[Dave B]

 The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals by Darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expression_of_the_Emotions_in_Man_and_Animals

[Dave B]

That was a bit of a touched raw nerve reaction. I think you are correct up to a point in that in ‘Darwins time’ there was as yet no very clear distinction between Lamarkism and Darwinism. If you think Darwin’s own pangeneses (?) hypothesis was a bit ‘Lamarkian’. I think Mendels work sort of shifted the ground more to our ‘modern vulgar schoolboy Darwinism’ I think it was a little bit later that August Weismann started the process of completely ‘discrediting’ Lamark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Weismann A process that continued through most of the 20thcentury? I think fairly recently scientists have realised they have made a mistake and obviated the embarrassment by calling it something else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics Don’t want to derail this thread too much.

[Dave B]

They did a follow up survey on the ‘pet dog survey’ focusing on and interviewing the ‘deranged scientist group’. Like they do. It just got worse!

[Dave B]

It was fairly interesting Scandinavian ‘socialism’ stuff; but the stuff I liked might be different to what others would; and what the speaker was concentrating on. It was be nice to your kids stuff and they will grow up better, possibly in a hardwired kind of way re the brain development of the mirror neurone empathy centres etc. Mirror neuron Eg from almost the top of the list of a google search I just did , but have read around to subject elsewhere. http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct05/mirror.aspx It has moved beyond speculative theory as with CAT scans on brains etc. Thus; as it goes the patterns in the brain that light up when one individual experiences something themselves are very similar to when that individual ‘sees’ another experiencing they same thing etc. I think perhaps you can actually ‘observe’ this in yourself, which is often not a bad place to start; like when to ‘wince’ when you see someone hurt themselves or even make a dramatic social faux pas? Or is that just me? But more often than that perhaps it is reflective and involves a less immediate contemplation or imagining of the other persons condition?   [For the 150 year old ‘trick cyclists’ it would probably fall under the category of ‘projection’ and ‘transference’- it is a pretty old observation.] There are, extra curricula, another thread implications, as regards this ie ‘telepathic’, in big inverted comma’s, proto-communication. Ie a baseline position clearly demonstrated by even populist TV people like David Attenborough with capuchin Monkeys? That is just gagging for an evolutionary 'audio'  improvement? I can dig the youtube video out probably.  The speaker, really interestingly, also hinted at ‘epigenetic’ Lamarkism; the idea is, depending somewhat on who or from whom it is being contemplated, is something like; We have a whole library of acquired genes; most of which are switched off, that is not too controversial, most genes appear to do nothing, or what they used to do are ‘turned off’.    The speculative hypothesis, don’t laugh too soon, is that environmental stress etc or equally the lack of it. Can lead to genes being, by some ‘biochemical’ mechanism being switched on or off. And, in principal, from that process to some extent or degree being passed on in, after, or during ‘reproduction’ etc. Some researchers believe that they have observed that in bacteria. The basic idea is dealt with as below for instance 27 minutes in; Star Trek The Next Generation Season 7 Episode 19 – Genesis http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2672rd_star-trek-the-next-generation-season-7-episode-19-genesis_tv  I prefer to approach the ‘hypothesis’ from a somewhat different perspective and maybe something similar to how Engels endorsed Lamarkian theory. It would be a brilliant material ‘existentialist’ solution to a problem and nature never ceases to amaze us as regards finding solutions to ‘problems’. It would certainly fast track ‘cosmic ray’ accidental and adaptive revolutionary mutation theory. Our speaker probably relies a lot on the bane of serious scientists, correlation statistics, and implied cause and effect and ‘Scandinavian socialism’. So the sun shines and people eat more ice cream; so eating ice cream makes the sun shine? Then there is the sometimes hidden, tertiary effect.  Statistical data mining, made so much easier by computing power, has become a pseudo scientific gold mine of social scientists. On empathy etc they did one fairly recently on;  ‘do you think you think you know what is going on in your pet dogs head?’  With associated questions like what job do you do, what educational qualifications do you have and do you think the moon is made of cheese etc. Upon statistical analysis of the data the results were alarming.  There was a definite and statistically significant skew towards ‘yes’ when it came to ‘rational’ professional scientists.

