Re: A list of cities going farther and farther back into antiquity

Carl wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:28 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:04 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl wrote:
<snip>





I plan to research the Wikipedia article on cities to get the links
for constructing
a list of cities going farther and farther back into antiquity. We'll
see whether
other sci.archers get interested.
If you intend to use Wikipedia for your research, why bother? No
archaeologist uses it for research. You claim some extravagently
high standards of research and scholarly capacity, yet you show
up here (where many people use Wikipedia for a quick-and-dirty
first approximation of stuff in which they are mildly
interested), and use non-archaeological references, even
references that don't show any real understanding of the issues
experts in relevant fields care about; and then excoriate us for
not capitulating to the wonder of your scholarship.
But on the other hand, we appear to be between other kooks at the
moment; so you do serve a useful purpose in that way.
The wooden block found in situ underwater among the structures in the
Gujarat
can be carbondated. I will follow the story.
This interests me because the hypothesis (Han***) dates the submerged
city
to 7000 BC or so.
Do you know whether this has already been dealt with here?

If not, research that first.

And never, never use Han*** as a source for anything on a sci.
group. If you need us to, we can explain why.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excuse me, young man.

Stick your 'young man' up your ass.

You are hardly the one to lecture me on
anything
now

Yet I give good advice. You do not heed it. Ergo, you fail.

or issue directives.

If you don't know why Han*** is useless on a sci. group, learn.

You have not learned. Ergo, you fail.

Your problem is you never read me carefully, never understood where I
was coming from. You asked few or no questions along the way to clear
it up and you could have. Months have gone by in this vein since
December.

Your problem is that I *have* read you carefully; *have* understood where you are coming from; *have* asked questions when I cared about something you wrote; and you have clarified with great precision exactly what sort of scholar and human being you are.

*** off.

Why you made your really bad assumptions about me is a mystery.
For the time being I most sincerely ask that you cut out the name
calling. Your behavior
on this point is unexcusable.

Calm down, shithead.


Let's back up.

Yes, since you have run down the group's patience with you, the only thing for you to do is to back up over it again.

I am now stating MY INTEREST (a shout) in the dating of the wooden
block.
I already posted on sci.arch a good link from an Indian source several
months ago
containing the comments of archaeologists. I will follow the story to
its conclusion.

Fine. Just don't expect anyone to follow you down that well-worn rabbit hole.

And btw, *** off, shithead.
.

Quantcast