|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2009 01:33:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>LOL, I may hold you to that. Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
>>>
>>> You just have to find it ;)
>>
>>You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)
>>
>>
> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
No other clue, then? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2009 13:58:05 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009 01:33:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>LOL, I may hold you to that. Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
>>>>
>>>> You just have to find it ;)
>>>
>>>You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>
>No other clue, then? ;-)
>
No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>
>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>
> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>
>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>
>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>
>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>
I can't remember.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>
>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>
>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>
>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>
>>
> I can't remember.
How long ago did you place it? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2009 15:49:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>>
>>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>>
>>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I can't remember.
>
>How long ago did you place it? ;-)
>
About 6 o'clock this morning.
I'm not really cruel. I just can't remember the name of the fairy tale where the
hero tricked a pixie out of the crock of gold at the bottom of the rainbow. He
then buried it in a field marked with a handkerchief tied to a stick. When he
came back to recover it the whole field was planted with sticks which had
handkerchiefs tied to them.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:11:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2009 15:49:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>>>
>>>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I can't remember.
>>
>>How long ago did you place it? ;-)
>>
> About 6 o'clock this morning.
Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>
> I'm not really cruel. I just can't remember the name of the fairy tale
> where the hero tricked a pixie out of the crock of gold at the bottom of
> the rainbow. He then buried it in a field marked with a handkerchief
> tied to a stick. When he came back to recover it the whole field was
> planted with sticks which had handkerchiefs tied to them.
LOL
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:11 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>
Buzz - Repetition ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> One thing I haven't figured out is why poisonous prey animals (frogs,
>> butterflies, etc) wind up being brightly colored.
>
> AFAIK the bright colors work as a warning signal. Predators learn to
> distinguish the poisonous prey by their color.
>
> It would make little sense to just have poison but otherwise look edible.
> Both predator and prey get killed. With a warning color both live.
>
> (By this logic it would follow that some species mimic the color of
> poisonous species. I wonder if there are examples of this.)
>
Another way to look at it is that poisonous animals can be any color
they want. They already have a defense system (the poison) and don't
require a second one. Non-poisonous animals lack this defense system, so
they need to be doubly careful. What they need is their own, *different*
defense system (the blending in part) so *they* don't get eaten.
Also, as far as the color-as-warning-system goes, it's not like the prey
animals decided one day that they wanted to be bright yellow or bright
red. Rather, the predator animal needed help distinguishing poisonous
animals from non-poisonous ones in order for *it* to survive. Predators
who didn't learn to distinguish them died and failed to pass on their
genes, resulting in future generations with a better ability to make the
color distinctions. Since these future generations are better able to
distinguish by color, a *second* result is that fewer bright-colored
poisonous prey animals get eaten. Thus, there's a kind of feedback loop,
and the behavior of the predator animal (the behavior of the prey animal
is generally irrelevant) influences the evolution of the prey animal
along two separate axes.
Finally, only animals that are poisonous *when eaten* (or maybe, low on
the food chain) tend to be brightly-colored. Animals that use poison to
*kill their prey* (or, high on the food chain) are not brightly-colored.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, but it still would want to go to ground, and the water doesn't
> provide a grounding influence that's stronger than staying with the wire.
>
> Jim
You win the thread! There's less resistance along the current path (the
wire) then the sheet of water.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |