Re: The Dawn of Art

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:38:29 -0000, in sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On Oct 6, 3:48 pm, David <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:06 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:03:03 -0700, in sci.archaeology, Hal wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:19 am, David <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:58 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:40:05 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Digger wrote:

"David" <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1191593429.403111.231210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
by Andrew Curry
http://www.archaeology.org/0709/abstracts/iceage.html

Conard's conclusions - agree or disagree?

I guess it depends how you define "culture" and "civilisation".
The points given on the page you linked to are far too vague to pass
judgement on.

David/Carl does this frequently, posts a link says 'agree or disagree?'.

He doesn't have the experience or knowledge or anything to make an
informed opinion himself, although he doesn't hesitate to do so over
Thiering and Han***. I'm not sure why he does it.
Doug
...

On the contrary I will weigh in on Conard's conclusions with an
informed
opinion when I can fit it into my busy, busy schedule.

No you won't. You could have done it instead of posting this claptrap,
but you didn't.

BTW, it would be fascinating if Doug Weller, with his wealth of
experience
and knowledge, would comment on Conard's conclusions.

Last, my policy is that I don't talk about Dr. Barbara Thiering or
Graham Han*** unless other sci.archers do. It seems to be
flattering that Doug Weller implies that David Christainsen's opinion
on the 2 of them is informed.

Gee wizz, and to me it implied you were an idiot. I wonder who's
closer?

I think if Thiering thought he was informed and correct, she'd back him
publicly. I know that his opinion on Han*** is uninformed.

And I have no intention of discussing Conard with someone so ill-equipped
to have a discussion about archaeology as David is.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't care about Doug Weller anymore because Doug Weller
consistently carries rudeness to new heights.

Plus, Doug has your number.

And you confirm the validity of his view of you when you tell us, as
below, that some time in the future, you will be informed about
Conard's conclusions (which means, on s.a., that you understand the
actual archaeology enough to really *have* an opinion useful in a
group of real archaeology buffs); but you just can't seem to find the
time just now, what with all the important...

...well, just what are you doing with your long, research-filled days
at Brandeis, anyway? Apparently not following through on the promises
you make to folks on the ngs.

However, I will SHORTLY give my informed opinion about
Conard's conclusions in this thread because I have
been so severely challenged and mocked FOR NO GOOD REASON.

<snort, chortle>

I really, really, really don't like it.

No one cares what you like or don't like. What would change people's
opinion of you would involve learning how to interact with
archaeologists and those of us who are educated in archaeology; and
that you have not done. Your vapid assertions to the contrary
notwithstanding.

BTW, you lied about your reception on s.a. in another group. Why did
you not cross-post that post, Carl? Did you think your 'poetry' would
be lost on us?

I should tell you that I have an undergrad degree in English, and have
written award-winning poetry. So you picked the wrong fellow to try to
weasel out of a lie by asserting you meant it 'poetically'. It just
doesn't scan, Carl. And nor have your attempts at archaeological
discussion.

I ask again for you to surprise me by learning how to discuss
archaeology scientifically with other scientifically-minded lovers of
the human past.

My viewpoint is that he cannot give an informed opinion not just because
of his own problems but because he lacks the background. Just reading a
few articles won't do the trick. You've got 2 years graduate study,
others have even more. I've got the least but I have some - to be
specific, 3 courses of a 4 course diploma taught at the University of
Birmingham by University archaeologists, if I had taken the fourth course
I would have had automatic entry to the 2nd year of Birmingham's
archaeology degree (UK degrees are typically 3 years, think the last 3
years of an American undergraduate course). And I got A's. Oh, I've got a
good library, used to read the journals a lot, but there is nothing like
seminars and sweating over essays and exams to help develop your knowledge
of a subject.

So, without that, his opinion won't be worth much IMHO.


Or am I right that you are insane, and expect to do the same ***
you've always done here, expecting a different result this time?

(Gee, that's an experiment! Cool!)
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

Loading