Re: Wild kettle and oxen

From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_nohormelcharter.net)
Date: 02/13/05 

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:19:37 -0600

Sawfish wrote:
> Doug Weller <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:07:56 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Michael Kuettner
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>"Alaca" <P.Alaca@is.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:420bfa30$0$35790$a344fe98@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>>
>>>>Michael Kuettner wrote in: 3723jpF57dqb9U3@individual.net,
>>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>I kick IEJ; asking something without a brain doesn't accomplish
>>>>>anything.
>>>>>No need for apologies, btw. It's just that shm gets spammed
>>>>>by the *** Hines (_massive_ crosspostings); and Ingwer
>>>>>added is just too much.
>>>>>Just check the headers, please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oke Michael, but I think it is a bit strange that you criticize scia,
>>>
>>>Why ?
>>>I've been here longer than most; I've seen the great Kookinsky-
>>>Diffusion wars; I've seen good posters leave while the "pond-scum"
>>>accumulates.
>>>Apart from Philip and Tom (and maybe you) no people with a love
>>>for archaeology have become posters here.
>
>
>>Philip? I don't see him as having a love for archaeology in the sense I
>>think you mean it.
>>
>>>Competent people like Horace or tk don't bother to bring in some
>>>substance; they're merely amusing themselves here.
>
>
>>They certainly have.
>
>
>>As have I, but my main interest is of course the debunking side, and I
>>confine myself more or less to that now here, other interests grab my
>>time.
>
>
>>[SNIP]
>
>
>>Doug
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> I would heartily agree that s.a has become a target-rich zone for
> debunking. It has been that way for *years*. What it is good for is not
> for obtaining information, but to hone one's logical analysis skills--to
> really get a handle on epistemology. I mean that seriously: that's what
> this group is good for. Who *cares* if a bunch of Scandinavians reached
> the interior of Minnesota in the 14th C? What's important is: how can we
> know that, for sure? By what methodology can we satisfactorily determine
> this? What level of fastidiously studied evidence is sufficient, and how
> do we qualify its quality?

        Yes, that is the rationalization I was groping for. :-)

>
> It seems like this group has attracted posters whose one redeeming social
> value is that they are willing to tirelessly generate demonstrably
> specious arguments for the rest of the world to dissect. This is quite a
> public service! Their bravery and determination in the face of adversity
> is quite admirable, and brings a certain poignancy to the term "quixotic".
>

        What a lovely, if long-winded, way of saying 'bull*** is manure'! 

-- 
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/