Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site

[Simon21]

As a supplement to the above in answer to a direct question from YT Dr Moorehead explained that apart from the London Mithraeum and some wells around the Silbury hill which were filled in, there is no evidence from Britain for the widespread Christian destruction of pagan monuments, as there is from the continent. So maybe the Villa burning was a simple accident or, as Rosemary Sutcliffe wrote, an attack from the "sea wolves".

[Tiompan]

You have avoided the all the problems yet again .
And yes we are going round in circles but the what else is there to say .
Your comment was wrong and you have never addressed that problem , you can't , because it is so obviously wrong .
Read what is written "Who was the lecturer ,William Sterling http://www.williamsterling.co.uk/profile/? " That was a question ,his interests are clear in the profile .

You are making stuff up again . Whether I have been or not is a red herring but Fwiw ,I have been to Lullingstone villa , I don't remember the chi rho or the frieze at all and I didn't say anything about me seeing/finding the chi rho ,although I was aware of it long after the visit .

Now we get to the crux . "Dr Moorehead asserted that the crosses (probably of chinese silk ie majorly expensive) depicted on the Lullingstone frieze represent the largest and most public use of the symol (christian) so far found in the former empire. " .Now contrast that with what you said " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol".
No mention of largest or public or empire but most importantly no mention of christian .
Dr Moorehead got it right ,you got it it wrong .

I have no interest in tennis . But GSM .

[Simon21]

You have avoided the all the problems yet again .
And yes we are going round in circles but the what else is there to say .
Your comment was wrong and you have never addressed that problem , you can't , because it is so obviously wrong .
Read what is written "Who was the lecturer ,William Sterling http://www.williamsterling.co.uk/profile/? " That was a question ,his interests are clear in the profile .

You are making stuff up again . Whether I have been or not is a red herring but Fwiw ,I have been to Lullingstone villa , I don't remember the chi rho or the frieze at all and I didn't say anything about me seeing/finding the chi rho ,although I was aware of it long after the visit .

Now we get to the crux . "Dr Moorehead asserted that the crosses (probably of chinese silk ie majorly expensive) depicted on the Lullingstone frieze represent the largest and most public use of the symol (christian) so far found in the former empire. " .Now contrast that with what you said " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol".
No mention of largest or public or empire but most importantly no mention of christian .
Dr Moorehead got it right ,you got it it wrong .
I have no interest in tennis . But GSM .

Don't you honestly think you have carried this on enough? Really and sincerely? Is this silly blather says more about you then anything I said? Don't you want to reflect on your tendency to fly off the handle and misapprehend what a person is saying?

Look at what you write William Sterling http://www.williamsterling.co.uk/profile/? " That was a question ,his interests are clear in the profile . Yes it is isn't it? So why did you put him forward? Why did you think a man interested in music would be an authority on Lullingstone villa!

of hilariously And yes we are going round in circles but the what else is there to say . No you are going around in circles like a demented octopus tying himself in knots. And "what is there to say" Oh I don't know something intelligent and original? Soemthing connected with archaeology?

Whether I have been or not is a red herring[/b] Except that you said you had done and you plainly haven't . That is what we call a mistruth or a lie. Pretty contemptible

You have no understanding of logic and it appears by your own admission yoiu are also dishonest. Theree are serious issues here and they have nothing to do with archaeology.

Now anything to say to the real issue, thought not

[Tiompan]

logic ? I think you need some basic lessons .
Yes I have been ,that is not a lie , the fact that it is a red herring doesn't mean I haven't . Think about it .

It's clear where the lying comes from ,and not for the first time either is it ?

The lack of response to the major point says enough, never mind the lesser ones .

You have been found out , again .

Your precis of Dr Mooreheads comment was lacking in the important detail,making it obviously wrong to anyone with a smattering of knowledge about the use of symbols . I gave you ample opportunity to get out of the bind e.g.“Maybe the definite article lends more weight in a christian context but that ignores the cultural importance that may have been attributed to the symbol prior to christian appropriation .” and “The BM presenter should have mentioned that he was confining the symbol to the Roman period , or maybe he was unaware of earlier uses of the symbol . “. That's when you should have come in with the truth , but you kept silent . And concentrated on waffling evading and making stuff up .

