These are works of art.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=909314&postcount=82
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=910102&postcount=93


Dr: Celebrate, know that you are a thief with your middle finger defiantly flipping mother nature the bird.



Dr: Who's the coward? The one whining about real life, or the one telling you to deal with it and be thankfull for every breath you haven't struggled to earn?
Pretty freaking straightforward answer so consider it a rhetorical question.


I also like this thread, where he gives James R a smackdown:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1009527&postcount=6


James R: You obviously have little idea of what damage these environmental pests [Cane Toads] do, vincent. ”

Dr: And what idea do you have james?
Have you witnessed first hand ecosystems destroyed by cane toads?
Maybe cane toads have made it to your university campus and had a serious impact on the house gecko population?


By the way, what ever happened to vincent? He was such a charming fellow...

I also like this thread, where he gives James R a smackdown

Hmm... judging by the fact that I didn't respond in that thread, either I didn't see the post, or it was such an effective "smackdown" that I had no response, or it was so ineffective that I didn't think it required one.

What do you think is most likely, I wonder?

James:

What do you think is most likely, I wonder?


The 'supersmackdown' option is most likely, methinks.

I like also his concise posts:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1218499&postcount=30

from the James R's crusade thread.

I want to click "yes he's a nazi" and "he should ban more people".
The thing is he's way too strict with "naughtiness" and never takes brilliance into consideration, on the flipside he's way too lenient with morons.
I'd rather see a thousand harmless idiots banned than one offensive genius.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1289205&postcount=34

Generally you can judge a person by their appearance, once in a blue moon you come across someone who contradicts their image, and you and everyone else are baffled like "wow, I did not expect that from that guy, that was wierd", this unanimous bafflement cements the reality that appearance is generally an accurate gauge for behaviour.

Racist or original thinking?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1180743&postcount=31
To expound, one answer to this question

what is it that makes a human human?

would be "responsibility".
We generally don't blame animals or plants for their actions, but humans are usually held accountable. They're also usually expected to help themselves if they are adults.
James seems to blame white people a lot, so it's not some strange far eastern philosophy he has where whatever will be will be and nothing can help what it is or what it does by extension, he just doesn't seem to believe minorities have any control of themselves. Like they are less than human.
He cares about the well being of minorities, very much so, but does he respect them as his equal?
All signs point to no.

Well, this thread is going well. It has been up for 13 hours, and only two people have felt strongly enough to post Dr Lou's greatest hits.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=670030&postcount=72
I don't think he has a problem with it. I think he's one of the people who doesn't believe in races
Not me, notice ethiopians dominating the long distance running in the olympics? They might not have won every event but there was always a trio or so of them up the front. Know why? No it wasn't because of superior training.
The, as a people, have evolved to specialise in long distance running. The traditional hunting techniques of the people from that region, the ones that are still practiced today, involve chasing ungulates on foot untill they litterally pass out from exhaustion.
This is just a particularly apparent case. All races are specialised to some lifestyle. They've evolved under different conditions and thusly have become different animals.

Now obviously saying one race is "more evolved" than another is just stupid. However types of organisms that appeared earlier than others are considered more primitive.
Jellyfish are considered more primitive than human beings because that type evolved hundreds of millions of years ago while hominids evolved within the last million years.
By this standard it could be argued that the negroid type is more primitive than the caucasoid.
The australoid (australian aborginies) especially is a very old design, from the first wave of homosapiens to leave africa who weren't followed by anyone for a very long time. Homo-sapiens in africa did alot of evolving after the descendents of australoids already had left. The other races(other than australoids) all stemmed from what was one race at this stage.
And whilst trying to avoid political incorrectness, it can be seen in the australian aboriginal culture that they are indeed a more primitive animal than the other homo-sapiens. When captain cook landed on australia the native people hadn't even developed basic shelter. They were very simple and represented an earlier stage in human history. Yes, all people around the world had been evolving, but sometimes evolution stabilises when it works out. Again we can look to the jellyfish. It's technically just as evolved as anything else, but it is a primitive design.
Newer doesn't necessarrily mean better however, often the newer designs are more specialised than the older ones which means they are less adaptable to change. The sloth bear evolved from the brown bear, so the brown bear is technically more primitive, but the sloth bear it's losing its teeth and on its way to specialising to eating ants. If something happened where it couldn't get ants it would be screwed but the brown bear could handle big changes because it has such a varied diet.
Negroids are a more primitive design than caucasoids, but whether they are a lesser design is up for interpretation.
I think the caucasoid design certainly does excell over the negroid design in some aspects. They are generally a more industrious animal, but the negroid is a more athletically gifted animal, faster, stronger. Perfectly capable of surviving in its environment. There's certainly nothing wrong with it. But in what some people, certainly people at sciforums, seem to deem important, they aren't as equipped as caucasoids. Generally (which is why denying the existence of race is common at sciforums, the conclusions they personally would draw from observing racial differences would make them feel like a racist because they respect critical intelligence more than jumping abiility or whatever).
I'd actually say the caucasoid is a bit of a sloth bear, a more specialised design than the negroid. But the caucasoid has changed the world to suit him, so now he seems like the ultimate example of a homo-sapien because he is the most successfull and other races can tend to struggle to fit into the environment he created as smoothly as he can. But when you take into consideration that he made the environment to suit his own strengths then its perfectly understandable. And its not a case of the caucasoid being "better" than the negroid, but better AT being a caucasoid.

