Re: I proved my point on Humbert & Chambon - Qumran archaeologists

On Jun 29, 9:31 pm, "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"crunch" <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:723d88a4-a88c-48ba-b945-4fa163b97896@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 28, 9:59 am, "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





"crunch" <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:84ff0c32-cadc-41ee-b0c9-e0f50ddff8e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 27, 6:23 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 27, 3:52 pm, crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:

On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No you didn't

Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.

IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.

Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.

Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even?

My record on Qumran archaeology speaks for itself.

Unfortunately, that's true.

I just plain know tons more about it than you, Tom,
and Doug.

That's not necessarily true. You may have been exposed to more of it
than have Doug or I; but your inability to adequately answer, in a
normal academic fashion, my questions re: the two folks in the title
shows your knowledge is thin, and folds like a tissue of Kleenex under
the pressure of normal discussion questions.

You are behind the curve; I already answered
it with a complete reference.

But sadly, you don't understand that. Either that, or you can't allow
yourself to admit unflattering facts about yourself.

Could be both.

Facts are stubborn things; you'll learn.

Remember the Qumran Sundial.

I remember. I remember that you and I came to the understanding that,
absent further work on the subject, the *archaeological* evidence
regarding the thingie was inconclusive wrt its function. You favored
the interpretation that it was used as a sundial/odometer, primarily
because that was what Thiering thought; I favored the interpretation
that what it was, was more likely something else, but that no evidence
had been presented here upon which I could take a more definite stand..
David Christainsen wrote:

"I know for sure the object was a sundial on the merits, on the evidence.
You were not paying sufficient attention to the evidence."

And I nbw inquire:

Isn't it strange, David, that I cannot read any peer reviewed publication
that the artifact in question is in fact a sundail,other than, perhaps, in
a
peer reviewed article authored by Dr. Thiering? Are you asserting that
there's a conspiracy of the experts in this field to disregard her views?
Christainsen wrote:  "Well, for the purposes of your inquiry, Google Scholar

is the place to start for your own investigation.  Further, you will find
that Dead Sea Discoveries is the top publication in its field.  Dead Sea
Discoveries published at least
3 articles on the artefact in question.  So, the issue boils down to the
merits among the authors in this narrow context."

My reply:  What Christainsen wrote is totally non-responsive to my inquiry.
I did not ask anything regarding where I should start my inquiry, or what
the "top publicaiton" in "its field," (whatever that field might be) is.  I
asked whether Christainsen didn't find it strange that there is not a single
peer reviewed publication in the field that has unequivocally labled the
artificat in question as a sundial, with the possible acceptance of an
article by Dr. Theiring.  David has not answered.

False on your part; you forgot your own inquiry. Or were
you insincere? Further, "it" is not "strange"; rather, it is
par for the course.

BTW are you a nitpicker?

Christainsen als wrote:  "Last - the abuse in the scholarly world takes the

form of leading experts within Qumran Studies NOT reading Dr. Thiering in
the first place or having NO INTEREST in looking at the Qumran archaeology
comprehensively."

My reply:  Perhaps, my dear David, leading experts in the field think that
Dr. Thiering is wrong regarding Qumran in general, and the alleged "sundial"
in particular.  Perhaps, my dear David, the abuse lies in you posting, (from
a position of ignorance of what the scholarly points of view in the field
actually are), as though Thiering had a) proven her allegations and b) has
had that proof acknowledged as likely being correct.  In fact, David, no
matter how adoring you are of Dr. Thiering and her various positions on
Qumran, that adoration doesn't make her positions in any way correct.

I have called VanderKam incompetent etc. and I have
a strong case for my opinion. Please get with the
program.

Christainsen, the Glib, also wrote:  "I could go on but surely you get my
drift..."

Indeed, David, I do.  And when the wind is behind it, the odor is foul
indeed.

Marcusbunk.

So you may know more about what Thiering would like it to be; but we
both have the same facts about it, and you are willing to take a
definite stand on its nature in spite of the lack of scholarly
consensus; and I am only willing to say the facts at hand now don't
nail it down one way or another or another just yet.- Hide quoted text -

You have managed to misinform yourself; it's on you.

