That's why it's funny Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Mike knows I don't mean it in a bad way, or so i hope.
Meese, cabeese, neese, papeese. And why not treece, jeece, spreece? One of my professors said that since the plural of opus is opera, the plural of walrus has to be walrera.
They are MUCH more expensive than dogs. They are a lot less 'house-able' than dogs. Oh and I almost forgot to mention the percentage of dog owners in the general population vs. the percentage of horse owne...oh wait, I did already mention that a mere few posts above. Wow...I just don't know what to say. But then again I forget who I'm talking to here. Anyway, I could almost guarantee hundreds of millions of people who have dogs would agree with this website. http://www.waitingdog.org/History_of_the_Dog_s/4.htm A special and mythical relationship, or a special bond as I would put it. An emotional connection. Funny how me, a person who prides himself on keeping emotion in check, can recognize this connection, but some beauty pageant drama queen cannot? Be sure to read all the bulleted paragraphs in the right column.
That form of cattle has not been domesticated to this day. It's dangerous as hell. That doesn't hold up. Ten thousand years is plenty to overpopulate the place, and the Reds had been reduced to eating corn and planting whole fields with a wooden stick for a tool. People living amid ample resources don't do that. Sled dogs and related usage goes back to before the Norse hit Greenland, all over the northern Red world. LLamas used as pack animals likewise dates back a long time. The Reds had no need of European models for such things - or for large houses, elegant small boats, etc. The largest pyramid in the world, by volume, was built near where St Louis, Missouri is now (one author says you can see it out of the airplane window if you fly out of St Louis). It was surrounded by large fields of corn and other plants, topped by ceremonial buildings, and its building involved the rerouting of a small river at its base. The structure is sophisticated - a simple dirt mound of such dimensions would not be stable, and it is carefully layered with clay and rocks and so forth. The permanent population of the city nearby had to have been in the thousands. The symbiotic relationship between dogs and people probably did not involve hunting together. But clearly its benefits were obtained by the Reds of NA regardless, and predated those of any other domestic animal, and yielded people much like ourselves.
I disagree with you and you get emotional and start making personal swipes at me? And I'm a drama queen? Where in this thread have I personally attacked you? I just don't agree about the dogs. Its a personal opinion. Its NOTHING against you. :bugeye:
Not directly, no. But you have to factor in the fact that dogs are the most popular house pet on the planet, into the bigger picture role of dogs and their place in human history. You are not taking into consderation that kinship/mythical and special relationship man has with dogs. By your logic I could say that women only played a role in history due to their cooking and baby making skills; and I'd leave out the part where women are not just baby makers, they also have a kinship and special relationship with their mate. You get what I'm saying now? You're only citing what can be seen and measured. You're adamantly leaving out the part you can't measure; that kinship. In fact, my dogs serve nothing else other than to be my family. In fact, they aren't useful for any housework (other than maybe Kingston scaring off any would be burglars). But their companionship and the bond that I have with them is worth every single penny that I've ever spent on them and every single moment I've spent with them.
You're not just disagreeing with me, you are totally refusing to see my point of view, and I can't stand that. I'm sitting here trying to explain this to you, and in reality I'm expecting some sort of response indicating you understand where I'm coming from, but I never got that. I don't know what else to tell you but I owe no courtesy or politeness to someone who refuses to see my pov. For example, I disagree with your point of view about the horses being the most important animal, BUT I see your point of view and fully understand why you feel that horses were the most important.
Reread my first post on this thread. It is a hypothesis (Max can't distinguish a hypothesis from an assertion so we have to label them for him or he gets even crankier), but a quite reasonable hypothesis, that dogs were the catalyst that propelled us out of the Stone Age. Dogs adopted us, not the other way round. (And that is not a hypothesis, it's history.) Not to demean horses. They were our first transportation technology, allowing us to travel faster and carry a larger payload than we could do unaided. Clearly that had a profound impact on the development of human culture. But we had to perfect the technology of animal husbandry on several other species--cattle, goats, sheep, poultry, pigs, etc.--before we were up to the challenge of Equus caballus.
Okay ....what evidence to you have to back up that hypothesis? What evidence do you have for proposing that hypothesis? See, Fraggle, asking for supporting evidence is not being cranky or unreasonable at all. I can make statements, too, but what good are they without some semblance of evidence or supporting documentation, etc.? I think, for example, that the rats and fleas had a far greater impact on man than the dogs. The rats and fleas transmitted and carried the bubonic plague which wiped out a huge portion of the people of Europe and Western Asia. Damned big impact, huh? Native Americans didn't have to make those intermediate steps. So, again, what's your evidence for the hypo? Baron Max
What evidence do you have for disproving it? Right. back. at. you. I'm pretty dang sure the topic of the thread implies what domesticated animal provided the biggest positive impact, not a negative one. Native Americans didn't have to make those intermediate steps. So, again, what's your evidence for the hypo? Baron Max[/QUOTE]
I dunno, Baron I thought it was agriculture...but I guess dogs could have taught us. If Fraggle said it, it's so.
Nope, I checked ...it just asked what was the largest impact on humans. And as to rats not being domesticated, that could be argued as well. Those rats lived in human habitations, lived off the garbage of humans and even drank the same water. They were much like many of the dogs that humans have kept throughout history. And those rats caused the deaths of about half of Europe's population at the time. Pretty large impact wouldn't you say? Baron Max
Evidence please. You're the one whining about lack of evidence, so back that up. Throw me some data which proves that women's only function throughout human history was to cook and give birth, or shut up and stop picking holes in people who actually bother to post something constructive.
Don't know much about women's history, do you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Picking holes in people's arguments is a valid scientific approach to problem solving. Or didn't you know that either? ...LOL! Baron Max
Simply saying I don't know much is not proving me wrong, or yourself right. Except you're not actually pointing out any actual holes, you're just whining.
