Add new comment

"...someone's tears don't necessarily mean anything at all" so why cry and why cry when reading this particular text? for no reason: "The tears appeared what more can I say?" You cried because the words presented you with an imagined scene, right? There really is no need to be so evasive: you read the piece and you got upset..because of possibly you're own assumptions of what once was Not idyllic for the salmon though, eh?

Being a skeptic/not being a skeptic are two sides of the survival coin?

I don't think what I've written to be confusing or poorly explained as you're well aware of the many versions of history: in this instance the arrival of Columbus and those who may have come before and definitely after. You know what I'm getting at in my post re the whole story so please don't insult me by playing the naive card.

Of course, all history could be called presumptive? And this is what ANews likes to do: go into it's 'post-modern' slippery spiel.

I was also presenting a possible voice from the salmon perspective as you read aloud a voice from the human perspective.

Re JZ, instead of mocking him, why don't you enlighten us all by highlighting and then explaining the 'many' holes in his thinking and presentation (whatever that means?). Clearly, YOUR assumptions are correct and JZ's are incorrect filled with many holes.

Yes, I look forward to the first of Chisel's books on the " Correction of John Zerzan; His Thinking and Presentation?"

Much Luv ;-)