| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Earlier Migration to Down Under?
  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.


Earlier Migration to Down Under?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Earlier Migration to Down Under?
    Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 04:21

A team of researchers led by the University of Tübingen’s Professor Katerina Harvati has shown that anatomically modern humans spread from Africa to Asia and Europe in several migratory movements.

The first ancestors of today’s non-African peoples probably took a southern route through the Arabian Peninsula as early as 130,000 years ago, the researchers found. The study is published by Professor Katerina Harvati and her team from the Institute for Archaeological Sciences at the University of Tübingen and the Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment, in collaboration with colleagues from the University of Ferrara, Italy, and the National Museum of Natural History, France. The study appears in the online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists tested different hypothetical dispersal scenarios, taking into account the geography of potential migration routes, genetic data and cranial comparisons. They found that the first wave of migration out of Africa started earlier than previously thought, taking place as early as the late Middle Pleistocene – with a second dispersal to northern Eurasia following about 50,000 years ago.

Most scientists agree that all humans living today are descended from a common ancestor population which existed 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. The decreasing genetic and phenotypic diversity observed in humans at increasing distances from Sub-Saharan Africa has often been interpreted as evidence of a single dispersal 50,000 to 75,000 years ago. However, recent genetic, archaeological and palaeoanthropological studies challenge this scenario.

The Out-of-Africa model that best fits both the genetic and cranial shape data. A first migration along the Indian Ocean rim occurred as early as 130 thousand years ago (green arrow) and was followed by a second, more recent migration wave into Eurasia (red arrow). Figure: Katerina Harvati/University of Tübingen and Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment

The Out-of-Africa model that best fits both the genetic and cranial shape data. A first migration along the Indian Ocean rim occurred as early as 130 thousand years ago (green arrow) and was followed by a second, more recent migration wave into Eurasia (red arrow). Figure: Katerina Harvati/University of Tübingen and Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment

Professor Harvati’s team tested the competing out-of-Africa models of a single dispersal against multiple dispersals of anatomically modern humans. The scientists compared modern human crania from different parts of the world, neutral genetic data, and geographical distances associated with different dispersal routes. Likewise, they reconstructed population split times from both the genetic data and as predicted by each competing model. Because each dispersal scenario is associated with specific geographic and temporal predictions, the researchers were able to test them against the observed neutral biological distances between groups, as revealed from both genetic and cranial data.

“Both lines of evidence – anatomical cranial comparisons as well as genetic data – support a multiple dispersal model,” says Katerina Harvati. The first group of our ancestors left Africa about 130,000 years ago and followed a coastal route through the Arabian Peninsula to Australia and the west Pacific region. “Australian aborigines, Papuans and Melanesians were relatively isolated after the early dispersal along the southern route,” says Hugo Reyes-Centeno, first author of the study and member of the Tübingen team. He adds that other Asian populations appear to be descended from members of a later migratory movement from Africa to northern Eurasia about 50,000 years ago.

The researchers are confident that continued field work and advances in genetics will allow for fine-tuning of models of human expansion out of Africa. So far we can only speculate whether, for example, severe droughts in East Africa occurring between 135,000 and 75,000 years ago prompted migration or had an impact on the local evolution of human populations. The southern route region is a vast geographical space that has been understudied by archaeologists and anthropologists, so future work in this area will help support their findings.

Header Image : Landmarks of the temporal bone shown in one individual. The temporal bone has been shown to reflect modern human population history better than other parts of the cranium. It was therefore used in this study to infer migration patterns, in addition to genetic data. Shown here is the mean temporal bone shape of all individuals in the study. Figure: Katerina Harvati/University of Tübingen and Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment

Contributing Source : Universitaet Tubingen

Now, obviously I can't add any more to this article, except to say that, if all of the information is accurate, it could lead to the discovery of the fact that Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia much earlier than ~40,000 to 60,000 ybp, as currently believed.
 
Already, the Australian Aborigines are the last living example of Stone Age man, particularly up to White Settlement in 1788, but further research could place them here as early as ~100,000ybp, and that they could have been among the first to leave Africa.
 
