Posted by Blinky the Shark on 11/26/07 01:59

Bone Ur wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:24:32
> GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>
>
>>>>> Well, I was grouping groupers into the same category; they are
>>>>> fish, too. However, for _you_ to denigrate groupers is
>>>>> intra-phylum-discrimination.
>>>>
>>>> And that's not prohibited. Especially here, high on the food chain.
>>>> :)
>>>
>>> High and complacent. Read on...
>>
>> Bordering on arrogance, in fact. :)
>
> Oh, like a Google grouper?

Groupers <spit> are just clueless.

Ow. That hurt. I think sharks aren't supposed to spit.

>>>>> Furthermore, I don't think all fish are equally worthless. Those
>>>>> cute little colorful ones which reside in home aquariums can be
>>>>> relaxing in a hypnotic way to the duller mind. But the big ones
>>>>> that eat people and
>>>>
>>>> But it takes 500 of them just to make a snack.
>>>
>>> They're a delicacy. You're only supposed to eat a few at a time.
>>
>> Shark. Eat a few at a time. Hee hee.
>
> Um, I see your point
>
>>>>> other fish I may want to eat serve little purpose to a progressive,
>>>>> advanced society.
>>>>
>>>> We've been evolving longer than you have. And we're not making
>>>> holes in the ozone layer. ;)
>>>
>>> Longer but slower. Much slower. As a matter of fact, sharks in
>>
>> Now long is that in shark years?

Meant "How", of course. You try typing with fins. Remember, we're
optimized for swimming.

>>> particular pretty much hit a dead stop prior to the beginning of the
>>> Age of Dinosaurs. Ergo, for the last 200+ million years, all they do
>>> is swim around and take up space in the sea just like their
>>> forefishies did in
>>
>> Once you're achieved perfection there is no evolutionary pressure in
>> the scheme of natural selection to send the species off in new
>> directions.
>
> Yes, sharks are called "the perfect eating machine". But what else do
> they do that's interesting? I would hardly say that spending a life just
> swimming and eating equates to having achieved perfection on any
> reasonable scale in the universe as a whole.

Well, we boink. That's pretty fun. And we do it in public.

Other than that: Swim to live; live to swim.

>>> the good ol' Triassic. Humans, on the other hand, evolved at least
>>> 1000 times as much in the most current 5 million years alone! Fish
>>> have little reason to brag, -especially when one considers how ugly
>>> they are.
>>
>> Humans evolved faster because they had more to imrove on and less time
>> to do it. Eventually, they may reach the evolutionary perfection that
>> sharks have. Well, probably not -- sharks have avoided the unwanted
>> capability to blow themselves up in massive quantities.
>
> Humans had more to improve on because they had more potential to begin
> with. The conclusion is unavoidable: sharks are an evolutionary cul-de-
> sac who persist only because of the vastness of their preferred
> environment. Such a predator dwelling on land would surely have been
> eliminated long ago by the stupidest humans you can imagine (barring your
> reflections on some of the posters here).

You forget one thing. Land sharks.

>> One of the essences of sharkness is the beauty of sleekness and
>> balance.
>
> Simple symmetry and simple mentality. Whoopee twang.

We have an extremely low rate of mental illness, Mr. Vulnerable. ;)

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

[Back to original message]