|
Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo.....David Froehlich (eohippus@curly.cc.utexas.edu)Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:02:31 -0600
On 28 Oct 1995, H. M. Hubey wrote:
> >Why can't you understand that savannah indicates an environment
Where is it written that whatever you believe is fact? You may equate
> If you don't like it write to the dictionary publishers.
Wher is it written that dictionaries have to be true? If you get all
> And if that weren't true there'd be no need for "mosaic savannah"
Because idiots confuse the word savannah with grassland so the
> Is this the best you can do?
Why bother since you cannot understand in the first place.
> PS. You can change the meaning of savannah, if you like.
I am not. I use the term in the sense it was originally intended when
> PPS. It still doesn't change the fact that chimps are forest
Are you deliberately ignoring all the evidence produced or are you truly
> PPPS. Do you remember my earlier posts on 'verbiage'?
Who is the one that persists in misunderstanding?
> What's really funny is seeing you and Duncan argue against
What has this got to do with arboriality. You are the one who wants to
David J. Froehlich Phone: 512-471-6088
|