| May 14, 2024, 12:16 am UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| December 24, 2003 07:58AM |
<HTML>Quite correct.
I've been known to foul up pretty regularly because I simply ignore the name of the poster, and then get the previous arguments of other posters mixed up with the one being made. I remember blasting poor Michelle for something someone else had said, as her post seemed to be a continuation of the same argument, when in fact, it was nothing of the sort.
As I hope I've demonstrated repeatedly (whether I'm finding fault with an argument put forth by Hancock, Bauval, Alford, Hawass or Lehner!), it is the subject matter of the post that is the ONLY significant factor in the weighing of evidence. Certainly, there are those who have the same standard responses to reasonable, critical examinations of their theories (we KNOW about whom I'm speaking...lol) but that only works against them when people read back over the threads.
In all, it comes out in the wash, as Warwick suggested. Those who create multiple aliases get rooted out (Davidovits was recently nailed for posting under multiple names to try and give credence to his failed geopolymer theory, for example), and those actions give much greater insight into the intellectual ethics of the researcher positing the theory.
Take care, <i>Dave</i>.
Anthony</HTML>
I've been known to foul up pretty regularly because I simply ignore the name of the poster, and then get the previous arguments of other posters mixed up with the one being made. I remember blasting poor Michelle for something someone else had said, as her post seemed to be a continuation of the same argument, when in fact, it was nothing of the sort.
As I hope I've demonstrated repeatedly (whether I'm finding fault with an argument put forth by Hancock, Bauval, Alford, Hawass or Lehner!), it is the subject matter of the post that is the ONLY significant factor in the weighing of evidence. Certainly, there are those who have the same standard responses to reasonable, critical examinations of their theories (we KNOW about whom I'm speaking...lol) but that only works against them when people read back over the threads.
In all, it comes out in the wash, as Warwick suggested. Those who create multiple aliases get rooted out (Davidovits was recently nailed for posting under multiple names to try and give credence to his failed geopolymer theory, for example), and those actions give much greater insight into the intellectual ethics of the researcher positing the theory.
Take care, <i>Dave</i>.
Anthony</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.