I tended some goats a few times as a favor to a neighbor - well, made sure they didnt get out of their fenced off area of 3 acres. honestly found it to be very dull and uninspiring. perhaps I was doing it wrong? maybe there's a way to spice it up? do you dress up in a wolf costume to keep things lively? toss lit fireworks at the sheeples?
do tell, I'm sure the stories you've got will be absolutely riveting!
I agree - jet's been a fun opponent to spar with. I wish everyone held themselves to his standard (her's? their's? pronouns are weird).
notice me senpai!
not trolling, trying to engage in a discussion. I could easily say "no, you're wrong" & then move onto the next thing, whatever it may be. I could be insulting, as many here default to, but I'm better than that - and so are you. or maybe not! difficult to tell really. eh, I'm probably wrong about you.
ah, makes sense then - he was the leader of the ANC and the ANC actions included acts of terrorism. I guess he mellowed in old age? time/reflection will do that to a person.
I dunno, I went back and read through the comments again to see if I had misinterpreted it and it really just seems like you two are splitting hairs.
it's unfortunate, but many just devolve to their base instincts. yes, yes, I see your point - and I'll admit that you've got a point. I was/am/have been attempting to engage a diverse community in discussion. too often it seems that "discussion" in these threads is "X is bad" and then a bunch of folks chiming in "I hate X", "X stole my lunch money", "X slept with my wife and she left me because of Y reason", etc, etc. there's no actual discussion in the sense that we're exchanging ideas or broadening each other's worldviews. it's just supporting criticisms. maybe that's what people learn these days in colleges?
other than our linguistical expertise, our prose, it could easily be a transcript of insults between a few younger children on a playground somewhere. and I find that depressing. so I attempt to engage - but more often than naught it's like screaming into the dark & praying for a response - any response, even just someone else screaming back.
anyway, I digress.
skimmed the article. something about relations in the cold war or something. was the why buried down at the bottom? I didnt make it that far
when has that ever happened?
no real debate at all, just... arguing, then insults fly when they discover arguing isnt working. it's a sad state of affairs.
you know, I've never tried savory! I will give it a try next time, thanks for the suggestion!
curiously enough, bolding your words doesnt make them true. funny, innit?
little clarification here - humanity isnt native to anywhere other than Africa. the people that were in the American continents prior to the arrival of Europeans might not have taken boats to get there - though some clearly did as there were multiple waves of settlement over a few thousand years.
if their ancestors walked over the land bridge during the ice age and that somehow qualifies them as natives, then what about the ones whose ancestors took a boat across where the land bridge used to be and sailed down the coast? if they qualify, then why dont the people whose European ancestors took boats qualify as native? is it because the last round of people had vastly superior technology? because we speak the same languages they did? because we're the same ethnicity they were? is this a racism argument? I didnt get that memo.
is this a branch of the "noble savage" theory? there was a lot of war between various tribes in North America - generational warfare usually, where one tribe would traditionally raid another for resources or for women. this is well documented and had been occurring for as long as anyone could remember - long, long before the reintroduction of the horse into North America.