Can You Answer This Trivia Question?

IBdaMann wrote:
Trivia Question

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iXqyiww94AY?feature=share

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Trivia Question

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iXqyiww94AY?feature=share

Please help me understand why it is SO important to identify when something "is not a chemical".

The individual sentence, "Carbonate is not a chemical." has been posted no less than 100 times by now.

Apparently, it explains something important.

And it is such a COMPLETE explanation, there is no need to say anything else.

What about the carbonate ION?

Is the carbonate ion a "chemical"?

And if it is NOT a "chemical", what exactly does that PROVE that is in any way relevant to the chemical BEHAVIOR of the carbonate ion?

Does carbonate ion simply not exist, because it is (maybe) NOT a chemical?

Is is possible that some widely accepted definition of "chemical" DOES include the carbonate ion?

Just ignore the word "ion", if it makes it easier to belittle and dismiss the significance of the carbonate ion in real world chemical reactions.

And get back to discussing the stuff that REALLY matters.

IS Climate a Lesbian?

The thread was still up in the main list when Branner visited a couple of days ago.

I'd like to believe he gave enough of a shit about his website to take a peek at all the most recent active thread titles.

But I don't think paying attention to the discussion here is part of what Branner does when he comes to visit a couple of times a year.

And HOW MANY "Guests online:" are REALLY viewing this site right now?

The figures displayed in the box on the left are somewhat dubious at times.

Im a BM wrote: Please help me understand why it is SO important to identify when something "is not a chemical".

Im a BM wrote: The individual sentence, "Carbonate is not a chemical." has been posted no less than 100 times by now.

Im a BM wrote: And if it is NOT a "chemical", what exactly does that PROVE that is in any way relevant to the chemical BEHAVIOR of the carbonate ion?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Please help me understand why it is SO important to identify when something "is not a chemical".

Great question. I'm glad you asked. This is a teachable moment. Please pay attention because this applies to any technical discipline, especially to science.

In order to communicate in any field, one must distinguish between elements of definition and elements of implementation. Without those dreaded definitions you fear, there can be no context for discussion of anything specific, and no one would be able to specify as needed. People would be doomed to talk past each other.

You see this kind of deliberate convolution of topics and derailment of discussions by Marxists who will EVADE defining their terms so that they can never be pinned down as to what they actually said. Marxists always want everyone to assail the "rich" or the "elites" or the "fat cats" without ever defining what any of those mean. Warmizombies bandy about "Climate" and "Global Warming" without ever defining what those mean. Charlatans posting on internet fora are forever not defining their terms and feigning indignation that "everybody already knows what I mean."

If you point to an object and claim that it is an "assault rifle," but you refuse to define what an "assault rifle" is, then you might as well refer to that object as a Siberian Husky ... and you should be ignored.

So whether you are referring to "the rich" or to "carbonates", you are referring to a category/class that requires a definition, and not to a member of that class to which you cannot refer until you unambiguously define its category/class.

The words "a chemical" is chemistry parlance for a specific instance of matter, i.e. an element of implementation. You cannot use a category, i.e. an element of definition, defined or otherwise, as an instance of matter.

That's a party foul. Take a drink.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Im a BM wrote: The individual sentence, "Carbonate is not a chemical." has been posted no less than 100 times by now.

You have committed this particular party foul no less than 100 times by now. Start drinking.

Im a BM wrote: And if it is NOT a "chemical", what exactly does that PROVE that is in any way relevant to the chemical BEHAVIOR of the carbonate ion?

Ignoring your incorrect usage of the word "prove," we now have another teachable moment. Any model will have two aspects: structure and behavior. You tend to conflate the two. In chemistry, behavior refers to transitions of matter, from one structure to another. A chemical formula is a form of state diagram. If you are going to ask about a specific behavior, you must specify between which "structures," i.e. the transition between the initial state and the final state.