James:

Well, this thread is going well. It has been up for 13 hours, and only two people have felt strongly enough to post Dr Lou's greatest hits.


A little sulky about Dr Lou having run rings around you, are we? :D

Some of his writing is just hilarious.
I truly do have trouble taking gay rights discussions seriously. Maybe I'm the devil for this but I can't help it any more than gays can help being gay.

I see gay sex as sleazy, just as I see lots of forms of straight sex as sleazy, some of which I have engaged in myself and enjoyed and will do again. But I knew I was sleazy when I was doing it and I just embraced my sleaziness. I wouldn't get on a soapbox and demand in dead pan that I be free to go "2 in the pink, 1 in the stink" on drunk whores without being judged.
When gays make their plight for fair rights there's a sense like there is something wholesome about man sex, like they are righteous ethical saints, and it just seems funny to me. Wouldn't you agree that if Jesus was banging dudes in the asshole his righteous preaching would have seemed weaker?
Not just dudes, if he was receiving rusty trombones from hot broads and spraying groupies with golden showers while making the heavy metal hand gesture and shaking his tongue his words about being a better person just wouldn't have been as powerful.

You don't have to stalk the shadows of the dirtiest streets in town with a depraved smirk on your hard ugly face to be a sleaze ball.
Indeed, the gay lovers in a committed relationship walking hand in hand with knitted sweaters tied around their clean pastel panted waists through a beautiful park in the nicest suburb in town are still going to go home and explore each other's shit pits, damaging their assholes and rendering their penises feculent all merely for the sake of their own sick perverted pleasure.

Actually, even perfect Christian man and wife missionary style sex can get kind of nasty. And a pregnant woman should really have her eyes to the ground with shame and display a meek demeanor because we all know she was impaled like a pig by a big fat aroused penis, and pounded raw while she wailed like a whore.
I guess I'm saying no one should be acting righteous, because after they make their demands on that soapbox and pass their judgments of whoever or whatever they are unhappy with, a countdown is inevitably underway inside them to the next time they will go sit down and grunt a fat stinky hunk of feces out of their filthy grimy asshole.
We're all filthy fucking pigs. You can either live in shame huddled over or embrace your dirt bag self and laugh about it.

I don't hate gay people or think they should not be gay or stop partaking in their filthy wrong depraved sex lives.
I just think they should surrender to Satan already and embrace the fact that they aren't angelic little blue eyed virgins who defecate heart candies from their perfect little wrinkle free pink assholes.
You can't get on a soap box with a butt plug firmly lodged in your keister, sorry, it just doesn't work.

This made me laugh for a good while. He does make a few good points. But his style of writing is hilarious.

A little sulky about Dr Lou having run rings around you, are we? :D

Yeah. That must be it. :D

Oh, another golden post by Dr. Lou, in response to Cool Skill:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1394612&postcount=47

Originally Posted by Dr Lou Natic
That's the filth beetle, they feed on the scummy residue which can be found only on the skin of the most disgusting and dirty people, generally people who live in a slummy scummy pig stye of a dwelling and finger their butts and then touch themselves all over without washing.
They are said to prefer the taste of fecal matter with traces of hiv positive blood in it.

