Re: Myths of British Ancestryncestry is wrong


"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4529e93b$0$74386$dbd41001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Michael Kuettner wrote: news:egbkcr$qmv$4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

My point.
Anyone sane has killfiled the bitch.
Except for Doug and Tom and you.

Don't tell me we are insane.

Well, conversing with someone who hasn't learned a single thing in 10 years makes you at least peculiar.

See below

Why ?

<snip>

If someone talks about "my students" or "I have studied History" and
smears people like IEJ does, it is necessary to point out that she is
a little religious bitch who got kicked out of school.
And lives on the dole.
A complete failure, IOW.

As I said, you can blame her for smearing people
here and for lying or bragging, but not for being
unfortunate in her private life.

You really don't get the difference ?
I'm pointing out that she is a failure.
Just to counter her claims that she has knowledge in any area.
After all those years, the monkey ist still wrong about everything.

Do you think she enjoys it to be crippled and to be
forced to live from social benefits?

Do you really think I give a damn about the welfare of a stupid bitch ?

<snip DW>

I don't believe that is because people are nice to Inger cs. When I came here I was a dissapointed
because people were /not/ nice (e.g. to inger) and
the archaeological content was not what I had
expected.
Exactly.
You came here _after_ the drain of good posters like B.M. Scott.
But hurray, we've still got Ingwer and Stevens !
What a boon to science !

I can imagine that combination is a
reason for people with a serious interest in
archaeology to leave the group.

They've left the group already.
Be glad that Uwe hangs around.

Apart from joining the wolf pack, I did my best to
add some archaeology to this group (c 140 new
subjects in 19 months).

I've never said anything against that.
But : Look at the thread "Druidism".
I could scan some actual figures (like I did efore); but then I think :
Why bother ?
If you want to see some non-paid effort re. Archaeology made real :
members.eunet.at/kmichael
That was before some of us were utterly disgusted.
Note the floor-heating,btw !

<snip>
NOT for newcomers to the group.
Imagine :
I'm studying Archaeology. Then I find a Usenet group dedicated to that topic.
I'm happy ! I subscribe !
Then I read the insane rants of Deppo and IEJ and see
Doug & Cie replying politely.
UNSUBSCRIBE.
You get the picture ?

Imagine :
I find a Usenet group dedicated to archaeology.
Then I read the postings of IEJ and note that
nobody argues with her.
So what she writes is to be taken seriously
or this group is not to be taken seriously.
You get the picture?

Imagine a simple answer :
<IEJ> the idiot wrote :
Trash, as always.

Should work better than Doug Wellers' "Maybe Inger meant...." statements.

As I said to Phil the other day, but what
was ignored by him:
" 'Arguing with' Inger about archaeology
is still talking about archaeology."
Since her postings have nothing to do with Archaeology,
I don't get your point.

Of course it is all lost on her, but that is
no reason not to argue.

"*** off, bitch !" usually is enough to "argue" with her.

<snip>
Yeah, and he about European archaeology.
That would be real fun.

That part has already started.
But I'm a firm believer that I can educate him about amphorae
in a polite way.

<snip>

Why should I help Dietiker?

Because correcting a myopic view is better than another flamewar ?
And more productive ?

I am not interested in another flamewar.
I am not interested in any flamewar.
And I am not interested in helping someone who is
only interested in himself.

Chuckle ! I've already educated a Charleston man; it should be possible with
a Texan, too.
They believe we're like them; but the bright ones learn to see the difference.
I still have hopes for Phil.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner




.