was mankind aquatic ?

I had never realised that the above hypothesis was controversial, so I was surprised to hear a programme about it [Scars of Evolution, Radio 4 18 Apr 2005] narrated/hosted by Attenborough.

Ever since I read Elaine Morgan's book 'Descent of Woman' I have been a firm convert to the theory.

I feel that her title for the book probably caused it to be ignored?

She looked at the physiogomy of the human form and compared it to others
Very quickly her points were:
Man has no fur : relate to hippos etc.
Babies are born with LOADS of fat : essential in colder waters
Babies are born easier in water
Babies have swimming ability almost from minute 1
Humans have control over breathing : dolphins etc
Humans living away from the sea can have iodine deficiency
large brain needs loads of omega 3 fats [ found in aquatic animals]
Head hair is quite long [ easier for babies to grab hold of]
There was quite a lot more , certainly enough to convince most peole who read it - I cant remember all the salient points- its 25 years since I read it.

if you are wondering about the title, it goes as follows.
Animals mate in doggy style. If a female doesnt want sex, she can just walk away [literally]
Aquatic mammals mate face to face Once back on land the female could no longer walk away if she wanted. By this time the vagina had come much more towards the front of the body and the clitoris was a major source of pleasure for the female so face to face sex remained the most popular position

So there you have it, Google "descent of woman" for more info

rover demise

It gobsmacks me why there's such an outrage about Rover's demise.
It is common knowledge that a car plant cannot operate at under about 100,000 units a year-Rover made 6,000 ? [ i think - although maybe 12,000].
Rover was given away by BMW for -£500,000,000 so BMW knew it was less than worthless when it did it.
It has operated without much advertising since - and as car manufacturers spend oodles on that, they should know advretising isnt wasting money.
Profitable bits were ringfenced off - ie the directors knew the main manufacturing arm was worthless.
In short , everyone knew it was a serious dog and its only possible useage was to give the owners kudos and money. (and as it unravels, serious notoriety )
Why did the government get involved - it really beggars belief !!!!!!!

Retailer misery

I dont know if you were wondering about retailers saying [mostly] how crap the market is and 'losing' money- especially when the market researchers are saying that sales are up ?
This one's obvious- the web market is starting to bite

Expect much more bleating next December till they realise what's up .......

Princess Diana Conspiracy theory

Well with Charles and camilla getting spliced I thought I'd pen my thoughts about this.
Its just a couple of facts that are missing from the public info around.
Di was being chased by paparazzi on bikes and cars- fact
Bikes are rather fast and manouverable- fact
Di's car hit effectively a brick wall

To my mind, the reporters must have been either on top of the vehicle when it happened or something must have delayed them.

If delayed, then by how long and by what ?
if on top of the vehicle, they must have seen what happened ....

Paparazzi are fairly notorious in selling stories/photos , so could a secret service agency have silenced them all - if it was them ?

To my simple mind the answer required is 'how long before the crash was spotted' - they must have heard the smash- that car was a right mess.

It does seem very obvious given the above facts. How else could so many witnesses have seen nothing ?

Unless one of the group caused it to happen.........

That would silence all the group - if it was found out there would be a hell of a 'privacy act ' backlash that would stop most of their livelyhood. I think every government in the world would ban 'snooping'

Its a very simple question that needs answering to my mind, and if it was more than a second, the next one is 'why so long?'