Stosh

But it doesn't appear anything was said you can find fault with..

....and the heart replied, 'Youre relying on others to stroke your ego, so you can feel good about yourself. Without them you are in limbo, ungrounded and meaning nothing. The only things you are sure of , are are desires and pain and existing..So these will guide you , since there is nothing else.' ...... And the mind was beaten. C.A. Pope

I'd agree love and fear arent interchangeable, but if im reading the whole train correctly, and I am not at all sure that I am, ( because Im assessing that I can live with being wrong on this), Your concerns are that youre going to react inappropriately under pressure. So id toss the idea out there that waiting for those fears to go away is useless. Youre going to have to observe just how much a day you do without premeditation, Itll be a lot. Then youre going to have to make an honest eval of where your head is at when you screw up. Thats the only way I can think of , that one can honestly learn to trust ones own instincts , and know the boundaries of them. When to step in , and when to step back. Don Juan M. used to tell Carlos, You think youre too important. That your failures are such a big deal. .... See Me now , I stick my neck way way the f out. I looked back, and looked ahead, and decided the world isnt going to come to an end over this thread. But if I thought I was some big shot , who had to be perfect and always be right before opening my yap, Id be relegated to just keeping it shut. 1 Theres no fun in that ,2, nobody is relying on my perfection. In fact, you will have already observed just how fast folks are to help point out anything they can thats wrong. Folks love that opportunity. Humility at max , hostility at min, Its hard to get that wrong.

Works for me. Fire and water and all that jazz. Last thing someone sees is the back of their own head. ( but I didnt say to myself I cant swim, thats your input , so your readings are contaminated, still,, it looks like a useful exercise if you can fix that. )

Running away is usually a pretty good plan when theres nothing to gain by hanging around.... I think Tsun tsu said that.

Did you aim that anyone in particular? If not at me, Ill just let someone else respond. ....but I personally wouldn't link the two inextricably for the reason you said.

I don't think a face can tell you that , so I figure If you tell one your problems, and they laugh and joke about it with you , they're empty , , and if they're serious and try to be helpful , they're kind.

Apology accepted.

I dont know what thats supposed to mean. Ill just take it that you realize your smartypants comment about white people is bogus but youre sad that humanity is headed for a fall.

And even that doesnt line up well.Im starting to find it amusing though to have been characterized as racist by someone outlining the cultural and biological reasons they conclude that white men are supposedly dominating the entire globe. From what Ive read , the biggest neanderthal contribution to homo lies in immunity factors , which supposedly set the stage for domination of the new world. Thats good news for someone wanting an excuse. Same goes for Australia, more excuses provided by ecological devastation inadvertantly introduced. Unfortunately ,I dont want everyone let off the hook. What we do as individuals we are responsible for. We deserve the credit or vilification that justifiably attends that. No more nor less. Nor do we deserve baggage based on the physical similarities we might share. I took no slaves nor subjugated any peoples nor even introduced exotic pests to Australia. I just wasnt involved. So I am not apologetic. I know damn well some folks want to lay that crap on someones doorstep , just dont leave it on mine.

Youre quoting all sorts of stuff, but failing to deal with the fact that light skin of any kind predates agriculture and it is an issue of global scale. The many migrations and the individual histories of particular genes in neolithic europe doesnt change that. Climactic shifts repeatedly made farming un feasible, though the tendency to predominate based on that lifestyle appears to be solid When agriculture was possible. You just arent proving wheat makes people white because theyre malnourished. All youre doing is indicating that you have reason to consider light skin a superior adaptation allowing domination by virtue of agriculture. Just look at a map of the global distribution of skin tone like Chaplins. Skin tone just doesnt coincide with agricultural centers. Nor does color line up with seafood availability. Nor does it line up with traditional stereotypes about race. It only lines up with latitude.

Yes , Im aware Neanderthal pigmentation genes are not considered to be the prevalent mutation ascribed to Modern europeans. Im saying that the imperative for developing light skin existed long before agriculture came to europe. The impact of agriculture, whether it be wheat or barley or millet, did not create the pressures to be light skinned. Could it have worked out that coincidentally , that light skin allows for consumption of less vitamin enriched diets? Sure. And being able to live on crappy diets fosters agriculture, which in turn fosters greater carrying capacities , population densities, and allows a group to dominate an area over what hunter gathering generally can.

