Re: New (well, very very old) Calico dates

Seppo,

I'm flattered. Really. But as I have told you before, I am not...available for your unfettered love and dogged devotion. Neither am I worthy, as you know in your deepest heart of hearts.

Follow me around, puppyish, if you must. I cannot stop you. But please, Dear Seppo, do not expect me to be able to return your affections.

I am sorry. Do have a happy life--or as happy a one as can be had without me.

	Love,

	Tom

Seppo Renfors wrote: 

Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Tom McDonald wrote:


Seppo Renfors wrote:


Doug Weller wrote: 


[..]

Oh dear, another failure to comprehend :-)

If that wasn't "denigrating" I don't know what is - specially when  he
takes to opportunity to smear "supporters" simultaneously with that
nonsense - as if a "supporter" would resort to such garbage, specially
AGAINST the alleged "support"! HAH!


       Yes, it is clear that there are many things about normal
scientific work and discussion that you fail to comprehend.



Aha... so to certain Yanks "science" is the same as "denigrate", right
- that IS what you are suggesting after all. Hmmmm...... you must be
one of those "Intelligent Design" types (though in your case, you
should demand a REFUND) - they too have some real weird ideas about
"science".

[..]

      If you do not understand how someone who generally supports a
controversial point of view can at the same time objectively
report what s/he knows about the object of the controversy,
perhaps you are better suited to political argumentation (or
commercial advertising) than discussion in a scientific
discipline like archaeology.



Oh dear..... another Brick wall supporter I see.... it figures......
the puppy is following its masters lead :-)



Hmmmm... perhaps that should have been "being lead by the puppy
master"


URL supplied by Jerry T:
http://calicodig.com/node/view/55

Oh yeah..... they are "controversial"..... NOT!

You don't understand, do you? One website reporting one side of
a controversial site and its finds is not, NOT!, enough to end
the debate. 


Fancy having to resort to a negative pregnant in order to convey the
affirmative..... well, that IS what you are attempting isn't it?


You yourself would, if you were on the other side,
endlessly dispute this website. 


Pssssttttt...... *I* am not a FOOL! You are following your master's
lead (the one around your neck that is) again who IS denying those are
man made objects! Only a FOOL would do so!


Yet when it says what you want it
to say (or, more to the point, when it seems to say the opposite
of what you imagine someone else thinks), you find it the veriest
Trvth (tm).



Oh dear, been into that Viking cupboard of yours and hauled out some
magic mushrooms I see and now you are hallucinating for all it is
worth. Next you'll be nominating how much steel you can stand too!


Yet, the Douggie
resorts to claiming "It still isn't certain if these are geofacts or
artifacts" and more rubbish like "If they are artifacts," .... and he
wants you to believe they are NATURAL stones - and they are from some
other time - eg some time later than 12K ybp!


       Seriously, Seppo; get a clue. Your need to tear down people is
doing bad things to your karma.


Hey *I* do NOT force anyone to type *** like Douggie does! He does
that all by himself - oh and you go bite that weirdo in the leg, not
me *I* didn't come out with the nutty claims HE did. 

BTW, YOU are doing him NO favours either, by providing for the further
exposure of his nuttiness!


Something that I note
that YOU don't even believe..... well didn't till now, when you noted
what line the puppy master is taking..... tsk.. tsk.. tsk.. tsk..
tsk..


       I remain open to the evidence. As does Doug, by every measure
one can take based on on-line correspondence.



The hell you are! INSTANTLY I pointed out the illogical crap from him,
you sprang to his defence swallowing his illogical crud as it it was
honey topped with cream!


      I would point out that neither Doug nor anyone else I can think
of here is opposed to the idea that humans were present in the
Americas south of Alaska before Clovis. You confuse unwillingness
to accept inadequate evidence with refusal to accept any evidence.



Oh dear, and I'm sure you clip the wings of those flying pigs of your
too, eh? IF he does NOT "oppose the idea", he would NOT make the
allegations he did, AND then attribute them to a 'supporter' of a
theory of early homo (whatever) existed in the Americas at some 120K
bp.

So you are calling Doug a liar.


It wouldn't have been the first time, I have done that a number of
times in the past, only this was not one of them. I had a LAUGH AT him
for being so goddamed predictable - first he posts a URL with little
or no comment - to immediately someone responds, resort to tearing it
down to "denigrate" the information HE initially provided.

He is a bloody TROLL - this is a mechanism he has used many times in
the past to get himself a podium to preach his gain saying from! 