- Show quoted text -

Christainsen continued:

"Scholarly consensus be damned; there is no subject on the face of the
earth
with so much scholarly conflict
but for the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran.

You have observed my posts superficially. I tell you straight out I am on
record for calling the leading
scholars, academics, and theologians INCOMPETENT.

AND, I can prove it; let's have it out in FAIR discussion and debate. Tell
your friend Peter to hold himself in
a respectful attitude during it all."

And I'll observe:

"Hmmm..... A person with absolutely no credentials in archaeology or
anthropology, (either academic or in terms of publications), and certainly
no credentials regarding Qumran in general and the artifact in question
specifically, has decided that he knows more about this topic than
'scholars, academics, and theologians,' and then calls them 'incompetent.'
Christainsen wrote:  "Yet, here you repeat USENET libel about me ignorantly.

You are completely ignorant. If you don't know what you
are talking about, be quiet.

The real point here is that my case
about their incompetence can be RICHLY demonstrated to YOUR satisfaction."

And I'll reply:  First, let me point out, my dear fool, that the use of the
word "libel" transforms you, as though by magic, to playing in my "court,"
to coin a pun.  Libel requires knowingly writing a falsehood about someone,
to that person's loss, typically measurable in coin of the realm.  As you
have no reputation in this field to lose, any damages from posting falsely
about you are measured in half-pence.

You lost your grip on reality again.

Further, I've posted only the truth.  Please post, for the record, each and
every one of your academic qualifications in the field of archaeology, with
specific emphasis on Qumran.

I completely refuse. Further, suffice it to say, the numerous
posts on my Christian Origins Yahoo Group show my
competence. Further, my primary career is in meteorology.

 Don't forget to list those qualifications
which lend weight to your acceptance of Dr. Thiering's hypothesis about the
"sundial."  If you don't do that in the a post immediately responsive to
this post, I shall take it as an admission that it is impossible to
disparage the aforelisted qualifications, since you will have admitted that
you have not.

You are arrogant in your manner.

So in essence, David, you know more than people who have devoted their
lives, or significant portions thereof, to study of the discipline in
general and the artifact in particular. And you base this on having read
the works of, and become a devoted follower of, a single author in the
field, who colors her works with religious interpretations.

What I know was painfully won. Further, I know the
players within Qumran Studies comprehensively, not
just Dr. Thiering.

Christainsen then wrote a partial truth:  "No, I do not."

But then, Christainsen continued with a weaselly lie:  "My background is way
wider than just Dr. Thiering."

On the contrary it was the truth.

I'll respond this way:  Indeed, I doubt that Dr. Thiering knows anything
about the science of weather, beyond how to turn on the radio and listen to
the latest report.  But, no one on sci.arch gives a fig about your
qualifications other than those specific to the discipline of archaeology
and/or anthropolgy.  Of which, there appear to be none.  We shall see how
you respond to the above requirement.  Or in the alternative, you may simply
shut the F--k Up, (in this newsgroup, at least).

Foul language by Marcus; unacceptable.





You understand that you are, of course, incompetent to take your position
(or, for that matter, any position on the topic of Qumran), and have with
this post, demostrated to the entire Usenet world exactly why you are
incompetent. That, and that alone, is the only value of your posts. Good
job.

Your accusations amount to nothing.

David Christainsen

Steve Marcus
--
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- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Christainsen bluffed:  "Sorry, Steve - you'll have to do a 180 on USENET,
which I will enjoy immensely."

And I will quote Bill Cosby:  "Riiiiigggghhhhttttt"   Don't forget, David,
please post, for the record, each and every one of your academic
qualifications in the field of archaeology, with specific emphasis on
Qumran.  Don't forget to list those qualifications which lend weight to your
acceptance of Dr. Thiering's hypothesis about the "sundial."  If you don't
do that in the a post immediately responsive to this post, I shall take it
as an admission that it is impossible to disparage the aforelisted
qualifications, since you will have admitted that you have not.

David Christainsen

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
...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Steve Marcus wrote NOTHING about Humbert & Chambon
here; major oversight on his part.

David Christainsen
.

Relevant Pages