Re: A list of archaeological connections would be nice

Carl <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:

On Jul 19, 4:08 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug Weller wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:34:58 -0700, in sci.archaeology, Daryl Krupa
wrote:

On Jul 17, 2:48 am, Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Han***,
<snip>
is always or can be always backed up by academic authority
Prove that.
I dare you to try.
(N.B.: such an effort is doomed to failure.)

- Daryl Krupa

It's interesting that he makes such a claim, as it's very like his
claims about Thiering in that he has no expertise and no knowledge
to back up his claims, they are just worthless assertions.

Daryl played a little trick on Carl here, making it look as
though Carl was saying Han*** 'is always or can be always backed
up by academic authority'. He didn't, exactly. He said he, Carl,
was backing up his statements with academic authority.

But of course, archaeological discussion does not progress via
proof texts, as religious exegesis often does. Carl does not seem
to grasp the need to evaluate what even the best 'academic
authority' argues.

So it's very like his way of dealing with Thiering in that way as
well. Our Carl seems to be in over his head. And after making
such a noise about his great capacity to wrench us out of our
staid, conventional way of seeing things into a new truth.

But a little more rope won't hurt. He has promised some work of
his own tomorrow. I'm baiting with weighted breath to see what he
comes up with.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, I am waiting to see you digest what I have already given.

If our conversation leads to something productive, I will have valued
your background as an archaeologist.

There is no productive conversation poible unless
you come up with something valuable.
You are the one who makes wild claims, so
it is up to you to show us the evidence.
But you only show utter ignorance and bullshitting.

--
p.a.
.

Quantcast