Anyone have any comments?
 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 23 Apr 2014 at 04:23
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 08:50
I have heard about the two migration routes, and ask if there may have been even a more complex pattern. As soon as there was some "corridor", were humans could move, and live, there was possible migration routes, both ways. Coastlines were not as today, so they walked over land now well under sealevel. There was however no "land bridge"  to the australian land and connected land mass from the asian side, but the distance over water was at times short. So they made intended trips by boats or rafts we can conclude. Or not. Alternatively we may think about great  storms or about tectonic events, that cause giant waves and destruction and death. We may imagine early humans around their dwellings of plant material, or in primitive boats and rafts in rivers or immediate at shores. Then comes the storm or the great tsunamy, taking lots of them out to a certain death. A very small fraction survives, clinging to whatever building nmaterial or "boat" material, and eventually comes to another shore of unpopulated lands. Then they find out they are both males and females, and I am sure You can imagine the rest. Perhaps this never happened, but at least it is imaginable.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 10:40
fantasus:
 
There are two schools of thought on the migration route taken by the Australian Aborigines.
 
The first one is that in fact they arrived while the land bridges were still intact.
 
The second one is that they had some minor sea travel, very short distances.
 
Of course no one knows, and there is no way to prove either way. But bearing in mind that the Aboriginal canoes were only made of bark, I wouldn't have thought that they'd travel too far by sea, yards rather than miles.
 
The other point is that there is evidence of more than one migration into South East Asia, and also of back migration. There is no evidence of Aboriginal back migration, even as far as New Guinea.
 
I agree with you in that there were probably many different routes taken during the migrations. The map is only for illustrative purposes I reckon.
 
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 12:11
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus:
 
There are two schools of thought on the migration route taken by the Australian Aborigines.
 
The first one is that in fact they arrived while the land bridges were still intact.
 
The second one is that they had some minor sea travel, very short distances.
 
Of course no one knows, and there is no way to prove either way. But bearing in mind that the Aboriginal canoes were only made of bark, I wouldn't have thought that they'd travel too far by sea, yards rather than miles.
 
The other point is that there is evidence of more than one migration into South East Asia, and also of back migration. There is no evidence of Aboriginal back migration, even as far as New Guinea.
 
I agree with you in that there were probably many different routes taken during the migrations. The map is only for illustrative purposes I reckon.
 
 
 
I have read that there were never a "complete" land bridge in all the time humans or anything remotely like us walked the planet.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 02:00
I wonder what is the route that lead to Neanderthals, and if Australian Aborigines have admixture with Neanderthals like Eurasians do.

 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 03:29
fantasus:
As I said, there are competing views on the subject. I personally believe it more likely that the Aborigines did in fact cross the land bridge, before some event caused it to sink, for the reasons I've stated.
 
penguin:
 
I don't know if there was/is a Neanderthal admixture, or for that matter, Denisovan. I think I can recall reading somewhere that there was a Denisovan admixture, but I can't at this moment remember where I read it.
 
Get back to you on that one.
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 03:34
Pinguin:
Re your question on Neanderthal admixture, the following web site gives a good overview:
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 08:41
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus:
As I said, there are competing views on the subject. I personally believe it more likely that the Aborigines did in fact cross the land bridge, before some event caused it to sink, for the reasons I've stated.
 
penguin:
 
I don't know if there was/is a Neanderthal admixture, or for that matter, Denisovan. I think I can recall reading somewhere that there was a Denisovan admixture, but I can't at this moment remember where I read it.
 
Get back to you on that one.
 
 
Now I am not at all expert in geology, but from all I have seen about the subject there never was this land bridge all the way from Asia to Australia, at least not for tens of millions of Years. I have not heard about those experts in plate tectonics or geology claiming otherwise.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 10:54
fantasus wrote:
"Now I am not at all expert in geology, but from all I have seen about the subject there never was this land bridge all the way from Asia to Australia, at least not for tens of millions of Years. I have not heard about those experts in plate tectonics or geology claiming otherwise."
 
If you look at the map of current day Indonesia, you will see hundreds of small islands which form the archipelago, many of the islands are close to each other.
 
It's my understanding that there was in fact a land bridge existing about the time that the Aborigines came, and that due to some geographic event, they became isolated by rising seas/sinking land forms.
 
 
Extract Below.

The information in this section is based on the work of archaeologists. There are two basic schools of archaeological thought as to where Australia’s Indigenous people originated.

