Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 03/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:18:26 -0500

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:fk2941pjppf4p7ic96ers9v93v6hgfmnqf@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:17:35 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:8t6741hbn9ck2qslth1m82jn0nr76nichc@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:18:39 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --- snip -----
>
>>>>
>>>>or "Mr. Perez is, in fact, the last person entitled to speak about
>>>>terrorism, being directly responsible for the death of one hundred and
>>>>two
>>>>children, women and elders killed at Cana by the Israeli shelling that
>>>>tracked them to the UNIFIL tent they sought refuge in." from:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.lebanemb.org.au/Aboutus/Speech.html
>>>>
>>>>Yet another example of you not understanding your native tongue. Nota
>>>>bene
>>>>the international character of the websites linked; perhaps you would
>>>>like
>>>>to claim that the idiomatic phrase in question hasn't made it to New
>>>>Zealand
>>>>from Australia.
>>>
>>> I'm disappointed. You are now defending the failure of your native wit
>>> to recognise that I was responding to the literal meaning of your
>>> words. Now, when I point it out to you, you get all indignant. "I
>>> didn't mean what I literally said!"
>>
>>Of course _you_ were responding to the literal meaning of the words. The
>>problem is that **no one** could take what I had written as being other
>>than
>>the idiomatic useage of the phrase. Having no answer for that, you
>>promptly
>>generated squink. Typical.
>
> I challenged your statement with a bet that it would turn out to be
> wrong. Now you claim that you, a lawyer, did not go back and carefully
> read what it was that I was betting was wrong. Dear Me!
> Had you not yet drunk your morning coffee?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>poster.
>>>>>> Perhaps
>>>>>>by claiming that I lied re the plug-in that was installed on my old
>>>>>>16-bit
>>>>>>sytem that enabled me to kill file Usenet posts. How would you prove
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>claim? And you claim to be someone who deals with evidence for a
>>>>>>living.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I gave an explicit argument as to why I thought you were lying.
>>>>> Anyone who wants to know more can use Google.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed. Which argument was wrong. Now you are arguing that one can
>>>>ignore
>>>>posts (which can't be heard, smelled, tasted or otherwise sensed) by
>>>>reading
>>>>them, every one. A classic Stevens squink generation.
>>>
>>> Where have I said that? There is no reason why I can't skim them to
>>> see if you have said anything particularly reprehensible.
>>
>>You never said skim, you said "read." And of course, "skimming" is
>>reading,
>>just more quickly. It is interesting to watch you get trapped in the very
>>cloud of squid ink that you generated; it's not difficult to imagine that
>>you typically "skim" all posts that you "read" because it's not unusual
>>for
>>your response to a given post to be such as to indicate that you've either
>>totally ignored the poster's point, or totally missed the point.
>
> I skim what I read to see if there is anything worth reading
> thoroughly. It only after the second screen of unproductive skimming
> that I give up on the other two thirds of your posts.
>>
>>> You are
>>> trying to equate me ignoring most of what you have written with having
>>> you in a kill-file. Well, it isn't the same thing as you should well
>>> know.
>>
>>And you are trying to explain that you are ignoring what I've written by
>>first reading it.
>
> The penny is slowly dropping.
>
>>If you had any command of your native tongue, you might
>>have originally written something like "I read (or skim) what you write,
>>and
>>choose to mostly ignore your posts rather than responding to them."
>
> A loud clunk as the penny hits the floor!
>
> I would have thought that you would have realised that that is what I
> meant some years ago. After all, that is what I have been doing.
>
>>Instead, you chose to write "you are on ignore", which is precisely the
>>result that can be obtained when someone is placed in a kill file; that
>>someone's posts are ignored by the filter and the newsreader never
>>presents
>>them for review.
>
> Quibble. Mere quibble. If in meant to killfile you, why do think I
> would not have used that term. Better still, why did I not merely say
> <plonk>? Why do you think I used the quite different term of 'ignore'
> in various forms?

I credited you with meaning what you wrote. You almost always write things
in such a way as to confuse matters when discussing a particular
history/archaeology topic, apparently so that you can then follow up by
quibbling about meanings, (That's a tactic you employ when the kitchen gets
too hot to support the particular adventure into alternative
history/archaeology that you are currently engaged in.) I never suspected
that you would do that when simply making a statement re how you will treat
another's post.

