Re: Carbondating for manufacture of material on which 4Q171 was written is AD 29-81 - it is not a copy of an earlier work

On Jun 13, 8:59 am, crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:38 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 12, 2:15 pm, crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
You have done so in the past (Carl, Dave, David, Philip). You had not
yet explained your situation.

You are blind; I explained it long ago; you
were not listening and it's on you.

You tell us that it just happened (the crunch business). So you could
not have explained that to us long ago.

What you did explain long ago, in each case after the fact, were your
previous nym-shifts. You now claim that there is something that makes
*this* nym-shift different from all the *other* nym-shifts. [I wonder
whether you will get the reference to Jewish history.] If this is the
case, you could not have explained this latest nym-shift 'long ago'.

I listened before. I listened this time. You have a history of nym-
shifting, and you have now explained what makes this nym-shift
different.

You are not very good at the comprehension thing, are you? (Awaiting
an Oppositional-Defiant response.)

So, I will make explanation to you in a polite
and informative way.

Google suddenly flipped in "crunch" out of nowhere
when my account says "david".  Further, in the
"crunch" version "Recent Activity" in my google
profile suddenly became available.

You did explain this already. I am not sure why you didn't contact
Google to make a correction, unless you are just as happy to be pwned
by Google Groups' miji manidoo.

It's on you to get control of your Google account.

No and expect "crunch" to appear without
warning in future posts much more frequently.

See above. If Anansi in fact conspired with Spider to re-nym you, and
you do nothing to change their mischief, then you have chosen to be
their hapless plaything. Man up and admit you don't want to take
charge of your Google profile. You'd be in good company; most don't
pay it any attention.


You entirely overlooked my earlier posts in this
thread and it is on you, not me.  

I overlooked it because I don't care about them.

That's on you and reflects badly on your integrity.
Only you can change yourself; nobody else.

It reflects nothing on my *integrity* that there are things I do not
care about. It reflects on my *interests*, or perhaps my *
discretion*, or even my *taste*; but not my integrity. I have been
consistent in showing no more than Spock-like laser-focussed interest
in *some* parts of She Who Must Not Be Named's archaeologically-
related work.

Don't expect me to ride on your cocked horse. It's far too crowded
with only you on it.

<snip irrelevancies>

If you want the Qumran archaeology, just
ask me politely and drop the sniping.

I have had all of your take on that topic that I care to ask of you.
It is not sniping to claim disinterest.

If you disagree, then explain why it is not a lack of integrity on
your part if you are not interested in, say, some specific and
detailed aspect of the Popol Vuh, or of Voodun?
.

Quantcast