Re: Jumping to Mehrgarh as at least a farming village if not a pre-Flood city

On Jul 24, 11:04 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl wrote:

<snip>

I instantly intuited that Han***'s entire quote was accurate
as to representing Lukacs well in a nutshell.

Your intuition is not evidence of the value or relevance of
anything Han*** includes in his propaganda.

And, I do not have the time to get bogged down in Peter
Alaca's specifications as far as mere posting on sci.arch is concerned

Peter, and others here, have done you a great boon in taking the
time to show you how to do valid discussion on a sci.* group. The
specifications he expects are those expected by anyone who is
using science to try to understand some aspect of the world.

If you don't have time to get bogged down in such necessary
aspects of discussion, you don't have the right to expect anyone
to pay attention to you.

in that I expect whatever sci.archers are interested in the subject
of my posting to act on their own responsibility to follow thru after
I have also given proper reference to a peer reviewed journal.

That's fine. But you too often go further and insist that we be
interested when we may not be.

As Peter has noted, he posts many more, and far better,
well-referenced things here than anyone (I think); and yet he
does not insist that anyone else be interested in them, or carp
that others don't have the proper chemistry in their responses to
them.

Be like Peter, my friend; in this particular at the least.

I'll spell it out for you. (BTW, I like your resonance in remembering
the Bruce Lee quote.)

I don't insist that any sci.archer be interested in a single, cotton-
picking
thing that I write.

Moving on if and only if Tom McDonald is interested, I instantly
intuited
from Possehl's phrasing that Lukacs had left a substantial enough
paper trail in the literature.

I was right -

17 matches for "'John Lukacs' Mehrgarh" on Google Scholar.

.

Quantcast