| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Contribution of the "primitives" to progress
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Topic ClosedContribution of the "primitives" to progress

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 20:24
In all that long extract there's not a word about then needing 'Inuit technology' to reach the poles, as opposed to passing the time. Sledges were independently discovered in all parts of the world, both in the snowy regions and in the non-snowy ones (especially pre the wheel).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 20:31
Clothes. That was the key. And yes, inuits shared theirs dogs and slades with others. But you shouldn't forget that Inuits are the experts in living in extreme cold weather. By compasiron, most Canadians, Scandinavians and Rusians live in the tropics. The Amundsen expedition used Inuit clothes.



Edited by pinguin - 21 May 2011 at 20:32
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 21:15
Guess Amundsen could not afford Abercromby & Fitch, haberdashers to the explorers of the 19th century!
 
Make your reservations now Penguin!
 
 
Anyway, the clothing for the 1911 Amundsen expedition was ordered from and made by Burberry of London, didn't you know that little bit of info?
 
 
Oh, I keep forgetting you're not a gentleman in society...
 
As for the "returning" boomerang, it is a toy and of little use in hunting unless you happen to be a terribly bad shot!
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 21:24
Sure, they may have made the bags Amundsen had, and the clothes for coctails, but Roald was a smart guy, so when thing got tought he went Inuit...




LOL


With respect to boomerang, nobody is interesting in your judgement that is a "useless toy". Keep those comments for yourself.

The simple fact is that a boomerang return, while a throwing stick doesn't. Got it, smart?






Edited by pinguin - 21 May 2011 at 21:25
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 23:48
No the point is that, as to be expected, you do not have one. A "boomerang" is a throw stick, it is as simple as that, and the "returning" boomerang has no function as a "kill weapon", in fact it's actual employ is as a decoy in the hunting of birds! The boomerang shaped for the killing of game is not a "returning" boomerang so give up all of this specious chatter on a subject you know little if anything about. The fact that "throw sticks" have a venerable archeological past going back to the paleolithic in both Asia and Europe makes your pretentious nonsense over Australian aborigines and "technology" little more than hot air, which is doing little else other than melting that thin sheet of ice you are perenially floating about on.
 
As for the records of Burberry and Amundsen, with respect to the garments worn during the 1911 Polar expedition, they are quite clear and you just do not have the needed gabardine to be propely insulated here. Burberry did not make "bags"--they made specialized coats and uniforms--and you must be confusing your bit of nonsense with Louis Vutton! The Inuit setting up a boutique marketing their furs "to fit" in 1910-1911 is utter rubbish and you really have not a clue here other than your usual flightless feathery down. Burberry outfitted the 1911 Amundsen polar expedition as a special order and its records are intact. Photo.biz is hardly a source on the origins of that coat you are beaking on and it certainly does not approximate Inuit garments...here have a look:
 
 
Stop insulting the rest of us with your usual flights of fancy!


Edited by drgonzaga - 21 May 2011 at 23:51
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 01:36
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

No the point is that, as to be expected, you do not have one. A "boomerang" is a throw stick, it is as simple as that, and the "returning" boomerang has no function as a "kill weapon", in fact it's actual employ is as a decoy in the hunting of birds! The boomerang shaped for the killing of game is not a "returning" boomerang so give up all of this specious chatter on a subject you know little if anything about. The fact that "throw sticks" have a venerable archeological past going back to the paleolithic in both Asia and Europe makes your pretentious nonsense over Australian aborigines and "technology" little more than hot air, which is doing little else other than melting that thin sheet of ice you are perenially floating about on.


Why you are so slow, Doc. Confused

The boomerang is the topic here. That is the one that returns. Throwing sticks were known by all kind of peoples, including ancient Europeans, but the boomerang was discovered in Australia. It is so bad your technical knowledge is so deficient you don't know the difference.

Stop your blind Eurocentrism. It is offensive that you don't recognize this curious invention to theirs authors: the Australian aborigins. It is quite clear why you behave like that, but stop to make the fool of yourself on this topic.


Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


As for the records of Burberry and Amundsen, with respect to the garments worn during the 1911 Polar expedition, they are quite clear and you just do not have the needed gabardine to be propely insulated here. Burberry did not make "bags"--they made specialized coats and uniforms--and you must be confusing your bit of nonsense with Louis Vutton! The Inuit setting up a boutique marketing their furs "to fit" in 1910-1911 is utter rubbish and you really have not a clue here other than your usual flightless feathery down. Burberry outfitted the 1911 Amundsen polar expedition as a special order and its records are intact. Photo.biz is hardly a source on the origins of that coat you are beaking on and it certainly does not approximate Inuit garments...here have a look:
 
 
Stop insulting the rest of us with your usual flights of fancy!


