I'd have to agree. Nothing against the Indians but "lac" and "cro" are not English words. If you're speaking to someone who doesn't know what these words mean you'll not be understood.
Though, if both the speaker and listener know what they're on about, good for them, it's still not English but that's okay. When I talk prices in Japanese yen to people who know (at least a little) Japanese language I use the Japanese word "man" (ten thousand) even if the rest of what I'm speaking is English.
A.S.C.M., I think you're a mammal but I'd like to be sure. I think I'm going to somehow force you to excrete. Then I might just kill you, cut open your body, and observe your heart. You wouldn't mind, would you?
You'll identify an animal on the basis of position of an organ and that is ears.
If you've outer ears, you're a mammal, If you've inner ears, you're a non-mammal. Ex: Human beings are mammals. Fishes are not. This was the answer that I got from my friend.
Boy, whales are mammals yet they don't have external ears.
Jim, I see that you are a save-the-endangered-species type of person and. Well, personally, I could care less about killing non-human mammals for the purpose of scientific advancement. Anyhow, you're entitled to your view.
Have you ever seen a dolphine with big ears?
No, I was only joking. I don't mind the killing of non-human animals or plants for the purpose of scientific advancement. However, I would call myself a save-the-endangered-species type of person. I'm all for science but not at the expence of the environment. I'm sure the majority of biologists would be with me one that.
Oh, and I sort of repeated your point when I wrote "Have you ever seen a dolphine with big ears?" I hadn't read what yours about the whales. This computer is very odd: it doesn't display all the posts.
I didn't say big ears. I said outer ears. They must be visible. Dolphine is an exceptional case. We're generally talking, aren't we?
How do you tell a seal from a sea lion?
Here's what one site says.
"Seals and sea lions are differentiated by the fact that sea lions have external ears. Seal ears are internal."
Okay, generally speaking, look for ears but this works just as well as looking for hair. There are too many exceptional cases.
Okay. You got 3 marks out off 3. A.S.C.M got zero marks. He went on for killing animals and forcing them for excretion.
Yay, I win ...
I have to stop changing the sentence half way through writing it. First I wanted to write
"I hadn't read what you wrote about the whales."
Then I began thinking I was writing
"I hadn't read yours about the whales."
But it came out as
"I hadn't read what yours about the whales."
Haha. Sometimes it happens to understand a simple thing when you have too much knowledge in your head and it makes things complex. Here in this case it was too much input of English sentences.
I've to rephrase my message again. Sorry for this.
Haha. Sometimes it is difficult to understand a simple thing when you have too much knowledge in your head and it makes things complex. Here in this case it was too much input of English sentences.
Dissection and inspection are sometimes necessary for the identification of a species, especially when it cannot be identified by simply observing its exterior physical features. In such cases, one has to be practical rather than idealistic.
My theory of practicability rather than idealism also applies to capital punishment and assisted suicide: I support both of them because they help to check the world's population growth.
Same case with abortions and the manipulation of stem cells. They are practical because they stop human population growth at its earliest stages.