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work,
more frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows
what that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that
tigers' dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's
worked that out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants
to stays alive it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat
more or less continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder.
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
WHY. Why are we different? Why have we not evolved to make things so
much easier on ourselves, and so much safer for people who can't find
food every day?
Maybe because there's some sort of determinism and we didn't have to,
as it turns out that we're the dominant species on earth as we are,
with an always increasing population - whereas for tigers and the
like, such evolution was a matter of species survival.
Maybe God prefers beetles: in the long run. (Note: statement assumes an
axiom)
According to J. B. S. Haladane He has an inordinate fondness for them.
--
athel
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-10-18 19:35:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:23:49 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by b***@aol.com
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:39:48 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work,
more frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows
what that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that
tigers' dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's
worked that out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants
to stays alive it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat
more or less continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder.
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
WHY. Why are we different? Why have we not evolved to make things so
much easier on ourselves, and so much safer for people who can't find
food every day?
Maybe because there's some sort of determinism and we didn't have to,
as it turns out that we're the dominant species on earth as we are,
with an always increasing population - whereas for tigers and the
like, such evolution was a matter of species survival.
Maybe God prefers beetles: in the long run. (Note: statement assumes an
axiom)
According to J. B. S. Haladane He has an inordinate fondness for them.
This rather dapper chap?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-18 20:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:23:49 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by b***@aol.com
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:39:48 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work,
more frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows
what that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that
tigers' dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's
worked that out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants
to stays alive it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat
more or less continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder.
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
WHY. Why are we different? Why have we not evolved to make things
so
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by b***@aol.com
much easier on ourselves, and so much safer for people who can't
find
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by b***@aol.com
food every day?
Maybe because there's some sort of determinism and we didn't have to,
as it turns out that we're the dominant species on earth as we are,
with an always increasing population - whereas for tigers and the
like, such evolution was a matter of species survival.
Maybe God prefers beetles: in the long run. (Note: statement assumes
an
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
axiom)
According to J. B. S. Haladane He has an inordinate fondness for them.
This rather dapper chap?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane
Yes, but "dapper" is not the sort of adjectove that would occur to me.
--
athel
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-26 23:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Le jeudi 17 octobre 2019 21:58:18 UTC+2, Commander Kinsey a =C3=A9cri=
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:39:48 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work,
more frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows
what that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that
tigers' dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he'=
s
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
worked that out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat want=
s
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
to stays alive it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat=
more or less continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder.
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
WHY. Why are we different? Why have we not evolved to make things s=
o
much easier on ourselves, and so much safer for people who can't fin=
d
food every day?
Maybe because there's some sort of determinism and we didn't have to,=
as it turns out that we're the dominant species on earth as we are,
with an always increasing population - whereas for tigers and the
like, such evolution was a matter of species survival.
Maybe God prefers beetles: in the long run. (Note: statement assumes a=
n
axiom)
I once had a very very religious Catholic colleague. But he hated spide=
rs. He told me that god had made a mistake. Putting spiders on earth w=
as an abomination.
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-27 06:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by b***@aol.com
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:39:48 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:38:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work,
more frequent sustenance is required.
If the troll did a little thinking (but I'm not sure if he knows
what that is) he might realize that he's not a tiger and that
tigers' dietary needs are different from those of humans. When he's
worked that out he may want to reflect that if a neonatal rat wants
to stays alive it needs milk every few minutes. Sheep and cows eat
more or less continuously: why is that, the troll may wonder.
Mayflies don't eat at all (I think).
WHY. Why are we different? Why have we not evolved to make things so
much easier on ourselves, and so much safer for people who can't find
food every day?
Maybe because there's some sort of determinism and we didn't have to,
as it turns out that we're the dominant species on earth as we are,
with an always increasing population - whereas for tigers and the
like, such evolution was a matter of species survival.
Maybe God prefers beetles: in the long run. (Note: statement assumes an
axiom)
I once had a very very religious Catholic colleague. But he hated spiders. He told me that god had made a mistake. Putting spiders on earth was an abomination.
His one true God did something abominable?
Who is he to judge?
Peeler
2019-10-27 08:14:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 23:32:43 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
His one true God did something abominable?
Who is he to judge?
There is no troll and bait retarded enough that YOU will NOT take, eh,
Arindumb, you smug little Indian religionist? LOL
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-27 08:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Peeler is the latest anti-Arindam cretin. Once upon a time there were so many of them.
Peeler
2019-10-27 10:09:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 01:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Peeler is the latest anti-Arindam cretin. Once upon a time there were so many of them.
Make that "anti-Arindumb", Arindumb, you smug little Indian religionist!
<BG>
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-28 00:25:12 UTC
Permalink
There is something more than the usual phoniness about this cowardly Peeler entity. A peculiar kind of bigotry, I suppose. Takes all sorts! Wonder is, of what use this one could possibly be.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Peeler
2019-10-28 08:23:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 17:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
There is something more than the usual phoniness about this cowardly Peeler entity. A peculiar kind of bigotry, I suppose. Takes all sorts! Wonder is, of what use this one could possibly be.