[Simon21]

logic ? I think you need some basic lessons .
Yes I have been ,that is not a lie , the fact that it is a red herring doesn't mean I haven't . Think about it .

It's clear where the lying comes from ,and not for the first time either is it ?

The lack of response to the major point says enough, never mind the lesser ones .

You have been found out , again .

Your precis of Dr Mooreheads comment was lacking in the important detail,making it obviously wrong to anyone with a smattering of knowledge about the use of symbols . I gave you ample opportunity to get out of the bind e.g.“Maybe the definite article lends more weight in a christian context but that ignores the cultural importance that may have been attributed to the symbol prior to christian appropriation .” and “The BM presenter should have mentioned that he was confining the symbol to the Roman period , or maybe he was unaware of earlier uses of the symbol . “. That's when you should have come in with the truth , but you kept silent . And concentrated on waffling evading and making stuff up .

You told lies, silly lies which you yourself admit. You are a self confessed liar - and one suspects this is not the first time. How much of anything you say can be taken as truth? You have no major point never did have. You didn't know the context so just fired off your usual intemperate guff. Plainly you have no knowledge of Roman Britain. Referring to a historian of music as a possible source of RB history is maniacal. Apparently not knowing the Cross refers to the cross of christ goes beyond the maniacal to the dishonest - again

This is fairly shocking. It is one thing to exagerate but to tell deliberate lies about knowing a site is pathetic.

And as you say you are simply going round in circles embarrasing yourself.

[Tiompan]

Lol .
Your behaviour is as telling as your lack of response to the actual problems .
You were found out , and not for the first time .
The evidence was provided showing where you got it wrong , now you are squealing.
It's not uncommon , when clearly to shown to be in the wrong , turn to abuse ,nothing else is left .

It's easy to show when someone is lying , you provide the evidence .
As with all the other claims you couldn't support , breath won't be held .

[Simon21]

To tell deliberate lies in a supposed discussion must surely break some rules. Is it not time for the moderator to intervene? Basic honesty is the foundation of any sensible discussion surely.

[Simon21]

logic ? I think you need some basic lessons .
Yes I have been ,that is not a lie , the fact that it is a red herring doesn't mean I haven't . Think about it .

It's clear where the lying comes from ,and not for the first time either is it ?

The lack of response to the major point says enough, never mind the lesser ones .

You have been found out , again .

Your precis of Dr Mooreheads comment was lacking in the important detail,making it obviously wrong to anyone with a smattering of knowledge about the use of symbols . I gave you ample opportunity to get out of the bind e.g.“Maybe the definite article lends more weight in a christian context but that ignores the cultural importance that may have been attributed to the symbol prior to christian appropriation .” and “The BM presenter should have mentioned that he was confining the symbol to the Roman period , or maybe he was unaware of earlier uses of the symbol . “. That's when you should have come in with the truth , but you kept silent . And concentrated on waffling evading and making stuff up .

You are a self confessed liar and you are lyinig again.

ith a smattering of knowledge about the use of symbols But unaware (supposedly) of the Christian use of the cross. This is less a smattering more a a splat. And of course another lie.

[Simon21]

Lol .
Your behaviour is as telling as your lack of response to the actual problems .
You were found out , and not for the first time .
The evidence was provided showing where you got it wrong , now you are squealing.
It's not uncommon , when clearly to shown to be in the wrong , turn to abuse ,nothing else is left .

It's easy to show when someone is lying , you provide the evidence .
As with all the other claims you couldn't support , breath won't be held .

I haven't made any claims (english again)

As with all the other claims you couldn't support , breath won't be held


Oh dear that will dissapoint many.

It's easy to show when someone is lying , you provide the evidence .

In this case you supplied it with you own words. Just tell the truth and stop lying

[Tiompan]

You don't understand what a claim is . Here is a an example "In this case you supplied it with you own words." i.e. You are claiming that I supplied it with my own words , get it ?
Now , all you have to do is provide the quotes i.e. "the words " .Simple .
Just as I provided the relevant quotes showing that your depleted version of a sensible comment led to a comment that was wrong , and led to a load of wasteful nonsense .
In case you have forgotten .Would you like to see that example again ?