[Dave B]

OK , background as I understand it. Very recently an astonishing new scientific multi track and discipline theory has been produced by truth creating scientist for our own devious ends to take over the word.So be warned; we are the body snatchers of ideology! It has been dependent on the evolutionary technology re gene mapping, chemists working on gene replicating polymerase stuff,spanner monkeys and the French. And the data crunching and spitting, processing power no problem, computers; they really are shits and we do ned to keep an eye on them before microsoft word becomes Skynet and terminator sentient which I think it already is. Hence we can now tell if your horse meat burgers contains lamb etc or for instance if your orange juice has been coloured with mandarin juice.  I think the French gobshites, in practice, started or refined it first because they are petty bourgeois snobs when it comes to grape varieties, Spanish ‘Champagne’ and shit like that- but I am a chauvinist.] Anyway the conclusion is amazing even if it started with French wine? Circa 100,000 there were a group of people in southwest Africa, whose ancestors have stayed put and are still almost classical primitive communist hunter gathers (it is almost too good to be true).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people Suddenly they started to spread out at an amazing rate. They moved northwest ish reaching Ethopia about 40,000 years ago or so crossed over the Red Sea onto a piece of land on the southern end coast of the Arabian peninsula that is now under water due higher sea levels and was probably then on the edge of the monsoon region and like Ceylon; separate and independent scientific discipline. They put the number that crossed the Red seaat about 4000 individuals before they were cut off. Alice Roberts BBC the incredible human journey. I asked the guy who lead the team if that number was accurate and he said they gave it under pressure from the producers as a ballpark number as it made for good TV. Then moved up into Iran and Iraq in to the central Russia or whatever before panning out east and west. Around 20-30,000 years ago, this date  rages, a band of “17-24” individuals crossed the beering straits to populate South America before they got cut off. This is based on two separate datasets using a related techniques. Male Y chromosome and ‘female’ mitochondrial DNA analysis. The male Y chromosome and ‘female’ mitochondrial DNA analysis people hate each other and compete as to which is the best technique. But they come up with the same conclusions but differing by about 20-30,000 years or so. I think the mitochondrial DNA analysis people have the edge as it maps on better with historical Meteorology and archaeology gravel monkey people. It appears that Chomsky has his big bang cosmic ray language mutation theory fitting into the same time period and location etc etc. So, with Chomsky, we started to talk in southwest Africa100,000 years ago and decided, maybe flippantly, because of imaginary stories of what was over the horizon started to pack up and walk. As an anti revolutionary big bang cosmic ray language mutation person I would be a vulgar schoolboy Darwinist who lacks an appreciation of recent Nobel prize winning theories on revolutionary evolution. Actually I am not; as I understand that a very small tweaks in genes can produce very dramatic effects. Thus a fruit fly can be observed to develop extra wings and body parts etc as dramatic superficial effect but small changes in the application of pre-existent programming. [There was an excellent Star Trek The Next Generation Episode on this with old turned off Genes being turned on and current ones off etc.] I am a bit of a closet non vulgar lamarkian actually..However, the counter theory to language breakout of Africa theory of Chomsky might be; that out modern humans in southwest Africa were gradually and happily evolving, developing the sharing and co-operative instinct as the result of a 'series of chomsky vulgar mutating cosmic rays' to no great 'regional' advantage. And a sudden climatic wipe out of hominid competition to the north and sorting stress to themsleves opened up space for migration into empty ecosystems.   

[Dave B]

Does anybody have any further details of Chomsky’s breakout of Africa circa 100,000 years ago which is central to his sudden language hypothosis? Not that I disagree with it, I discussed it in general terms on out forum a couple of years ago re genetic archaeology and mitochondrial DNA etc. I even went to a lecture given by the lead developer of the technique a couple of years ago. There are implications I think as the sudden breakout may have been due to sudden climate change and the lake of toba thing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory. Ie our modern humans could have been gradually evolving language and social skills etc for some time before the opportunity came to take advantage of it.  

