What Happened To The Middle Man?

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

in america there are people who will shoot another over who makes the best kool aid.

do you think neanderthals and humans back then would have behaved in a more civilised manner when it came to food and drink?

[check two]

That hasn't happened in the UK?

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

not that i'm aware of.

but i do remember 2 brothers taking each other to court over a shepherds pie.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

i wonder what material did prehitoric people wipe their arses with?

i wonder if they had any type of politics dealing with how food was to be shared out.

i wonder if they treated their clothes like artistic pieces and what fashion sense they had.

i wonder and i ask. i wonder and i ask.

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Trixˣ

not that i'm aware of.

but i do remember 2 brothers taking each other to court over a shepherds pie.

this was it:

Row over shepherd's pie ends in court

Shepherd's pie: without tomatoes on top
By Gary Cleland8:21AM BST 21 Apr 2008
A row over the correct way to make shepherd’s pie ended up in court after a disagreement between two brothers turned violent.

After a day spent drinking, Michael Garvin cooked his brother John the traditional English dish for dinner, expecting a grateful response.
John, however, voiced his disquiet that the pie was not topped with a layer of sliced tomatoes.
His brother, a chef, claimed a layer of tomatoes was not the appropriate way to finish off a shepherd’s pie, and responded by hitting him over the head with a shovel.
As the argument got out of control, John threatened to petrol bomb his brother’s flat and was arrested.
He spent a night in the cells in Blackburn, Lancs, where the pair lived in flats opposite each other. He admitted a breach of the peace, and was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £200.
Catherine Allen, prosecuting, said the brothers had been drinking before Michael embarked on culinary duties.
She said: “The argument started because there were no tomatoes on the top of the shepherd’s pie that Michael had made for their tea and John thought this was wrong.”
John swore at his brother and then said he was going to petrol bomb Michael’s flat, the prosecutor said.
This had frightened his brother, as John had previously set fire to his own flat, the court heard.
Liz Parker, defending, said : “My client does not accept the remark about petrol bombing.
“What he does say is that Michael hit him over the head with a shovel and there was a lot of trouble over very little.”
District Judge Peter Ward told the defendant that, in his view, there was no need for a layer of tomatoes on a shepherd’s pie.

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

could you imagine the arguments over the dinner table if one member of the clan wanted say buffalo one day and they could only come home with a rabbit because it was the neanderthals or humans from the ends that caught the buffalo that day? after they'd spent hours chasing after the buffalo, they got tired it and in the end it was another group that got that buffalo. they would have then had to find something else to hunt that day cos they got mouths to feed and were lucky to come back with a rabbit, resulting in little food to share between the clan.

if one group was better at catching a certain animal and the other group loved the meat but couldn't catch those animals themselves, would there have been clashes? did they ever share their catch?

i don't really know what they ate so don't quote me. i was just trying to give an example.

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

Imagine if one clan always got the good buffalo and always had a feast at dinner time. And the neighbouring clan don't even know what buffalo tastes like cos they didn't have the skills to catch one. Having to eat rabbits all the time.

[Rob Belding]

imagine

[hashashin]

Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Trixˣ

could you imagine the arguments over the dinner table if one member of the clan wanted say buffalo one day and they could only come home with a rabbit because it was the neanderthals or humans from the ends that caught the buffalo that day? after they'd spent hours chasing after the buffalo, they got tired it and in the end it was another group that got that buffalo. they would have then had to find something else to hunt that day cos they got mouths to feed and were lucky to come back with a rabbit, resulting in little food to share between the clan.

if one group was better at catching a certain animal and the other group loved the meat but couldn't catch those animals themselves, would there have been clashes? did they ever share their catch?

i don't really know what they ate so don't quote me. i was just trying to give an example.

I think they would just be grateful for whatever food they caught, whether it be buffalo, rabbit whatever... They might have also traded food for other things that the tribes needed

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

of course they'd be grateful that another group got the animal they were after. yea. seeing the other group eat better/more food day in day out, they wouldn't feel any sort of resentment towards the other group, they would just be grateful for what they got. yea.

and if, after chasing a buffalo for hours, then lost out to the other group, then tried to come home with a rabbit but was unsuccessful at that too, what exactly would they have to be grateful for?

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

i'm guessing the best hunters would have made the best tools, they wouldn't have traded their best tools that gets them buffalo for a bit of rabbit they themselves could catch anytime they like. that's like a man trading in his favourite gun/knife that gets him steak every day for some mcnuggets.

it's possible groups would have stole tools/weapons from other groups. it would have happened.

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

there would have been someone with a special spear or whatever weapon. there's always a special one, the weapons didn't come off a production line so all the weapons would have been different, they would have had lots of weapons, but they'd have a special one that was their favourite. that special weapon would have been highly coveted and fought over as it passed down the generations or passed hands.

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

Originally Posted by hashashin

I think they would just be grateful for whatever food they caught, whether it be buffalo, rabbit whatever... They might have also traded food for other things that the tribes needed

trade food for what?

trade buffalo for rabbit?






http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/sho...light=kool+aid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-in-court.html


after those two ^^^^ do you really think neanderthals and humans 200,000-300,000 years ago, where there was no law enforcement, no legal system, no fast food places or supermarkets, would have behaved more appropriately if they were hungry? the above cases weren't even fighting because of a lack of food/drink. neither were they fighting enemies/strangers/different race.

[Ol' Dirty Trixˣ]

when it came to the men, which group do you think was more endowed?

humans or neanderthals?

i recently read an article that says humans have gotten dumber over the many thousands of years and that our brains have got smaller.

can the same be said about dick size?

[VORTEX]

don't leave out pussies aswell... from tight, to wide and loose as fuck... maybe there's something about it