"Live Strong in Character - Don't Leave Your Family"

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> How does this model explain lesbians?

Ask your mother about that.

>> Of course "mistake" carries negative connotations but in evolution we are
>> all "mistakes".
>
> That's basically my objection to Kunich's posts - the use of loaded
> language that has no basis (in this case, in biology).

This from a biologist himself.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I've ~ don't tell
> people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a personal
> decision.

Anyone who believes this raise their hand.

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Sorry I don't see it in there (which is possibly why someone called
> >> > Richard Burton "suggests" it has something to do with it, as opposed
> >> > to "stating" that it does). The references are just too vague.
> >>
> >> That must be why Wahabis commonly execute homosexuals in the public
> >> squares
> >> in Arabia.
> >
> > Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
> > Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
> > You do understand the difference, don't you?
>
> I hate to point this out to someone so well versed as yourself, but Muslims
> don't use ONLY the Koran as their total law.

Still dissembling? As I told you, the *person I was replying to*
mentioned "ONLY the Koran." The issue was *not* what Muslims believe
but what another poster said. Is there any real reason that you
can't get that through your thick scull?


> > If you want to start a discussion about how "common" it is, however,
> > you can start with some hard data - average number of executions per
> > year. Surely that should be a matter of public record.
>
> Why don't you look it up if you're interested?

(He probably did look it up and found the number to be small.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > As I said, the post I replied to specifically mentioned the Koran. Perhaps
> > you'd make less of a fool of yourself if you'd learn to read with some
> > minimal comprehension.
>
> There you have it from Zaumen - dead men tell no tales.

There you have it from Kunich - he thinks dead people post on usenet.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > There are no genetic "mistakes" that don't quickly lead to death.
>
> Perhaps you can tell that to those whose genetics were manipulated in the
> womb by German measles virus and were born deaf.

What makes you think the German measles virus has any effect on genes?
It may disrupt the development of the brain, eyes or (specifically)
hearing, but you don't have to modify genes to do that.

> Or maybe you can explain why blue-eyed white cats are usuall deaf
> but not all are?

Because multiple genes may be involved? Or the genes encode the rates
for various processes but the outcome is still somewhat nondeterministic?
I'll leave the details to Kyle, but you don't have to assume a "genetic
mistake" that arises via some mutation to explain that.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > How does this model explain lesbians?
>
> Ask your mother about that.

Back in your 7th grade boys locker room again? Is that your way
of saying that something doesn't fit your preconceptions?

> >> Of course "mistake" carries negative connotations but in evolution we are
> >> all "mistakes".
> >
> > That's basically my objection to Kunich's posts - the use of loaded
> > language that has no basis (in this case, in biology).
>
> This from a biologist himself.

Now what are you babbling about?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I've ~ don't tell
> > people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a personal
> > decision.
>
> Anyone who believes this raise their hand.

What I actually posted was:

I've actively opposed mandatory helmet laws, and don't tell
people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a
personal decision.

Why he felt compelled to snip it mid sentence is not clear.

If our proven liar Tom Kunich wants to claim otherwise, perhaps he can
deign to produce a message ID to back up his statement. Or perhaps he
wants to pretend that writing to my elected representative and
providing reasons not to pass a mandatory helmet law somehow does not
qualify as opposing such legislation.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Kyle Legate]

Bill Z. wrote:
>
> Because multiple genes may be involved? Or the genes encode the rates
> for various processes but the outcome is still somewhat nondeterministic?
> I'll leave the details to Kyle, but you don't have to assume a "genetic
> mistake" that arises via some mutation to explain that.
>
I don't get Kunich's posts because I have him killfiled, but to answer
the questions of an unsophisticate with an explanation that is
necessarily sophisticated is not a productive use of my time.

 

[Bill Z.]

Kyle Legate <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Because multiple genes may be involved? Or the genes encode the
> > rates
> > for various processes but the outcome is still somewhat nondeterministic?
> > I'll leave the details to Kyle, but you don't have to assume a "genetic
> > mistake" that arises via some mutation to explain that.
> >
> I don't get Kunich's posts because I have him killfiled, but to answer
> the questions of an unsophisticate with an explanation that is
> necessarily sophisticated is not a productive use of my time.

I don't blame you. He seems to be assuming that all birth defects
are genetic in nature.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[dennis]

Konstantinos Koukopoulos wrote:
> There has been speculation though that if there is a genetic trait that
> corresponds to a tendency towards homosexuality and if it was located in
> the X chromosome then it could play different roles in female and male
> offspring. If the supposed gene, for example coded for an increased
> attraction towards men then the female offspring with this gene might
> compensate for the male offspring's lack of propagation by an increased
> drive to mate with men. More plainly imagine a female person who get's this
> "genetic mistake" which leads to a greater attraction towards males. She
> naturally mates many times and produces many children, some male and some
> female. The male offspring that get this "genetic mistake" will have a low
> probability of propagatin this gene because they will be attracted towards
> men, not women. But the "genetic mistake" will still get propagated by the
> female offspring who will be even more attracted to men than usual.

