I just wanted to take a moment to reiterate my longstanding policy on comments. I reserve the right to delete comments that are slanderous, obscene, or glaringly off-topic. I also reserve the right to ban commenters who do not follow these rules even after being reminded of them. Anyone who accepts these simple rules is welcome to tell me why I am utterly wrong about the topic at hand, even if you think the world is six thousand years old. (And I am entitled to comment on why you are wrong, too.) But this is not the place for spam-like manifestos.
Let the conversation resume.
Comments
"A Comment on Comments
Category: Meta"
This made me laugh.
Posted by: Ed Yong | May 17, 2007 11:02 AM
Aaagh! You just made a comment about the classification of a comment on commenting!
Come to think of it, I'm just digging myself deeper into this meta-hole, aren't I?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 17, 2007 11:15 AM
Oh my. I just followed the links to the banned commenter. He's a bit of a loon, isn't he? He actually said this:
"I am very confident that there is no physiological barrier to fertility in a cross made between any two breeds of dogs. If the Darwinians were so certain of their silly claim that dog breeds are separate species, they would test their hypothesis just as they would have tested Darwin's finches. They have done neither. They don't dare!"
Really? Who believes separate breeds are separate species?!?
Posted by: R.A. Porter | May 17, 2007 11:57 AM
Indeed, it appears that a lot of people in the canid field are classifying all domestic dogs under Canis lupus now.
Posted by: Paul Clapham | May 17, 2007 3:02 PM
Can I comment off-topic here? Reading Stephen Budiansky's "The truth about dogs" he makes the argument that dogs didn't actually descend from wolves, but they may have come into being from scavenger dogs like those in african cities today.
As for physiological reason, may be there aren't but certainly there's anatomical problems. I wouldn't want to be the chihuahua bitch fancied by a great dane. :-O
Posted by: luca | May 18, 2007 7:18 AM
He is the internet definition of loon.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2007 9:30 AM
Anyone who accepts these simple rules is welcome to tell me why I am utterly wrong about the topic at hand, even if you think the world is six thousand years old.
I am not sure you keep your rules. The Loom guys are discussing off topic problem of dogs undisturbed here even quoting John Davison. Probably because they are darwinists there is no problem. Yet John Davison comment of breeds and species of dogs has been intercepted (as he informed on ISCID) - even if the topic itself mentioned John Davison and his Manifesto.
Posted by: VMartin | May 21, 2007 5:53 PM