Don't hesitate to ask any questions.

p.s. - yes, Climate is a lesbian.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Please help me understand why it is SO important to identify when something "is not a chemical".

Great question. I'm glad you asked. This is a teachable moment. Please pay attention because this applies to any technical discipline, especially to science.

In order to communicate in any field, one must distinguish between elements of definition and elements of implementation. Without those dreaded definitions you fear, there can be no context for discussion of anything specific, and no one would be able to specify as needed. People would be doomed to talk past each other.

You see this kind of deliberate convolution of topics and derailment of discussions by Marxists who will EVADE defining their terms so that they can never be pinned down as to what they actually said. Marxists always want everyone to assail the "rich" or the "elites" or the "fat cats" without ever defining what any of those mean. Warmizombies bandy about "Climate" and "Global Warming" without ever defining what those mean. Charlatans posting on internet fora are forever not defining their terms and feigning indignation that "everybody already knows what I mean."

If you point to an object and claim that it is an "assault rifle," but you refuse to define what an "assault rifle" is, then you might as well refer to that object as a Siberian Husky ... and you should be ignored.

So whether you are referring to "the rich" or to "carbonates", you are referring to a category/class that requires a definition, and not to a member of that class to which you cannot refer until you unambiguously define its category/class.

The words "a chemical" is chemistry parlance for a specific instance of matter, i.e. an element of implementation. You cannot use a category, i.e. an element of definition, defined or otherwise, as an instance of matter.

That's a party foul. Take a drink.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Im a BM wrote: The individual sentence, "Carbonate is not a chemical." has been posted no less than 100 times by now.

You have committed this particular party foul no less than 100 times by now. Start drinking.

Im a BM wrote: And if it is NOT a "chemical", what exactly does that PROVE that is in any way relevant to the chemical BEHAVIOR of the carbonate ion?

Ignoring your incorrect usage of the word "prove," we now have another teachable moment. Any model will have two aspects: structure and behavior. You tend to conflate the two. In chemistry, behavior refers to transitions of matter, from one structure to another. A chemical formula is a form of state diagram. If you are going to ask about a specific behavior, you must specify between which "structures," i.e. the transition between the initial state and the final state.

Don't hesitate to ask any questions.

p.s. - yes, Climate is a lesbian.

Stop spamming.

You are trolling your own thread.

IBdaMann wrote:
Trivia Question

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iXqyiww94AY?feature=share

Swan wrote: Are alligators amphibians?

Swan wrote: No, an alligator is a reptile, not an amphibian:

Amphibians
Amphibians, like frogs, toads, newts, and salamanders, are born in water from eggs and have gills when they hatch.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Are alligators amphibians?

Why yes they are. They live normally in water and on land both.

Swan wrote: No, an alligator is a reptile, not an amphibian:

Incorrect. An alligator is both a reptile and an amphibian. Alligators live normally in water and on land both. This category includes polar bears, otters, sea lions, penguins, ducks, geese, many species of snakes, alligators, crocodiles, caymans, and many others.

Amphibians
Amphibians, like frogs, toads, newts, and salamanders, are born in water from eggs and have gills when they hatch.

Nope. This is a biology taxonomy. It only applies when the stated context is biology taxonomy. Otherwise, the presumption is the English definition of amphibian, i.e. an animal that lives normally in water and on land both.

Deal with it flea brain.

Swan wrote: The Bajau people live on water and on land,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: The Bajau people live on water and on land,

Nope. Humans perform all life functions "on land" (which could be on a boat) and perform no necessary life functions in the water.

Most amphibious animals hunt/fish in and underwater, or in the case of alligators and crocodiles, mate in the water.

You are so very welcome. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: The Bajau people live on water and on land,

Nope. Humans perform all life functions "on land" (which could be on a boat) and perform no necessary life functions in the water.

Most amphibious animals hunt/fish in and underwater, or in the case of alligators and crocodiles, mate in the water.

You are so very welcome. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land. So are these people amphibians?

