| May 5, 2024, 11:21 pm 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 |
| August 27, 2001 02:06PM |
<HTML>Dear Prof Garrett Fagan,
Let me first just say that I don't appreciate you carrying on this conversation away from where I'd originally posted my comments. It kinda takes away from the flow of the debate, don't you think? Well, I guess there's no use us getting in a tiff over it - but I thought I'd let you know I don't like it. (Mr Brass posted the link over there, and I responded there. I don't see what the problem would have been for you to oblige. Oh well.)
This will be my only post at this board on the subject. If you want to continue, you can either e-mail me accompanied by your kind permission to post the e-mails, or join me over there. But don't feel pressed.
I have this to say, then I'll leave you be.
quote: "[He went on to suggest that this was a problem for archaeology; what “unbalanced” data might be, I’m not sure.]"
Forgive me, but uh.... it looks like you did a fine job of answering that question with the three paragraphs which followed it. Thanks.
quote: "So, to come back to Avry’s basic point, readers are presented with a stark choice: accept the un-evidenced “conjectures” and “best guesses” of the alternatives, closing their eyes to what evidence we have in order to do so (see Hancock’s ignoring 30 years of work at Tiwanaku); or rely on the “conjectures” and “best guesses” (aka “hypotheses”) of the people who allow consideration of all the available evidence to guide the shape their (provisional) views."
I did no such thing as to give this choice - nor did I lead the reader to assume this. Did you miss where I agreed I felt that Graham's conclusions are wrong? Apparently so. In no way did I present the choice to 'accept the un-evidenced “conjectures” and “best guesses” of the alternatives, closing their eyes to what evidence we have in order to do so (see Hancock’s ignoring 30 years of work at Tiwanaku)'.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, Garrett.
I really don't like how this is turning out. I get the distinct feeling I am on display - ("And in this circus booth we have the idiot pseudo scientist. Look at him! What a freak!"). No, you're not saying it in those exact words, but that's how it comes across.
In an earlier thread you labeled me with using 'tactics'. That assumes premeditation to mislead, does it not? Another 'thank you' - this one for blending a gross misjudgement of intent with my honest opinion.
How about we see how YOU feel in the other's shoes? Here goes:
'Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a prime example of what the Penn State conference would have entailed - an opportunity to display a socio-political analysis of the guests based on what theoretical data they presented...but we don't care to discuss the latter directly; let us only charge our attention with what is psychologically inept about the guests for how they interpret this data.'
How does it feel? Pretty insulting, hunh?
I'd rather not debate this with you anymore. I will keep my opinions the same until new evidence tells me otherwise. (To think I don't understand this concept is extremely insulting, Garrett, and one of the reasons I refuse to continue. You've won nothing by forcing me to walk away. Next you'll accuse me as, "Ha. You see people? Get them where they can no longer back up what they say, and they run away!"
No. I <I>can</I> back up what I say. For others elsewhere, I'll be posting some excerpts from the C14 data entry and the problems associated with it (in relation to Tiahuanico, of course).
I just don't appreciate rude behaviour, insinuations about my 'inability' to grasp certain concepts, putting words in my mouth, and displaying my comments like it's 'showtime' in Barnumville.
Sorry, Garrett. This isn't worth the effort - and I sincerely mean my apology.
'Till if and when we meet again,
Yours,
R. Avry Wilson</HTML>
Let me first just say that I don't appreciate you carrying on this conversation away from where I'd originally posted my comments. It kinda takes away from the flow of the debate, don't you think? Well, I guess there's no use us getting in a tiff over it - but I thought I'd let you know I don't like it. (Mr Brass posted the link over there, and I responded there. I don't see what the problem would have been for you to oblige. Oh well.)
This will be my only post at this board on the subject. If you want to continue, you can either e-mail me accompanied by your kind permission to post the e-mails, or join me over there. But don't feel pressed.
I have this to say, then I'll leave you be.
quote: "[He went on to suggest that this was a problem for archaeology; what “unbalanced” data might be, I’m not sure.]"
Forgive me, but uh.... it looks like you did a fine job of answering that question with the three paragraphs which followed it. Thanks.
quote: "So, to come back to Avry’s basic point, readers are presented with a stark choice: accept the un-evidenced “conjectures” and “best guesses” of the alternatives, closing their eyes to what evidence we have in order to do so (see Hancock’s ignoring 30 years of work at Tiwanaku); or rely on the “conjectures” and “best guesses” (aka “hypotheses”) of the people who allow consideration of all the available evidence to guide the shape their (provisional) views."
I did no such thing as to give this choice - nor did I lead the reader to assume this. Did you miss where I agreed I felt that Graham's conclusions are wrong? Apparently so. In no way did I present the choice to 'accept the un-evidenced “conjectures” and “best guesses” of the alternatives, closing their eyes to what evidence we have in order to do so (see Hancock’s ignoring 30 years of work at Tiwanaku)'.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, Garrett.
I really don't like how this is turning out. I get the distinct feeling I am on display - ("And in this circus booth we have the idiot pseudo scientist. Look at him! What a freak!"). No, you're not saying it in those exact words, but that's how it comes across.
In an earlier thread you labeled me with using 'tactics'. That assumes premeditation to mislead, does it not? Another 'thank you' - this one for blending a gross misjudgement of intent with my honest opinion.
How about we see how YOU feel in the other's shoes? Here goes:
'Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a prime example of what the Penn State conference would have entailed - an opportunity to display a socio-political analysis of the guests based on what theoretical data they presented...but we don't care to discuss the latter directly; let us only charge our attention with what is psychologically inept about the guests for how they interpret this data.'
How does it feel? Pretty insulting, hunh?
I'd rather not debate this with you anymore. I will keep my opinions the same until new evidence tells me otherwise. (To think I don't understand this concept is extremely insulting, Garrett, and one of the reasons I refuse to continue. You've won nothing by forcing me to walk away. Next you'll accuse me as, "Ha. You see people? Get them where they can no longer back up what they say, and they run away!"
No.
I <I>can</I> back up what I say. For others elsewhere, I'll be posting some excerpts from the C14 data entry and the problems associated with it (in relation to Tiahuanico, of course).I just don't appreciate rude behaviour, insinuations about my 'inability' to grasp certain concepts, putting words in my mouth, and displaying my comments like it's 'showtime' in Barnumville.
Sorry, Garrett. This isn't worth the effort - and I sincerely mean my apology.
'Till if and when we meet again,
Yours,
R. Avry Wilson</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.