Re: Iron Pyrite...

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 09/09/04 

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:02:46 -0400

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:h73rj0llcgvhqnfdb9b9p63v17sqejipv8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 05:11:36 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:5hjpj01t34i7i22rvibrfuhh8hr5o77olt@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:37:42 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> >> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> >news:fegnj0d91svqpq6rdjp86b0q450j1btunt@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 16:52:43 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> >> >> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:28rmj0phggbdti66de4l18gls765q4q3qv@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 10:36:50 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> >> >> >> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:at3lj0l15cm5hvnrukp1jfpjef4jubds6l@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:27:35 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> >> >> >> >> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bull***. You've been posting claims on sci.archaeology for at
least
> >a
> >> >week
> >> >> >(if not more) purporting to know that a forger could not
artificially
> >age
> >> >> >the KRS without leaving traces behind. Now put up,or shut up.
> >> >Otherwise,
> >> >> >my claim is just as good as you claim, and needs no more backing up
> >than
> >> >you
> >> >> >do.
> >> >>
> >> >> You never challenged me on these until I challenged your assertion
> >> >> above. Now you want to try and change the subject.
> >> >
> >> >No. I don't want to change the subject. *You* made certain claims. I
> >> >challenged them.
> >>
> >> But only AFTER I challenged yours. Your's was a defensive challenge. I
> >> bet you don't have an answer to my original challenge of you.
> >
> >So what? Challenging my claims in no way supports your claims.
>
> I never said it did. All I intended was to put your claim to the
> question, which you have been assiduously evading ever since.
> >
> >>
> >> >It is up to *you* to defend *your* claims. Attacking my
> >> >counterclaim does not in any way buttress *your* claim. Suppose my
> >> >challenge is wrong. How does that support *your* claim?
> >
> >No clever answer here, eh Eric? Oh I know, what I posted was too much
for
> >you to read.
>
> No, I'm letting you justify your claim first. After all, I asked for
> you to do that before you asked me.
>
> --- evasion snipped ---
>
Evasion snipped? That's a good one, since you've been doing the evading.

As I've posted, my claim is based on logic that I dreamed up myself. I
vetted it with knowledgeable people in relevant disciplines, who did not
contest the logic.

Now, support your claim, or shut the hell up.

Steve 

-- 
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either.  This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.  To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Quantcast