The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:
Lifestyle
The Bajau live in floating homes, such as boats or stilt houses, and spend most of their lives at sea. They are known for their exceptional diving abilities, which allow them to hunt underwater for fish for hours each day.
Location
The Bajau live in several countries, including the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei.
Genetic traits
Researchers have discovered that the Bajau have significantly larger spleens than other people, which stores oxygenated blood and enables them to hold their breath for up to five minutes.

Thank you, thank you very much

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: The Bajau people live on water and on land,

Nope. Humans perform all life functions "on land" (which could be on a boat) and perform no necessary life functions in the water.

Most amphibious animals hunt/fish in and underwater, or in the case of alligators and crocodiles, mate in the water.

You are so very welcome. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land. So are these people amphibians?

The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:
Lifestyle
The Bajau live in floating homes, such as boats or stilt houses, and spend most of their lives at sea. They are known for their exceptional diving abilities, which allow them to hunt underwater for fish for hours each day.
Location
The Bajau live in several countries, including the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei.
Genetic traits
Researchers have discovered that the Bajau have significantly larger spleens than other people, which stores oxygenated blood and enables them to hold their breath for up to five minutes.

Thank you, thank you very much

So, how did the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claim that "alligators are amphibians" even get started here.

It started because Into the Night knows SO LITTLE about the science of biology, he thought that alligators are CLASSIFIED as amphibians.

At first IBdaMann acknowledged that this was incorrect, but the addiction to word games was just too strong and he succumbed.

As most SIXTH graders know, alligators are NOT classified as amphibians.

The only way to pretend that alligators ARE amphibians is to REDEFINE the term so that the amphi bio (two lives) is NOT about two life STAGES.

Two STAGE life CYCLE - The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from WATER with GILLS. The adult gets oxygen from AIR with LUNGS. "Two lives" lived at TWO SEPARATE TIMES in the amphibian's life.

NO NO NO NO NO NO... The scientists got it all wrong.

Amphi bio (two lives) is about two LIFE STYLES, not two LIFE STAGES.

ANYTHING that can be on both land and water can experience BOTH of these TWO LIFE... styles.

Redefinition FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY

There is a reason that no zoology textbook has ever classified any alligator as an amphibian. No OTHER reptile has ever been given cross-class status.

Obviously, IBdaMann doesn't understand how scientists classify animals.

But it's okay to just let him have his fantasy.

You know how UPSET he gets when you don't pretend he is right.

Amphi bio Two life STAGES, not two life STYLES.

Juvenile alligators acquire oxygen the same way adult alligators do.

They are NOT amphibians according to science. Just according to word games.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: The Bajau people live on water and on land,

Nope. Humans perform all life functions "on land" (which could be on a boat) and perform no necessary life functions in the water.

Most amphibious animals hunt/fish in and underwater, or in the case of alligators and crocodiles, mate in the water.

You are so very welcome. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land. So are these people amphibians?

Im a BM wrote:
So, how did the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claim that "alligators are amphibians" even get started here.

Im a BM wrote:
It started because Into the Night knows SO LITTLE about the science of biology, he thought that alligators are CLASSIFIED as amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
At first IBdaMann acknowledged that this was incorrect, but the addiction to word games was just too strong and he succumbed.

Im a BM wrote:
As most SIXTH graders know, alligators are NOT classified as amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
The only way to pretend that alligators ARE amphibians is to REDEFINE the term so that the amphi bio (two lives) is NOT about two life STAGES.

Im a BM wrote:
Two STAGE life CYCLE - The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from WATER with GILLS. The adult gets oxygen from AIR with LUNGS. "Two lives" lived at TWO SEPARATE TIMES in the amphibian's life.

Im a BM wrote:
NO NO NO NO NO NO... The scientists got it all wrong.

Im a BM wrote:
Amphi bio (two lives) is about two LIFE STYLES, not two LIFE STAGES.

