Challenge to "pearl": Defend your absurdity.

Supposedly people know what they think they think regarding
issues they make claims about. Even when the claims seem
completely absurd, people supposedly have some idea why
they believe them IF they actually do. The apparent absurdity
of some of the things you've written lately immediately produce
questions regarding how they could possibly be true, or how
you could possibly think they are whether they are or not.
If there's any real thought behind what so far appears to
be simply thoughtless desperation from a crazed "ara", try
answering these questions you've forced me to wonder about
and share the thought process(es) which caused you to arrive
at what appears to be mere confusion and bewilderment.
_____________________________________________________
You wrote....I asked:

>Frogs are as mobile as the next creature. Any there could easily
>move on as the fields dry.

How would they know what was happening? How would they
know where the water went? How far would they have to travel
in order to get to it? What would keep them from getting killed
by predators IF they hopped along trying to get there? What
would keep them from dehydrating even IF they did know where
to go, tried to get there, and didn't get killed by predators?

.. . .
>Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
>live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
>of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
>Why don't you do a little research?

I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
where do you think they come from?

.. . .
>And if his claims were true, a seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs
>would be well-documented.

Who would document it? Why?

dh@. wrote:
> Supposedly people know what they think they think regarding
> issues they make claims about. Even when the claims seem
> completely absurd, people supposedly have some idea why
> they believe them IF they actually do. The apparent absurdity
> of some of the things you've written lately immediately produce
> questions regarding how they could possibly be true, or how
> you could possibly think they are whether they are or not.
> If there's any real thought behind what so far appears to
> be simply thoughtless desperation from a crazed "ara", try
> answering these questions you've forced me to wonder about
> and share the thought process(es) which caused you to arrive
> at what appears to be mere confusion and bewilderment.
> _____________________________________________________
> You wrote....I asked:
>
> >Frogs are as mobile as the next creature. Any there could easily
> >move on as the fields dry.
>
> How would they know what was happening? How would they
> know where the water went? How far would they have to travel
> in order to get to it? What would keep them from getting killed
> by predators IF they hopped along trying to get there? What
> would keep them from dehydrating even IF they did know where
> to go, tried to get there, and didn't get killed by predators?



When a water hole or creek starts drying up frogs will either move or
dig themselves down into the mud and await the next freshet of water.









>
> . . .
> >Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
> >live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
> >of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
> >Why don't you do a little research?
>
> I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
> IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
> they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
> where do you think they come from?
>
> . . .
> >And if his claims were true, a seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs
> >would be well-documented.
>
> Who would document it? Why?