Interesting. Perhaps you can
share the crystal ball, so we can all have access to the font of
your wisdom.



Oh, well let me point to another curiosity you have been blind to. The
article he pointed to makes NO mention of Homo sapien sapien. The
closest there is, is this "Humans....."- only DOUGGIE has resorted to
a (genuine) racial segregation of Homo Erctus -v- Homo Sapien Sapien -
WHY? Doesn't H.e. belong to the Homo genus?

It is of NO relevance at all - in any event, why H.s.s specifically
why not Homo sapien archaic, a slightly saner suggestion - but an even
more likely Neanderthal?

But NO, apparently it all turns on H.s.s in his mind - if they were
NOT H.s.s then they don't matter and are irrelevant - they cannot be
"human artefacts". THAT's your puppy master you follow behind yapping
to please!

Or perhaps you would like to *ask* Doug about his source. 


Why does one need to? HE made them his own words by repeating it
making grunting sounds of approval as he did so - of course, he had to
create the "supporter" bit along with a few other things.


I
suspect it's someone who would prefer to stay out of the Usenet
arc lights; but I am sure this person exists. Unlike some other
'persons' that are sometimes cited on this ng.



This is what he ALLEGED were the words of a:
[insert Doug's text]
As one supporter of early dates put it when he brought this to my
attention:

1 The dating is actually new, it goes back to 1998.
2. It still isn't certain if these are geofacts or artifacts.
3. If they are artifacts, remember that it is the strata that has been
dated. This is an alluvial fan, the date of the strata might not be
the
date of the objects.
[end insert]

Doug LIED, he did NOT quote anyone, they are DOUG's own words - nor
was the words from a "supporter" but SOME of them are those who are
like HIM, brick wall builders!

One such is Allan Shumaker in a post Date: October 14, 2005 (not
Douggie's "source") another is "David Campbell" who posted on
November 25, 2005 and said: "... the question of whether the Calico
tools are artifacts or geofacts,...." and "the date of the strata does
not necessarily mean that there is a direct association with artifacts
found within it" (can you believe that!) - a statement that is NOT by
a supporter of the early Homo.* tools as claimed by Douggie. 

So NOW let me say that Douggie is a LIAR - happy now? See the evidence
found in a search covering the last 90 days:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,372534,372534#msg-372534
http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,364270,365780#msg-365780

Something he did NOT post, but I found anyway. He just waved his had
in a general direction, suggesting "it is out there somewhere, if you
can find it". This is Douggie's 'work' once more - him pointing to his
"source" (a lie):

Douggie wrote:
Here's the thread:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,372534,372826,sv=2#msg-372826

Remember this, YOU are the instigator of me researching this and
PROVING Douggie to be a liar!! Oh and I'm sure Doug thanks you for
your efforts and departing from the topic once more!


You have a real problem with this. 


No, *I* had a LAUGH at the predictability of Douggie's actions - *YOU*
are the one having the problems! YOU don't LIKE having the brick wall
builder exposed for what it is, because you are in sympatico with that
ideology!

You don't read very well, do you? 


Much, much better than you will ever be able to - you show that often
enough!


I suspect you have a lifetime
library card to the Library of Wrong Books.



I don't own any books written by you!

I noted you DISAGREED with the finds NOT being properly dated when
found in a dateable strata - only you CHANGED YOUR TUNE, immediately
on my observation to support what has turned out to be LIES from
Douggie in any case! You really are corrupt, you know that! So corrupt
you even put *** on yourself in order to defend your loopy puppy
master! Have you NO SHAME at all!


You also claim (without
evidence) that there is some sort of pre-Columbian brick wall
(except for L' anse aux Meadows--which is in itself proof that
such a wall does not exist) among posters here.



...that is KNOWN to exist, and of which I have posted actual
documented proof previously - so you fell flat on your face there
too...

Your 'proof' is somewhat other than truthful, Seppo. 


There you go again, your CORRUPTION is complete! Unlike you and
Douggie *I* don't NEED to LIE!

You dare say that in the face of evidence you KNOW I have posted
previously - DOCUMENTED evidence from a book in the USA! That is in
addition to all the proof YOU and Douggie have provided - eg your
resorting to character assassination attempts of GENUINE academics as,
Nazis or Nazi sympathisers, when that is all you had left to prop your
brick wall up with!

Now, go away and stop stealing the oxygen!

[enough already]


.