because any woman making the list would have included at least :-
flowers
chocolates
alcohol
Huge penis
go on
say it aint true

Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Maybe 5, although factoring in Marduk's amendments to the list I feel duty bound to point out that ...how can I put this... with regards to trouser paraphenalia (I'm trying to avoid turning this thread into a locker room) I have been blessed with a verdict of "well above average" by two independent witnesses, although not at the same time I should probably point out.Minimalist wrote:So....with a female judge you would have gotten about "2?"
War Arrow, I must respectfully disagree with you. Menzies' 1421 is an impressive work of science fiction.Returning to the thread, I've just been to The Hall of Ma'at (I think it's called) and found out that Gavin Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks.
No way, dude. My main man Erich has way more spaceships and other cool stuff. Now that's goooood science-fiction.Cognito wrote:War Arrow, I must respectfully disagree with you. Menzies' 1421 is an impressive work of science fiction.Returning to the thread, I've just been to The Hall of Ma'at (I think it's called) and found out that Gavin Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks.
well i will respectfully disagree with you... i think that the chinese 'discovering' america before columbus is plausible, though i would lean towards a pacific landing not an atlantic one.I must respectfully disagree with you. Menzies' 1421 is an impressive work of science fiction.
what did they quote that would lend credibility to that? and how did they come to that conclusion?Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks
Pacific certainly. And it does on the face of it seem plausible. So impressed was I by its plausability that I bought a copy of the book for my Mum as a present.archaeologist wrote:well i will respectfully disagree with you... i think that the chinese 'discovering' america before columbus is plausible, though i would lean towards a pacific landing not an atlantic one.
An extremely persuasive argument against resides at http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?n ... cle&sid=91 although I saw this topic also covered in one of the older threads in this forum. When I read the book I found it very convincing, although the actual points about Mexican contact (specifically the artefacts and the idea of influence on architecture - this influence being suggested by traits which were already there long before any hypothetical contact with China) I found a bit awkward - though I gave it the benefit of the doubt on the strength of the metate grinding stone of indisputably Mexican origin. Well, it turned out said stone wasn't of indisputably Mexican origin but just one of many developed in China (the old parallel evolution thing) so therefore I was duped by my own ignorance of Chinese culture. I'm not absolutely saying it didn't happen, just that from where I'm standing, the premise of events described in this book seems shaky.archaeologist wrote:what did they quote that would lend credibility to that? and how did they come to that conclusion?Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks
it is okay, i saw some errors in the writers thinking and some assumptions of his own. i so not know who bill hartz is, nor do i care, but he seems to have some vendetta against the chinese and menzies which is never cleary explained. the whole article sounds like a bitter man who was beaten to the punch by someone else and this is his revenge.An extremely persuasive argument against
sorry, i rarely give out personal information on the internet.By the way, Arch, whilst you're here