Archaeologica.org

marduk wrote:i didnt claim the celts were in britain in 2000bce
just that the picts were

Your actual words....

Marduk wrote:The celts arrived around 2000bce and found the picts already here

Marduk wrote:you could easily prove you were qualified
but you have completely failed to do so on every chance offered to you

You said

Marduk wrote:Where did you study for your degree and what was it in?

To which I replied

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:MA (Hons) in Archaeology and Mediaeval History, University of Glasgow

Having previously told you

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:I am a professional archaeologist and member of the Institute of Field Archaeologists, and have been since 1984

Marduk wrote:i wasn't trying to find out what you were working on at the moment

so why did you say

Marduk wrote: You claim to be a professional archaeologist yet you're not out on a dig at the moment

Marduk wrote:Which site are you currently working on?

Marduk wrote:So once again I ask you what site are you working on at the moment as a professional archaeologist?

You can't even lie consistently, can you?

you can though
you missed out the part where i told you that i deliberately said that about the celts to see if youd correct me
you didnt because you wanted everyone to think theyd been here as long as the picts
no swearing in your last post RK
calling me a liar is apersonal attack but its not swearing
i am impressed
are you ok
thats completely out of character

lets not forget that you started this exchange of posts with another personal attack like you started the last one
other posters have told me that normal with you as well
you must have just loads of friends

btw I am a professor of archaeology
MA (Hons) Archaeology Bristol University
BA (Hons) Archaeology Exeter university
British Archaeological Association member since 1990
Archaeology Abroad member since 1991
European Association of Archaeologists member since 1992
etc
etc
etc
of course me just saying that doesnt prove it
just like it doesnt prove a single little thing when you say it either
so you haven't in fact proved a thing
apart from your ignorance

More lies. That's what I like about you...nothing!

This thread seems to have been hi-jacked and suprisingly not by Arch this time.
To your original question LadyV , Christians dont have to explain anything thats why they have blind "FAITH" just read some of Arch's posts you'll soon get the Idea .

Listened to your tracks , a very interesting nightwish style turn on some classics , let me know if you post any more .

This thread seems to have been hi-jacked and suprisingly not by Arch this time.

why would i hijack a topic that isn't even archaeologically based? yet i hear no cries of foul? just because it is a lady, you all seem to hold your tongues pretty still when it comes to being non-archaeological.

the same goes for when she suggested a spiritual debate. you all are being very hypocritical, you know that don't you?

If you debate her my money is on LadyV.

If you debate her my money is on LadyV.

i think that marduk should face off with jean marie.

btw I am a professor of archaeology
MA (Hons) Archaeology Bristol University
BA (Hons) Archaeology Exeter university
British Archaeological Association member since 1990
Archaeology Abroad member since 1991
European Association of Archaeologists member since 1992

i would love to believe you but i have a question; if you have all these achievements, why can't you put links and sources in well constructed, logical posts instead of the crap that you do?

because like i told you about thirty times already
you don't
and have consistently failed to do so when asked
yet you still make unsubstantiated claims
so when i get to see the links that prove the biblical narrative is older than the sumerian ones i will post links in ever post
if theyre credible i will probably rethink my faith as well

but i'm not expecting you to produce any links that prove that from a credible source arch
because they dont exist and you knew it when you made that ridiculous personal belief based claim in the first place

but i'm not expecting you to produce any links that prove that from a credible source

depends upon your definition of credible.

by the way, when people start making promises like you do..'i will do it when you do'... it usually means they have nothing to offer and are looking for an excuse to avoid posting links.

archaeologist wrote:

but i'm not expecting you to produce any links that prove that from a credible source

depends upon your definition of credible.

by the way, when people start making promises like you do..'i will do it when you do'... it usually means they have nothing to offer and are looking for an excuse to avoid posting links.

personal accusations have nothing to do with credibility, or fact.

mud wrestling matches don't appeal to anything other than titillation. as neither of you are young and female cheerleaders, even the titillation factor is gone.

anybody else on this forum bored to tears with this crap?

john

i am
ive been asking him to post credible links for weeks ever since he demanded the rest of the forum do so

ive been asking him to post credible links for weeks ever since he demanded the rest of the forum do so

it hasn't been weeks so RK's response:

You can't even lie consistently, can you

fits quite well but you see marduk, i was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt yet asked a simple question. which i will repeat, if you have all that, why are your posts so shoddy?

pure fantasy
you can't even link to your own posts
and you are criticising mine
ahahahahah
total ass

quod erat demonstrandum.

alas.


john

Age. Fac ut gaudeam