The first, and more accepted, viewpoint is that the first Australians came here across a land bridge from Asia. During two ice ages – one approximately 20 000 years ago and the other approximately 60 000 years ago – so much water was in the form of ice that the sea level all over the world dropped more than 100 metres.

 
and
 

Since at least 50 kilometres of open sea had to be crossed, even at a time of lowest sea level, it seems most probable that the Gracile people entered greater Australia at the time of very low sea level, about 50 000 to 55 000 years ago, and that the Robust people came rather earlier, perhaps 70 000. This is speculation and may well be disproved by new discoveries, but such a two migrations theory best fits the available evidence.

 
 
I'm not expert either, but bearing mind that the Aborigines arrived ~30,000 to 60,000 ybp, according to the experts, the land bridge still existed.
 
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 11:04
As a small aside, we use the term "Down Under" frequently in relation to Australia, but who says we're down under.
 
Prove it!Wink
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 12:04
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

As a small aside, we use the term "Down Under" frequently in relation to Australia, but who says we're down under.
 
Prove it!Wink
I do not like that term very much.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2014 at 02:28
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

As a small aside, we use the term "Down Under" frequently in relation to Australia, but who says we're down under.
 
Prove it!Wink
I do not like that term very much.
 
Why not, we don't consider it a term of derision.
 
My last post was a joke, maybe we're on top.Big smile
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2014 at 06:34
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

As a small aside, we use the term "Down Under" frequently in relation to Australia, but who says we're down under.
 
Prove it!Wink
I do not like that term very much.
 
Why not, we don't consider it a term of derision.
 
My last post was a joke, maybe we're on top.Big smile
Because I get some associations to "flat earth" or other ridiculous ideas. And what about Canada or the Northern countries? are they "up over"?


Edited by fantasus - 25 Apr 2014 at 06:36
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2014 at 07:19

Nope, the term Down Under is reserved for us.

From Men at Work:-
 
Do you come from a land down under
Where women glow and men plunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder
You better run, you better take cover.
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2014 at 04:22
You guys from Australia aren't the only people that live down under. As the matter of fact, I also see your´s same stars every nite, starting from the southern cross.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2014 at 04:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You guys from Australia aren't the only people that live down under. As the matter of fact, I also see your´s same stars every nite, starting from the southern cross.
 
 
Bugger off penguin, the term "Down Under" is ours, and ours alone.
 
You may see the same stars as we can see, but not from the same angle.
 
And you haven't got Vegemite either, so there!
 
Be content with being a red pepper!Wink


Edited by toyomotor - 26 Apr 2014 at 04:55
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2014 at 09:39
Are the rest of us then to "look down" upon You?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2014 at 15:08
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Are the rest of us then to "look down" upon You?
 
 
Mate, that's your prerogative.
 
Crown Princess Mary and I couldn't care less.   LOL
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2014 at 17:03
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
Bugger off penguin, the term "Down Under" is ours, and ours alone.
 
You may see the same stars as we can see, but not from the same angle.
 
And you haven't got Vegemite either, so there!
 
Be content with being a red pepper!Wink


Ha! You can keep the "down under" for yourselves. Who cares? In here we call our land "the end of the world"... the last land on planet Earth to be settled by our species. And we even use the term in Latin to describe it: "Finis Terrae" (the edge of the land).

Ouch


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 02:05
penguin wrote:
Ha! You can keep the "down under" for yourselves.
 
You are too kind. Thank you.
 
 
Who cares? In here we call our land "the end of the world"... the last land on planet Earth to be settled by our species.
 
How do you know that South America was the last bit of dirt to be trodden on by human kind? I'd be interested in seeing your proof of that.
 
And we even use the term in Latin to describe it: "Finis Terrae" (the edge of the land).
 
You're obviously not talking about Chile.
 
Anyway, we were talking about a possible/probable earlier settlement of Terra Australis by our Aboriginal people, not some South American country. 

 




Edited by toyomotor - 27 Apr 2014 at 02:07
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 03:17
I got you. Yours Australian-centric agenda lead you to believe Australoid peoples arrived to the Americas the first. That's false. Some looney claim-makers have said natives of the Land of Fire, like the Yamanas, are Australoid, which is absolute nonsense. That people is indistinguishable from another natives of the region: all of them clearly Mongoloid.

By the way, Mongoloid peoples (Native of the New World is a branch of them) are the ones that created most civilizations of the Ancient world (China, Japan, Malayan, Maya, Inca, etc.), while others like Europeans and Africans only received civilization as an external influence. I believe, that is not a coincidence at all.

