Doug Weller says in news:19aziv8uyh4an$.hd0efv2txjfg$. email@example.com:
Right, rather blatant and self serving hypocrisy. She presents information from mom/pop nickle dime web sites and from self- interested museums, that we are to believe, but to critique her _garbage_ one needs to have the worlds leading expert and also can walk on water at the same time. So why are you guys still following up her complete nonsense? The one expert she brings in here that supports her is afraid to engage in public discussion, why is that?
Yuri, don't mind Mr Harrison, he is excused from the class due to ill behavior and still hasn't got it into his head that what he write against me as a person falls as rain on his own head.
I would prefer if it was possible that is to go back to subject. Since most here, naysayer excluded, understand that Ed Huntress writing and others of his kind weights 10 times a Professor who hasn't the metallurgic and geochemical skills needed in this case, I would suggest that we listen to those who have that skill and who are willing to share that with us.
The main question is does the Copper casting point to any kind of early 'industrial'-production or not. If so the follow up question isn't if group A or group B did it but for which area where the production being produced and what know-how skills was needed to maintain this production and distribution over centuries?
Oh, I like to think I know how to reason, both honestly and dishonestly, and you can bark like a dog before I let you tell me what to choose to do.
For example on this one, you are (as usual) completely wrong.
"Poisoning the wells" is a strategy where you predict someone is likely to bring up some aspect of the subject where you fear they might gain some credibility by discussing the matter with that aspect in mind.
"Poisoning the wells" is where you attack that aspect first and make it a component that nobody wants to include in the discussion before it is even brought up.
You would presumably have it, that the webpage was only written after I "poisoned the wells" ?
It's a clue that you haven't used "poisoning the wells" as yet in your unconvincing nonsense, and indicates you don't understand how it is done. Maybe now you will *read your own references* and learn a new dishonest trick to add to your repertoire of dishonest tricks (and yes, I do know them and have no mental issues using them - there just isn't a point. Stop arguing or accept the other poster is right). Unlike Inger, you have learned one or two over the last decade, so you're able to be slightly more dishonest than she manages to be.
Read your own website reference, Yuri, you idiot.
Or - happy thought - do you think the author of that website meant the more conventional ad hominem attack but was fearful of "the establishment" so he or she pretended "poisoning the wells" was about a pre-emptive sort of dishonest rhetoric so as not be criticised by the establishment he or she was criticising, and "real" poisoning the wells is about a response to an argument..? That would be funny, almost as good as the Talossi thing. I'd like to add that, if you're willing to adopt the position?
I particularly liked "vomits forth".
Why do you reckon I am a religious person? That's slander.
It appears to be a real word, albeit outdated and probably primarily European when it was in common use. It has something to do with formal argument, perhaps with logical structure or full, solid references.
We had a long, Ingerish discussion on this some time ago. You'd be better off googling for it than asking Inger what it means. Unless, of course, another poster here recalls the definition.
First, I don't think Ed would make the claims about himself that you do here. I also think your use of ad hominim wrt Martin is your usual way of dismissing someone with whom you disagree. (NB: Ed, if you read this, please don't get too big a head from what Inger said about you; if you disagree with her in future, she will rescind your 'weights 10 times a professor....' in a heartbeat.)
Second, the casting of copper is not established for the Great Lakes area prior to Columbus. The support you give for casting copper is very weak, and if it were used against you, you'd rip the authors apart for poor scholarship and lack of relevant education. You only accept it because you agree with it. Not good scholarship.
Third, you have yet to tell us why an archaeologist who lives on the Keweenaw Peninsula, has done relevant work there on copper issues for over 20 years, and who collaborates with the geologists, mining engineers, metallurgists, etc., in her university should be ignored completely when speaking in her area of expertise. You don't like what she said; but you'll accept the word of a journalist who hasn't any relevant credentials. Why is this not a double standard, Inger?
P.S.: Inger, if you reply to this post, please quote it in full in your reply.
What you don't seem to work out is we are on Usenet (which you claim to have invented) and you aren't the teacher. You are a whacky idiot who posts nonsense. Much like Yuri.
And you didn't invent English, the clue is in your inability to type it in. God must have signed your "certificate of english language PhD" because I don't reckon anyone else would.
