 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / June 2007Hands Up
Who here approves of the sneering, intellectual thuggery of Peter Alaca acting as the bouncer at the door of the sci.archaeology group? I write this in defense of the stand for civility Eric Stevens made against Peter's childish brutality. Peter recently suggested to Eric, albeit politely, to leave the group! Does he think this group is his personal domain to bully? I think not! I stand in defense of Eric who seems to understand that being open-minded when presented with new facts and ideas is one of the most crucial aspects and hallmarks of science. Our only indications of the truth are the facts not dismissive personal prejudice and bias. Evidently, when I published my article (New Archaeological Evidence for Atlantis) Peter thought he could just do a little fact checking and debunk my hypothesis out of hand. I have yet to hear him, or anyone else for that matter, discredit even one of my archaeological facts. What's the matter, Peter, you're fact checking didn't turn out the way you wanted it to? I realize that it is more comforting for instinctual arbiters of omnipotent truth to launch ad-hominid attacks when they refuse to deal with facts or ideas they don't approve of. Uwe, do you approve of Peter's behavior? If I would have been politely asked to provide sources for my facts I would have politely done so. But instead, I was met with belligerence and personal attack by a few simply because I published a completely original hypothesis to the group. I will now repeat the sources for some of the less-known facts contained in my article that I previously gave in a response to Tom McDonald. Early Minoan Tholos Tomb Information: Prehistoric Archaeology of the Aegean Tholos Tombs of the Mesara Jeremy B. Rutter Chairman of the Classics Department Dartmouth College http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/6.html#12 Sponsors: Foundation of the Hellenic World and Dartmouth College. Ancient Goltepe-Kestel Tin Mining in Turkey: An Early Bronze Age Tin Production Site at Göltepe, Turkey K. Aslihan Yener Assistant Professor The Oriental Institute and The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations University of Chicago http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/nn/win94_gol.html Eric, I will explain the reason the only mention of Atlantis was in the title soon. Kind Regards, Samra Who here approves of the sneering, intellectual thuggery of Peter Alaca acting as the bouncer at the door of the sci.archaeology group? Calling crap, crap you mean? I approve. > Who here approves of the sneering, intellectual thuggery of Peter > Alaca acting as the bouncer at the door of the sci.archaeology group? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > science. Our only indications of the truth are the facts not > dismissive personal prejudice and bias. I'd say he is a model of self-restraint. You should read my responses to nonsense.  SignatureAl Qaeda is growing so quickly that today everyone in Iraq who is fighting the US is a member of Al Qaeda. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3810 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1 > Peter thought he could just do a little fact checking > and debunk my hypothesis out of hand. I have yet to hear him, or > anyone else for that matter, discredit even one of my archaeological > facts. It's a well-known paradox in historical research that there is, for example, no historical source which says "little green men from Mars DID NOT visit us today, contrary to what some kook will claim in 3,000 years' time". David B. Wot's an archaeologist? > > Peter thought he could just do a little fact checking >> and debunk my hypothesis out of hand. I have yet to hear him, or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >NOT visit us today, contrary to what some kook will claim in 3,000 >years' time". True, but Samra did not write about what did not happen. He wrote about what he thought did happen. If you think he is wrong it should not be too hard for you to demolish his arguments. Eric Stevens >>> Peter thought he could just do a little fact checking >>> and debunk my hypothesis out of hand. I have yet to hear him, or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > True, but Samra did not write about what did not happen. He wrote > about what he thought did happen. Which as far as in known, did not happen. > If you think he is wrong it should > not be too hard for you to demolish his arguments. Wrong again. The fantast has to prove his fantasies. Afterall, this is a sci group. How about my 'hypothesis' that New Zealand was made bij aliens? That must be easy to refute by you. Or is your mind too closed for that? Signaturep.a. >>>> Peter thought he could just do a little fact checking >>>> and debunk my hypothesis out of hand. I have yet to hear him, or [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Wrong again. >The fantast has to prove his fantasies. Are you really saying that it is too hard for you to demolish his arguments? >Afterall, this is a sci group. >How about my 'hypothesis' that New Zealand >was made bij aliens? That must be easy to >refute by you. Or is your mind too closed for >that? Eric Stevens >>>> It's a well-known paradox in historical research that there is, for >>>> example, no historical source which says "little green men from Mars [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Are you really saying that it is too hard for you to demolish his > arguments? In a sense, yes. Because of the above-mentioned paradox, no matter how comprehensively arguments are demolished within the terms of current historical understanding, the faint possibility of them being true remains. Therefore in history, as Peter says "The fantast has to prove his fantasies"- to make a case of such academic rigour that the arguments for the