Even now, you fail to recognize the difference between writing "I'm
**putting you on ignore**", (which is what you wrote), and simply saying
"I'm going to ignore you by not replying to most of the posts that you
write" (which is what you now claim to have meant). Much confusion and
squink generation could be avoided if you simply learned how to think, and
write clearly.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or didn't you quite mean what you wrote in that last sentence
>>>>>>> either?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I meant every word. While we are at it, should be discuss your claim
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>I'm a patent attorney?? As it happens, the proof that I'm not is
>>>>>>readily
>>>>>>available on the Internet. Last time I offered to show your claim to
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>wrong, you shut up about it pretty damned quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are getting twitchy. You have denied that you are a patent
>>>>> attorney but have never offered any support for that claim.
>>>>
>>>>I expressly stated that if you required proof, I would be happy to
>>>>supply
>>>>it. See:
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/4tdoy
>>>>
>>>>Yet another Stevens lie. The above post must have been one of my posts
>>>>that
>>>>you "ignored" by reading it, and then, having seen that you were about
>>>>to
>>>>be
>>>>outmaneuvered, you didn't take me up on my offer.
>>>
>>> That's offering to offer support. I never bothered to take you up on
>>> it but, why don't you lead us to the evidence that you are not a
>>> patent attorney?
>>
>>Sure. Just as soon as we see the evidence you have that I am a patent
>>attoreny.
>
> Changing the rules, eh?

What rules? Who wrote any rules?
>
> In fact you have been evasive in this news group about whether or not
> you are a patent attorney, and your exact professional status, since
> before 1998. See http://tinyurl.com/66qxy

Pretty cool. You cite posts by a bunch of folks other than me to prove your
claim, and not a single post in which I do anything but stroke their
fantasies re whether I'm a patent attorney or not. In particular, you seem
not to have really read the posts, because you missed this one:

http://tinyurl.com/3n2qy

in which the poster was actually barking up the right tree.

>
>>So far, you've opined that I have a quasi-legal disclaimer in my
>>sig file, and I ofter write at length on aspects of patent law. I pointed
>>out that I also write at length on aspects of archaeology, and on matters
>>involving cardiology, (and all posts have the same sig file), but I'm
>>quite
>>clearly neither an archaeologist or a cardiologist. It is nice of you to
>>demonstrate to the newsgroup just how low your standard of proof of a
>>proposition really is, how you view the flimsiest of evidence as a license
>>to speculate, and to then post as though your speculation were true (you
>>write that I **am** a patent attorney).
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would be
>>>>> happy to follow it up if you offered it.
>>>>
>>>>But I did. You've yet to ask for the proof.
>>>
>>> I have now.
>>
>>And you'll get it just as soon as you post all of the proof that you have
>>that I am a patent attorney.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> But you do dress many of your
>>>>> posts with a quasi-legal disclaimer and anyone who browses
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4ncs4 will find that you write often and at length
>>>>> on aspects of patent law.
>>>>
>>>>I am also frequently a poster on sci.med.cardiology, but that doesn't
>>>>make
>>>>me a cardiac surgeon, any more than my posts on sci.archaeology make me
>>>>an
>>>>archaeologist. I have a deep interest in intellectual property matters,
>>>>not
>>>>something that is strange for an attorney.
>>>>
>>>>I can tell you that patent attorneys are required to join a special bar
>>>>association before being permitted to practice patent law, and that the
>>>>roster of such attorneys is available on the Internet, as well as
>>>>information confirming the need for patent attorneys to be members of
>>>>that
>>>>special bar association. Ask, and I'll even do the research for you,
>>>>since
>>>>you seem intent on proving yourself a liar with respect to what my
>>>>profession is.
>>>
>>> Wrong, perhaps, but a liar no. I have no reason to misstate your
>>> profession.
>>
>>Except that you did misstate it, posting what my profession is as though
>>it
>>were true. I believe the exact words were "Steve Marcus **is** a patent
>>attorney. (My emphasis.) If you had any reason at all to post what you
>>thought my profession is, then you certainly had reason enough to misstate
>>it intentionally.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should read Lewis Carrol on the subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why? I know what sarcasm is and don't need Carrol or dictionary to
>>>>>>explain
>>>>>>it to me. That you failed to understand that "somewhat unique" was
>>>>>>sarcastic (perhaps because I didn't originally put the phrase in
>>>>>>quotes;
>>>>>>given that you appear to have difficulty reading for comprehension,
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>certainly was my bad) doesn't mean that I, and others, share your
>>>>>>failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt you wrote the above when your computer was 'somewhat on'.
>>>>
>>>>Still don't understand the meaning of sarcasm, do you?
>>>
>>> Here we go back to the beginning. I will quote your original statement
>>> and interpolate comments:
>>>
>>> And you claim to have me on "ignore", by which you claim to mean
>>> that you only reply to posts that you think warrant a reply.
>>>
>>> [That's a reasonably accurate summation of what I have several
>>> times said.]
>>>
>>> How you determine which posts those are without reading all of the
>>> posts remains an "unsolved mystery", ....
>>>
>>> [Here is where you go off the rails. There is no reason why I have
>>> to read ALL your posts to pick up something worthy of a comment.
>>> Consider the rest of your above sentence]
>>>
>>> .... and evidently involves a somewhat unique definition of the
>>> word "ignore."
>>>
>>> [At this point I picked you up on your usage of 'unique'. Something
>>> either is unique or it is not. It can't be somewhat unique.
>>> Hence my reference to'somewhat pregnant'and later, to your computer
>>> being 'somewhat on'. You seem to be trying to ignore the point I
>>> made and now are claiming that you wrote it in sarcasm. It still
>>> looks much more like some sloppy vernacular to me.]
>>
>>Squink. If you meant you read only some of my posts, it was easy enough
>>to
>>have said so. The context of your original post stating that you have put
>>me "on ignore" is that you only look for those posts that you deem to be
>>worthy of a reply because what I state in such posts is outrageous enough
>>that they "need" to be replied to.
>>
>>At the end of the day, it's clear that for all your pretensions about
>>being
>>this genius in forensic analysis, often called to court to testify and
>>with
>>clients for whom you generate (presumably in writing) reports on various
>>matters, you actually can't write clearly enough to post something on
>>Usenet
>>that actually means what you intend it to mean. Coupled with your
>>displays
>>of illogic and your biases to anything that is not the generally accepted
>>norm, I feel genuinely sorry for the Courts in which you appear and the
>>clients that you represent.
>>
>>Post your evidence showing that I'm a patent attorney. Then I just might
>>post evidence clearly proving the negative. I think, however, that I'll
>>require you to promise to admit having lied about my profession, before I
>>post the that evidence.
>
> OK, so you are not a patent attorney. I doubt that you are even a
> practicing lawyer and that your frequent disclaimer is pretence.

Well, since you appear to have conceded the point re being a patent
attorney, but don't wish to admit that you lied about the matter, or even
that you posted a claim having no evidence to support it, it doesn't appear
that you need to be shown the proof that I'm not in fact a patent attorney.

As to my being an attorney, quite fortunately, the state in which I am a
member of the Bar does not publish a membership listing that is available on
the Internet. I could upload If you think that I'll post contact
information in a newsgroup, particularly one populated by vermin like Seppo,
your crazier than I give you credit for being. That notwithstanding, I am a
member of the Bar in one the 50 states of the USA, and also a member of the
Bar of certain Courts within the USA. I could care less whether or not you,
or anyone else, believe that.

>
> I am going to ignore your response unless you can do more than add to
> argument and confusion. I hope that is sufficiently clear for you.

Yes it is, and please do.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

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
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil
    ... >> to recognise that I was responding to the literal meaning of your ... Just as soon as we see the evidence you have that I am a patent ... you are a patent attorney, and your exact professional status, since ... >Except that you did misstate it, posting what my profession is as though it ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil
    ... >> to recognise that I was responding to the literal meaning of your ... Just as soon as we see the evidence you have that I am a patent ... you are a patent attorney, and your exact professional status, since ... >Except that you did misstate it, posting what my profession is as though it ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil
    ... >>generated squink. ... Just as soon as we see the evidence you have that I am a patent ... fantasies re whether I'm a patent attorney or not. ... member of the Bar does not publish a membership listing that is available on ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)