Vikings didn't do copper - they had access to iron.
They probably had material and went about, then the biscuits were up and who knows what but with the pits and you ad hominem. Group C wibble wibble Inger follow up like a Pavlovian Dog to produce more material for my book backwards this read you so can't it understand.
"Akrebi" is a misspelling of a real, but fairly obscure Swedish word "akribi" (although "akrebi" is a real word in Turkish, meaning "scorpion"). "Akribi" means, for most practical purposes "meticulousness" or in this context "academic rigour", and there is a Swedish textbook on how to write academic essays called "Att skriva uppsats med akribi".
You'll find some learned thoughts by Brian Scott and others in among the general chaos on
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:05:16 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: [SNIP]
Just in case anyone has forgotten, I introduced Susan Martin's article in response to: Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-ID:
whose response to Yuri's post was about the amount of copper mined by the Old Copper Culture. Susan Martin's article was entirely relevant to gunner's post. If Yuri is upset about the discussion of copper mining, he's aiming at the wrong target.
This is the old "appeal to authority" - or "bugger the content, look at the LABEL" type "argument" and therefor invalid.
While one can sympathise with such, a web page is just that - a web page, that contains pictures and short explanations. They are rarely in-depth reports and should not be treated as such when they make no claim to be other than to be a web page.
It is different if it purports to be a "scientific paper", and is not. The web site referred to doesn't make such claims in words or by implication. It merely reports what the authors believe to be correct.
...as you are right now and in your previous post, using your measuring standard!
...and attacking her personally isn't ad hominim, hmmm? What's good for the goose is good for the gander you know. STOP IT!
So you really don't know what the term means! I have NOT engaged in any such thing as you claim. I have directed attention to the ISSUES - something you are having difficulty dealing with.
This is OLD OLD stuff dealt with several times in the past - it was bogus then and remains so. Deal with it. Do you think if you say, and keep saying the Holocaust didn't take place, and someone doesn't point out the evidence of its occurrence every time you say it, that is just goes away? That is your current "logic"!
....and that IS an attack on the person - or what suffices in your demonstrated view to amount to ad hominim. After all YOU attack Inger, for the sake of agreeing with ME on the ARTICLE - the issue. Not the person but the ARTICLE - can you tell the difference?
I don't and you bloody well known that too. You just can't stop being a bastard can you.
IF you had thought at all you wouldn't have posted what you did!
WHAT points? Mudslinging isn't "points" - I already made that clear up top!
As I said elsewhere already and this proves it to be correct - there is NO point in showing you anything at all - you are blind, and electing to remain blind as you are on a religious bent here, when even claims the discovery and working of "copper" can occur a whole millennia before the people even arrived there!
You frequently snip and re-assemble other peoples' posts to make them appear to say things the OP never intended, or to make the OP look foolish or bad or wrong. You do this on a regular basis, and if you don't know it, you are more to be pitied than scorned. But I suspect you know exactly what you're doing. Perhaps you can't help it.
Nope. You wrote that yourself (in other words, but with precisely this meaning). Calling me a liar for calling you on your lies is...wait for it...*projecting*.
He was asking the author of "A History of Metals". 'L. Aicheson, A History of Metals, 2 Vols., New York, Interscience, 1960'. He should be able to identify a pit furnace from photographs. In any case, who are the persons in NA who might be regarded as authorities on pit furnaces?
That is a very unkind paraphrase of what Conner actually wrote.
I'm not aware of anyone having done quite that. Certainly I don't regard them as anything more than evidence of pit furnaces.
I suppose that somebody has done something like that but what you have writen is a complete mischaracterisation of the recent discussions in this news group.
I wrote that. I was thinking of the problems likely to be encountered when making a clay pot and just putting it in the fire without going through preliminary 'bisque' processes. I didn't want to have to explain the whole rignarole and my comment was very short on detail.
No it wasn't. My point is that it could be Sodder's point that there once was a culture which exploited the copper (carefully pointed out the likelyhood of 'race' being used in this sense. So did Susan Ra. Martin, in effect.
What I did say was that there were biological differences and in subsequent posts made clear that I regarded genetic differences as biological differences.