Sorry I didn't read the first couple of pages of this thread, where did you see this beetle?
I'm guessing on the matress of a retarded homeless phillipino faggot you saw in a shanty town while nobley doing charity work or something?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1287152&postcount=15


Dr:
Yeah but you were probably a loser.
And it would obviously be different having the brain of an adult to snake your way around the system.
You could have a ball.
Imagine how much you'd kick ass at sport? well, maybe not you.
Would you even care about getting into trouble? It used to be scary, but it would just be fun pretending to be scared now.
You'd play this innocent child character and just do everything overly wrong and then show genuine remorse. It would be hilarious.

And just think of all the kids you could molest...

Seriously, they should make this into a zany romantic comedy, starring ben stiller and dakota fanning.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1002035&postcount=79

LOL!

He delivered his message in a style that was so over the top that it was hard to take him seriously while at the same time seeing a degree of seriousness in what he said. I was never sure whether the extreme views he wrote about were actually his or just him acting the part and airing existing views.

Oh, another golden post by Dr. Lou...

You think personal attacks make for "golden posts"?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1410528&postcount=4

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1400049&postcount=1631

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1376888&postcount=47

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1360647&postcount=67

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1360621&postcount=74

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1360075&postcount=32

That last one there:
Hey Iam, why don't you go shoot up a university you scummy chink cunt.
Here are some alternative responses to Iam:
Wow. You're so racist.Your whole post say white people are racist bigoted what-the-fuck-ever. I'm sorry your father hates you. Get over it. Not all white people are like that.
iam, you've clearly got a huge chip on your shoulder, so much so that you dish out hate like it's a virtue. So all white Americans are pieces of shit, well thanks for your insight. Do you have anyhting to offer on white Europeans?
Can you articulate a rational response to this move without posting quotes from other sources (and not even telling us those sources) and using it as a forum to spit out your own racism?
Yes.
Well, while Dr. Lou's statement was a bit visceral, you might wish to go back and peruse some of Iam's statements and determine that he has no moral high ground behind which to hide from such statements.

Iam is perhaps the most hardcore racist on this forum at present.
Iam,

I suggest you get more imaginative and/or witty with your insulting or I'm going to start giving you infractions and deleting/editing your posts.

As to the movie, try reading some Herodotus. I suppose you're going to say Herodotus is a stupid American too, right?
And a fairly typical Iam snippet:
HOW DARE YOU TELL SOMEONE TO GET OVER ANYTHING, YOU SNITTY LITTLE BITCH. THE FUKER IS NOT MY FATHER. HE IS IN NO WAY RELATED TO ME BY BLOOD.

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT HE FEELS OR THINKS OF ME YOU STUPID RETARD, HE WAS ALWAYS BOTHERING ME NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, I'M EXPRESSING I DON'T LIKE HIM BITCH!

NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE "ARE LIKE THAT", HOW BRILLIANT OF YOU, WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT MYSELF, BUT MOST ARE YOU CLUELESS, HEAD IN THE CLOUDS IMBECILE.

THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE.
Context, my friends, context.

Incidentally, I don't believe Lou is the hardcore racist he'd have you all believe. I think he has said at one point that he doesn't carry his 'opinions' here over into his real life. I think he says the things he does to expose hypocrisy and BS, to provoke debate (and, failing that, a reaction - dedicated attention-seeker that he is). I think his outbursts are also a reaction against the 'political correctness' he sees here (I'll leave others to decide whether that accusation has any merit).

And, on the subject of hardcore, the campaign - I use the word advisedly - by the administration to defend the decision to ban Lou seems pretty intense, by the way. Frightened by the reaction? Surprised by his popularity? Concerned that you may have made a bad decision? A mistake?

But anyway...



Thread: Earth's Ultimate Predator?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=363740

Everyones a fucking comedian :rolleyes:
Well a virus is more like a parasite which is a different category all together and I don't think age is even an organism.

I'm talking about hunters, come on lets give the great hunters of our planet some props.
The highest success rate award is shared by the chimpanzee and the african cape hunting dog at around 95%.
Thats pretty impressive. They wipe the floor with humans and we have guns.
They both maintain this great percentage by very different means.