[E.P. Grondine]

This electronic paper is so useful.

Once the two of you have figured out whether those are crosses on the figures' clothing,
you will move on the botanical identification of the flowers shown below them.

Or the botanical identification of these:


I think that this may have some bearing on your exchange as well:


I have to say, your exchange is providing a welcome diversion to the latest tweets from Crazy Don.

[Simon21]

You don't understand what a claim is . Here is a an example "In this case you supplied it with you own words." i.e. You are claiming that I supplied it with my own words , get it ?
Now , all you have to do is provide the quotes i.e. "the words " .Simple .
Just as I provided the relevant quotes showing that your depleted version of a sensible comment led to a comment that was wrong , and led to a load of wasteful nonsense .
In case you have forgotten .Would you like to see that example again ?

But I know what a lie is such as claiming you know something when you obviously don't.

You are fully aware you have never been to Lullingstone and you foolish twistings about apparently not knowing the cross is a primary christian symbol (or not understanding the reference) is ridiculous beyond words.

if you had been really confused you would have asked for clarity not made a fool by saying everyone was wrong by referencing the stone age.

As to trying to cite a music historian - as a I say manic stuff

[Simon21]

This electronic paper is so useful.

Once the two of you have figured out whether those are crosses on the figures' clothing,
you will move on the botanical identification of the flowers shown below them.

Or the botanical identification of these:


I have to say, your exchange is providing welcome diversion from the latest tweets from Crazy Don.

I wish I could agree this individual plainly has a number of serious issues. They seem to be a paid member of the PLO - Paleolithic Liberation Front

The fruits here are generally held to be pomegranets. Apart from showing that this fruit was apparently known in RB they are another symbol of Christ.

Have you noticed that the Christ figure (if it is he) in this mosaic is clean shaven and presented as a Roman?

Ther second figure on the mural was apparently painted "after death" but I for one cannot tell how this is obvious. There is some catenery behind him.

Of course this means they are likely to be real people not saints or apostles as was once beleived - though to me they seem to be floating in the air.

[Tiompan]

Again you have failed to back up your claims .
You had said "In this case you supplied it with you own words." . All you have to do is provide the words that I supposedly supplied that made you claim that .
Like all of your made up stuff nonsense they don't exist .
I am full aware that I have been to Lullingstone , it's hardly germane to your errors , but it is simply true .

I wasn't citing a music historian , that's another of your made up claims .
For the third time "Who was the lecturer ,William Sterling http://www.williamsterling.co.uk/profile/? " That was a question ,his interests are clear in the profile ."
Do you know what "cite" means ? Again , that was a question not a citation .

The only person who was in the wrong here is you ,due to your misinterpreted ,mangled nonsensical precis of the perfectly sensible Moorehead comment , that you sneakily failed to mention when
you could have got off the hook .


You seem to have a history ,of going to talks not quite getting the import , reporting it here , then when proved to be in the wrong , bursting blood vessels , becoming abusive making stuff up ,calling me liar ,failing to prove it and proving to be a liar yourself .

[E.P. Grondine]

I wish I could agree this individual plainly has a number of serious issues. They seem to be a paid member of the PLO - Paleolithic Liberation Front
The fruits here are generally held to be pomegranets. Apart from showing that this fruit was apparently known in RB they are another symbol of Christ.
Have you noticed that the Christ figure (if it is he) in this mosaic is clean shaven and presented as a Roman?
Ther second figure on the mural was apparently painted "after death" but I for one cannot tell how this is obvious. There is some catenery behind him.
Of course this means they are likely to be real people not saints or apostles as was once beleived - though to me they seem to be floating in the air.

Hi simon - Yes, they all look like they are floating in air. And your point about the earlier pagan temple is well made.

Tecumseh advised not to trouble a man about his religion, and Tecumseh was a wise man.
Thus I doubt if you want to explore the relation between early Christianity and Druidism in sub-Roman Britain.
I know I do not, as I am dealing with recent, "small" asteroid an comet impact events,
and one controversy at a time is one entirely too many.