Comments on: Rashida Jones http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:49:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SharondaB http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones/comment-page-4#comment-77715 SharondaB Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:26:15 +0000 http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones#comment-77715 I agree... and SMH should chill out a little and be a little kinder with your comments. The anonymity of the internet makes people awfully brave when they don't have to worry about getting smacked in the face for something they said. And as far as Rashida, she is beautiful. You can't say for sure, but I bet she is just as beautiful on the inside. She just seems like a really good person. :) I agree… and SMH should chill out a little and be a little kinder with your comments. The anonymity of the internet makes people awfully brave when they don’t have to worry about getting smacked in the face for something they said. And as far as Rashida, she is beautiful. You can’t say for sure, but I bet she is just as beautiful on the inside. She just seems like a really good person. :)

Awesome or Offensive: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Maria http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones/comment-page-4#comment-77712 Maria Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:01:51 +0000 http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones#comment-77712 She is real exotic looking to me nice mixture! She is real exotic looking to me nice mixture!

Awesome or Offensive: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bluesclues http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones/comment-page-4#comment-77705 Bluesclues Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:42:56 +0000 http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones#comment-77705 Sorry meant to add this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#cite_note-HavilandPrins2009-0 I know it's wiki but all the cites line up (already checked) so yeah there is my research. Sorry I made all those people who do their research before they comment "look bad". But after looking at this, my point is proven. I especially like the part where it says "The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens." So yeah... Checkmate. Sorry meant to add this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#cite_note-HavilandPrins2009-0

I know it’s wiki but all the cites line up (already checked) so yeah there is my research. Sorry I made all those people who do their research before they comment “look bad”. But after looking at this, my point is proven. I especially like the part where it says “The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens.” So yeah… Checkmate.

Awesome or Offensive: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bluesclues http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones/comment-page-4#comment-77701 Bluesclues Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:31:42 +0000 http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones#comment-77701 Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to the Pangea during the dinosaur age. There have been many versions of Pangea and have gone by several names. Sorry if I offended you with my "pseudoscience". So let's get accurate! Maybe I'll teach you something along the way. Before Pangea there were other times when supercontitnents were present. Pannotia (formed 600 million years ago), Rodinia (existing 750 million years ago), etc. Note that Pannotia and Rodinia were also called Pangea Alpha and Pangea Promotae or something along those lines. I'll look that up and post it later. There have also been several incidents where convergent boundaries have occurred post Pangea where although they go by a different name, just like Pannotia and Rodinia, they did in fact form one solid surface connecting all the continents at once. Now here is where it differs, a few of these times, Pangea was connected by ice and thus why scientists don't call it a supercontinent. But I say screw that noise, if it's connected and humans could (did) cross it to get to all other continents, then it was another version of Pangea to me. I wish I knew what the documentary was called. It was on the discovery channel. It lined out how man spread from Africa initially and eventually developed distinguishing traits in order to adapt to their surroundings. Essentially they crossed over and found their way to most of the continents at the time due to convergent boundaries. And the few continents that weren't then attached by land were attached by ice. So yeah, not Pangea, a later version of it that technically cannot be called a supercontinent because it was partially connected by ice and not land. So you are correct it was not TECHNICALLY another version of Pangea and not TECHNICALLY considered a supercontinent because it was connected through ice (that was traversed) and not land. Doesn't change the truth of the matter asserted. That man started out the same and crossed over solid mass to spread to all the different continents we know today. So if no one takes anything else from this just know that we all came from the same place. And SMH, try to be a little less harsh with your comments. A better way to say it would have been, "Although you make some good points, you're mistaken about your Pangea theory. Maybe you should research it more and see if you can find validity in your theory." To me I feel like I just described a criminal to a T to the police and then later on after he's caught, I catch flack for saying he was wearing a black hat when he was actually wearing a blue one. It's okay though. I was technically wrong about the Pangea aspect just like I was technically wrong about the hat being black. Good thing we still caught the fictitious bad guy and my comment that was "way too long" still contained a valid premise and got the message across. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn’t referring to the Pangea during the dinosaur age. There have been many versions of Pangea and have gone by several names. Sorry if I offended you with my “pseudoscience”. So let’s get accurate! Maybe I’ll teach you something along the way. Before Pangea there were other times when supercontitnents were present. Pannotia (formed 600 million years ago), Rodinia (existing 750 million years ago), etc. Note that Pannotia and Rodinia were also called Pangea Alpha and Pangea Promotae or something along those lines. I’ll look that up and post it later. There have also been several incidents where convergent boundaries have occurred post Pangea where although they go by a different name, just like Pannotia and Rodinia, they did in fact form one solid surface connecting all the continents at once. Now here is where it differs, a few of these times, Pangea was connected by ice and thus why scientists don’t call it a supercontinent. But I say screw that noise, if it’s connected and humans could (did) cross it to get to all other continents, then it was another version of Pangea to me. I wish I knew what the documentary was called. It was on the discovery channel. It lined out how man spread from Africa initially and eventually developed distinguishing traits in order to adapt to their surroundings. Essentially they crossed over and found their way to most of the continents at the time due to convergent boundaries. And the few continents that weren’t then attached by land were attached by ice. So yeah, not Pangea, a later version of it that technically cannot be called a supercontinent because it was partially connected by ice and not land. So you are correct it was not TECHNICALLY another version of Pangea and not TECHNICALLY considered a supercontinent because it was connected through ice (that was traversed) and not land. Doesn’t change the truth of the matter asserted. That man started out the same and crossed over solid mass to spread to all the different continents we know today. So if no one takes anything else from this just know that we all came from the same place. And SMH, try to be a little less harsh with your comments. A better way to say it would have been, “Although you make some good points, you’re mistaken about your Pangea theory. Maybe you should research it more and see if you can find validity in your theory.” To me I feel like I just described a criminal to a T to the police and then later on after he’s caught, I catch flack for saying he was wearing a black hat when he was actually wearing a blue one. It’s okay though. I was technically wrong about the Pangea aspect just like I was technically wrong about the hat being black. Good thing we still caught the fictitious bad guy and my comment that was “way too long” still contained a valid premise and got the message across.

Awesome or Offensive: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: SMH http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones/comment-page-4#comment-69797 SMH Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:35:25 +0000 http://ethnicelebs.com/rashida-jones#comment-69797 Your comment was way too long and although it may have contained some valid points they were all overridden when you stated that all humans existed together on Pangea.... Pangea separated around 250 million years ago; humans evolved 2.5 million years ago. Does anyone else notice a slight discrepancy? So please, keep your pseudoscience to yourself, you make all people who actually research before they comment and people who might agree with you look bad. Your comment was way too long and although it may have contained some valid points they were all overridden when you stated that all humans existed together on Pangea…. Pangea separated around 250 million years ago; humans evolved 2.5 million years ago. Does anyone else notice a slight discrepancy? So please, keep your pseudoscience to yourself, you make all people who actually research before they comment and people who might agree with you look bad.

Awesome or Offensive: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

]]>