Cheers,
Arindumb Banerjee
Are you sure you aren't projecting your OWN phoniness & bigotry onto someone
who keeps exposing you for the SMUG LITTLE INDIAN RELIGIONIST that you are,
phony, bigoted, little Arindumb? <BG>
CDB
2019-10-28 11:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Peeler is the latest anti-Arindam cretin. Once upon a time there were so many of them.
Be of good cheer. He talks like that to everybody here.

He can't understand why nobody talks to him in return, and it makes him
feel lonely and resentful.
--
Demonstration to follow.
Peeler
2019-10-28 13:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Peeler is the latest anti-Arindam cretin. Once upon a time there were so many of them.
Be of good cheer. He talks like that to everybody here.
He can't understand why nobody talks to him in return, and it makes him
feel lonely and resentful.
ONLY in your lonely and resentful senile "mind", you old babbling senile
fool! LOL
Peter Moylan
2019-10-28 13:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Peeler is the latest anti-Arindam cretin. Once upon a time there were so many of them.
I am amazed that there is anyone left who has not yet plonked Peeler.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-17 19:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week?
We probably could, if we spent the rest of the week sleeping.
As most people have to get out of bed every day and go to work, more frequent sustenance is required.
You try eating once a week and lying down all day, you'll hate it and probably become very weak and ill, and in no way be able to go hunt your next kill like the tiger does.
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-17 12:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Mongols could go for days without food, as per story. Americans could try that.
Peeler
2019-10-17 14:38:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 05:25:29 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Mongols could go for days without food, as per story. Americans could try that.
Trust that the smug little Indian religionist wouldn't want to miss out
feeding the dumbest troll around, again! <BG>
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-17 21:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 05:25:29 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Mongols could go for days without food, as per story. Americans could try that.
Trust that the smug little Indian religionist wouldn't want to miss out
feeding the dumbest troll around, again! <BG>
Any piece of shit smells better than this Peeler creature.
Peeler
2019-10-17 22:09:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peeler
Trust that the smug little Indian religionist wouldn't want to miss out
feeding the dumbest troll around, again! <BG>
Any piece of shit smells better than this Peeler creature.
The truth hurts ESPECIALLY smug little religionists, right, Arindumb? LOL
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-17 22:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peeler
Trust that the smug little Indian religionist wouldn't want to miss out
feeding the dumbest troll around, again! <BG>
Any piece of shit smells better than this Peeler creature.
The truth hurts ESPECIALLY smug little religionists, right, Arindumb? LOL
The truth is that my life is an open book with many magnificent pages while you are a cowardly piece of shit.

Now, fuck off.
Peeler
2019-10-17 23:10:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:56:35 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peeler
The truth hurts ESPECIALLY smug little religionists, right, Arindumb? LOL
The truth is that my life is an open book with many magnificent pages while you are a cowardly piece of shit.
Now, fuck off.
The truth is that you ARE a ridiculous smug little Indian religionist, as
you just demonstrated again! LOL
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-17 23:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:56:35 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peeler
The truth hurts ESPECIALLY smug little religionists, right, Arindumb? LOL
The truth is that my life is an open book with many magnificent pages while you are a cowardly piece of shit.
Now, fuck off.
The truth is that you ARE a ridiculous smug little Indian religionist, as
you just demonstrated again! LOL
The truth is that I am far, far beyond what shits like you can comprehend.
Now, fuck off.
Peeler
2019-10-18 08:11:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peeler
The truth is that you ARE a ridiculous smug little Indian religionist, as
you just demonstrated again! LOL
The truth is that I am far, far beyond what shits like you can comprehend.
Now, fuck off.
LOL And he did it, again! This smug little Indian religionist just doesn't
get it! THANKS for the entertainment! LOL
Tony Cooper
2019-10-17 23:45:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:56:35 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The truth is that my life is an open book with many magnificent pages
The blank pages discussion is in another thread.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-18 00:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:56:35 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The truth is that my life is an open book with many magnificent pages
The blank pages discussion is in another thread.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Some filled pages at:
https://www.facebook.com/arindam.banerjee.31149359
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Peeler
2019-10-20 21:09:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Losing one meter in circumference per year by dieting will do everyone good.
Btw one meter is about 39 inches.
The howling kids of our time need a focus.
"Americans stop eating!" could be their call.
Think of all the money saved for good purposes if that call gets heeded.
Maybe the fat in their heads will also melt away, and that will make them act upon implementing the HTN and IFE.
Cheers,
Arindumb Banerjee
Just HOW dumb are you Arindumb, you demented senile sucker of troll cock?
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-20 21:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Losing one meter in circumference per year by dieting will do everyone good.
Btw one meter is about 39 inches.
The howling kids of our time need a focus.
"Americans stop eating!" could be their call.
Think of all the money saved for good purposes if that call gets heeded.
