Re: Climate Change Not The Cause of Neanderthal Extinction


"David" <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9da7f902-9c89-47c2-93fb-53de3e851b8b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 6, 4:40 pm, "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
...
So what?
All you do is set some sort of Google alert for news stories
vaguely connected to archaeology, then post them here with no
commentary or value added.
All you are interested in is seeing your name again and again
in the post list, so that you can later (as you did here) claim
that this somehow makes you worthwhile.

David Christainsen the replied: Go to the back of the bus with the silly
freaks and the newagers...

Paul Murray accused you of simply reposting, without any added value, news
stories having vague connections to archaeology, so that you can see your
name again and again. He further supplied a motive for that conduct:
egoism ("excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated
feelings
of self-importance").

David wrote: Paul is not a sci.arch regular; I am.

My response: Define "regular." Paul has certainly posted more than once,
and has certainly posted in the last week or two more than once. That's
regular enough for me. You post more frequently than he does, perhaps, but
certainly with less original content and less contribution to non-original
content than he does. In fact, your posts contain less original content
than 99% of the posts on sci.archaeology.

David wrote: Further, the dear reader is invited to verify whether Paul's
accusation has any truth to it whatsoever.

My response: I hereby so verify it. Your posts consist mostly of quoted
material previously composed by others, with little original input save
expressions of opinion. Certainly, you post virtually no analysis.

David wrote: Last, I am the psychologist with credentials, not Paul, and I
have had enough of USENET attackers
attributing false psychology/motivation onto myself.

My response: If that's true, and if by "credentials" you mean one or more
degrees, state the specific academic
degree(s), the institution(s) granting the degree, and the year(s) in which
the degree(s) was/were granted. Academic institutions will typically verify
that information upon inquiry.

If by "credentials" you mean state/federal licence(s) to practice
psychology, state the specific license, jurisdiction that has granted the
license, and year of the grant. Again, state/federal licensing boards will
verify such information upon inquiry.

David wrote: I call it bunk

My reply: I call your post a bluff. I call your bluff, and raise. Put up,
or shut up.

You do realize, David, that every time you blow off those type of
accusations in the way that you blew off Paul's post, you dig yourself
deeper into the cemetery of "Zero Credibility"?

David wrote: On the contrary it shows a code of conduct is at stake; some
call it chivalry; I do also.

My response: That's pretentious bullsh-- and you know it. Your posting
history shows that you have refused to get into a discusion of Dr.
Theiring's pesher technique, and when presented with specific questions
about it, in the nature of examples of pesher, you have refused to answer
and refused to apply Dr. Theiring's techniques to the examples. Further,
your posting history now shows that you failed to respond on any substantive
level to Paul's post. These failures have nothing to do with a code of
conduct; rather, they demonstrate that your code conduct is to simply
repeat, ad naseum, broad generalizations while avoiding any substantive
discussion of the techniques employed by Dr. Theiring and the archaeology in
the articles that you simply repost, and then engage in some psycho-babble
about "codes of conduct."

As important as thinking
that you are smart, important and correct is to you, one would think that
you would want to avoid this sort of behavior, which makes you look
stupid,
unimportant and generally wrong.

Just some constructive criticism ...
...

David wrote: Yours was not constructive criticism because it did not have a
basis in the truth.

My response: Be careful whom you call a liar. (Check my signature.) If I
were to take a poll on sci.archaeology regarding whether what I posted re
your conduct is or is not true, you would be the one to be the called the
liar by an overwhelming majority of posters.

David wrote: In the future what do you say to my suggestion that you
yourself make a proper contribution on archaeology and skip the personal
stuff?

My response: My posts on this matter (the prior one and this one) are
certainly a proper contribution to this newsgroup, in that they call to your
attention the fact that you are not making any "proper contribution" to this
newsgroup. Posting just to post is a negative contribution to this
newsgroup. That is in no way "personal." It is simply a fact. And as to
your posts: I come to sci.archaeology to read comment on archaeological
content, not to read primary archaeological content. I can read primary
archaeological content on any number of websites on the net, and can also
ask services such as Google to flag such content for me. Your posts
consist solely of repeating primary archaeological content, without adding
any contribution beyond re-posting.

In short, David, you are in fact a person who apparently has a serious
problem. You are posting here without contributing one ounce of value;
apparently, you are posting just to see your name "up in lights." You do
realize, I hope, that your god will ultimately call you to answer for such
conduct. No need to believe me on that, just read your bible.

David's signature: David Christainsen

My Signature:

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.

Relevant Pages