And obviously, Chile was the last land to be settled by humans (around 12.000 years ago, while the rest of the world was already conquered). And sure, Australia was settled later that South America by Europeans (16th century vs 18 century to be precise), but natives already lived there.



Edited by pinguin - 27 Apr 2014 at 03:19
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 07:37
Pinguin wrote:
I got you. Yours Australian-centric agenda lead you to believe Australoid peoples arrived to the Americas the first.
 
Are you crazy? I didn't say that, nor did I mean that. Australoids occupied the coastal regions of Asia etc., and of course PNG and Australia. 
 
That's false. Some looney claim-makers have said natives of the Land of Fire, like the Yamanas, are Australoid, which is absolute nonsense. That people is indistinguishable from another natives of the region: all of them clearly Mongoloid.
Cobber, you've lost the plot.

By the way, Mongoloid peoples (Native of the New World is a branch of them) are the ones that created most civilizations of the Ancient world (China, Japan, Malayan, Maya, Inca, etc.), while others like Europeans and Africans only received civilization as an external influence. I believe, that is not a coincidence at all.
Cobber, you've lost the plot. Have you heard of Egypt, Rome, Greece, none of which are peopled by Mongoloids. There were "civilisations" in Europe while the Incas and Mayans were still running around in animal skins.

And obviously, Chile was the last land to be settled by humans (around 12.000 years ago, while the rest of the world was already conquered).
 
Where did you read that?
 
 
And sure, Australia was settled later that South America by Europeans (16th century vs 18 century to be precise), but natives already lived there.
 
Can we get back on topic-or at least have some proof of your prattlings?
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 07:47
Pinguin:
 
Further to my last post, why do you take everything as an attack on your culture?
 
These posts aren't a competition to see which culture etc. is best, they're about the history of a culture, and should not be taken as some insult against South Americans or you personally.
 
Regardless of what was happening in South America or Europe, the topic was about the possibility, even probability, that the worlds last living example of Stone Age Man was in situ up to 70,000 years earlier than previously thought.
 
I couldn't give a big rats arse about whether or not Chile was the last place to be populated, it's simply not relevant to the topic.
 
If you wish to discuss the population of Chile by the first humans, create a post for it.Disapprove
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 07:52
Whatever. I though you were the guy starting a fight... anyways.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 07:55
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Are the rest of us then to "look down" upon You?
 
 
Mate, that's your prerogative.
 
Crown Princess Mary and I couldn't care less.   LOL
I could not resist that little remark, that takes "Down under" litterally. Nothing against Australia as such of course.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 08:22
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Whatever. I though you were the guy starting a fight... anyways.

Now, why would you think that?
 
If I'd wanted to start a fight, YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT WHEN A MOB OF HARLEY DAVIDSONS ARRIVED ON YOUR DOORSTEP early one morning.
 

 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 27 Apr 2014 at 08:29
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 08:24
fantasus wrote:
"I could not resist that little remark, that takes "Down under" litterally. Nothing against Australia as such of course."
 
No offence taken, we understand your jealousy because we live in The Promised Land.Wink
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 08:47
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus wrote:
"I could not resist that little remark, that takes "Down under" litterally. Nothing against Australia as such of course."
 
No offence taken, we understand your jealousy because we live in The Promised Land.Wink
 
 
Hehe.
Who promised it? Was iot the promise of the british judges? If You do so and so offenses You were promised 10, 20 years in"paradise"?
(again i could not resist..)
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10361
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 09:47
"So come all you jolly young fellows
A warning take by me
When you are out on the town, me lads
Beware of the pretty cailíns
They'll feed you with strong drink, me lads
'Till you are unable to stand
And the very first thing that you'll know is
You've landed in Van Diemens Land"

Couldn't resist either  Wink
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 12:12
Hold me now, oh hold me now
Till this hour has gone around
And I gone, on the rising tide
For to face Van Diemen's land.

It's a bitter pill I swallow here
To be rent from one so dear.
We fought for justice and not for gain
But the magistrate sent me away.

Now kings will rule and the poor will toil
And tear their hands as they tear the soil
But a day will come in this dawning age
When an honest man sees an honest wage.

Hold me now, oh hold me now
Till this hour has gone around
And I'm gone on the rising tide
For to face Van Diemen's Land.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Thanks you two, gang up on me just when I'm getting feathers under control.Wink
 
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  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 0.141 seconds.