@north,
I see . . . so you have now withdrawn the incredibly stupid claim that Franklin's last expedition failed because he had no respect for the knowledge of Native people. (Any good reason why you capitalize the word native?)
Previously, you wrote "primate people," not primative [
sic] people--i was already fairly certain that was what you meant, but your other comments in this thread are so obviously the product of an ill-informed or even uninformed mind, that i didn't want to take that for granted.
So now, let me ask you this. At various times in history, armies which were, by the definition of their contemporaries, modern, have lived off the land in order to obviate the need to protect supply bases and supply lines. Does that mean that by your definition, these armies were "primative?" When Lewis and Clark lead their expedition to the Pacific Ocean from the Mississippi River, they eventually reached the point at which the only way to survive was to live off the land. Do you think that Lewis, Clark and all their soldiers were "primative?"
You see, when someone like you comes along, hectoring the rest of us in this thread about what it means to be an atheist, and about not staying on topic (according to your judgment)--and when you are so horribly ill-informed, and barely able to express yourself coherently in what one assumes is your native language, it's a bit hard to take. But more than that, it's an embarrassment to other atheists (to me, at least) to think that someone with your low standards of knowledge and literacy would be taken as representative of all atheists.
Seriously ? You have never won an history argument yet. You think only American people know about USA history, and every single American (includes Canada, Mexico, etc) knows more than historians elsewhere. From your insane attempt at logic( or humuor??) it can be deduced only fish know about the War in the Pacific because they were the only ones there. Were you on Franklin's expedition ?
