On 2024-10-27 9:46 p.m., Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>>
>>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>>> ...
>>
>> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
>> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
>> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.
>
>
> Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a
> conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major
> in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling
> me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and
> understood what she was talking about.
>
> I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of
> those feminists I fucked hard!

It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a
Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her. I assume she was disgustingly
ugly like the other White women who have decided to have relations with you.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

candycanearter07 wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 09:39 this Monday (GMT):
>> On 28/10/2024 03:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>>>>
>>>> Can you be certain of that?
>>>
>>> Certainly maybe.
>> The one irrefutable fact is that there are, with this exception, no
>> irrefutable facts. But this is of course a meta-fact in a different
>> dimension
>
> "There are no absolutes" is also a paradox

Here is another one:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/7d/47/817d47aca52a59625794829240421841.jpg

--
Chivalry, Schmivalry! Roger the thief has a method he uses for sneaky attacks:
Folks who are reading are Characteristically Always Forgetting to Guard their
own bac ...

On 2024-10-28, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> Another indication of the strength of the position of a material world
> existing is that about 70% of professional philosopher subscribe to this.
> This is of course not a proof, but a strong indication as well.

We are living in a material world.
-- Madonna

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2024-10-27 9:46 p.m., Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major
>> in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling
>> me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and
>> understood what she was talking about.
>>
>> I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of
>> those feminists I fucked hard!
>
>It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a
>Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her. I assume she was disgustingly
>ugly like the other White women who have decided to have relations with you.

Shut the fuck up, cracker, Jesus fucking Christ. Bigot.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 10/28/2024 12:37 AM, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/27/24 1:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the
>>> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe
>>> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal
>>> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God
>>> did it'
>>
>> Enter metaphysics, stage right.
>
>
>   Clue about The Universe ... it's NOT ABOUT US.
>
>   We need to GET OVER IT.

As far as we know, we're the only ones that have conceived of and
claimed to have measured the universe.

The older I get the more pissed I become at our miniscule 80-year human
lifespan.

I'm going to donate my brain for research into keeping human brains
alive. Hope they can hook me up to Usenet.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:

>The older I get the more pissed I become at our miniscule 80-year human
>lifespan.

https://i.imgur.com/UK5a6uJ.png

You're welcome. :)

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 10/28/2024 1:15 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>
>> The older I get the more pissed I become at our miniscule 80-year human
>> lifespan.
>
>
> https://i.imgur.com/UK5a6uJ.png
>
> You're welcome. :)

Thank you Jesus!

But will I be able to eternally:
post to cola?
enjoy a Speedy Gonzalez at El Torero?
use Windows and the best software in the universe?
get my dick wet from time to time?

That's all I ask.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:

>>> The older I get the more pissed I become at our miniscule 80-year human
>>> lifespan.
>>
>> https://i.imgur.com/UK5a6uJ.png
>>
>> You're welcome. :)
>
>Thank you Jesus!
>
>But will I be able to eternally:
> post to cola?
> enjoy a Speedy Gonzalez at El Torero?
> use Windows and the best software in the universe?
> get my dick wet from time to time?
>
>That's all I ask.

Why not?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote at 15:29 this Monday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 09:39 this Monday (GMT):
>>> On 28/10/2024 03:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you be certain of that?
>>>>
>>>> Certainly maybe.
>>> The one irrefutable fact is that there are, with this exception, no
>>> irrefutable facts. But this is of course a meta-fact in a different
>>> dimension
>>
>> "There are no absolutes" is also a paradox
>
> Here is another one:
>
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/7d/47/817d47aca52a59625794829240421841.jpg

Thanks.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 28/10/2024 03:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>>>
>>> Can you be certain of that?
>>
>>
>> Certainly maybe.
> The one irrefutable fact is that there are, with this exception, no
> irrefutable facts. But this is of course a meta-fact in a different dimension