The african hunting dog specialises in harrassment. They simply don't give up and have developed maybe the greatest stamina in all of the mammals. They don't ambush, or even chase at a high speed, they approach a herd of wildebeast(or whatever) and start jogging towards them, setting in for a long chase, once they pick you out of the herd its goodnight.

The chimpanzee, on the other hand, hunts monkeys that should find it quite easy to evade them. The monkeys are smaller, faster and lighter which means they can access braches the chimps can't.
But the chimps don't rush into anything. They carefully plan their attack before hand. The leader of the troupe will give intricate orders to each member by pounding on the trunks of trees, on the ground and on his chest with his feet and hands at different rates, like morse code. There is verbal commincation but it plays smaller roles, the hunt is very important and everyone needs exact orders for it to work.
The first thing the chimps do after getting their orders is disperse and scream, the screaming disorientates the monkeys and panics them. It also draws there attention away from the one silent chimp, the leader, who is sneaking to a planned location where he trusts his troupes will chase the monkeys. As I said earlier, the monkeys can reach branches the chimps can't so if the monkeys were a little brighter they would stay on those branches but the screaming panics them and forces them to keep moving as far away from the chimps as possible. Chimps are strategically placed to form a pathway for the monkey that leads directly to the leader who will usually be hiding. In the monkeys desperate attempts to escape the hollering chimps it will usually run straight into the leader, if it spots the leader at the last second it will turn straight into the mob that had been chasing it.

Escape is so rare that it has never been recorded. Which technically makes chimps hunting success rate 100%. It is a given that they simply must have screwed up at least a few times so "around 95%" is what they give.

But is success rate all we should take into account? What about killer whales? They have been seen placing unharmed baby seals back on the beach they took them from. To say this is a "failed hunt" is similar to saying it is a failed hunt everytime you play with your dog without killing it.
What else could we look at?



Thread: Earth's Ultimate Predator?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=363740

Good points.
Evolution stumbled onto perfect designs with both sharks and crocs.
We know they are perfect because they haven't NEEDED to change since they sprung up. Some less than perfect crocodilian and shark species have come and gone but yes I agree that they are generally perfect hunters.
If we are going to go with best base design, I think sharks and crocs(and perhaps a few other prehistoric creatures like squids) would definately have to take the medal. They are the ultimate killing machines, perfection has been reached in their "family trees".

But I have a feeling some of the new comers are getting there. If man weren't here, there are a few species I can see that would have no reason to change.
Sperm whales are perfection, doing a task no animal(including us) can do or ever could do before. Hunting the giant squids of the abyss. They have a complex taxonomy(is that the word? Help me biology people), they have developed ways of storing oxygen in their bones and compressing their blood in the centre of their bodies and many other complex adaptations to deep sea diving. They are coloured black to hide them in the deep and they hunt by sonar which is perfect for their prey who has no sense of hearing.
Having a perfect base design can be detrimental, the squid has reinforced through breeding what has been a perfect design for hundreds of millions of years but this has made it harder to make a change now that they really could use one.
Not that they are endangered, but their hunter the sperm whale has all the advantages.
And in fact advantages seem to be a trend in all the toothed whales.
They are a relatively recent success story in the story of evolution. I'd say they are perfect predators with fancy accessories.
From rounding fish shoals into tight balls and battering them with their tails to riding waves into the beach to grab land animals, they have discovered so many new ways to hunt then the simple chase and bite. They have giant brains like ours attached to perfect killing machine bodies and they can "hear in the dark" with sonar. They have x-ray vision basically. They are super-animals like the flying squirrel and the electric eel;)
I'd say they are the most impressive hunters on earth, certainly the water. And the toughest and most adaptible of the toothed whales is the killer whale so it gets my vote.

There are so many great hunters though, the cat family is a goldmine, even the housecat is extraordinary to witness in action. Have we all seen the leopard on the national geographic commercial? It ambushes a sprinkbok that tries to jump over it, the leopard leaps up and tackles the springbok in midair causing both of them to do a full 360 back flip, of course, the leopard lands on top of the springbok.
There is a lizard that runs and leaps and bounds on its back legs chasing other lizards through the rocky deserts.
Spiders that build webs are phenomenonal when you think about it, but even more peculiar is the spider that builds lassoo's out of its web-silk and swings them around like a cowboy before tossing them on moths.