[Dave B]

This isn’t my area really But are we missing a small point with this Chomsky thing. Wasn’t Chomsky’s universal grammar thing firstly an anti-thesis or critique of previous standing theories that I think are far more dingbat than Chomsky’s are? Are we in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water? I am just asking questions here because I am vaguely interested even if it is drifting a bit away from communism. Does or can written language fall out of the scope of a universal grammar analysis? I ‘thought’ that syntax or word order was an important part of universal grammar analysis. However in Latin word order doesn’t have to matter? So for instance you can write ‘Romans go home’ in any order you like;  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8  Which is why I liked it.

[Dave B]

 I suspect that language, as we have it, is synergistically wrapped up with and evolved in tandem with abstract thought or thinking. The necessity of, or for higher levels abstract thought like tool use and making for instance may have evolved separately from just the social and co-operative function of sharing, signaling  or ‘communicating’ information. Like leopard warning call or whatever; as opposed to snakes and eagles or I have just found great tree with loads of banana's on it (part of the vocabulary of one species of small social monkeys) However after that perhaps abstract thought enhanced the capacity for language and then vice versa in an endless synergistic feedback process. Can we actually think properly without using language in our ‘minds ear’ so to speak. I have heard that fully bilingual people can think, and dream, in two languages and switch from one to the other. But it is nearly always one or the other. It looks as though we may come pre-programmed and prepared with a set of ‘grammar’ to interpret our physical universe. In a series of reproduced experiments that have only fairly recently have able to be carried out due to technology.They showed almost new born infants a series of images and could monitor their eye movements etc.They showed a distinctly greater interest in ‘paradoxes’ that were beyond 'simple'. As a chemist and mathematician. Does the use of symbols and rules by which they are related to each other as part of,  or to facilitate, abstract thought or representation of reality etc transcend language as we normally think about it? Where does Nicaraguan sign language phenomenon fit in to all this? As a Darwinist and biological determinist as well as a cultural materialist; I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. I believe in the Hegelian and Fred’s motif of ‘quantitative changes leading to qualitative ones’; and therefore I am totally opposed to ‘creationist Darwinism’ of Chomsky with his idea of the revolutionary mutation. Fred’s Lamarkianism is making a small comeback so he may have the last laugh. We I think we experience the world mostly through vision which takes up a lot of processing power; as it does with computers. Is language an existential ‘engineering’ solution to an existential problem.  I have not been following this thread so far so may have missed previous stuff.

[Dave B]

There is some stuff on the ‘communist’ Essenes i think from Philo via the Christian Eusebius below. CHAPTER XI [PHILO] 'And their mode of life is an evidence of this liberty: none ventures to acquire any private property at all, no house, nor slave, nor farm, nor cattle, nor any of the other things which procure or minister to wealth; but they deposit them all in public together, and enjoy the benefit of all in common. 'And they who live together and share the same table are content with the same things every day, being lovers of frugality, and abhorring prodigality as a disease of soul and body.'Not only have they a common table, but also common raiment: for there are set out in winter thick cloaks, and in summer cheap tunics, so that any one who will may easily take'whichever he likes, since what belongs to one is considered to belong to all, and the property of all to be on the other hand the property of each one.http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_08_book8.htm#13 I think it is big mistake to assume that the ‘early Christians’ say AD50?-200 were in  anyway a ‘monolithic’ religion as they had many radically different fundamental positions. A point that Bart Erhman makes; I am not a slavish fan of his by any means but he is a good place to start with. He makes that point totally convincingly against the more common position taken by modern Christians. The imminent end of the world thing depended on the JC prophesy Matthew 24;34  thing about the end of the world happening before all the people now living are dead. Repeated in Mark and Luke. The date had clearly passed by say 70-130AD?.It is 'of this generation' in the grreek which was generally accepted as 40 years; something that has been poured over in great forensic detailAlthough modern Christians tend to avoid that part like the plague despite what should be the obvious implications as to the approximate date before which the text was written.I myself suspect that in fact that paragraph may have been later just dropped down the page a bit, perhaps deliberately to include a time frame for the second coming and keep moral up?[that would also resolve another major internal pardox in the text.]Then the ‘prophesy’ would have just been that within 40 years or so things were going kick off ie a Jewish revolt and the Romans in standard fashion would do what they always did smash the place up and destroy temples etc. Not much of a prophesy really given the socio economic tensions etc.The gnostics who were another major currernt in early christianity had a completely different world view. 