Nothing I said claims racial superiority for myself ,nor inferiority for anyone else. Thats a cheap and false accusation. Its slander. This may blow your mind, but heres the fact, the scientific community is in continual flux regarding many things and naively swallowing hogwash because someone wrote a recent paper promoting it , is the error of the reader. That which I already outlined should be sufficient to dispel the conclusions youre promoting, the trend of paler skin color in situations where agriculture development necessitates greater production of vitamin D, doesnt hold true in either the New World nor in the Orient. Neither would it apply to Neanderthals adaptation. Finally, if you looked at some saami, youd see what it was that some people chose to call swarthy is no darker than I am. Youve managed to make the unhealthy consumption of high fructose corn syrup into some kind of race issue by ignoring that which doesnt fit the paper you read naively.

Thanks. But you said ,Once in neanderthals , to whom we are not related... furthermore light skinned Saami people have lived circumpolar for maybe 20000 years , much like the innuit , not growing bread. And the innuit only recently ,1 to 5000 years moved north havent had much time to adapt, and also dont grow wheat in snow. So skin color clearly isnt about eating wheat , since the agricultural dependence on wheat ,in places, post dates light skin by thousands of years. Its just a baseless speculation. If you need more proof, note that worldwide, skin color is roughly clinal regardless of wheat consumption.I thought the end of my post was fairly accommodating, graceful even , not to point out the silliness of the wheat based skin color idea. I understand that a person not cognizant of my delicacy might construe my post off point though. (see! did it again.)

Oh, well those theories are painting with some pretty broad strokes. As far as Neander not being the same species, thats conceptual error IMO, since my ancestry probably has several percent neander genes . If one wants to draw the hominid tree properly , branches moved out of africa continuing to evolve into Neanderthal and Denisovans representing the apex of human development , later , more primitive hominids followed and numerically swamped those bigger brain evolved lines whose DNA lives on in many people today. Or one could just not claim any one line as being truly human vs the rest being some kind of dead end. As evidence compiles I think this last view is the one that will prevail. That there have always been divergences and reincorporations back into the hominid line, both within and outside africa. There are both light and dark skinned versions of caucasians africans and asians all of whom had a tendency to interbreed move around ,adapt to local circumstance, or genetically drift without adaptive cause. The color distribution hodepodge we see in recent times need not have a particular environmental or dietary cause , due to the adaptive primacy of cultural development over genetic. But if dietetic or solar concerns foster light skin, so be it.

Wheat mononoculture is the cause of white people? What the F is that supposed to mean ?

I ate my moms cooking, I can send recipes, and challenge anyone to eat them Like jellied vegetables with chicken skin... What can I say? we were poor and the magazine said you could make it with leftovers.

How is it that fear would be an absence of determination? as you see it. I never would have connected the two.

I had one on my heel once, just shaved it with a sharp knife several times and it backed out never to return. ( Uggh though, ,, glad Im not eating right now)

.

.

Wild wheats are edible, similar to red wheats ,Otzi had some in his gut several thousand years ago, and for domestication of wheat to make sense , they had to be eating wild wheats before it. So how far does one have to go back to call something a proper paleo diet? 10000 years , advent of agriculture, pre amylase mutation? (or perhaps pre lactose persistance mutation? It appears people made cheese of the same milk that would give them digestive issues un treated , suggesting to me that humans have had enough time to adapt away from requiring a more ancient diet , but also suggests people ate foods that may seem inappropriate ) Wheat is problematic, but so is milk and meat and taro and .....

Easy source of fats, depends on how one looks at it.I think Its easier to kill one seal than, its equiv weight in mice but I agree fats are the paleo food of choice ... if you can get it and the alternative is more carbs.But a mouse on a ratio of fat to protein is similar to a lamb chop, pork chop , salmon, at about one third fat. Which isnt as high as domestic beef, but its still a decent ratio. Paleodiets, seem to depend on which peoples youre talking about. Not everyones dietarily applicable ancestors were eskimos or masai. People ate what was local, and supplemented with what they brought with them and took pains to come up with a sound diet. Apparrently that was was possible almost anywhere despite the differences in local supplies. Some diets had to be varied, others could be restricted.

Ive read they are relatively fatty, and quite nice, if you arent squeamish. Perfect for Atkins, or an afternoon snack...but yeah ,theyre quick, and you just dont see many nice wild mice running around.Country rat however ,could use some improved marketing angle.