Re: Stopped discussion in sci.archaeology.moderated



bernard_connor@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > >
> > > bernard_connor@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I do not know Inger.
> > >
> > > Inger has been posting here for a very long time. If you would
> > > like to know what people here mean when they say negative things
> > > about her, you may wish to compare (there is no contrast IMHO)
> > > her postings from, say, five years ago and her postings now. With
> > > very few changes, they are interchangeable.
> >
> >
> > Quite frankly Tom, over the period I have been here, you have been the
> > same - spending some 80% of your posts abusing Inger (this counts as
> > one of those) and joining in in pack attacks on her. So if you want to
> > finger point, point at yourself! YES I too have been shoving this
> > unacceptable behaviour of yours under your nose for about as long as I
> > have been here too....... and you still don't taken the blindest bit
> > of notice....
> >
> > Understand (I'm an optimist you know) NOBODY is FORCED to reply to any
> > of her posts - so it is quite inexcusable to resort to following her
> > around with abuse and demeaning comments about her etc... - in any
> > case you have your own private censored little cubby-hole to crawl
> > into and play there. After all you have have been party to CENSORING
> > Inger from there. Why don't you go there and stop your constant
> > whining about Inger!
> >
> >
> >
> > [..]
>
>
> Seppo
>
> Yours is the first sensible post that I have seen on this matter.

That's it..... now you've done it..... you will be labelled and become
an instant outcast for (A) agreeing with me (B) making the same
observations I have made over time :-)

> The
> comprehensive dossier which was buit up by George on Inger and the
> shorter one by Tom Mac Donald clearly amount to a vendetta against
> someone who is writing in a serious manner about archaeology.

As an observer, I would say that THIS group would be close to dead
without Inger. Few of the other people manage to generate interest in
their subjects - should they ever even bother to instigate an on topic
thread.
>
> Meanwhile mad creationist rants are mostly ignored.

Oh I don't know...... I gave them a gentle poke in the side with a
pointy stick not so long ago.... Though to be fair, they probably
should really be ignored as they are off topic in this group.

> I dislike seeing bar-room language in a scientific group. Apart from
> the fact that it is offensive to the person to whom it is directed, its
> place is in the pub at closing-time.

I'm not so sure that "science" is being taken much note of here in
this group...... this group appears to have more affinity with
creationists than it has for science. Very often you will find the
methodology of people in this group are the same as that of
creationists - Start with a predetermined outcome, then create the
evidence to support that outcome - deny/ignore all things (no matter
how well known) that do not fit in with/support that outcome.

Of course the above is a generalisation - but while they behave in an
unscientific manner they simultaneously hound Inger incessantly, with
accusation of "unscientific" and much more.


--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stopped discussion in sci.archaeology.moderated
    ... > Seppo Renfors wrote: ... >> Quite frankly Tom, over the period I have been here, you have been the ... >> Inger from there. ... she is not seriously writing scientific archaeology. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Stopped discussion in sci.archaeology.moderated
    ... Seppo Renfors wrote: ... >>> I do not know Inger. ... > Quite frankly Tom, over the period I have been here, you have been the ... Yours is the first sensible post that I have seen on this matter. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: New "I" Catagory List, Name Confusion
    ... > Inger E Johansson wrote: ... > Don't tell us to do our homework; it's your duty to show Doug ... Here we see the SOCK PUPPET of Douggie again....... ... appear that Tom derives a lot of pleasure out of it...... ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Stopped discussion in sci.archaeology.moderated
    ... >>Seppo Renfors wrote: ... >>> Quite frankly Tom, over the period I have been here, you have been the ... >>> Inger from there. ... applied the shutters of Cowards Castle to my posts. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Correct info re Wolters academic merits! Re: Wolter on peer review.
    ... <inger e.johansson@xxxxxxxxx> ... Contrary to Doug and Tom Wolter are a scholar in the subject geology. ... LIAR - this is another such instance - I have NOT libelled the puppy ...
    (sci.archaeology)