Re: More anatase myth killing. Re: More anatase


Alaca wrote:

[snip]

> As so many times before you slip into a discussion on
> a banana-skin trying to infame me in saying that I am
> imaginative. What I find hard to belive is that we have many
> scholars here who seem to be unaware that your "very fine
> abrasive past" is exactly same as the lubricant which have
> been found in dated layer in north-east Twin City Minnesota.
> And btw I sent you full ref to that five years ago including
> name of the archaeologist in question. Layers dated to
> Pre-Columbian age more exactly to mid 14th century found
> in nature. Merdieval aconites are using it since 1430's onwards
> one way or the other.
>

[snip]

Dear Peter;

In this part of the world a dated layer is retired to the soup pot,
and it would be terribly unlikely to find a lubricant in one of
them... well, normally. A 14th century layer would be very
unpalatable indeed, and sounds like something from an ancient
Chinese recipe, and if so, unrelated to the substance I described.

But who knows? Were there Chinese tourists in Twin City in
the 14th century? I keep hearing about a different group.

I do completely recall the ref you sent (which should surprise
you immensely). That archaeologist was very strange. It
was in all the papers.

It never occured to me that the same 'inkpot residue' might
have been employed both as eye shadow and as a lubricant.
That does begin to fill in the picture, but it's not a very pretty
picture, one way *or* the other. Do chickens avoid the
acolytes where you come from?

I'm sorry that you become inflamed over bananna skins; I don't
recall mentioning one, but will try to do better in the future.

Regards;

Lloyd
*****

PS: Despite my earlier confusion, I think I can see where
you're coming from, as might you, if you would only learn
to walk backwards.

We now return you to your regular programming.

.