Forget best predator, it really is impossible to say, this can just be the "predator appeciation thread":)
With hi-tech camera work the real life animal kingdom can make the matrix seem amateur.


Thread: What do thinking animals think of us?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=439098

What logical conclusions are to be drawn from the actions of the other sentient animals in regard to what they think of us?

Elephants;
Link (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s827791.htm)

I think its clear that elephants see us as villainous. An overpowering unstoppable evil force, an unpoliced evil police if you will.
There are many stories like this that indicate elephants do not approve of our dictatorship.
They hide the tusks of their loved ones in bushes etc, they seem to be onto us, they seem to know what we are about and its rather apparent that they are not impressed.
Elephants kill more people than anything else, and it is always purely out of anger over the way we treat them. Not always because its physically cruel, but merely degrading and insulting.
They disagree with everything we stand for.
In general that is, elephants are very much individuals and domesticated elephants are often quite fond of their owners, but it seems wild elephant culture doesn't think too highly of us.

On the other end of the scale...

Killer whales;
Link (http://www.uq.net.au/~zzlhiess/oldtom.htm)

There are no reports of wild killer whales attacking humans ever.
This is strange because, besides us, they have the most varied diet on the planet. There is little else they have not been reported to have killed, sting rays, polar bears, moose and blue whales etc the list goes on forever, and nearly all of these animals would be far harder to kill than a measly human.
So why haven't they even tried to taste us?

Killer whales treat hunting like a religious experience, they celebrate succesful hunts with ritualistic performances. And continuously display their confidence during hunts by mocking their prey and toying with it. Its like they are trying to show off their hunting prowess to "impress the gods", much like humans "be nice" to "impress the gods".
That really is the impression one gets.
Perhaps killer whales became more successful after evolution instilled into them a sense of admiration for hunting, to the extent they worship it as an artform.
They certainly behave that way.

"fascinating, but what does this have to do with people?"
Well the fact is they respect humans a whole heap, and seemingly nothing else.
This makes sense when you consider what they are about.
In a culture where cruelty, dominance and hunting prowess is reveered, respected and worshipped, perhaps the natural "golden calf" is the homo-sapien.

They have seen what we are capable of, they have seen us hunt and hunted side by side with us, they have felt what we are capable of, the us military used to use them as target practice, word gets around killer whale communities and some individuals alive today were alive when we ran the seas red on a daily basis, they know all about what we(or I at least) consider our dark side.
But do they hold a grudge or think less of us?
No, they think we're great. We're everything they want to be; ruthless, cold, capable, unrivalled, killing machines.
I think they see us as a role model, our species is jesus to killer whales.
A jesus that kicked ass and rather than being crucified took on the roman army single handedly with a harpoon.

Conclusion?
Both killer whales and elephants seem to be noticing the same thing about us, our ruthlessness and cold hearts, they both see we are unmatched unstoppable predators, but they each have their different views on this, one species is disgusted, the other is filled with respect and reverence.

Whats ironic is, the traits of humanity that are most apparent to the other intelligent organisms inhabitting this planet, are the traits we try to deny we have, the opposite of how we would like to think of ourselves.

(Warning: preceeding post may contain generalisations)
I expect I'll reproduce his entire posting history here eventually. I often read Lou's contributions when you're all boring the fuck out of me (like, eg, now).

What a major, major fucking mistake was made here.

Humm.. Dr Lou Natic opinions are really interesting. :)
Why is he banned? Has he done some really serious mistake? :confused:

I dont mean to fuel the fire, but these posts are really interesting,
original, and intelligently sound.

Uhm, James R (?), can't you just moderate him, maybe? I mean like in
a yahoogroups mailing list, there is a mechanism where if someone is
moderated, all his/her posts should go through moderator's censorship
in advance before it could be displayed in the thread. Temporarily.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1009527&postcount=6

I find that an entirey unconvincing argument on Doc's part.
1. It's anecdotal.
2. He's in his 20s, and offers no data comparing biodiversity before and after cane toad arrival.
3. His quantification of biodivirsity is "it's like a lot!"
4. He lacks credentials to quantify biodiversity.
5. His quantification lacks verification- no study, no statistics, not even curosry field work.