Re: Archaeological Evidence for Dating Kurukshetra War by Dr. S R Rao

Tedd Jacobs wrote:
"Peter Alaca" wrote...
Tom McDonald <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:

Tedd Jacobs wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
[...]

But how would you feel if no one showed interested because
responding only caused them to be abused by a third party? Not many
people like to risk becoming involved in a *** fight.
then maybe irrelivent '***' shouldn't be posted in an archaeology
group.
Tedd, was Eric responding to my post? If so, then my bozo bin is
working. And he is only the second person I've had to bin. (Inger
was the first).

he was. sorry for circumventing.

Don't be. I was just interested to see if (1) my filter was working and (2) if Eric posted a reply to me anyway. I'm glad to know the answers to both.

He did, which of course is a strange thing to do
when he now that you cannot hear him.

might be a relationship between what is writen and what is (wanted to be) heard.

Ja. Interestingly, I don't entirely disagree with Eric wrt the whole propriety thing. It's just that sometimes you have to call ***, ***; and sometimes, when gentler correction has failed, you just have to break out the old Anglo-Saxon words to try to get your point across.

Larry Athy *never* used curse words; yet he was, by far, the most vicious and offensive poster ever to darken this ng's doorstep. I think it is useful to call the full range of offensive behavior here by its right name, and ask that it stop. As you and I know, though, archies are not usually a shy and retiring, tea-party-going, blue-nose, if-you-can't-say-something-nice-don't-say-anything-at-all bunch. It would be a strange thing to expect a public newsgroup about archaeology to be those things.

Something else some folks don't notice is that, when archies are discussing real archaeology with each other, while things may get heated, the conversation is almost always on-point. The same here, I think, in general, when real archaeology is the topic.

But archies can get pretty short with folks who demand that their personal ideas of what is on-topic for archaeology, when those ideas are off-target; and when those same folks continue to insist on their view, even when gently informed by them as actually know archaeology. After a few frustrating exchanges with folks like that, we come near to the bar-room that Eric talked about.

Interestingly, I know some folks who may have started out like Carl, but who actually paid attention to the archaeologists they spoke with. They may hold whatever ideas they choose, and they may hope that their use of archaeological methods discovers support for a particular idea; but they have shown willing to go where the evidence leads. Those are the amateurs that I respect.

While I have no respect whatsoever for those who come here with an agenda, *and are unwilling to go where the archaeology leads*. That's why I get testy at such as Carl.

.

Quantcast