Archaeologica.org

...Help me out here.

I just quoted you above. When your post was not in that format I didn't instantly realize it was a quote. Just took me a half second though.

As to why I didn''t read it, I'm assuming you already know that if you've been reading the forum. Since you are posting at this time of night I assume you are from the US?

Beagle, thanks for reply...

... since we both seem to be up,...how do you do that groovy "grayed out box" quote insert thing?

Hi Woodrabbit.
The subtext is not hard to miss, scattered over these pages like a shotgun spray-pattern. Certain subjects which defy hard-core scholarship tend to be poorly received. Speculation may drive scientific inquiry but around here one's speculations better be clearly labelled. Peruse any thread that evoked huge numbers of fiery posts, and 10s of thousands of page views: Bosnian pyramids, Noahs flood, archaeology and the bible, evolution. One clear theme emerges, back your views with quality citations or soon you find yourself bobbing around on one leg saying "..tis only a flesh wound."

Welcome.
(Im up too - everthing between [.quote] and [./quote] is in a grey box [leave out the periods though])

A sobering and dour welcome, but well received non the less.

A sobering and dour welcome, but well received non the less.

It's alright, Woody, your posting honeymoon period should last at least for a few days here ... glad to have you on board.

Forum Monk wrote:Hi Woodrabbit.
The subtext is not hard to miss, scattered over these pages like a shotgun spray-pattern. Certain subjects which defy hard-core scholarship tend to be poorly received. Speculation may drive scientific inquiry but around here one's speculations better be clearly labelled. Peruse any thread that evoked huge numbers of fiery posts, and 10s of thousands of page views: Bosnian pyramids, Noahs flood, archaeology and the bible, evolution. One clear theme emerges, back your views with quality citations or soon you find yourself bobbing around on one leg saying "..tis only a flesh wound."

Welcome.
(Im up too - everthing between [.quote] and [./quote] is in a grey box [leave out the periods though])

Wow Monk, you paint a dark picture here . Woodrabbit says he has been reading for a year so I'm sure he knows. Most of the posts are inane off topic chatter. I've never had a problem speculating - it can be fun. And most of all one can actually learn a lot about archaeology here, which is what it's all about.

We've had rough spots every now and then, but you just be patient and it's gone. Sorry you feel that the forum is that contentious.

Contentious, you say!

Hi Woody, nice to meet you and welcome!
Look forward to hearing more from you.

Beagle wrote:Wow Monk, you paint a dark picture here . Woodrabbit says he has been reading for a year so I'm sure he knows. Most of the posts are inane off topic chatter. I've never had a problem speculating - it can be fun.

Actually I thought my Monte Python reference was funny. True there is a lot of off topic banter and I enjoy it.

And yes, I think this and certain other threads are contentious.

Actually I thought my Monte Python reference was funny

It was very funny.

Forum Monk, I missed the MP reference...would you mind repeating it?
Thanks
Was it "Too much information"?

Stan (alias Starch Grain)

Here is the Monty Python scene I was referencing - "'tis only a flesh wound".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9HrinSGOvs



"starchy woman" - it evoked mental images, thats all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEsz9ci5XE
this is the remastered edition
its way better than the original

marduk wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEsz9ci5XE
this is the remastered edition
its way better than the original

Yeah I saw this out there but ignored it. Now I've watched it and you're right, it is good.