Archaeologica.org

Beagle wrote:What in the hell is wrong with you people from THOM?

Would you PLEASE exercise a little impulse control and leave this topic alone until we are finished.

Don't you have any manners at all?

When we're done, I don't mind if every one of you come in and have a good old-fashioned Nazi book burning.

Your behavior doesn't speak well for you or your website.

What in the world are you talking about? You seem to be saying I'm not allowed to post here until some little group says I can.

What in the world are you talking about? You seem to be saying I'm not allowed to post here until some little group says I can.

From pseudointellectual to pseudoretarded - ok. You want folks to think that you haven't followed this topic thread from the first post. Pretty typical of your ilk.

There is nothing complicated about the first post. It was a request. Drop the idiot act - unless you are one.

I didn't post to you personally - in the event that you don't read carefully. I posted directly to THOM.

I have asked you to PLEASE heed that request. We are going to discuss things associated with the Biblical flood,etc. One of our members in Archaeologica has even stronger convictions than you folks at THOM. I'm talking about Arch of course - nobody agrees with him - not yourself for that matter, but he is much more the gentleman that you poor people.

I once told him that I wouldn't talk to him. You've convinced me to rethink that. Something as simple as a request is meaningful for most civilized people.

I, of course, have to leave the judgement to all members. One caveat however. Some of you, as myself, post under a moniker. If your privacy is important to you, do you want THOM to have your email address? I, for one, will never register there.

I guess I'm gettin' older. I hate waking up in the middle of the night.
Now - "to sleep, perchance to dream"

Beags....I apologize for 'enabling' them.

I didn't realize you were this upset about it.

But, please....don't even compare Doug and arch. That's no contest.

With all due respect, Beag, I think you're being a little hard on Doug and the other Maat people. I didn't see anything he did that was so bad. At least he was on topic, sorta.
It's been so long since I read the book that I am unable to contribute much, but I'm keeping up with yall's discussion. It's so detailed I don't need to read the book again.

My previous post is one that I really regret. My apologies to the good folks here at Archaeologica - my frustration level should have been handled in a different way.

I wish the post would disappear.

I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up so much about this. I should know better. We all expect and enjoy civil discourse, and we are disappointed and dismayed at a post like I wrote.

Again, my apologies to all.

Beags....I apologize for 'enabling' them.

Did you buy them a drink? I'm confused. Maybe pm me?

Beagle wrote:

What in the world are you talking about? You seem to be saying I'm not allowed to post here until some little group says I can.

From pseudointellectual to pseudoretarded - ok. You want folks to think that you haven't followed this topic thread from the first post. Pretty typical of your ilk.

There is nothing complicated about the first post. It was a request. Drop the idiot act - unless you are one.

I didn't post to you personally - in the event that you don't read carefully. I posted directly to THOM.

I have asked you to PLEASE heed that request. We are going to discuss things associated with the Biblical flood,etc. One of our members in Archaeologica has even stronger convictions than you folks at THOM. I'm talking about Arch of course - nobody agrees with him - not yourself for that matter, but he is much more the gentleman that you poor people.

I once told him that I wouldn't talk to him. You've convinced me to rethink that. Something as simple as a request is meaningful for most civilized people.

I, of course, have to leave the judgement to all members. One caveat however. Some of you, as myself, post under a moniker. If your privacy is important to you, do you want THOM to have your email address? I, for one, will never register there.

I guess I'm gettin' older. I hate waking up in the middle of the night.
Now - "to sleep, perchance to dream"

Whether you believe it or not, I did not read your first post. I have now, and I see you wanted to discuss FOG chapter by chapter. Fine, but why was my response such a problem for you?
Posters at The Hall of Ma'at vary a great deal. A few are less polite than I would wish and we try to rein them in, maybe not perfectly, but we do intervene at times, even drastically if someone really gets out of line. Marduk for instance has been banned twice. But most posters there are civil and don't need moderating. We've just had a super series of quizzes with nice book prizes, by the way, continuing over the weekend, all welcome!

