Dear ALTRAV,

You still kicking around on this thread? I thought you would have had the common decency to call it a day.

I then realised you never replied after I caught you out making “pig ignorant” claims about a study you said found Aborigines had only been here for between four and ten thousand years when in fact it stated over 50 thousand years.

So do you just choose to blindly ignore facts when they are presented to you? To believe the incident just never happened?

I get that you were thick enough to believe what you had written in the first place, but it takes a special type of person to then continue to bluster their way around the joint as though the value and veracity of their opinion had not been severely shot to pieces.

You really are doing yourself no favours.

Dear individual,

Why haven't I got a Guernsey too?

Steely, I think I responded to your question some time ago.
It may have been mixed in with other responses in the same posting.
What I think I said was, that I cannot confirm one way or another.
If I looked it up, I did not look any further, approx 10,000 was what was being quoted in that article.
Then looking at another we get outrageous numbers like 50-60,000 yrs.
I thought that because the abo's last place of domicile was Indonesia, that is where they reign from and that meant their ancestors were Indonesians, not abo's.
Is that the topic or question you are referring to?

Individual, don't let the children run amok.
Children require, no, demand discipline and taught the truth about life and the real world.
If you walk out you are doing several things wrong.
One is you will be sending a message to the childreen that they are right.
And two they, being children will destroy all they come into contact with, unless there is an adult, mature person to teach them and direct them.
This has been one of the main problems with people today, they have been left to their own devices, because the parents are too lazy and self absorbed to put the time to the rearing of their chidren, and just let them go 'free range'.
But you see because chickens are smarter than these people/children they can be let loose to run free.
People/children in general and that includes the ones you mention on OLO. CAN'T, they do not possess the maturity and the experience that all of life has to offer.
They have lived in their various bubbles all their lives and that's why they have such limited and unrealistic views on life.
I could give a more in-depth break down of their mindsets but not now.
So it is that I would suggest you reconsider before you go 'AWOL'.
Look forward to your postings soon.

Foxy - Defending the indefensible, what goes around comes around.

Quote "Philip S., and Individual,
Your attempts at consistently trying to bring
Paul down only means that he's above you."
** Here we have an opinion that is based on bias, not on fact. **

Quote "You gentlemen protest too much, methinks."
** Bias proven you fail to point out Paul has equal or close too retorts. **

Also "methinks" is an opinion only not a fact, so in reality you could be wrong.

//Then looking at another we get outrageous numbers like 50-60,000 yrs.//

What do you find so outrageous about 60,000 years, ALTRAV? Is it because it's based on the reliable and well established technique of radiometric dating, rather than just plucked out of thin air?

ERRR, DUH? Because it's a very long time, compared to 10,000 yrs.
My focus was on the 'LAST' Domicile of the abo, not how far back that particular branch of homo-sapien went back.
Only where they came from, so it was mentioned that 10,000 yrs was long enough for a particular 'family' to become familiar with that land, even though, in the abo's case they kept going South, to Australia.
So to highlight the point I was making was that the Aussie abo, is in fact Indonesian, and had been in Australia possibly for 10,000 yrs, and long before that, probably 50-60,000yrs before, were Indian.
Does that clarify and satisfy you now, as to my thinking, sir?
Your welcome.

//ERRR, DUH? Because it's a very long time, compared to 10,000 yrs.//

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

Your use of the term 'outrageous' would seem to suggest that you have a strongly-founded reason as to why 60,000 years is a wildly implausible figure. I mean, I'd understand if it was runner claiming it be outrageous; he thinks the entire universe is only 6,000 years old. But nope, your sole objection to the 60,000 year figure is the astute mathematical observation that 60,000 > 10,000.

Sometimes all you can do is facepalm in disbelief at the depths of human stupidity.

//So to highlight the point I was making was that the Aussie abo, is in fact Indonesian//

Well then what does that make the Indonesians?

//and had been in Australia possibly for 10,000 yrs//

What is the basis of this 10,000 year claim, ALTRAV? Other than some vague waffling about an article you might have read some years ago, or possibly not, who really knows.... because you certainly don't seem to.

Is it 'google' again, ALTRAV? I'm betting it's google.... sigh :(

The 60,000 year claim is based on archaeological remains - found on digs carried out on the Australian mainland - showing clear evidence of human habitation - with said remains having been dated radiometrically - and been found to be approx. 60,000 years old.

Now, which specific bit of that do you take issue with? That the digs were carried out on mainland Australia? Do you take issue with the technique of radiometric dating? What, specifically, is your objection to the figure of 60,000 beyond the mathematical necessity that it is greater than 10,000?

Alright everybody, prepare to duck and cover for a TRAV tantrum in 3..2...1...