[Dave B]

I have to confess that I start to progressively loose interest in Christianity after 450AD. And I suspect later manifestations of ‘communist’ ideologies, as with that Pope Urban thing, as being theological extortion, blackmail and proto indulgencies. It is difficult to work out the socio economic base for crypto and pseudo celibacy. It is also a Buddhist monk thing and I think there was a personal memoir work by some probably Christian missionary type doctor, but seemingly honest, in Tibet in the 19thcentury who observed the prevalence of syphilis in the monks. Apparently they claimed it was a disease contracted from sitting on ‘wet grass’. He was more inclined to believe, in his anthropological studies, the stories he had heard from the prostitutes in the small town next to the monastery. Much is made about misogyny, and homophobia, re Christianity a lot of which comes from Paul and to forgive him, which I am disinclined to do, that was probably part of the more general cultural milieu. I think that makes how women are portrayed ‘positively’ in the gospel material all the more exceptional. And if you read between the perhaps lines  of a hostile highy critical reporter; the 'free love' stuff as below is even more historically revolutionary.The same 'accusation' , denied, was made against the levellers/diggers. I had forgotten about these people; it is another one. "The ideas of Mine and Thine crept in through the laws which cause the earth, money, and even marriage no longer to bring forth fruit of common use. For God made vines for all to use in common, since they do not refuse the sparrow or the thief; and similarly wheat and other fruits. But outlawed sharing and the vestiges of equality generated the thief of domestic animals and fruits.For man God made all things to be common property. He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals. He thus showed rightousnessto be a universal sharing along with equality. But those who have been born in this way have denied the sharing which is the corollary of their origin and say Let him who has taken one woman keep her, whereas all can share her, just as the other animals show us. With view to the permanence of the race, he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God´s decree……"  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/epiphanes.html    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpocrates  That ‘Mine and Thine’ thing just keeps cropping up everywhere in early Christianity through to the Taborites; so much so I have forgotten who said it first. The diggers also cropped up in a making history programme this week as well, they have dug some up in London whilst making a tunnel or something."Lost from history until the 'leftist' historians expressed an interst in them in the late 19th century". Eg Bernstien and Kautsky  that we did here last week. I accidentally landed on an old Taborite 'socialism or your money' back post of yours when googling it! On Homophobia. It probably sounds a bit weird for a Marxist to say that there is strange stuff in the gospels but when I first read it fairly late in life, and after a reasonable grounding in literary allegory, philosophical concepts, psychoanalysis/Jung, Buddhism I did think it had a kind of interconnected flow to it. I still believe that when I read it I sort of had made the same interpretation of it as Feuerbach did if that doesn’t sound too pompous. One of the weirdest passages was on the eunuch thing; I mean of all the things to discuss as regards the nature of the world why have something about eunuchs and its relevance to ‘working class’ Judean society? There was a another radio 4 ‘In Our Time’ programme last week I think on ‘eunuchs’, there were none that had any impact on the social and economic concerns of the backward peasant and artisan society that JC was mingling with. At that period they were very expensive ‘bling’ slaves in the very upper echelons of Roman society. It is speculative admittedly but I don’t think it going too far to say analysing the text that JC was expressing a tolerance to homosexuality which would have a liberalism gone too far later.  Now I am really rambling and moderator will appear soon like the holy ghost.

