Re: OT [was Re: Food Culture: Mesolithic Western Europe].

prd wrote: news:7b_Ig.5321$5i3.4690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Peter Alaca" . . . :

What makes you far worse than 'Our Lady',
is that you are a mean manipulator.

I have time, I try not to waste it arguing
with you about inconsequentials.

And you regard everything I write as "arguing inconsequentials"
That is a good method to avoid critical
thinking about your theories. Where did
you learn that? Linchpin University?

If you have a scientific reference but to get
into the pedantics of spelling.

This was no pedantic spelling issue.
It was intended as a service.

If it was me I would have brought
in articles I though you had missed regarding
misspelling.

It is not to me to do your homework,
and certainly not if it is not clear wat
you are exactly after.
Then I only can give you some tools.

Not long ago you asked for information
on neolithic food. I reposted a table.
No reaction from you.

I have seen your style of arguing with
Inger, Peter,

Don't compare my arguments with Inger
with arguing with you. You know they are
completely different, with most of the time
a completely different objective.

I don't want to waste just a whole
lot of time based in these meta-issues.

And I don't have time to wade through a bog of
genetics and ill-understood archaeology and
ecology.

And what you did in the mean time is escaping
the interesting LKB discussion when you were
caught with your trousers down your pines, and,
just as IEJ, started a couple of threads under a
different header. And now you think you can
dictate things, calling "Off-topic!" Just like IEJ.

I realy regretted you did that, because the input
from a genetic point of view in the neolithisation
discussion is interesting. For me it was e.g.
fascinating to hear that the geneflow seems to be
in the opposite direction as the neolitisation. That
needs clarification. From your side that is.

But if you want to discuss genetics here, in an
archaeology group, you must take the possibility
into account that most people here know very
little about genetics. Uwe told you he doesn't, and
if I didn't already, I tell you now. That means that
you have to keep it as simple and clear as
possible. Now it is not, far from it, and worsened
by your general style of writing.

And that brings me back to respect for ones
readers. If you like to be taken seriously, the first
thing you have to do is to respect your (potential)
readers, and especially your (sparse) discussion
partners.

Take for example your Pine theory. Your only two
discussion partners, both much better qualified in
the relevant fields than you are, were telling you
for more than a week that it was impossible for
your theory to be correct. But you choose to
ignore them all that time, and in the end you
walked out scolding. That is not the way to do it.


As far as the NE cultures are concerned I brought
them in because they were linked in the process
of the Wiki and so if anyone wanted to investigate
these they could, but except for these 'mean' meta
issues I am trying to stick with the threads title
on Western Mesolithic Food culture.

I am not like Inger, I bring refereed science to this
group to discuss filling in some gaps.

Yes you do, and of course that is not what makes
you worse, but it is one of the things /why/ it makes
you worse, because it means that you are smart
enough to know what you are doing.

If you have other facts on these topics we can discuss
them, but I don't want any more of this tit-for-tat,

You are the one who is playing tit-for-tat all the time,
not me.
And I hope you noticed that I prefer to contribute to
the topics of interest in a less chaotic environment,
where I also can keep the relation with the LKB alive.

I changed the topics for discussion with Uwe simply
because we got into my-opinion your-opinion tit-for-tat,

No, in my opinion Uwe told you that you were wrong,
and you refused to admit it.

and here we go to my google is better than your google tit-for-tat.

Again, I tried to help you by offering some keywords.
The tit-for-tat, and far worse, was yours.

I researched these links looking for specific things
"Food Culture: Mesolithic Western Europe" so that the
arguments can be focused.

If you want to call me 'mean' that's fine, but I have
been on this UseNet a long time, and I think its a
waste to pick arguments with people over meta-issues.
The topic is Western Mesolithic Food Culture.

You /made/ that the topic, because that suits you better.
But of course, it is your right to do so, and if it wasn't,
there was no way to stop you doing it.
See how it works with Inger?

--
p.a.

.

Quantcast