Combination of the 2 (apologies ahead to janis joplin)

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:09 pm

Hmmm.....it does not give an "edited by" line. I don't think I ever noticed that before.

Yes. That was me.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:13 pm

Oh brother

You got a bunch of new toys huh?

If you want to try deleting a post, you can practice on this one.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:34 pm

Not necessary. I figure I understand now.

Do you know that when Arch was a moderator of his own forum (they gave him one so keep him from spilling his nonsense over the whole board) he edited or deleted 88% of the posts?

Guess he couldn't resisit the temptation to play god.

john · Post by **john** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:41 pm

MichelleH wrote:Oy vey....another MCP.....geesh

We women do not complicate things for you men. We completely understand that you require simplistic, monosyllabic communication.....

Just kidding guys.....

Actually, I was about to present my tertiary thesis, that cave paintings are actually all painted by women. The earliest examples of the infamous "honeydo" list. This many horses, that many rhino. You guys know the drill.

john

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:38 pm

Minimalist wrote:Guess he couldn't resisit the temptation to play god.

Just before shutting down tonight, a few comments about Arch.
I never knew the man but I have read many of his posts. (Though one must wade through a lot of dross). Today you said he believed catholics were not christians and he deleted posts (which I assume by implication, he found offensive). It sounds out of character all the way around for a man of faith. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding on your part about what he said or did?

Hmmm.....later..

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:43 pm

Actually....it's totally in character.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:47 pm

Minimalist wrote:Not necessary. I figure I understand now.

Do you know that when Arch was a moderator of his own forum (they gave him one so keep him from spilling his nonsense over the whole board) he edited or deleted 88% of the posts?

Guess he couldn't resisit the temptation to play god.

You'kidding. I 've got to come over there a little more, especially when I'm bored.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:58 pm

It's an interesting group....apparently a bunch of ex-pat Americans living in Korea and hating every minute of it.

And then, there's Arch!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:18 am

Cave art as an aid to hunting is obviously quite a possible scenario but the skill of the artists show, in my mind, one of two alternatives.
One, that the representation had to be accurate or would not work as intended or,
two, the artist did it with a love of the work he/she was doing.
Possibly both of course.
In the case of human images frequently they are stick like, and if option one was correct, I would have thought that humans would also have been portrayed accurately.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:37 am

Digit wrote: In the case of human images frequently they are stick like, and if option one was correct, I would have thought that humans would also have been portrayed accurately.

Sort of a caveman renaissance, eh?

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:24 am

In the case of human images frequently they are stick like, and if option one was correct, I would have thought that humans would also have been portrayed accurately.

There are representative drawings of humans:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2012385.stm

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:59 am

Agreed Cog, but not normally in association with weapons and animals, which I find a little strange.

Archaeologica.org

Combination of the 2 (apologies ahead to janis joplin)

Drawings