Deer Strike

Because it is as fast as they move and when they meet a
faster predator (mountain lion or wolf) they get eaten.
When they meet humans they are either fed by slow walking
people or shot by fast moving bullets.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "John Gaquin" wrote in message
| . ..
| There's nothing in their brains that can reconcile
another creature moving
| at 45-60 mph.
|
| You say that based on what facts?
|
| It may well be outside that particular deer's experience,
or the deer may
| well just be a poor judge of closing rate (especially in
the dark with the
| primary object viewed being an artificial light source).
But I see no
| reason to think that deer are inherently unable to
comprehend and correctly
| respond to another object moving 45-60 mph. What makes
you think that they
| are?
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:mVSKg.6853$SZ3.1572@dukeread04...
Because it is as fast as they move and when they meet a
faster predator (mountain lion or wolf) they get eaten.

Using that logic, humans are incapable of processing those kinds of speeds
as well.

Either your logic is incorrect, or we shouldn't be flying airplanes.

We can learn and alter our perceptions. But to do so
safely, we have instructors and training. Or you can follow
the "Hey, watch this" learning method and the survivors
learn if they remember after the drunken state wears off.


Humans are incapable unless trained by life experiences.
The fact that cars still try to beat trains, that
pedestrians step out in front of cars, that ...

Remember, humans have a brain that can think ahead, animals
brains may remember, but an animal can not see a parked car
and think about the tires being flat, the driver drunk and
passed out, the paint shines but will fade in the sun, and
all the thousands of things humans do think about.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:mVSKg.6853$SZ3.1572@dukeread04...
| Because it is as fast as they move and when they meet a
| faster predator (mountain lion or wolf) they get eaten.
|
| Using that logic, humans are incapable of processing those
kinds of speeds
| as well.
|
| Either your logic is incorrect, or we shouldn't be flying
airplanes.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:111Lg.6906$SZ3.5449@dukeread04...
We can learn and alter our perceptions. But to do so
safely, we have instructors and training. Or you can follow
the "Hey, watch this" learning method and the survivors
learn if they remember after the drunken state wears off.

And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in their brains that
can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?

Humans are incapable unless trained by life experiences.
The fact that cars still try to beat trains, that
pedestrians step out in front of cars, that ...

And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in their brains that
can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?

Remember, humans have a brain that can think ahead, animals
brains may remember, but an animal can not see a parked car
and think about the tires being flat, the driver drunk and
passed out, the paint shines but will fade in the sun, and
all the thousands of things humans do think about.

And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in their brains that
can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?

Nothing in your post in any way addresses the original comment. Did you
have a point relevant to the original comment or my reply? If so, you might
want to post *that*.

Gee, why don't you write something for me and IF I agree
with what you think I should say I'll post a comment.

You can be MY instructor IF you can do so safely and not
waste my time.




"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:111Lg.6906$SZ3.5449@dukeread04...
| We can learn and alter our perceptions. But to do so
| safely, we have instructors and training. Or you can
follow
| the "Hey, watch this" learning method and the survivors
| learn if they remember after the drunken state wears
off.
|
| And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in
their brains that
| can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?
|
| Humans are incapable unless trained by life experiences.
| The fact that cars still try to beat trains, that
| pedestrians step out in front of cars, that ...
|
| And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in
their brains that
| can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?
|
| Remember, humans have a brain that can think ahead,
animals
| brains may remember, but an animal can not see a parked
car
| and think about the tires being flat, the driver drunk
and
| passed out, the paint shines but will fade in the sun,
and
| all the thousands of things humans do think about.
|
| And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in
their brains that
| can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?
|
| Nothing in your post in any way addresses the original
comment. Did you
| have a point relevant to the original comment or my reply?
If so, you might
| want to post *that*.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:LZ5Lg.6937$SZ3.4910@dukeread04...
Gee, why don't you write something for me and IF I agree
with what you think I should say I'll post a comment.

I'm not sure what your point is, yet again.

You are the one who replied to MY post, disagreeing with it. But you failed
to make any relevant points in your disagreement.

Why should I not respond, pointing out the lack of relevant points in your
disagreement? Should you expect to call into question any post you like,
without any rebuttals whatsoever?

Relevant too whom?



"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:LZ5Lg.6937$SZ3.4910@dukeread04...
| Gee, why don't you write something for me and IF I agree
| with what you think I should say I'll post a comment.
|
| I'm not sure what your point is, yet again.
|
| You are the one who replied to MY post, disagreeing with
it. But you failed
| to make any relevant points in your disagreement.
|
| Why should I not respond, pointing out the lack of
relevant points in your
| disagreement? Should you expect to call into question any
post you like,
| without any rebuttals whatsoever?
|
|