Re: "I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. The savannah one is pretty much out the window now."


"Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhaegen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C4CDD47C.1381A%m_verhaegen@xxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html

SF:
You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
appeared in the respected Australian broad*** newspaper, the Sydney
Morning Herald.

Liar.

other:
It's right there in black and white, Marc. You included a broken link
that implies that this article was in SMH. It's your responsibility
to make sure that your sources cannot be misinterpreted. Your
attitude is inexcusable.

- my boy, why would i include broken links??
- i didn't imply anything
- somebody said: The savannah one is pretty much out the window now. i
liked that & copied the whole thing from AAT
- i had no problem opening the link
- whether some part of it came from some newspaper or not,
"respected"(:-D) or not, i have no idea & don't care
- why are there always some maniacs that make simple things
complicated??

SF:
Because some would-be scholar is so densely uncritical of
the sources he uses that absolutely nothing he says can be
taken at face value ...

my little little boy, if you are so stupid & so childish & so naive as to
believe that everything that appears at s.a.p is true, go elsewhere

in fact, a lot of things that appear in "respected" scientific journals
are
not much better

And this is your justification for posting stuff which is
hilariously false? You feel absolutely no sense of
obligation to vet your own material? Your advice
re usenet is correct.....but it should not especially
apply to one's own material. If it does you've got
major problems both ethical and psychological.

Rick Wagler


.

Quantcast