Re: New Archaeological Evidence for Atlantis

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
"Peter Alaca" wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
"Peter Alaca" wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
"Peter Alaca" wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

That's two people now. Your use of the word 'reply' suggests
that Uwe has said something to me which warrants a response. If
he has I have missed it.

Well, his comment is pretty devastating for what you
call 'new ideas'. I think that deserves some kind of
response from your side. Afterall it was you who asked
for proof that the author is wrong.

Did I?
What did I say?

Is your memory that short?
In your first reply
'Can you actually prove that "the author" is wrong
without descending to ad hominems or bullying?'

What I actually wrote was a question directed to you.

'Can YOU (Peter Alaca) prove that "the author" (Samra) is wrong -
[at this point I could have stopped but I added the conditional
statement] - without descending to ad hominems or bullying?'

Yes, you could have stopped there because the attack
on what you call 'new ideas' was your primary point.

You are dense.

My 'attack' was on your manner of attack. You were rude and offensive
and said absolutely nothing constructive.

I could have answered your question(s) with a simple 'yes'
but I gave you one sample paragraph to judge for yourself.
Luckily for you Uwe came very quick to your rescue.

You are dodging and twisting.

The expert speaking.

Of course my initial remarks were not meant for the public
the writer is aming at, the public that loves 'new ideas'
of writers with 'open minds'

There is no need to be offensive and rude, even if you disagree with
him. You should learn to deal with these things in a polite fashion.

The polite way is to refute point by point what is wrong.
But this text is so full of rubbish that it is impossible to
treat it that way here, even if I had the desire to do so.
It simply is not worth the trouble. That is why I took the
direct way and called it what it is: a load of crap.
Someone else with much more authority than I have
called it:
"ill-informed propaganda, lacking even basic knowledge
about the time and area in question, and being untruthfull
about the underlying evidence".
What is the difference, apart from a 'slightly' different frasing?
If you prefer a different wording or a different qualification
that is fine with me, but 'a load of crap' is my opinion
and that will not change by working around it in a way
you like more.

--
p.a.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BBCs The Passion
    ... Apart from saying "that list is a load of crap" what non silly response ... That's fine by me ("that list is a load of crap"). ... shame that all the other atheists cannot be more consistent in their ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: BBCs The Passion
    ... That's fine by me ("that list is a load of crap"). ... a shame that all the other atheists cannot be more consistent in their ... in compiling his response, given that about seven minutes of checking ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: New Archaeological Evidence for Atlantis
    ... Because it is not Uwe who makes a practice of opening discussions by ... I'd be interested in your response, as the OP mentioned Atlantis, ... is written in an Ogam precursor and means more or less what it says. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: New Archaeological Evidence for Atlantis
    ... Because it is not Uwe who makes a practice of opening discussions by ... I'd be interested in your response, as the OP mentioned Atlantis, ... is written in an Ogam precursor and means more or less what it says. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: New Archaeological Evidence for Atlantis
    ... Because it is not Uwe who makes a practice of opening discussions by ... I'd be interested in your response, as the OP mentioned Atlantis, and you appear to have had an interest in the various Atlantis ideas. ... Or was your interest in that discussion only to do with your memory of the boys in AAI saying that the Native Americans didn't note or use astronomical alignments regarding solstices and equinoxes? ... have been hors de combat since I pointed out that AAI didn't say what you remembered; and since I gave a rationale for Native Americans in that region having both the astronomical chops and the philosophical interest that could have resulted in the Crack Cave markings. ...
    (sci.archaeology)