That is also not certain, because if you doubt, then there is always the
possibility of you not typing the right words, and you not actually saying
what you think you are saying. But solipsism fortunately, is a dead end,
not much discussed, except by mad men, who somehow do seem to refute it by
their own arguing.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 28/10/2024 10:22, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/10/2024 21:34, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> that state ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>>>>>    about a week before elections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>>>>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>>>>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
>>>>> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>>>>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>>>>> proven true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
>>>> ago. Here's a hand!
>>>
>>> Well no, in any given terms it cant be. At best you end up with 'something
>>> exists, even if its only me thinking something exists'
>>>
>>> Moore's logic is flawed. He has to presuppose an external world in which a
>>> hand can be held up before he can perform the action.
>>>
>>> Which is in the limit circular thinking, as if you stop thinking (proper
>>> transcendental meditation) you and the world both vanish, subjectively.
>>
>> Actually, the brilliance is that he does not. The hand is proof of the
>> external world. The TM-guy does not cease to exist, and neither does the
>> world. You can easily utilize the same proof as Moore. It is brilliant in
>> its simplicity, and I think that is why some people don't get it. It is
>> simply too "easy".
>>
>> Another extremely strong point in its favour is that it is actually the
>> people who propose that there is no external world who need to come up with
>> the arguments for it and so far, no one has been able to successfully
>> convince the world at large, that the external world does not exist, by
>> coming up with an alternative, that has iron clad proof.
>>
>> Another indication of the strength of the position of a material world
>> existing is that about 70% of professional philosopher subscribe to this.
>> This is of course not a proof, but a strong indication as well.
>
> I think you are still stuck in the same dichotomy that transcendental
> idealism simply removes from the board.

Nope. Actually, there is only the material world. Transcendental idealism
is a dead end. There is no proof that transcendental idealism is true, and
massive proof that the material world exists.

> Is it all in the mind or is the mind the product of it all?
> TI says 'both, and neither'

The mind is material. This is proven.

> Reality as we understand it is 'something else' interpreted by 'our minds'

Reality as we understand it is what we see, hear, feel, directly and
through augmentation. Science is the best method we have for learning
about the external world.

> There is no *proof* of any of this. These are metaphysical positions. Judged
> only by their *utility*. Models that are more or less useful

Metaphysics is a dead end. All there is, is the material world. But note
that I agree with you, that we do use models to navigate the world, and
usefulness is a good criteria for the model you use. This does not in any
way disprove that there is no external world, but, to the contrary is yet
another strong proof for a material world.

> Their truth content is indecidable.

Nope. Plenty of experiments exist and I can also use my mental model of my
room to prove easily where items are, that they don't change etc. by
simple observation.

> And anyone who claims otherwise has missed the boat

Incorrect. Idealists have missed the progress of philosophy and
materialism.

> And at least 90% of professional philosophers don't really understand
> metaphysics.

Ahh yes, you are right and everyone else is wrong. Simple to just produce
a proof then? ;) I side with the 90%, but I would love for you to prove
the 90% wrong, that would make you worthy of many prices and honors. So
far, you're not doing very well I'm afraid.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:06:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The problems people encounter is when they mistake a worldview for
> objective reality.

Maybe that’s just your worldview ...

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:39:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The one irrefutable fact is that there are, with this exception, no
> irrefutable facts.

So there is supposedly only one exception? But that is also, by your
argument, an irrefutable fact, is it not?

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 10:32:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> There is no *proof* of any of this.

Can you prove that?

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:48:52 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a
> Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her.

Fun fact: every human population outside Sub-Saharan Africa has a bit of
Neanderthal in them.

On 10/28/24 6:10 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/24 5:34 PM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to
>>>>>> be in
>>>>>> that state ...
>>>>>
>>>>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>>>>    about a week before elections.
>>>>>
>>>>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>>>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>>>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>>>
>>>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>>>
>>>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
>>>> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>>>
>>>> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>>>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>>>> proven true or false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
>>> ago. Here's a hand!
>>
>>
>>  Even the Buddha said the universe was "real" - just
>>  that creatures like US, maybe any, could never really
>>  see it's entirety - barely a key-hole view. Our evolution,
>>  bodies, senses, brains ... we see things through "Human-
>>  Colored Glasses" and that's our kinda faux view of things.
>
> I think this is pretty obvious. I also think it shows that Buddha was a
> wise man!

If it's obvious, why don't I hear it much ? It represents
a loss of self-determination, a stone wall we can never
penetrate ... forever trapped in our little tiny warped
version of the universe.

Actually, Plato's "Allegory Of The Cave" points to the
same conclusion, he just kinda leaves off the last para -
maybe for political reasons. Plato and Buddha were near-
contemporaries and some ideas may have filtered across
from the east.

On 28/10/2024 13:40, candycanearter07 wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 09:39 this Monday (GMT):
>> On 28/10/2024 03:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>>>>
>>>> Can you be certain of that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly maybe.
>> The one irrefutable fact is that there are, with this exception, no
>> irrefutable facts. But this is of course a meta-fact in a different
>> dimension
>
>
> "There are no absolutes" is also a paradox
There are no absolutes except this statement
--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 28/10/2024 21:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/28/24 6:10 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/24 5:34 PM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to
>>>>>>> be in
>>>>>>> that state ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>>>>>    about a week before elections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>>>>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>>>>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
>>>>> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>>>>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>>>>> proven true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
>>>> ago. Here's a hand!
>>>
>>>
>>>  Even the Buddha said the universe was "real" - just
>>>  that creatures like US, maybe any, could never really
>>>  see it's entirety - barely a key-hole view. Our evolution,
>>>  bodies, senses, brains ... we see things through "Human-
>>>  Colored Glasses" and that's our kinda faux view of things.
>>
>> I think this is pretty obvious. I also think it shows that Buddha was
>> a wise man!
>
>   If it's obvious, why don't I hear it much ?

