User talk:Mtloweman

The recent edit you made to Nomad constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Will ^(talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Antioch College are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following what you are doing at Neanderthal and am interested. I say "keep it up". There's a wierdness about this subject I'd like to call your attention to the middle-bottom of the talk page section "the elephant in the room" where I changed the subject to the real elephant in the room. Also, have you seen the article caveman? Very strange. Chrisrus (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, with regard to the Salmon bones in that book of yours, is it true that, while the Neanderthals didn't eat salmon in thier cave, that there is evidence that they did eat it down by the river? You know, like bears do? Chrisrus (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The low amount of fish bones indicate that the Neanderthals may have come on the fish by accident or their fishing methods were just not up to snuff. Cro-Magnons on the other hand had organization, which would also imply politics and leadership as their decendents have today. Neanderthals were in a real sense the true alien. They were human but they must have had a very different outlook and way of thinking. This appears to hook up with their common ancestry with us but they were a side branch of humanity and therefore evolved different responses.

Huh. Interesting. The way I look at it, the salmon bones not being dried out and stored in the cave until the Cromags occupied it says to me that the cromags were acting like normal people, and the Neanders were acting like normal bears. I think the only place I'd quibble with you so far is your use of words like "people" to describe an animal that didn't dry out the extra salmon from the salmon run and store it in the cave for the rest of the year. That's what humans would do. Any animal that doesn't do that in millions of years of occupation doesn't rise to the level of what I'd call "a person" or "a human being". That's a "humanoid" or "homonid" or "close relative of humans", but I like to save words "human" and "people" for actual Homo Sapians that think and act like people universally do, not like bears universally do. Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on the article caveman, which is still not acceptable, in my view, but should be. I invite your comment or contribution to it. Chrisrus (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]