As for THOM having email addresses, what is the problem there? Do you mean that it shows up if you register? Which isn't required to post of course.
I'm actually interested in this question -- I think registration in order to post is reasonable to stop spam (but THOM doesn't require this), but if you mean you don't like the email address being public, that is something to think about.

Finally, I sort of wish I had been reading this from the start.

For instance, the assumption that bearded figures in South America must be white. Native Americans are only relatively hairless and that varies from area to area, tribe to tribe. I once had a photo of an Ainu with a great goatee, Montezuma had facial hair too if you recall. Elsewhere I have posted lots of stuff about bearded Native Americans. It's a myth that they are hairless.

And the Olmec statues -- funny how people ignore the epicanthic folds often, an Asian trait. If they are even supposed to be realistic, which is in doubt.

But I won't try to rehash it all now, I'm too late and you obviously object to my entering a thread you started at the point I entered it.

Doug

Beagle wrote:My previous post is one that I really regret. My apologies to the good folks here at Archaeologica - my frustration level should have been handled in a different way.

I wish the post would disappear.

I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up so much about this. I should know better. We all expect and enjoy civil discourse, and we are disappointed and dismayed at a post like I wrote.

Again, my apologies to all.

Wake up a bit cranky did you, Beags? Hey we all have our moods. I've flown off the handle a time or two myself. Of course it was directed at arch so nobody really cared.

http://bizmo-tel.com/images/smiles/argue.gif

The age of Tiwanaku - I earlier said that I thought I had blown a brain fuse reading about it. Of the C14 dating techniques - those were mostly done in the 60s and have been criticized even in academic circles (before someone posts another article for me to read - I've read enough). See the earlier post about C14 dating.

About the archaeoastronomy by Posnansky back in the 40s - his actual results have not been refuted but the main arguments have been that Tiwanaku has been torn down, partially reconstructed improperly, and that many large stones have been looted by neighboring towns and villages - which is true.

For me, at this time, the age is a mystery. New technology needs to be employed at Tiwanaku. Many things have their point of origin pushed backward in time nearly every year. For instance, new evidence was found recently that moved the date of the Santorini explosion back nearly 100 years. That discovery makes a lot of books obsolete.

For now, Tiwanaku is a mystery to me.

Beags, this is where the Archaeology Club intervenes. By declaring that the site is 1,500 years old and villifying anyone who supports Posnansky's ideas they make certain that no archaeologist will risk character assassination by his peers to investigate further.

This is where you need a guy like Oz to come in, say to hell with "The Club" and see if modern methods can find something out.

People like Oz do have a place in things.....they help keep the pros on their toes.

And you are completely right about the inherent problem of using associated material to date stones.

Minimalist wrote:Beags, this is where the Archaeology Club intervenes. By declaring that the site is 1,500 years old and villifying anyone who supports Posnansky's ideas they make certain that no archaeologist will risk character assassination by his peers to investigate further.

This is where you need a guy like Oz to come in, say to hell with "The Club" and see if modern methods can find something out.

People like Oz do have a place in things.....they help keep the pros on their toes.

And you are completely right about the inherent problem of using associated material to date stones.

Another view is that archaeologists have looked at and uncovered new evidence since Posnansky did his work well over 60 years ago.

Who supports Posnansky's dating? Not Hancock, not Steede, not Rivera. They each offer different dates, far further apart than the different C14 dates. Then of course there's the pottery analysis.

A lot of archaeological dating involves using associated material, archaeologists are very familiar with the problems involved and how they need to be handled.

There is no 'club'. Archaeologists argue with each other all the time, you shouldn't be surprised if they also argue with non-archaeologists!

We'll just have to agree to disagree...politely.

Minimalist wrote:We'll just have to agree to disagree...politely.

That's the way to do it! javascript:emoticon(':D')
Very Happy

Min - it's about 5PM my time. I'll get here this evening and maybe we can cover a little ground. I'll check back in about 2.5 hrs.