Re: SEAWEED DISCOVERY AT MONTE VERDE

On May 10, 8:20 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 10, 3:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On May 9, 7:26 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 9, 4:09 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 9, 6:43 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 9, 3:30 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 9, 6:15 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 8, 1:33 pm, michaelrugg...@xxxxxxx wrote:

Listeros,

Tom Dillehay, the excavator of Monte Verde, the first Pre-Clovis site
in the Americas that received the acceptance of the entire scientific
community as being genuinely Pre-Clovis,

Roosevelt 2002:186-87 does not accept the validity of Monte Verde,
gives
very convincing reasons why, and she cites Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch,
and Haynes as questioning the obvious problems with Monte Verde also.
That
leaves some of the most senior people in the "entire scientific
community"
not convinced.http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9887.php

<snip>

Oh boy. Gee whiz, Golly gosh, do you have a real reference for that?

Nothing that you would be able to find.

Like one that includes the last six years? and something that actually
identifies it?

Six years of what?

Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago.

You have the balls to ask me for a better cite?

If you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things

What new things is that, Mr. Cite Free poster?

no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in.

Says who, the person who is so well read on this matter that Roosevelt
2002
is not enough of a clue, I thought you knew it all already?

Since you hadn't read the 2002 paper, how do you know what's in it or
if there
has been anything new published on what the paper was about? So why
don't you
start citing all what is 6 years out-of-date with that paper, fool.

A "better cite" would probably include the full name of the author,

And a better reply from you would have been to back up your groundless
accusation.
Rather than cite evidence to the contrary of Roosevelt (2002). You
demand a cite from me,
but you produce zero data of your own (arrogant troll, demanding from
me what you can't
do yourself) to defend this statement:
Jack: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If you have
that
sort of tolerance for learning new things no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in."

1) Just because something is 2002 does not mean it's out-of-date.
2) The proper citation has been given on this list previously; on
short notice, it would have
required me to type out an extremely long citation, and for what
reason,
like your are going to follow it up?
3) You made an accusation, "stuck in a dead groove" yet you have
answered
nothing to the contrary. That's always fair policy to a troll.

the title of the work, the source if not a separate publication, a
publisher, and the date. What you posted looks like what we used to
call "a second footnote", that is one which follows the primary
footnote that would or should have had all of the elements I described
above.

I have typed out more citations longhand than you on this list (and
others).
I have found when I'm dealing with illiterate people like you it is a
total waste of time.
Experts will know just from the name and date, since they are familiar
with the
literature in the first place.



By the way does Ms Roosevelt still hold those views on the dating of
Monte Verde?

You claimed: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If
you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things.."

Fools shouldn't be allowed to call others fools while looking in a
mirror.

Now, Jackass, put up or shut up. Either produce those "new things"
that demonstrate
Roosevelt (2002) + Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch, Haynes are old stuff
(don't forget to make
perfect citaions and include the page number), or make your appology
to me that you
were 100% wrong in your accusation.

Is this the paper you couldn't type out the title and source? Note,
the date of the symposium, 1999. Now nine years of other measurements,
including the seaweed one I cited above. God, you are a dense example.

2002b* Migrations and Adaptations of the First Americans: Clovis and
Pre-Clovis Viewed from South America. In The First Americans: The
Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, edited by Nina Jablonski.
Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences No. 27. Berkeley:
University of California Press and the California Academy of Sciences.
Pp. 159-236. (first author with John Douglas and Linda Brown)
(symposia participation, 1999e)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Good follow up on the Gulf Coast underwater exploration
    ... High-tech undersea search for the first Americans ... Ocean archeologist Robert Ballard is searching the floor of the Gulf ... of Mexico, via remote control. ...
    (sci.archaeology.mesoamerican)
  • Re: O/T - when politicking gets ugly ....
    ... Foreign terrorism is a mosquito alighting on the US ... Most Americans are on my side of the question, ... Post your cite, if you can. ... You REALLY need to stop making shit up, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Next years big mega-crossover --
    ... eliminating heroes. ... Bush may be a fool, but he's the fool a majority of Americans have elected ... silly it is that masked American vigilantes be allowed to speak for the ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: Americas Settled 15,000 Years Ago, Study Says
    ... "And there are several possible reasons other than ice why ... shows that the first Americans came from a single Siberian ... Some geneticists had also previously suggested that the migration ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Web2 [was/is stupid Americans [was Re: Lisp as a tool for the mind]]
    ... Yeah, they should, that's where Americans get their presidents. ... McCains problem, all he has is the POW sob thing. ... You have England to blame, they sent all the worst over here so we could ... Fool me once, blame on you; ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)