Maybe the fat in their heads will also melt away, and that will make them act upon implementing the HTN and IFE.
Cheers,
Arindumb Banerjee
Just HOW dumb are you Arindumb, you demented senile sucker of troll cock?
Fuck off, shameless arsehole.
Mack A. Damia
2019-10-20 22:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Losing one meter in circumference per year by dieting will do everyone good.
Btw one meter is about 39 inches.
The howling kids of our time need a focus.
"Americans stop eating!" could be their call.
Think of all the money saved for good purposes if that call gets heeded.
Maybe the fat in their heads will also melt away, and that will make them act upon implementing the HTN and IFE.
Cheers,
Arindumb Banerjee
Just HOW dumb are you Arindumb, you demented senile sucker of troll cock?
You just woke our Janet up.
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-20 21:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Mongols could go for days without food, as per story. Americans could try that.
Americans should be able to survive a year without food.
Loading Image...
Losing one meter in circumference per year by dieting will do everyone good.
Btw one meter is about 39 inches.
The howling kids of our time need a focus.
"Americans stop eating!" could be their call.
I wonder if that's why the population density of America is pathetically low compared to say the UK? They need to eat 10 times as much each.
Think of all the money saved for good purposes if that call gets heeded.
Maybe the fat in their heads will also melt away, and that will make them act upon implementing the HTN and IFE.
HTN is hypertension? What is IFE?
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-20 21:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Mongols could go for days without food, as per story. Americans could try that.
Americans should be able to survive a year without food.
http://www.mozzarellamamma.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fat_people_on_scooters_171.jpg
Losing one meter in circumference per year by dieting will do everyone good.
Btw one meter is about 39 inches.
The howling kids of our time need a focus.
"Americans stop eating!" could be their call.
I wonder if that's why the population density of America is pathetically low compared to say the UK? They need to eat 10 times as much each.
In which case they will evolve into whales. They will need to float when they cannot walk any more. Imagine vast aisles laden with food, besides canals for aisles, in the supermarkets. Some sight!
Post by Commander Kinsey
Think of all the money saved for good purposes if that call gets heeded.
Maybe the fat in their heads will also melt away, and that will make them act upon implementing the HTN and IFE.
HTN is hypertension? What is IFE?
Peeler
2019-10-20 21:59:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 14:37:36 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Commander Kinsey
I wonder if that's why the population density of America is pathetically
low compared to say the UK? They need to eat 10 times as much each.
In which case they will evolve into whales. They will need to float when
they cannot walk any more. Imagine vast aisles laden with food, besides
canals for aisles, in the supermarkets. Some sight!
Good Lord! What a blithering idiot! Ah, well, a typical Google groper! LOL
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-20 22:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Mongols could go for days without food, as per story. Americans could try that.
Americans should be able to survive a year without food.
http://www.mozzarellamamma.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fat_people_on_scooters_171.jpg
Losing one meter in circumference per year by dieting will do everyone good.
Btw one meter is about 39 inches.
The howling kids of our time need a focus.
"Americans stop eating!" could be their call.
I wonder if that's why the population density of America is pathetically low compared to say the UK? They need to eat 10 times as much each.
In which case they will evolve into whales. They will need to float when they cannot walk any more. Imagine vast aisles laden with food, besides canals for aisles, in the supermarkets. Some sight!
It's ok, the Japanese will invade and eat them all.
Arindam Banerjee
2019-10-20 22:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Commander Kinsey
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
Mongols could go for days without food, as per story. Americans could try that.
Americans should be able to survive a year without food.
http://www.mozzarellamamma.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fat_people_on_scooters_171.jpg
Losing one meter in circumference per year by dieting will do everyone good.
Btw one meter is about 39 inches.
The howling kids of our time need a focus.
"Americans stop eating!" could be their call.
I wonder if that's why the population density of America is pathetically low compared to say the UK? They need to eat 10 times as much each.
In which case they will evolve into whales. They will need to float when they cannot walk any more. Imagine vast aisles laden with food, besides canals for aisles, in the supermarkets. Some sight!
It's ok, the Japanese will invade and eat them all.
Karma works in strange ways.
Peeler
2019-10-21 09:16:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 15:58:57 -0700 (PDT), Arindumb Banerjee, the mentally
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Karma works in strange ways.
IDIOCY, as displayed by the two of you, ALWAYS works the SAME way!
Oren
2019-10-19 16:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
I like to eat your mum's pussy once a week. How about that?
Peeler
2019-10-19 17:57:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 09:21:37 -0700, Oren, another brain dead, troll-feeding,
Post by Oren
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
I like to eat your mum's pussy once a week. How about that?
Yeah, that was very good! The pathological troll, wanker and attention whore
THRIVES on that kind of feedback, senile fool! <tsk>
Commander Kinsey
2019-10-27 20:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
Post by Commander Kinsey
Why can't humans be like tigers and eat once a week? It would be so much more convenient.
I like to eat your mum's pussy once a week. How about that?
They don't grow back if you eat them, best just to lick.
Loading...