| May 6, 2024, 5:14 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 |
| August 27, 2001 02:43PM |
<HTML>(Sorry, I hit "post" instead of "quote" the last time, posting a stunted message. Here's the full text)
Avry -
Perhaps it's my stupidity, but I just don't see where there is personal insult or insinuation against you in my post in this thread. It is designed to generate discussion.
To some specifics:
Avry wrote:
> 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.)
I reply:
The article you were commenting on was posted on Ma'at, not GH.com. So the question really is why did you post your comments on that article at the latter?
Avry, I'm so hurt, and so on.
Avry wrote:
> 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 reply:
Thanks for the offer, but I'll reply here to public postings on my public postings.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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.
I reply:
You don't seem to have read what I was saying. If you think my musings confirm a problem for archaeology, then you think they also confirm a problem for all of science. Do you propose that we abandon the scientific endeavor because its conclusions are provisional? If so, I disagree.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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)'.
I reply:
Where did I say "Avry presents the readers with a stark choice"? That was MY stark choice, offered to readers by ME in MY NAME, following MY discussion that preceded it. This thread was not a response to R. Avry Wilson, but was inspired by one of your comments (and Deano's and others in the thread below). This should be self-evident. If not, I have been unclear and I apologize.
Avry wrote:
> Thanks for putting words in my mouth, Garrett.
I reply:
Your welcome. But I did nothing of the sort.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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.
I reply:
Eh?
Avry wrote:
>
> 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 reply:
Eh?
Avry wrote:
>
> 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!"
I reply:
Your choice. You know where to find me.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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 reply:
I look forward to it.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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.
I reply:
Eh?
Avry wrote:
>
> Sorry, Garrett. This isn't worth the effort - and I sincerely
> mean my apology.
I reply:
I'm sorry you feel that way. You seem to find personal insult under every debate. In this respect you take after certain other parties who think criticism some sort of assault on their human rights.
Avry wrote:
>
> 'Till if and when we meet again,
I reply:
Indeed. I look forward to it.
Best wishes,
Garrett</HTML>
Avry -
Perhaps it's my stupidity, but I just don't see where there is personal insult or insinuation against you in my post in this thread. It is designed to generate discussion.
To some specifics:
Avry wrote:
> 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.)
I reply:
The article you were commenting on was posted on Ma'at, not GH.com. So the question really is why did you post your comments on that article at the latter?
Avry, I'm so hurt, and so on.
Avry wrote:
> 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 reply:
Thanks for the offer, but I'll reply here to public postings on my public postings.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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.
I reply:
You don't seem to have read what I was saying. If you think my musings confirm a problem for archaeology, then you think they also confirm a problem for all of science. Do you propose that we abandon the scientific endeavor because its conclusions are provisional? If so, I disagree.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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)'.
I reply:
Where did I say "Avry presents the readers with a stark choice"? That was MY stark choice, offered to readers by ME in MY NAME, following MY discussion that preceded it. This thread was not a response to R. Avry Wilson, but was inspired by one of your comments (and Deano's and others in the thread below). This should be self-evident. If not, I have been unclear and I apologize.
Avry wrote:
> Thanks for putting words in my mouth, Garrett.
I reply:
Your welcome. But I did nothing of the sort.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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.
I reply:
Eh?
Avry wrote:
>
> 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 reply:
Eh?
Avry wrote:
>
> 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!"
I reply:
Your choice. You know where to find me.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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 reply:
I look forward to it.
Avry wrote:
>
> 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.
I reply:
Eh?
Avry wrote:
>
> Sorry, Garrett. This isn't worth the effort - and I sincerely
> mean my apology.
I reply:
I'm sorry you feel that way. You seem to find personal insult under every debate. In this respect you take after certain other parties who think criticism some sort of assault on their human rights.
Avry wrote:
>
> 'Till if and when we meet again,
I reply:
Indeed. I look forward to it.
Best wishes,
Garrett</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.