Those inuits dress summer cloths. Who are you fooling? The man don't even has gloves Confused.These are Inuits winter cloths.





Stop robbing the contribution of "primitives" to progress. It is quite clear that Ortega y Gasset baloney ideology has introduced elitist cathegories in your mind, so you put Inuits at the bottom, and (of course) the London manufacturers at the top.



This is not the way people travelled in Victorian london. LOL

It is so bad you ignore so much about Native peoples, and also about Amundsen. He was a smart man that studied the Inuit methods, and thanks to them he succeed. It is very dumb to believe at the end he would wear British cloths in the Antartic Confused

Source: http://home.earthlink.net/~kcrawfish/amundsen.html

Amundsen also interacted with the Eskimos and voraciously studied their methods of survival. He adopted their diet, wore reindeer clothing down to the reindeer underwear and, with the help of an Eskimo man who chose to live in their camp, he and his men practiced building igloos and driving dog teams. Amundsen amassed an unprecedented quantity of useful information and techniques. He not only discovered that the Eskimo practices were more effective than the Western methods, he analyzed why they were more effective, noting for example that the carefully chosen and treated reindeer skins produced clothing that kept one comfortably dry and warm while allowing essential freedom of movement.

That was the reason why Amundsen survived and Scott died.




Edited by pinguin - 22 May 2011 at 01:43
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 05:54
What next, technology "killed" Amundsen? Those damned dirigibles were just not as good as sled dogs! Anyway, the Antarctic Expedition was rather well photographed (get thee to Wiki or an old copy of NatGeo) and check out the "threads". And gee, Amundson had to travel the globe to learn about "reindeer" clothing? Where's Carch when one really needs him! H. D. Thomas never wrote that Amundsen wore Inuit garments but instead detailed he chose Eskimo-style "skins" in his brief essay on Amundsen (a fancy caught in Wiki), and totally irrelevant to the actual suppliers of the Framheim voyage.
 
That the Internet has perpetuated the misrepresentation is to be expected.
 
As for boomerangs...have you not given thought to the fact that your pretentions have "boomeranged"!?!


Edited by drgonzaga - 22 May 2011 at 21:07
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 06:55
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

What next, technology "killed" Amundsen? Those damned dirigibles were just not as good as sled dogs!


What a childish way to start a counter argument. Confused

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


H. D. Thomas never wrote that Amundsen wore Inuit garments but instead detailed he chose Eskimo-style "skins" in his brief essay on Amundsen (a fancy caught in Wiki), and totally irrelevant to the actual suppliers of the Framheim voyage.


Totally absurd and irrelevant argument on your side. As usual, you fight strawmen.

(1) I never said that Amundsen was wearing garments manufactured by Inuits. I said Amundsen applied Inuit techniques!
(2) I shown you the proofs that Amundsen:
a) Knew the Inuits.
c) Stayed with them.
d) Learned from them.

That a "white" hand made, perhaps, the garments of his expedition is totally irrelevant, given the fact they made it to Amundsen specifications. It is like to say that Chinese invented radio because they manufacture them. Absurd argument, which doesn't match the (supposedly) analytical mind you have. 

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


As for boomerangs...have you not given thought to the fact that your pertentions have "boomeranged"!?!


Don't make jokes to hide your defeat.

The boomerang was first encountered by western people at Farm Cove (Port Jackson), Australia, in December 1804 where its use as a weapon was witnessed during a tribal skirmish:

Actually, the newspaper that anounced this descovery is here.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/626558

during which time the white spectators were justly astonish- ed at the dexterity and incredible force with which a bent, edged waddy resembling slight- ly a turkish scymetar, was thrown by Bungary, a native distinguished by his remarkable courtesy. The weapon, thrown at 20 or 30 yards distance, twirled round in the air with astonishing velocity, and alight- ing on the right arm of one of his opponents, actually rebounded to a distance not less than 70 or 80 yards, leaving a horrible contusion behind, and exciting universal admiration

Pathetic Eurocentrism.







Edited by pinguin - 22 May 2011 at 06:56
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 21:06
What is there to counter, in argument or discussion? A boomerang is nothing other than a throw-stick and no matter how many contortions you undertake here you are doing little else then being a nittering nabob of nonsense (pace Spiro). Perhaps you should study the Rosetta Stone and understand the implications of the throw stick hieroglyph [Ga] with its curve! That you are fascinated by a word taken from  a language and assign it an uniqueness that is entirely irrelevant to the nature of the object is little other than a pathetic attempt at faux erudition for the sake of inanity.
 
