Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k

From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_nohormelcharter.net)
Date: 09/02/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:22:41 -0500

J Moore wrote:

> Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
> news:10jcsqi88al0o9b@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>J Moore wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tom <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:10jcab4hh5st8ec@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
>>>>news:NtmZc.372$hbk.67@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Case in point, Dr. Shoch offers evidence that the Sphinx of Egypt is
>
> far
>
>>>>>older than what Egyptologists will have everyone believe. His evidence
>>>>>is based on hard core data which deals with water erosion.
>
> Egyptologists
>
>>>>>laughed (but ofcourse fail to inform anyone that they aren't used to
>>>>>geological cross talk in their science).
>>>>
>>>>Where did he publish this data?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Another case in point, amateur
>>>>>archaeoastronomer, Robert Bauval and Graham Han*** come along and
>
> shake
>
>>>>>the world of Egyptology (more accurately Pyramidology) to a new
>>>>>revision. They prove with the help of sophisticated laser/robotic
>>>>>technology that the 'star shafts' in the Great Pyramid point to real
>>>>>stellar alignments and are NOT 'air shafts' used for air conditioning
>
> by
>
>>>>>slaves while building the Pyramid. Egyptologists again laughed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So do I. Do you mean that there are 'professional' archaeoastronomers? I
>>>>thought this entire 'field' was comprised of amateurs.
>>>
>>>
>>>A good source for accurate info which refutes the work of Schoch,
>
> Bauval,
>
>>>and Han*** is www.thehallofmaat.com. Unfortunately, they are having
>
> some
>
>>>problems with their site for the last few days, but it's very good on
>>>Egyptology, and things like the ideas of very early intrusions into the
>>>Americas. I'd tell you what i think of Han***, but he has this habit
>
> of
>
>>>suing people who disagree with his ideas, so I won't. :)
>>>--
>>>JMoore
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You mean the Graham Han*** who is a journalist, but doesn't
>>tend to correct folks when they call him an archaeologist or
>>other scientist? The one that scarfs up other people's work and
>>re-packages it as his own? The one that shows up on TV
>>documentaries as an expert in fields that he has only a passing
>>familiarity with? The guy who routinely defames and excoriates
>>scientists, but who is too prissy to accept any criticism himself?
>>
>>That self-aggrandizing, money-grubbing, headline-hungry,
>>wannabe scientist, effete pansy crapmeister?
>>
>>Of course, that's just my opinion.
>>
>>--
>>Tom McDonald
>
>
> My lawyer advises me to say "no comment". :) Keep in mind that the libel
> laws in England are different from those in the USA and some other
> countries:
>
> "England's libel laws are particularly friendly to claimants, who don't have
> to prove that the libel allegedly committed against them is false. Rather,
> the burden of proof is on the defendant, who must prove that what was
> written was true. In contrast, laws in the United States place the burden of
> proof on the claimant."
>
> "Claimants also enjoy the benefits of the "no win, no fee" rule, by which
> they are not required to pay their lawyer if they lose their case.
> Previously, claimants had to finance their own costs for launching a libel
> action, and government-funded legal aid was not available."
>
> --
> JMoore

        So *that's* why you threw the Revolutionary War! You needed
some folks who could say the truth on the internet when you
needed to be circumspect.

        Well, we'll sure help you out on that in this case. Han***
makes me feel like taking a shower with Goop after I read, hear
or see him. 

-- 
Tom McDonald
Quantcast