Archaeologica.org

I'm puzzled. We have a politician over here by the name of Tony Benn, he's extreme left wing and I disagree with just about everything he says, BUT, the man has steadfastly maintained his opinions for over half a centary. There has never been the slightest suggestion that he has ever acted other than with the greatest honesty and honour and I respect the MAN immensely.
My point is this, I consider RS's view to be without the slightest foundation and have argued strongly against it, but if he's ever over here I would be absolutely delighted to continue the argument over a few glasses, and l'll but the first round as well!

Beagle wrote:Ishtar, I really wish that John had not decided to open an entire thread about this for some silly grandstanding. But, he did. I have to say now that your post is one of the most disengeuous that I've seen here, and as you say, I've been around for awhile. It may interest you to note that RS joined this forum before I did. We are old acquantinces. John, however, thought it would be cool to open this thread and grandstand a bit. Bordering on gibberish as usual.

Firstly - Ishtar, over the last six months, you have been the sole person to attack people, often viciously. You know that - I count off the top of my head at least four people.

Secondly - You reference new people. Ask Dannan about that. We're very fortunate that he is still here.

Thirdly - I think somewhere you have described yourself as a journalist of sorts. I notice that you have quoted me in your post. Well Ishtar, you would be fired from any credible news agency for putting words in quotes that don't exist. That's pretty damn sad.

Lastly - I would like for this very inappropriate thread to sink down where it belongs. I don't want to respond again and I hope that I don't feel compelled to.

Have a nice day.

Beagle -

Re: My original post.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

And by the way,

(more gibberish here)

Sitting on my desk is a perfectly preserved chunk

Of Paleocene tree, about 6" in diameter and about 4" high.

I found it in an Arizona desert when I was about 10 years old.

The sides show the bark pattern in perfect detail, plus knots

Where branches came out, and the ends

Show the concentric growth rings.

By your own argument vis a vis fossilised wood,

There can also be no fossilised

Bones.

Also on my desk is a chunk of Green River shale (Utah),

With a beautifully preserved specimen of

The skeleton of a small fish, equally impossible

By your definition.

I just finished building a boat whose owner picked

A type of stone for his countertops which displayed

Cross-sections of Crinoids and Ammonites.

Again, impossible,

As they are carbon based critters which had a cellular anatomy.

Digit wrote:I'm puzzled. We have a politician over here by the name of Tony Benn, he's extreme left wing and I disagree with just about everything he says, BUT, the man has steadfastly maintained his opinions for over half a centary. There has never been the slightest suggestion that he has ever acted other than with the greatest honesty and honour and I respect the MAN immensely.
My point is this, I consider RS's view to be without the slightest foundation and have argued strongly against it, but if he's ever over here I would be absolutely delighted to continue the argument over a few glasses, and l'll but the first round as well!

Being compared to Tony Benn is a compliment?

I'll buy the second and every subsequent even round!

We've got a guy like that too: Jan Pronk. The Americans have Ralph Nader. Gotta love 'm. We need people like that to spice up this dreary life.

And we need beer.

Beagle wrote:Ishtar, I really wish that John had not decided to open an entire thread about this for some silly grandstanding. But, he did. I have to say now that your post is one of the most disengeuous that I've seen here, and as you say, I've been around for awhile. It may interest you to note that RS joined this forum before I did. We are old acquantinces. John, however, thought it would be cool to open this thread and grandstand a bit. Bordering on gibberish as usual.

Firstly - Ishtar, over the last six months, you have been the sole person to attack people, often viciously. You know that - I count off the top of my head at least four people.

Secondly - You reference new people. Ask Dannan about that. We're very fortunate that he is still here.

Thirdly - I think somewhere you have described yourself as a journalist of sorts. I notice that you have quoted me in your post. Well Ishtar, you would be fired from any credible news agency for putting words in quotes that don't exist. That's pretty damn sad.

Lastly - I would like for this very inappropriate thread to sink down where it belongs. I don't want to respond again and I hope that I don't feel compelled to.

Have a nice day.

Beagle -

Re: My original post.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

And by the way, to your original argument,

(more gibberish here)

Sitting on my desk is a perfectly preserved chunk

Of Paleocene tree, about 6" in diameter and about 4" high.

I found it in an Arizona desert when I was about 10 years old.

The sides show the bark pattern in perfect detail, plus knots

Where branches came out, and the ends

Show the concentric growth rings.

By your own argument vis a vis fossilised wood,

There can also be no fossilised

Bones.