Similar criticism applies to the nonsense about Inuit clothing made from animal skins as if such a necessity was entirely unique to inhabitants of North America! Amundsen, a Norwegian, would have hardly had a need to traipse to Nome, Alaska, in order to familiarize himself with clothing suitable for the Arctic! The Lapps of Scandanavia were just as "inventive" with their use of "skins" and, frankly speaking, you remain entirely ignorant over human environmental adaptations and their homogeneity within the Arctic Circle cultures.  What next a dissertation on Nanook of the North as introduction to Anthropology for 2nd graders?
 
Why you should consider the quote you introduced (as taken verbatim from Wiki) as evidence of your sagacity is truly ludicrous. All that little quote does is substantiate that these "white spectators" were totally ignorant of an object, and its usage, dating back to the hoary days of Early Man. Yes, it is a "primitive" tool but one hardly unique to Australian Aborigines. What next "blow dart technology" as contributions to progress?
 
I suggest you dust of your dictionary and understand what the word progress really means. The stasis of Isolates hardly implies originality and the pathetic here is actually found in your scurrilous usage of Eurocentrism, which only serves to further substantiate your ignorance on this subject. The funny part in all of this is in your refusal to reproduce what your Wiki source clearly states:
 
The oldest Australian Aboriginal boomerangs are ten thousand years old, but older hunting sticks have been discovered in Europe, where they seem to have formed part of the stone age arsenal of weapons. One boomerang that was discovered in a cave in the Carpathian Mountains in Poland was made of mammoth's tusk and is believed, based on AMS dating of objects found with it, to be about 30,000 years old. King Tutankhamen, the famous Pharaoh of ancient Egypt, who died over 2,000 years ago, owned a collection of boomerangs of both the straight flying (hunting) and returning variety. 
 
Talk about the truly pathetic as well as dishonest!


Edited by drgonzaga - 22 May 2011 at 21:07
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 00:33
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

What is there to counter, in argument or discussion? A boomerang is nothing other than a throw-stick and no matter how many contortions you undertake here you are doing little else then being a nittering nabob of nonsense (pace Spiro). Perhaps you should study the Rosetta Stone and understand the implications of the throw stick hieroglyph [Ga] with its curve! That you are fascinated by a word taken from  a language and assign it an uniqueness that is entirely irrelevant to the nature of the object is little other than a pathetic attempt at faux erudition for the sake of inanity.


It is pathetic your tendency to define things as you wish, and believe that's the truth.
Nope. A boomerang is a KIND of throwing stick that return to the sender.
Don't be naughty and don't confuse pears with upples. Those damn egyptians, good to make piles of stones, didn't have boomerangs. The Aborigins outsmarted them in that skill.

With respect to the Rosetta. I have already studied it. But your diversion from the topic is simply absurd.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Similar criticism applies to the nonsense about Inuit clothing made from animal skins as if such a necessity was entirely unique to inhabitants of North America! Amundsen, a Norwegian, would have hardly had a need to traipse to Nome, Alaska, in order to familiarize himself with clothing suitable for the Arctic! The Lapps of Scandanavia were just as "inventive" with their use of "skins" and, frankly speaking, you remain entirely ignorant over human environmental adaptations and their homogeneity within the Arctic Circle cultures.  What next a dissertation on Nanook of the North as introduction to Anthropology for 2nd graders?


You insist in your skew view of the world. You have horse blinders, that prevent you see things.
Of course, you consider primitives "inferiors" somehow to "civilized" men. Otherwise you wouldn't be defending all this crap.

The fact is Amundsen lived among the Inuits. He learned from them is also well known. He would have been an idiot if he didn't learn. Scott tried to reach the pole without that kind of knowledge and died. I bet if you had the chance you would have trusted the Scott expedition and go with him to death.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Why you should consider the quote you introduced (as taken verbatim from Wiki) as evidence of your sagacity is truly ludicrous. All that little quote does is substantiate that these "white spectators" were totally ignorant of an object, and its usage, dating back to the hoary days of Early Man. Yes, it is a "primitive" tool but one hardly unique to Australian Aborigines. What next "blow dart technology" as contributions to progress?


