Re: Climate Change Not The Cause of Neanderthal Extinction

On Jan 7, 9:21 pm, "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"David" <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
...
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.

Irrelevant to the charter of sci.arch.

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.

My hope is that Tom McDonald and I will
start to interact on archaeological material.

Recently, Tom wrote -
"At last! An appropriate and accurate post from David!"

In the past there has been a hang-up. Tom
is not satisfied with the way I lead discussion.
That's why a new, interactive style is so important.

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.

No <great reluctance and weariness>.

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.

I did marriage counseling once upon a time. Further,
I once worked for Dr. Roby of Tufts University, a world famous
small groups psychologist, in his lab as his assistant.

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.

The exact opposite is the true state of affairs concerning
Dr. Thiering and her Pesher Method. Further, I have
gone to great lengths to show how her scholarly ideas tie in
with legitimate and scientific archaeology.

Further,
your posting history now shows that you failed to respond on any substantive
level to Paul's post.

So true since I hold considerable contempt of
Paul's behaviour. I know Paul from alt.­med.­fibromyalgia.

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."

Excuse me - my recent posts on the chivalric code
on soc.religion.quaker are extensive.

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.

You have not been careful with the facts so far.

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.
...

Excuse me - you are overlooking many important aspects...

David Christainsen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Climate Change Not The Cause of Neanderthal Extinction
    ... stories having vague connections to archaeology, so that you can see your ... David wrote: Paul is not a sci.arch regular; ... My response: ... your posting history now shows that you failed to respond on any substantive ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Pacific climate during Medieaval Warm Period and Little Ice Age
    ... you were busy preparing your ... response when you read the various views. ... But you are a consumate splitter when the issue is archaeology. ... Over the same three week period You have posted articles which started ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Rao, Osborn, and Frawley
    ... my goal is that you agree that the archaeology shows what ... Hancock says it shows. ... If you get no serious response or no response at all, ... No, I don't think I'll take your advice after the shabby, deplorable ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Rao, Osborn, and Frawley
    ... Carl wrote: ... my goal is that you agree that the archaeology shows what ... Hancock says it shows. ... If you get no serious response or no response at all, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Back to school
    ... ill mannered posting to which I am responding. ... albeit not always the response that I was looking for. ... Ligon to a specific Ligon family in England. ... Jeremy Clarke line--but at one time they had a member in on the ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
Quantcast