Also on my desk is a chunk of Green River shale (Utah),

With a beautifully preserved specimen of

The skeleton of a small fish, equally impossible

By your definition.

I just finished building a boat whose owner picked

A type of stone for his countertops which displayed

Cross-sections of Crinoids and Ammonites, from

The Cretaceous era I believe.

Again, impossible,

As they are carbon based critters which had a cellular anatomy,

Just like wood.

Finally, I have a piece of red, Bass Formation shale which I picked up

Near to the bottom of the Grand Canyon with the imprints of

Small jellyfish on its surface. Dated at a billion something.

My point is you deny fossilized wood,

You deny the entire fossil record.


Is this your argument?


hoka hey




john

John, I was nearly in bed - I'm glad I caught your post. It sounds like you have a very nice desktop; I'm jealous as mine is messy. As for the rest of your post, it's in the wrong thread.

Let me say, John, that I was really upset with you starting this thread. I'm sure you know how I feel about it. You've taken nothing, and created a mess. Now, if RS wants to tell me that I owe him a beer for my testy remark to him - I'll buy him one. However, I would buy RS a beer any day so it may not mean much.

In any event John, my language toward you was too strong. I hope that you don't bear a grudge and accept my simple apology. Having said that, I still think you're guilty of causing a problem on the board, and the best thing to do is let this thread rest.

You can stir the pot, or let it go.

Now, I am going to bed.

Beagle wrote:John, I was nearly in bed - I'm glad I caught your post. It sounds like you have a very nice desktop; I'm jealous as mine is messy. As for the rest of your post, it's in the wrong thread.

Let me say, John, that I was really upset with you starting this thread. I'm sure you know how I feel about it. You've taken nothing, and created a mess. Now, if RS wants to tell me that I owe him a beer for my testy remark to him - I'll buy him one. However, I would buy RS a beer any day so it may not mean much.

In any event John, my language toward you was too strong. I hope that you don't bear a grudge and accept my simple apology. Having said that, I still think you're guilty of causing a problem on the board, and the best thing to do is let this thread rest.

You can stir the pot, or let it go.

Now, I am going to bed.

Beagle -


Let's take the whole conversation as conversation now downriver.


We are, as a forum, headed upriver.


pax

john

Whew! I'm glad ya'll worked that out.

Crikey RS, not something we agree on! The forum members will all fall asleep mate.

The Americans have Ralph Nader.

Um, with all due respect, fuck Ralph Nader. That egotistical moron is the reason that Bush has come close to destroying the country.

If you say so, Min.

However, I still enjoy George Galloway's thrashing of the US Senate (just 4 minutes here, unfortunately) in 2005.
And all off the top of his head, without as much as looking even once at any papers! Very impressive.
Another one of those 'colorful' people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk

It was great entertainment to see a pedantic orator take on that arrogant council and wiping the floor with it!

Anybody know where I can see Galloway's entire statement? I can use some more comic relief.

RS:

Try this about Galloway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3VHAco8 ... re=related

They say it is 45 min long. I bailed out at about 3 min.

That's probably about average KB. He's a man with a mission, to get as rich as possible in the shortest time possible and by any means. If he doesn't end up in jail one day I at least will be very surprised.

Cheers, kb. It's brilliant!
I'm copying it 'for future reference' as we speak.

Minimalist wrote:

The Americans have Ralph Nader.

Um, with all due respect, fuck Ralph Nader. That egotistical moron is the reason that Bush has come close to destroying the country.

Minimalist -

I couldn't agree more.

But there are also the rigged voting machines.

And the rigged Supreme Court.


This should be moved to " Everything else".


hoka hey


john

john wrote:But there are also the rigged voting machines.

And the rigged Supreme Court.

Give me a break.
This is the United States not some third-world upstart.

The appointment of judges to the court is overseen by the Congress and while its true that every President dreams of making appointments which are compatible with his personal agenda, there is a process which is followed through the system of checks and balances. Nothing illegal has been done in setting up the present court.

As for the voting machines, your implication is the machines were somehow rigged to favor a particular outcome. That's bull. The people citing rigged votes in Ohio are Green Party and Independents. And yet, those whose votes are in the balance and who lost are NOT claiming such inproprieties. I vote in Ohio. My results are tallied on paper for my review before I finalize the vote. The paper reel can not be touched or removed by the voter. If there are any doubts, the machines can be audited against the paper record.

Answer these questions:
1. Who allegedly orchestrated this conspiracy of vote stealing?
2. What was their reward?
3. Why did Kerry concede Ohio in 2000?