Very idiotic comment, dear Doctor Nope.
In fact, you haven't shown a single evidence boomerangs were known before Australian Aborigins. Just out of context references to throwing sticks. There are some racists on the web which are well known, that have tried to robb the boomerang from theirs inventors: the Aborigins. But they confuse throwing sticks with boomerangs. Boomerangs are those australian throwing sticks that have aerodynamic surfaces, some of which return.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
I suggest you dust of your dictionary and understand what the word progress really means. The stasis of Isolates hardly implies originality and the pathetic here is actually found in your scurrilous usage of Eurocentrism, which only serves to further substantiate your ignorance on this subject. The funny part in all of this is in your refusal to reproduce what your Wiki source clearly states:


I suggest you stop to be so hypocrite. You have no idea of what you talk about. All you know is trowing s-t with a fan.
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
The oldest Australian Aboriginal boomerangs are ten thousand years old, but older hunting sticks have been discovered in Europe, where they seem to have formed part of the stone age arsenal of weapons. One boomerang that was discovered in a cave in the Carpathian Mountains in Poland was made of mammoth's tusk and is believed, based on AMS dating of objects found with it, to be about 30,000 years old. King Tutankhamen, the famous Pharaoh of ancient Egypt, who died over 2,000 years ago, owned a collection of boomerangs of both the straight flying (hunting) and returning variety. 
 
Talk about the truly pathetic as well as dishonest!


Throwing stick again? Citing Wiki, dear Doc? What happened with your sources?

Nope sir. You are talking about Throwing sticks again. It seem your mind is not wide enough to get the difference. Not the RETURNING Throwing sticks: unique to the Aborigins.

A map of Australia and the regions that have throwing sticks and returning boomerangs.






Edited by pinguin - 23 May 2011 at 00:57
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 00:53
Good luck if you believe these stupid throwing sticks returned to the sender. They don't even have an aerodynamic surface. Tut had no idea how to make boomerangs Confused



Or do you believe this idiotic Polish throwing stick returned? Confused



LOL

This is the section of a boomerang (a throwing stick that return). It is, in fact, very similar to the wing of a modern airplane, and that's the difference.



Even more, for boomerang to return the sections aren't symetric. Notice the aerodynamic surfaces are in oposite direction in the left and right arms of the boomerang. That's why they return!!!




This is the great invention of the Aborigins, not just an ordinary throwing stick, but the first aerodynamic machine.













Edited by pinguin - 23 May 2011 at 01:58
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 02:04
You are truly a "piece of work" and if the Egyptians were only good for making "piles of stones", then I suggest you avoid Egypt because they would probably confuse your cranium for stony rubble! This topic is in itself ridiculous and it did not even have a sublime beginning and simply went slap dash into the ridiculous. And as for Wiki, you do not even have the grace to plagiarize it honestly and in all probability you've probably not even touched a throw-stick in any form but such does not stop you from molting all of those weathered plumes at any and all opportunity. How about some babble over African Cubist influence on boomerang decoration?
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 02:11
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

You are truly a "piece of work" and if the Egyptians were only good for making "piles of stones", then I suggest you avoid Egypt because they would probably confuse your cranium for stony rubble!... (more blabling)


Nope Doc. You are the "piece of... " here. You have contributed with absolutely nothing; except by trolling with your repetitive rethoric. You have no idea of aerodynamics, you aren't an engineer so the topic escapes you, and also not idea of the topic either.

If you don't know about a topic, please kindly keep silence, and learn.


Edited by pinguin - 23 May 2011 at 02:12
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 03:13
Another Inuit invention, that prevented snow blindness, long time before UV glasses were invented. The physical principle on which are based is polarized light. That is, preventing light bouncing on the snow enters the eye.

Inuit snow googles:




Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 16:54
Aborigines and Aerodynamics! Egad what next, the igloo as the first air cooled dwelling? Frankly, Penguin, your Johnny One-Note tendencies are wearing thin.  
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 18:39
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Aborigines and Aerodynamics! Egad what next, the igloo as the first air cooled dwelling? Frankly, Penguin, your Johnny One-Note tendencies are wearing thin.  
 
Frankly doc, it is surprising you didn't know about it. Even a high school student knows that the trick on boomerangs is based in aerodynamics. I suggest you study more. Perhaps a course in physics could open your eyes. Your general culture is really deficient. Try harder.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 21:45
Is this an instance of "lost in translation"? To speak of Aborigines--or anyone else in the distant past--as practiced in the science of aerodynamics is naught but idle chatter. But who am I to prick your Mass Man bubble as you sway to-and-fro in circular motion. Let us hear on how your favorite "primitive" of the moment discourses on weight, lift, drag, and thrust... 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 03:13
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Is this an instance of "lost in translation"? To speak of Aborigines--or anyone else in the distant past--as practiced in the science of aerodynamics is naught but idle chatter. But who am I to prick your Mass Man bubble as you sway to-and-fro in circular motion. Let us hear on how your favorite "primitive" of the moment discourses on weight, lift, drag, and thrust... 


