> > Either way, Jon, you need a reason to keep Y. I
> > have a reason for disregarding it. Actually,
> > One, because it is outside the norm, and two,
> > because of contamination. What's your logic for
> > keeping it?
> I need a reason for keeping it? I disregard
Ok, so your reasoning is because you just feel like it; no argumentation as to why. Got it.
> Disregarding hard data that sits outside of
> accepted belief seems to be standard practice
> among many Egyptologists.
> You can prove contamination? Did the lab prove
> contamination? If they did prove contamination why
> was the sample date tabulated and published.
They reported the results. If odd, limited results do not agree, this in itself explains there is something wrong with the sample. Previously decayed material employed in the mortar would be one way to explain it.
> > > Disregarding any anomalous reading without
> > fully
> > > understanding the reason for that reading is
> > > dangerous practice.
> > > Thank Christ you don't work in aviation.
> > That's why I gave a reason, ergo, no dangerous
> > practice on my end. Thank Christ you don't work
> > English grammar courses.
> Who said I'm English . Are you English? If so what
> dialect? I can't place it.
What ... no response to showing you I do not use 'dangerous practices'? Prefer to get into a debate about what language we are speaking?
> > are off. Are you daft?
> What does "daft" mean
> I think what you are trying to say is..
> If the sample test results revealed dates earlier
> than expected, then there is a possibility that
> the aforementioned samples may have been
> previously contaminated by older organic
> Is that correct??
No. Not contaminated. That would suggest a later incursion. Included in the original. Contamination would come into play for the lone anomalies.
> > > You then appear to have edited your
> > > preserved for prosperity by Corpuscules
> > No idea what you are referring to. I did not
> > my post. Otherwise the Phorum software (which
> > of us has access to) would have placed one of
> > these on the bottom of my post :"Edited 4
> > Last edit at 15-Jun-16 23:26 by Jon Ellison.",
> > like yours just did. Do you see one in mine?
> > Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? Anyone?
> Maybe Corpuscules fabricated the quote from your
Maybe? How so? If I didn't edit it (proof in the non-existing Phorum software tag), then who else could have? The boogeyman? Shall we open a new thread on discussing editing at GHMB?
> I prefer to think of it as paying attention to
> detail. Which I admit can be tedious. Something
> you obviously disapprove of.
No, it is you micromanaging tangent non-sequiturs. For example, like discussing the geometric value of nearby shrubs to how they played a part in the construction of the Eiffel Tower. Maybe you'd now like to start a thread on the latter?