Im a BM wrote:
ANYTHING that can be on both land and water can experience BOTH of these TWO LIFE... styles.

Im a BM wrote:
Redefinition FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY

Im a BM wrote:
There is a reason that no zoology textbook has ever classified any alligator as an amphibian. No OTHER reptile has ever been given cross-class status.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, IBdaMann doesn't understand how scientists classify animals.

Im a BM wrote:
But it's okay to just let him have his fantasy.

You know how UPSET he gets when you don't pretend he is right.

Amphi bio Two life STAGES, not two life STYLES.

Im a BM wrote:
Juvenile alligators acquire oxygen the same way adult alligators do.

Im a BM wrote:
They are NOT amphibians according to science.

Im a BM wrote:
Just according to word games.

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

"'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb." - Into the Night

Indeed, the most COMMON understanding of the term "amphibian" by the average Joe is as a VERB.

You know, when something amphibians something else, for example.

Of course that is where the word "amphibianer" comes from. They amphibian. A LOT.

Do YOU do a lot of amphibianing around here?

If Into the Night says amphibian is a verb, it is a verb. Deal with it.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

Im a BM wrote:
BECAUSE "AMPHIBIAN" IS A VERB!

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

"'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb." - Into the Night

Indeed, the most COMMON understanding of the term "amphibian" by the average Joe is as a VERB.

You know, when something amphibians something else, for example.

Of course that is where the word "amphibianner" comes from. They amphibian. A LOT, in some cases.

Do YOU do a lot of amphibianning around here? You look like a pretty good amphibianner. Well, amphibian on, my friend. Just amphibian to your heart's content because everyone loves to amphibian and be an amphibianner who goes around amphibianning all the time.

If Into the Night says amphibian is a verb, it is a verb. Deal with it. He's omniscient and infallible and YOU know it.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

1. The word that I used is amphibious not amphibian
2. In my sentence amphibious is an adjective, describing reptile

5. The more you do this the more I laugh, so please continue on
Word games don't work, Swan. You can't laugh your way out of your problem.

Im a BM wrote:
BECAUSE "AMPHIBIAN" IS A VERB!

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

"'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb." - Into the Night

Indeed, the most COMMON understanding of the term "amphibian" by the average Joe is as a VERB.

You know, when something amphibians something else, for example.

Of course that is where the word "amphibianner" comes from. They amphibian. A LOT, in some cases.

Do YOU do a lot of amphibianning around here? You look like a pretty good amphibianner. Well, amphibian on, my friend. Just amphibian to your heart's content because everyone loves to amphibian and be an amphibianner who goes around amphibianning all the time.

If Into the Night says amphibian is a verb, it is a verb. Deal with it. He's omniscient and infallible and YOU know it.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

1. The word that I used is amphibious not amphibian
2. In my sentence amphibious is an adjective, describing reptile

5. The more you do this the more I laugh, so please continue on
Word games don't work, Swan. You can't laugh your way out of your problem.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
It's a word game for retards as alligators are in fact amphibious reptiles, where reptile is a noun and amphibious is an adjective. Likely a third grade SAT problem

Your word games won't work, Swan.

'Amphibian' can be a noun or an adjective or a verb. It doesn't change it's meaning.
You inability to understand English is YOUR problem.

Into the Night wrote:
Word games won't work, Robert.

Swan wrote:Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land.

Swan wrote: The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:

Swan wrote: The Bajau live in floating homes,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land.

Do they live on boats? Are you arguing that boats aren't land therefore anyone on a boat is "in the water"?

Too funny.

Swan wrote: The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:

Right. You verified all of this before going further back and verifying the ice age(s). You should post the pics from your journey.

Swan wrote: The Bajau live in floating homes,

... not in the water. Tell me that they take an occasional swim.

I think we're done here.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land.

Do they live on boats? Are you arguing that boats aren't land therefore anyone on a boat is "in the water"?

Too funny.

