Re: E.P. Grondine - 'MAN AND IMPACT IN THE AMERICAS'

On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:49:55 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:30:58 +0100, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 19 May 2006 08:19:08 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:01:02 +0100, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:34:44 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 17 May 2006 22:37:37 +0100, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Presumably you must know something. What can you tell us?

Nope. I took a quick look at Doug Ellison's forum and saw that he'd banned
Grondine. I didn't look to see why.

Who is Doug Ellison and what is his forum about?

Google broken?

I tried that before I asked you the first time. I could see nothing
which seemed to match your comment.

As I recall, the forum where Grondine was banned was habitablezone.com,
but that's not Doug Ellison's forum. Ellison seems to run
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com I think he's an amateur enthusiast -
and farly local to me.

This thread seems to answer my question.
http://www.habitablezone.com/Flame/messages/388515.html

I must admit I'm surprised. That's a side of Grondine I hadn't seen
before. Everything else I've read from him has tended to the densely
scholarly and to find him engaged in the kind of debate which fills
this news group is a new experience. I also suspect that being banned
by Ellison may be on a par with being kill-filed by Yuri Juchinsky.
:-)

Any reason for saying this? Ellison seems invited to speak to reputable
groups.

OK, he's better than Yuri Kuchinsky. I don't know anything about him
at all except that I gather from Google that his interests are
narrowly focussed and he does not like contrary views.

But it was Grondine who was banned, not Ellison.

One thing I will bet is that Grondine has read the CAPS study to which
he refers and fully understands it. In any case, this argument with
Ellison is not relevant to the subject of his book.

And it wasn't brought up in relation to the subject of his book, why do
you keep suggesting it was?

Look at the subject of the thread.


The entire post in which I asked the question is:
"From: Doug Weller - view profile
Date: Mon, May 15 2006 5:47 pm
Email: Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Groups: sci.archaeology
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

On Mon, 15 May 2006 10:09:13 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
wrote:

In my previous article I said that Grondine has a PhD. For all I know,
he may have, but my claim was based on an article which I misread. I
can't confirm his academic qualifications in any way. However, I do
know him as a careful researcher who does not like people who take
liberties with sources, particularly when he is the source.

Any idea why he upset Doug Ellison so much?

Doug

Neither the word 'subject' or the word 'book' was in that post, yet you
keep writing as though it was.


1. Look at the subject of the thread.

2. You never said that you were changing the subject.

I was changing the subject? By responding directly to something you said?


3. Even when I said your remark appeared be a non sequitur you never
confirmed that it was.

Probably because it wasn't. As I didn't know if the cause of the argument
was relevant, it couldn't be a non sequitur. See below. It could have been
extremely relevant.


I still don't know why you asked that question. Life would be much
easier if you had explained why when I asked rather than accusing me
of trying to shut you down.

Actually someone else did that. But I think you know that.

I still don't know the point of your irrelevant question about an
argument between Grondine and a person I had never previously heard of
about a topic which has no connection to Grondine's book MAN AND
IMPACT IN THE AMERICAS.

But your point that I was responding to was that Grondine didn't like
people taking liberties with sources. Now, just suppose that the reason
that Doug Ellison quarreled with Grondine was that Grondine was taking
liberties with sources (recall, I didn't know and still aren't sure what
the content of the quarrel was about, but I now doubt that that was the
issue). Why would that be irrelevant?

This all seems so painfully obvious I have no idea why you have been
pursuing so hard.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast