Re: Climate Change Not The Cause of Neanderthal Extinction


"David" <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:efb451be-4be0-4ec2-980b-66df3928def4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

David wrote: Irrelevant to the charter of sci.arch.

My response: Please point out where I stated anything regarding trhe
charter of sci.archaeology. It appears that you have conceded the point:
Your posts contain less original content than 99% of the posts on
sci.archaeology. A well trained 5th grader could repost articles obtained
from other sources. The fact that you post in such a matter indicates that
you not only know little about archaeology, but are apparently incapable of
reading information and digesting it sufficiently to comment intelligently
about it.

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's response: 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.

My response: Who cares what you hope? Your posts are essentially devoid of
original input.

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.

David wrote: No <great reluctance and weariness>.

My response: So you admit that your claim that you are a psychologist (with
credentials) is not capable of being verified.

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 continued: 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.

My response: Marriage counseling and working with a world famous
psychologist do not make *you* a psychologist. Apparently, when called upon
to show your credentials, you are unable to do so. Evidently, you are not a
credentialed psychologist.

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.

David had no reply to the above.

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.

David wrote: 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.

You were presented with specific examples of pesher techinque and asked to
comment. You refused. Any idiot, even you, can go to Wikipedia or
elsewhere on the internet and find information regarding Dr. Thiering and
her Pesher Method. The issue is whether you are capable of defending her
Pesher Method with specific analysis, not whether you are her most avid
cheerleader. Apparently, you do not think yourself capable of actually
discussing her method, as you've been invited to do.

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

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

My reply: That's pompous bullsh-t. You can hold Paul in contempt all you
wish to, but in the end, he asked specific questions that you did not
attempt to deal with. Occam's Razor dictates that your failure to attempt
an answer means that you were (and still are) incapable of actually
composing a salient answer.

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."

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

My response: And what does that have to do with the topic to hand?
Apparently, you are so desperate for attention that you are willing to try
and divert our discussion from the topic (do you know enough about
archaeology to actually contribute beyond simply resposting that which your
betters have written) by posting irrelevancies about you posts on an
unrelated newsgroup about an unrelated topic.

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: You have not been careful with the facts so far.

My reponse: On the contrary, I have been scrupulous careful with the facts.
Paul and others asked questions, with examples, regarding Dr. Thiering's
Pesher Method. You declined to answer. Then you claimed credentials as a
psychologist, which you now state are limited to an alleged stint as a
marriage counselor and being a lab assistant to a real psychologist. It is
you who have appeared to stretch the truth.

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

My response: That's nothing but another dodge by you. I have been very
specific regarding your conduct. You have posted no evidence that I'm
wrong, and have not even been able to make a responsive argument with
respect to my position.
It amazes me that you would even put your real name to a post such as yours.
Yet, you continue to sign yourself:

David Christainsen

You truly are an attention craving, wannabe, aren't you?

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

  • Re: kookdancers digest
    ... 2607> Coward of the Month, Kook of the Month, Classic "Gigi" Tholenator ... 2607> Note: no response. ... 2610> A plausible theory, Bruce. ... 433> [snip the output of Teh Holy Digestoron 10 boring posts by Raving ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: kookdancers digest
    ... 2607> Coward of the Month, Kook of the Month, Classic "Gigi" Tholenator ... 2607> Note: no response. ... 2610> A plausible theory, Bruce. ... 433> [snip the output of Teh Holy Digestoron 10 boring posts by Raving ...
    (rec.sport.basketball.college)
  • Re: grid structures: TABLE/TR/TD vs. DIV
    ... | posts in questions. ... You can't tell, and it doesn't matter. ... If your response ... | "It wouldn't matter in which order a speech browser read out the ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)
  • Re: Trade Lamar now..
    ... I am not going to dignify this with any response. ... >> There were other posts from one of the nyms. ... Get a clue on how domains work, retard. ... I found an easy one to bitch slap, and I am having a blast in doing so, ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Shutdown during update
    ... David, as you said, "we are not perfect beings". ... I follow your posts, and have learned a lot from you, ... >> reply such as, I interpreted, the response to your post. ... >> JAX ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)