Re: Vineland
From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: oh to have a chez watt (was: Re: Vineland)"
- Previous message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Vineland"
- In reply to: David Johnson: "Re: Vineland"
- Next in thread: Tedd Jacobs: "oh to have a chez watt (was: Re: Vineland)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:25:14 +1300
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:30:00 GMT, David Johnson
<trolleyfan_spamfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in
>news:3rcb11tqhdcrf8fkvqk3pisv1k0uhdk2lh@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:45:59 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
>> <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:23:45 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- snip ---
>>>>>stating that artifact X cannot have been produced later than
>>>>>date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact.
>>>>
>>>> Sez who?
>>>
>>>it's called a typology eric. or were you baiting?
>>>
>>>
>> All this started from Seppo's statement that " The ink hasn't been
>> "dated" at all, ... " which as far as I know is perfectly correct.
>> Merely assigning an upper and lower limit to a date range is not
>> dating.
>
>Then almost _nothing_ in archaeology is dated - because almost everything
>in archaeology comes with a +- date range (except for those rare items
>with dates actually written on them where the dates in question are from
>a chronology with strong linkages to the current system).
>
>Heck, by this logic, this book sitting next to my computer ("Lord Darcy")
>isn't dated as the copyright only says "1981," which gives it a range of
>a whole _year_ in which it could have been created.
>
>At best, you're just nitpicking - and grammatical nitpickig at that. In
>practice, this is just you trying to obscure the issue...again.
I can see mathematics is not your forte :-)
>
>Give it a rest. The thing's a fake, always has been, always will be.
>
>David
Eric Stevens
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: oh to have a chez watt (was: Re: Vineland)"
- Previous message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Vineland"
- In reply to: David Johnson: "Re: Vineland"
- Next in thread: Tedd Jacobs: "oh to have a chez watt (was: Re: Vineland)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
