> Summary: blockhead Audrey, hell-bent on exposing
> her cluelessness, comes back for more.
> No, Audrey, I was right: you are a waste of time,
> and you are a waste of space, and I do have better
> things to do—but out of the kindness of my heart
> and in a spirit of charity, I will make a further
> contribution to your education.
> Let’s have a link for that:Quote
Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological
> Perspective by R. Taylor
> In 1969 at the Nobel Symposium on Radiocarbon
> Variations and Absolute Chronology, Professor
> Torqny Säve-Söderbergh, quoting Professor
> J.O. Brew of Harvard, suggested that an attitude
> among certain archaeologists towards radiocarbon
> determinations could be summarized in these words:
> If a C14 date supports our theories......
> What was it I said⸮ It’s in the quote above.
> “I, unlike you, have some acquaintance with how
> these things are done.”
> So, your brilliant idea is that because Torqny
> Säve-Söderbergh spoke at the symposium,
> he was not presenting a paper.
> How do you imagine papers are presented⸮
> Someone holds them up in front of the audience⸮
> You imagine Säve-Söderbergh was speaking off the
> cuff⸮ Are we to picture the named authors
> (plural) fighting over the microphone⸮
> People making statements at symposia prepare them
> in advance. They don’t just stand up and start
> talking. Certainly in 1979, the statement would
> be prepared on paper and it wouldn’t be
> at all unusual to call the result “a paper”
> and the act of presenting it “presenting a
> paper”. It would be understood. I don’t know
> if there’s anyone other than you who’d want to
> insist on their being a difference, but it’s a
> difference which makes no difference and what
> I’ve described is standard usage, commonplace.
> Ever heard of a call for papers⸮
> Do get a clue.
Are you daft!!!
Why are you bickering about whether the statement was read out loud, or just verbalized?
The point is..... the statement made, at a Nobel Symposium, discloses archaeology's blatant disregard for science. Can you not comprehend this???? Would you do anything, no matter how retarded, to take the spotlight off that fact??
You can't distract from it.
“IF A C14 DATE SUPPORTS OUR THEORIES, WE PUT IT IN THE MAIN TEXT. IF IT DOES NOT ENTIRELY CONTRADICT THEM, WE PUT IT IN A FOOT-NOTE. AND IF IT IS COMPLETELY 'OUT OF DATE', WE JUST DROP IT.
Suppressing evidence to maintain the status quo. An attitude of being above science. A FEAR of losing their paper thrones.
And don't feed us your BS of knowing what happens at a Nobel Symposium. Oh sure, maybe you've been to a Microsoft conference, but dude, you are not part of academic circles. The only papers you've written were on the paper hanging next to your toilet. Your bloated ego deliberately tries to paint a picture of you being experienced with the process of academic debate. I hate to pop your bubble, but you're a nobody Stower, just a common IT guy, without an education, without wit, without humor, without social graces, without manners, there is no end to what you lack that you try to make up for with a big mouth. In fact, the ONLY thing you do have is a big mouth.
Now don't you have some important work to do like change the settings on someone's printer.