It won't hurt you to study some physics. That way you would avoid speaking nonsense.

Besides, as usual, you don't understand what it is said to you. I never said Aborigins knew the mathematics and physics of aerodynamics. They just invented empirically a perfect aerodynamic device. The older and the first man-made aerodynamic device: the boomerang.

By the way, to understand the Inuit googles, study polarized light and the random angle of light bouncing on a surface.


Edited by pinguin - 24 May 2011 at 03:18
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 04:48
Whatever...you are incorrigible each time you attempt one of your periodic flights of fancy. What next, a dissertation on the kiley as the origins of flight?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 14:12
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Whatever...you are incorrigible each time you attempt one of your periodic flights of fancy. What next, a dissertation on the kiley as the origins of flight?


Nothing fancy. It is only that we should remember the small, but interesting, contributions of the "primitives" to the world. Forgetting it, is not fair. That's all.

And glad you learn something. It's been a pleasure to teach you about it Wink
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 15:37
The only experience I underwent in this thread is the realization that you are impervious to enlightenment! As with the other "usual suspects" there is an agenda motivating your attempts at thought and you would never permit such frills as reason and logic (not to mention correct usage of terms) stand in your way. Australian Aborigines are marketing boomerangs in today's world and to still refer to them (or the Inuit) as "primitives" is rather insulting. The  bottom line here is that the throw-stick is of human origin in the Paleolithic and as with the "discovery" of fire attributable to no specific group. What next, encomiums to certain groups for their contributions to development through the Frisbee or the Hula Hoop?Evil Smile
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 15:46
Just recognize your ignorance. That will make you to look a greater man and less ridiculous.

Even more ridiculus is that you still can't grasp the difference between a throwing stick and a boomerang. That you don't understand that is amazing, but I concede you lack the physics background to understand it.


Edited by pinguin - 24 May 2011 at 15:51
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 16:12
I employed the term throwing stick correctly and no matter how many contortions you undertake a boomerang remains a throwing stick! Anyway, thanks for proving my earlier point about your incorrigibility when you are in the thrall of dundering rave.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 16:55
A boomerang IS a throwing stick, but not all throwing sticks are boomerangs. It is a simple problem of logic, or basic finite set theory. It amazes me how bad you are for mathematics and logical thinking.
Get into physics, doc, and study set theory, so you stop to make the ridiculous.




Edited by pinguin - 24 May 2011 at 17:06
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 18:42
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
By the way, to understand the Inuit googles, study polarized light and the random angle of light bouncing on a surface.

My friends one-year old discovered polarizing last month - she squinted while looking at the sun! Physics prodigy, definitely.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 24 May 2011 at 18:42
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 18:49
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Aborigines and Aerodynamics! Egad what next, the igloo as the first air cooled dwelling? Frankly, Penguin, your Johnny One-Note tendencies are wearing thin.  
 
Frankly doc, it is surprising you didn't know about it. Even a high school student knows that the trick on boomerangs is based in aerodynamics. I suggest you study more. Perhaps a course in physics could open your eyes. Your general culture is really deficient. Try harder.
Considering how you completely misuse the word "aerodynamic" you shouldn't throw stones at other people! That a body is "aerodynamic" does in no way mean it flies: the Polish stick has also an "aerodynamic" surface. "The surface is aerodynamic" is a completely meaningless statement anyhow - an aerodynamicist would have said the boomerang was shaped as an aerofoil.  
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 20:06
Don't jump to deffend your dear doc, please. Let him sunk in his lack of knowlegde.
And with respect to aerodynamics, you very well know I am talking about an airfoil, or the aerodynamics of a wing, or any lifting body. And that's the difference between a throwing stick and a boomerang. Please!
By the way, just by looking at the Polish stick I could bet money that junk won't return to the sender.


Edited by pinguin - 24 May 2011 at 20:09
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 20:35
Usually, neither does a boomerang. Have you ever thrown one?
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 21:46
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Usually, neither does a boomerang. Have you ever thrown one?
 
 

I almost killed myself when one I threw came back (or at least nearly hurt myself very much).
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2011 at 21:47
You must know the technique. You have to know the technique to make turn a whipping top, or a boomerang
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.