nailbrush

A display selling tickets is not enough to establish a fabricated animal. That is the step I do not find in the financial argument.

The original goes further than the diagram question: it calls the observations alleged. If you defend that sentence, the question is what was observed, not merely how well it was drawn.

They could have kept a model as well. A photograph from inside the hall would help.

Before photography would give you no photographs of anything. The question has to include which battery and which photographic process.

The scale cuts both ways. A difficult trip might keep someone away longer; it might also mean very few people go. Those do not cancel each other without figures.

You could make this diagram for a person standing on a hill.

A similar part does not require identical behavior. You would have to say which feature makes hiding a necessary use of the neck.

Then why is the height relevant?

That can mean over the edge or straight up. Those are different questions.

There is still a step between trusting a label and proving fabrication. I would rather see that step discussed than another list of imaginary animals.

Are we blaming Voss for sneezes now too

got it, thanks. I'll keep the three big ones in the post for now

There are different people and different fences behind him. It's not the same photograph

is that the same Edwin Voss from the circus paper?

I like that he actually went and asked about the lions