old theory are themselves demolished. This is very very difficult, but, as we see all too often on this ng, it is a much more efficient use of academic time than putting up a half-baked theory and defending it for years with the excuse that "it's not impossible". David B. >>>>> Peter thought he could just do a little fact checking >>>>> and debunk my hypothesis out of hand. I have yet to hear him, or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>> Mars DID NOT visit us today, contrary to what some kook will claim >>>> in 3,000 years' time". >>> True, but Samra did not write about what did not happen. He wrote >>> about what he thought did happen. >> Which as far as in known, did not happen. >>> If you think he is wrong it should >>> not be too hard for you to demolish his arguments. >> Wrong again. >> The fantast has to prove his fantasies. > Are you really saying that it is too hard for you to demolish his > arguments? Three days ago I wrote: "The polite way is to refute point by point what is wrong. But this text is so full of rubbish that it is impossible to treat it that way here, even if I had the desire to do so. It simply is not worth the trouble. That is why I took the direct way and called it what it is: a load of crap." >> Afterall, this is a sci group. >> How about my 'hypothesis' that New Zealand >> was made bij aliens? That must be easy to >> refute by you. Or is your mind too closed for >> that? No answers? Signaturep.a. >>>>>> Peter thought he could just do a little fact checking >>>>>> and debunk my hypothesis out of hand. I have yet to hear him, or [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >No answers? I'm just imagining the following discussion: ES What a load of crap. PA Crap yourself. You are just a sh.t slinger. ES You have sh.t for brains. PA You are the one with a head full of sh.t. ... and so forth. Discussions like this achieve nothing. Eric Stevens <snip> > I'm just imagining the following discussion: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Discussions like this achieve nothing. So you are now a convert to discussions that achieve something? I look forward to many great discussion wherein you avoid pursuing picky bits that lead nowhere. "Tom McDonald" wrote... > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I look forward to many great discussion wherein you avoid pursuing picky > bits that lead nowhere. *cough* ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >So you are now a convert to discussions that achieve something? Heavens no! Not in this news group. >I look forward to many great discussion wherein you avoid >pursuing picky bits that lead nowhere. You are welcome to lead by example. Eric Stevens > [...] > Evidently, when I published my article (New Archaeological Evidence > for Atlantis) Peter thought he could just do a little fact checking > and debunk my hypothesis out of hand. For the more knowingly among us there is no need for fact checking wen reading your fantasies. And when they checked the facts, it was no debunking out of hand. > I have yet to hear him, or anyone else for that matter, > discredit even one of my archaeological facts. Earlier I suggested that you are unable to read. But perhaps it is better to say that you are lying. > What's the matter, Peter, you're fact checking didn't turn out > the way you wanted it to? What's the matter Minoan Psychopath, the people in sci.archaeology didn't swallow your fantasies? > I realize that it is more comforting for > instinctual arbiters of omnipotent truth to launch ad-hominid attacks > when they refuse to deal with facts or ideas they don't approve of. "Arguments from ignorance fallaciously infer that since a hypothesis has not been disproved, it is reasonable to believe that hypothesis, or regard it with an open mind." Jonathan E. Adler BTW, I like the way you call yourself a hominid. > [...] > If I would have been politely asked to provide sources for my facts I > would have politely done so. That is not what you said earlier. Quite to the contrary. You said " I'm sorry but, as a general rule, I don't give out my specific sources." > But instead, I was met with belligerence > and personal attack by a few simply because I published a completely > original hypothesis to the group. 'A completely original hypothesis'. That was the expression I was looking for! Much more polite than 'a load of crap of someone with an open mind'. > I will now repeat the sources for > some of the less-known facts contained in my article that I previously > gave in a response to Tom McDonald. They cannot ave your a.s. > [...] Signaturep.a. This thread was not intended to be a forum for indiviuals to engage in a trade of personal insults or bickering! I was purely interested in finding out what interests, specialisms, experience and expertise some of our members have. Furthermore, it was not my intent to elevate the "Professional" archaeologist to a status higher than the amateur. One of the most talented archaeologists I know has no form of professional qualification at all. If you have a pet project or theory, please discuss it in a different thread. Thanks :) > This thread was not intended to be a forum for indiviuals to engage > in a trade of personal insults or bickering! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks > :) In my newsreaders it is a different thread. I guess the use of an identical title is a way of trolling, like the content is. I only replied to part of it because it is a personal attack. Signaturep.a. > This thread was not intended to be a forum for indiviuals to engage in a > trade of personal insults or bickering! This is a different thread with the same title as yours. Apparently, newbie Samra thought it was the right way to ask for a vote on things. Newbie is wrong. > I was purely interested in finding out what interests, specialisms, > experience and expertise some of our members have. And a fine idea it is. > Furthermore, it was not my intent to elevate the "Professional" > archaeologist to a status higher than the amateur. One of the most talented > archaeologists I know has no form of professional qualification at all. I didn't see your intent as anything other than to survey the regulars about their interest in archaeology and how they have advanced that interest. I agree with your point on the talents of amateurs. But specific education in archaeology usually gives a sort of grounding which should (emphasis on the conditional!) provide at minimum an understanding of the basics of archaeological language, methods and theories. Knowing whether one has this sort of grounding helps us know how much we can short-hand, and how much we may need to spell out more fully when discussing archaeological topics. Again, you are right in saying that amateur and professional is not necessarily a distinction with a difference. But there are many 'amateurs' (in the sense of loving what they think of as archaeology) whose education has been acquired from poor teachers, such as Hancock, Cremo, von Daniken, Crystal Links, etc.; or who are constitutionally credulous, or who are suspicious of those in the 'mainstream' of archaeology, beyond the normal and healthy suspicion everyone interested in such a field must have. And, although in my experience it is far less common, some professionals in archaeology are more dogmatic and rigid than is useful or called for by the current state of knowledge. And, of course, there are some professionals who are dolts. But what else is new? In a group such as sci.archaeology, we will get a cross-section of the above, weighted to the amateur side. I think a function of this ng is to increase everyone's understanding of what archaeology is and isn't; and how archaeology applies to the interests of those who post here. And that of the omnipresent lurkers, for that matter. In this effort, on a public ng, it is unavoidable that personalities clash and emotions run high. I think always keeping in mind that almost everyone who posts or lurks here has a real interest in the subject matter of archaeology may help us at least be more civil and more useful to everyone. That said, sometimes you just have to call a steaming pile of bullshit an odorous lot of bovine excrement! > If you have a pet project or theory, please discuss it in a different > thread. > > Thanks > :) Thank you for starting the other, and more useful, thread. I think it might be a Good Thing to ask this sort of thing more often, especially with new posters. It might help us titrate our responses better. > Again, you are right in saying that amateur and professional is not > necessarily a distinction with a difference. But there are many 'amateurs' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suspicious of those in the 'mainstream' of archaeology, beyond the normal > and healthy suspicion everyone interested in such a field must have. Part of my own interest in archaeology was intially fuelled by some of the "fringe" practitioners, but I then took my interest further by getting invovled in excavations, studying for my degree, carrying out field surveys and desk top studies etc etc. It all turned out to be even more interesting and rewarding than I had hoped. My formal education in archaeology actually taught me to realise what I don't know, rather than reinforcing what I thought I knew, (I hope that makes sense). Probably the most important thing I learned was to be far less dogmatic about my beliefs and preconceptions. I also learned the value of hypothesis testing, (something that the Hancock's and Von Daniken's of this world seem happy to ignore... however, I suspect they are each more wealthy than me, so who are the clever ones?). > > Again, you are right in saying that amateur and professional is not > > necessarily a distinction with a difference. But there are many 'amateurs' [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > world seem happy to ignore... however, I suspect they are each more wealthy > than me, so who are the clever ones?). von Daenikens mystery park in Switzerland was a financial desaster. A UFO park that he wanted to build in Berlin has not been heard of again. Maybe he is nit clever enough. have fun Uwe Mueller Digger put down his beer long enough to post: > This thread was not intended to be a forum for indiviuals to engage in > a trade of personal insults or bickering! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks >:) Somebody started a separate thread with the same subject ("Hands Up"). Shame on him/her. As far as me: Long-time lurker, occasional poster. I'm just a layman, not an archaeologist or anthropologist -- actually I'm an aerospace systems engineer. I'm interested in pre-Columbian native Americans, mostly the early/middle woodlands cultures, and especially Adena and Hopewell, both of which were centered around southern Ohio where I presently live. Very sad that their earthworks were all but obliterated by the early American settlers. DB Signature*** ERROR: OUT OF BEER *** > Digger put down his beer long enough to post: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Somebody started a separate thread with the same subject ("Hands Up"). > Shame on him/her. But now you post in that thread. Shame on you:-) > As far as me: Long-time lurker, occasional poster. I'm just a > layman, not an archaeologist or anthropologist -- actually I'm an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > DB Peter Alaca put down his beer long enough to post: >> Digger put down his beer long enough to post: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > But now you post in that thread. > Shame on you:-) That Eric Stevens guy was right, you *are* a big meanie! DB ;-) Signature*** ERROR: OUT OF BEER *** |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.