[Dave B]

I agree with you Alan. I personally know three 'catholics' with ‘far left political positions’ that aren’t all that far removed from the ‘Russell Brand’ type analysis. One of my objectives is to get people to think about communism in general and as modern Christianity is generally virulently anti-communist; pulling the rug from under their feet is all just grist to the mill as far as I am concerned. Re; that early Christians were ‘proto Marxists’, as Bart Erhman briefly ‘considered’ in one of his best selling books. And expose them as Staliniod revisionists and heretical apostates. It also has I think wider theoretical implications re Marxism and the transhistorical expressions of ‘communist’ type ideologies and albeit primitive class analysis etc. and makes; "………..The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome…." look like understatement. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/Two of the five or so best authenticated pre 200AD anti Christian documents accuse the Early Christians of ‘in common’ Proudhonist/ anarcho-syndicalist, shaker commune ‘communism’.  Engels in 1844 used the Shakers as an example of practical communism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm  True Doctrine by Celsus, as in Origens contra Celsum, and in Lucian of Samosata Passing of Peregrinus. And three of the best dated and provenanced Christian documents have it as well. Didache One of Justin the Martyr’s ‘apologies’ to someone. And one of the generally most interesting documents.  The Epistle of ‘Barnabas’; which has internal dating evidence that almost universally places it at 70- 131AD. In that; “…………Thou shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbour; thou shalt not call things thine own; for if ye are partakers in common of things which are incorruptible, how much more [should you be] of those things which are corruptible!………” ‘communicate’ [language an the other thread] is an interesting word that recurs often in this kind of material and means in this context to share. And “……who turn away him that is in want, who oppress the afflicted, who are advocates of the rich, who are unjust judges of the poor, and who are in every respect transgressors……” I mean why is a statement like ‘advocates of the rich’ not a proto class analysis? (It has other material in it as well like not eating weasels because they indulge in oral sex, although that kind of thing was standard intellectual Greek Zoology at the time- although maybe they do!) Another one is Revelation according to John dated by Fred at AD69. But that is more of your Red Brigade, Baader-Meinhof and ‘Shining Path’ Maoist ‘communism’ really.  As regards Christians in general there is a plethora of material on the internet arguing against the idea that early Christianity was communist; that usually struggles with the material in Acts. But they don’t seem to like the other stuff being supplemented to it. I have tried to go onto their forums but they kept expelling me and deleting my posts. I even got thrown out of christian forum on an apolitical thread on what Jesus looked like. All I did was quote Celsum from 180AD who cited reports that he was a shifty looking, ugly and physically disfigured ‘dwarf’. And briefly discussed the strange and enigmatic passage in Luke, I think, about Doctor why don’t you heal yourself or whatever. Concidentally material relevant to a thesis for social or base economic conditions of the emergence of Christianity sort of cropped up today on Greaber’s Radio 4 programme. As it goes in 6AD after the incorporation of Judea etc in the Roman empireand its economic laws etc. Traditional Judiac conceptions of debt forgiveness and the prohibition of ‘foreclosure’ on peasants means of production ie land posted as collateral on debt where overturned. Or gobshite usurers could now appeal to ‘Roman Law’. That resulted in a new class of dispossessed peasantry who went on to work as agricultural wage labourers.  The problem was also exacerbated by the implementation of fixed money taxation rather than in kind and as a proportion of product etc.       There was something related to that re economic analysis in Volume Three on that re small Roman peasants I think. And I think Lenin did something similar re late 19thcentury Russiaand the collapse of the Mir system?  Incidentally Origen, the Christian, responded that he wasn’t shifty looking and although he heard stuff about him being a ‘dwarf’ that was by no means a certain historical fact.