It doesn't get you to McDonalds any faster.

> It represents
>   a loss of self-determination, a stone wall we can never
>   penetrate ... forever trapped in our little tiny warped
>   version of the universe.
Well, that's why the Buddhists developed transcendental meditation and
Jimi Hendrix took Acid...

"I used to live in a hall full of mirrors
And all I could see was me".

>
>   Actually, Plato's "Allegory Of The Cave" points to the
>   same conclusion, he just kinda leaves off the last para -
>   maybe for political reasons. Plato and Buddha were near-
>   contemporaries and some ideas may have filtered across
>   from the east.

Anybody who takes time out from a busy life to sit and think through
things carefully tends to come to the same conclusion.

Kant and especially Schopenhauer started from a completely different
place and ended up in the same territory.

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 10/28/24 5:41 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 28/10/2024 04:37, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 10/27/24 1:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the
>>>> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe
>>>> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal
>>>> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God
>>>> did it'
>>>
>>> Enter metaphysics, stage right.
>>
>>
>>    Clue about The Universe ... it's NOT ABOUT US.
>>
>>    We need to GET OVER IT.
>
> Clue about the universe *as we see it*
>
> ITS ALL ABOUT US. It is simply riddled with anthropic concepts to the
> point that people dimly recognise this, and exclaim 'I've found God!'

Depends on how to take "It's All About Us" ... we ARE a
sort of 'consciousness' the universe evolved. May be
more, maybe only us - wait awhile on that one.

However to evolve anything The Universe had to be there
already, fairly easy to confirm too. It just wasn't
"self aware" so to speak.

(yes, arguments have been made that causality may be
something of an illusion - but the math needed to
argue is WAY above my pay grade)

As the Buddha said, there IS a reality. What it is in
all its nuances are denied to us however because of
what kind of beings we are. Likely would apply to ANY
kind of 'being', they'll always see it their way, and
just their way.

As for all the anthropic junk, well ... can't get rid
of it, it's the hub of this little discussion, but IMHO
there's still WAY more than is wise. Anthropic too
oft incorporates ego/pride/prejudice/etc and then we
get 'gods' in robes telling us it IS all about us, that
the planets circle ours for our amusement and affirmation -
oh, and all the heretics must be burned.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:31:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> "There are no absolutes" is also a paradox
> There are no absolutes except this statement

But if that were true, then “that statement is the only exception to
itself” would also be an absolute.

And then you would have TWO absolutes, ar-ar-ar.

And then what about “those two statements are the only absolutes”? Now you
have VAHN, TWO, THREE absolutes, ar-ar-ar-ar-ar!

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:15:19 -0400, Joel wrote:

> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>
>>The older I get the more pissed I become at our miniscule 80-year human
>>lifespan.
>
> You're welcome. :)

<https://imgur.com/piE9J>

Don’t mention it.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:33:42 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Thank you Jesus!
>
> But will I be able to eternally:
> post to cola?
> enjoy a Speedy Gonzalez at El Torero?
> use Windows and the best software in the universe?

You and Jerry Falwell, both. <https://imgur.com/tRMmK>

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 03:20:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>>
>> Can you be certain of that?
>
>
> Certainly maybe.

The sound of one hand clapping is deafening.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 21:33:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:48:52 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a
>> Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her.
>
> Fun fact: every human population outside Sub-Saharan Africa has a bit of
> Neanderthal in them.

"You have more Neanderthal DNA than 61% of other customers."
23andMe

In '88 I bought a 'Neanderthal and Proud' bumper sticker at the Earth
Forst! Round River Rendezvous. It is still on the bumper of my pickup
albeit a little worse for wear. Even back then EF was headed down the woke
path led by Roselle and Bari. The FBI informant who was involved in
THERMCON was present and gave a talk on monkeywrenching. As usual the
Feebs love to cultivate idiots so they can later uncover them and claim
credit for their amazing investigative skills. Dave Foreman was one of
their prime targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foreman

On 10/28/2024 9:45 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 21:33:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:48:52 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a
>>> Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her.
>>
>> Fun fact: every human population outside Sub-Saharan Africa has a bit of
>> Neanderthal in them.
>
> "You have more Neanderthal DNA than 61% of other customers."
> 23andMe

I knew there was something special about you!