Re: Polynesian canoes (Re: Rat genes
From: George (gblack_at_hnpl.net)
Date: 07/28/04
- Next message: George: "Re: Phil's Count of Inger's Excuses for July, 2004"
- Previous message: Carmen: "Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes"
- In reply to: benlizross: "Re: Polynesian canoes (Re: Rat genes"
- Next in thread: Yuri Kuchinsky: "Re: Polynesian canoes (Re: Rat genes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Jul 2004 13:02:25 -0700
benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<41077A1D.5970@ihug.co.nz>...
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > benlizross wrote:
> > >
> > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > benlizross wrote
> > > > in article <41041CA5.283B@ihug.co.nz>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<4100441E.11F6@ihug.co.nz>...
> > > > > > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I was only asking you to back up some of your claims, but
> > > > > > > > perhaps this was asking too much...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your demand for "specifics" was a demand to replay several years of
> > > > > > > discussion on this group, since you like to pretend that no such
> > > > > > > examination of particular points of Heyerdahl's theory has taken place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, some examination did take place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question is about the results of this examination.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, for most people the results could be summed up as: Heyerdahl was
> > > > > wrong. But I don't see any point in pursuing a discussion on that level
> > > > > of generality.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nobody else is interested in going over all that stuff again. If you
> > > > > > > have a particular point which has not been previously discussed, or on
> > > > > > > which you have some new evidence, feel free to bring it up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ross Clark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You keep making vague allegations about some discredited stuff in
> > > > > > Heyerdahl, but you are always short on specifics.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about a specific example of a vague allegation?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ross Clark
> > > >
> > > > There's an explicit allegation above, but still
> > > > unsubstantiated...
> > >
> > > So instead of substantial arguments, we are going to play "hunt the
> > > allegation", are we? This is someone who repeatedly abuses others for
> > > "childish word games". Yuri, when _you_ quote my allegation, or better
> > > when _you_ have something particular you want to discuss, I'm ready.
> > > Otherwise, I have better things to do.
> > >
> > > Ross Clark
> >
> > I would like you to explain in what way Heyerdahl "was
> > wrong".
>
> You've forgotten? I'm sure it will all come back to you if I say: The
> Polynesians did not come from Peru. Nor did they come from British
> Columbia.
>
> > You've made the claim, so it's up to you to back it up.
> >
> > Is he wrong about this?
> >
> > Easter Island Images
> > http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
>
> Oh dear, the icons again. Yuri, "this" appears to be one of your web
> pages with several photographs and quite a bit of text by Yu. Kuchinsky.
> How can such an assemblage be "right" or "wrong"? Would you please make
> the effort to focus on one particular proposition? Then maybe I can give
> you an answer.
>
He should go read The Explorers of the Pacific G Badger (1988) ISBN 0-86417 211 7
- Next message: George: "Re: Phil's Count of Inger's Excuses for July, 2004"
- Previous message: Carmen: "Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes"
- In reply to: benlizross: "Re: Polynesian canoes (Re: Rat genes"
- Next in thread: Yuri Kuchinsky: "Re: Polynesian canoes (Re: Rat genes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