Swan wrote: The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:

Right. You verified all of this before going further back and verifying the ice age(s). You should post the pics from your journey.

Swan wrote: The Bajau live in floating homes,

... not in the water. Tell me that they take an occasional swim.

I think we're done here.

These people do live on boats and on stilt laden houses. The boats are bartered from boat makers with fish and the money earned from fishing. Yes the people do come ashore but always return to the sea to live, so are they amphibious?

Your denial that these people are real is as you say too funny, but since you are a schizzo I will not laugh.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the Thorazine

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land.

Do they live on boats? Are you arguing that boats aren't land therefore anyone on a boat is "in the water"?

Too funny.

Swan wrote: The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:

Right. You verified all of this before going further back and verifying the ice age(s). You should post the pics from your journey.

Swan wrote: The Bajau live in floating homes,

... not in the water. Tell me that they take an occasional swim.

I think we're done here.

These people do live on boats and on stilt laden houses. The boats are bartered from boat makers with fish and the money earned from fishing. Yes the people do come ashore but always return to the sea to live, so are they amphibious?

Your denial that these people are real is as you say too funny, but since you are a schizzo I will not laugh.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the Thorazine

Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land.

Do they live on boats? Are you arguing that boats aren't land therefore anyone on a boat is "in the water"?

Too funny.

Swan wrote: The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:

Right. You verified all of this before going further back and verifying the ice age(s). You should post the pics from your journey.

Swan wrote: The Bajau live in floating homes,

... not in the water. Tell me that they take an occasional swim.

I think we're done here.

These people do live on boats and on stilt laden houses. The boats are bartered from boat makers with fish and the money earned from fishing. Yes the people do come ashore but always return to the sea to live, so are they amphibious?

Your denial that these people are real is as you say too funny, but since you are a schizzo I will not laugh.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the Thorazine

Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA

I made no argument, I merely stated facts that your pea brain cannot comprehend because peas have no comprehension

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land.

Do they live on boats? Are you arguing that boats aren't land therefore anyone on a boat is "in the water"?

Too funny.

Swan wrote: The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:

Right. You verified all of this before going further back and verifying the ice age(s). You should post the pics from your journey.

Swan wrote: The Bajau live in floating homes,

... not in the water. Tell me that they take an occasional swim.

I think we're done here.

These people do live on boats and on stilt laden houses. The boats are bartered from boat makers with fish and the money earned from fishing. Yes the people do come ashore but always return to the sea to live, so are they amphibious?

Your denial that these people are real is as you say too funny, but since you are a schizzo I will not laugh.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the Thorazine

Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA

I made no argument, I merely stated facts that your pea brain cannot comprehend because peas have no comprehension

Correct. You made no valid argument. You made an argument of the Stone fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Wrong there are people that live and die on the water never or at least hardly ever touch land.

Do they live on boats? Are you arguing that boats aren't land therefore anyone on a boat is "in the water"?

Too funny.

Swan wrote: The Bajau people, also known as the Sea Gypsies or Sea Nomads, are an indigenous group of people who have lived on the water in Southeast Asia for centuries:

Right. You verified all of this before going further back and verifying the ice age(s). You should post the pics from your journey.

Swan wrote: The Bajau live in floating homes,

... not in the water. Tell me that they take an occasional swim.

I think we're done here.

These people do live on boats and on stilt laden houses. The boats are bartered from boat makers with fish and the money earned from fishing. Yes the people do come ashore but always return to the sea to live, so are they amphibious?

Your denial that these people are real is as you say too funny, but since you are a schizzo I will not laugh.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Take the Thorazine

Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA

I made no argument, I merely stated facts that your pea brain cannot comprehend because peas have no comprehension

Correct. You made no valid argument. You made an argument of the Stone fallacy.

Swan wrote:
Nope nobody wants to ask because deep down we all know that it does not matter.

Swan wrote:
Nope nobody wants to ask because deep down we all know that it does not matter.