This speculation is very likely wrong. Promiscuity among females
doesn't increase their reproductive capacity. Females are still
restricted to bearing one child at a time with a minimum interval of
nine months (assuming normal term). Males on the other hand have
practically unlimited capacity to father a child. So your model of a
gene for increased attraction to males is not viable because its
expression in females cannot compensate for its expression in males.

 

[[email protected]]

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If they just cowboyed up and
hooked up with women they'd be cured.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > I've ~ don't tell
>> > people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a personal
>> > decision.
>>
>> Anyone who believes this raise their hand.
>
> What I actually posted was:
>
> I've actively opposed mandatory helmet laws, and don't tell
> people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a
> personal decision.
>
> Why he felt compelled to snip it mid sentence is not clear.
>
> If our proven liar Tom Kunich wants to claim otherwise, perhaps he can
> deign to produce a message ID to back up his statement. Or perhaps he
> wants to pretend that writing to my elected representative and
> providing reasons not to pass a mandatory helmet law somehow does not
> qualify as opposing such legislation.

I didn't think that you were sophisticated enough to understand the Engish
language. And gee, I was right still again.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't get Kunich's posts because I have him killfiled,

But you seem to answer anyway. Anyone here surprised that Kyle answers posts
he doesn't get? I for one can think of many things that Kyle doesn't get but
we won't get into that.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I don't blame you. He seems to be assuming that all birth defects
> are genetic in nature.

The fact that SOME are caused by mutagens doesn't seem to ring a bell with
you or Kyle. But frankly I don't care. It's no surprise that you think that
helmets are effective with the scientific understanding you've expressed
here.

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > I've ~ don't tell
> >> > people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a personal
> >> > decision.
> >>
> >> Anyone who believes this raise their hand.
> >
> > What I actually posted was:
> >
> > I've actively opposed mandatory helmet laws, and don't tell
> > people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a
> > personal decision.
> >
> > Why he felt compelled to snip it mid sentence is not clear.
> >
> > If our proven liar Tom Kunich wants to claim otherwise, perhaps he can
> > deign to produce a message ID to back up his statement. Or perhaps he
> > wants to pretend that writing to my elected representative and
> > providing reasons not to pass a mandatory helmet law somehow does not
> > qualify as opposing such legislation.
>
> I didn't think that you were sophisticated enough to understand the Engish
> language. And gee, I was right still again.

You snipped text midsentence for no good reason, turning a coherent
sentence into a nongramatical one. And of course Kunich is cannot
produce a message ID to back up his insinuations. What else is new?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I don't blame you. He seems to be assuming that all birth defects
> > are genetic in nature.
>
> The fact that SOME are caused by mutagens doesn't seem to ring a bell with
> you or Kyle. But frankly I don't care. It's no surprise that you think that
> helmets are effective with the scientific understanding you've expressed
> here.

You started to talk about genetics, and when it was shown that you
didn't know what you were talking about, you raised birth defects
as a counter example, and I pointed out that birth defects are not
necessarily caused by genes.

You have, however, illustrated the same sort of poor reasoning that
you use in your anti-helmet rants.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> I don't get Kunich's posts because I have him killfiled,

> But you seem to answer anyway. Anyone here surprised that Kyle
> answers posts he doesn't get?

Did he answer your post? When's the last time he did directly answer one,
indicating non-plonkitude? Why did you bother to answer his non-answer?

Why am I asking these questions?

No idea... bs

 

[Maggie]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Why am I asking these questions?
>
> No idea... bs


I'll bite.......WHY?

Maggie

May you always have what you want, and if you can't have what you want,
may you always be happy with what you have.

 

[Konstantinos Koukopoulos]

dennis wrote:
> A male with the promiscuous gene can father unlimited number of
> children in the time one promiscuous female can bear one child. So the
> "attraction to female" gene if there is such a thing would flourish,
> while the "attraction to male" gene if there is such a thing would not.

No one ever mentioned an "attraction to female" gene. All I said was that a
genetic trait which, alongside other factors, could contribute to
homosexuality would not necessarily be eliminated through natural
selection. If there is such a trait it is necessary to explain it's
survival and the rationale I mentioned is just one possible explanation of
it's survival (not of it "flurishing").

 

[Kyle Legate]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>>I don't get Kunich's posts because I have him killfiled,
>
>
>>But you seem to answer anyway. Anyone here surprised that Kyle
>>answers posts he doesn't get?
>
>
> Did he answer your post? When's the last time he did directly answer one,
> indicating non-plonkitude? Why did you bother to answer his non-answer?
>
> Why am I asking these questions?
>
I guess you're asking these questions so that I can see Kunich's idiotic
reply to my last post. As usual, he's too stupid to realize that
although most of usenet has him killfiled, they still see his drivel
when it is quoted in replies from people who haven't gotten around to
plonking him yet.