[Dave B]

As we have this thread to ourselves Alan. It is reassuring for me as regards the material pope Francis is cherry-picking out of the early church father material, as I had already read it.  He has used saint Chrysostom’s pamphlet ‘On Wealth and Poverty’, Homily on acts and Homily on ‘Pauls’ epistle to Timothy. As wells as the shit kicking ‘Ian Bone of old Class War’ material eg;  On Naboth by St. Ambrose 340 – 397 AD ….You are anointed, O rich man, and you stink…… There is plenty of more of that kind of thing in it.   http://hymnsandchants.com/Texts/Sermons/Ambrose/OnNaboth.htm  http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-at-monday-mass-in-santa-marta   What I found really interesting was the following forged document from the 9th century, which should be of interest in itself. It still claims to be firmly ideologically/economically ‘rooted’ in early Christian communism, like Leninism did to Marxism. But are these ‘bishop and his ministers’ starting to whiff a bit of a Bolshevik state capitalist bureaucratic caste?   The Epistle of Pope Urban Firstto All Christians By the increase, therefore, and the mode of life which have been mentioned, the churches over which the bishops preside have grown so greatly with the help of the Lord, and the greater part of them are now in possession of so much property, that among them there is not a man who, selecting the life in common, is kept in poverty; but such an one receives all necessaries from the bishop and his ministers. Therefore, if any one in modern or in future time shall rise up and attempt to divert that property, let him be smitten with the judgment which has been already mentioned. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-123.htm#P9039_2934283  So when Pope Francis says early Christians were early communists before modern lying ‘communists’; were post early Christians lying self serving Bolsheviks before ‘we were’? Hegel remarks somewhere[ that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce………The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

[Dave B]

  it is in eposode 2 about 5 minutes in http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054420y

[Dave B]

I think this idea of warfare in hunter gatherer societies being about power of one individual or group over another is a non starter. As it is predicated on the possibility of some form of exploitative social relationships eg slavery; which there are not. I think a major strand of this debate is the possibility or otherwise that the material environmental conditions of humans in the period of their evolution necessitated territorial disputes and the development of the appropriate instincts etc? Or for that matter that the material environmental conditions of humans in the period of their evolution necessitated the avoidance of territorial disputes? Of course if you are a woolly mammoth nothing would be more likely to bring gladness to your heart than to see your enemies, different bands of human hunter gathers, knocking shit out of each other. A point that Kropotkin, who understood Darwin, made. In fear of moderator-; a paradigm than transcends the hunter gatherism into the English method of imperialism. On just this instinct issue I am a materialist biological determinist and like Darwin believe that the default position on the evolution of behaviour and human instincts should be one derived from or start from a theory or theories abstracted from the observation of general ‘animal behaviours’ in consideration of the ecological niches they occupy etc. The re social instinct; “in a high degree probable” position. Eg. http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1871_Descent_F937/1871_Descent_F937.1.html We could start with an analysis of ‘wars’ and ‘territorial disputes’ in the animal kingdom of social animals; non social animals fall into a totally different category as do sexual reproduction access to females disputes etc. [Actually even sexual reproduction access to ‘females’ disputes are not totally ubiquitous as in some species the males raise the offspring and the ‘women’ fight each other over the men; which is a very distressing position.]       These are in a high degree dependent on population density and its importance as to whether the social animal is struggling with its environment or other bands of social animals. If as a social animal/pack are 100 miles away you might be ill disposed to make the trek for a lethal battle. Even in the attempt to win the woolly mammoth’s ‘Darwin Award’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5DNhMxYvk African wild dogs as highly social animals with a low population density might be a good biological determinist model.  They have raging wars, but with Lions and Hyenas but not between themselves; Hyenas are an extremely exceptional example of social animals who engage in intra species lethal warfare. As are, in an unfortunate example, some Chimpanzees. The worst culprits on that are probably the ants and they even have division of labour on that. Even though that thing has been a topic of a recent spat between the gobshite Dawkins and ‘my kind of people’.  http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors I appreciate that moderators job is thankless but I also think the thread had not quite got out of control enough to elicit formal warnings; just a lets not piss around too much guys would have been enough or a moved to a completely thread derailed thread option.

[Dave B]

Primitive human society 'not driven by war' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23340252

[Author]

Posts