R Avry Wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > > Either way, Jon, you need a reason to keep Y.
> I
> > > have a reason for disregarding it. Actually,
> > two.
> > > 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
> > nothing.
>
> Ok, so your reasoning is because you just feel
> like it; no argumentation as to why. Got it.

All data has value. Therefore I never disregard 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
> > a
> > > > 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
> > in
> > > 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?

Why?

>
> > > are off. Are you daft?
> >
> > What does "daft" mean
>
> Seriously?
>
> > 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
> > material.
> >
> > 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.

Do you mean..
The sample contained an inclusion of greater age?



>
>
> > > > You then appear to have edited your
> > statement,
> > > > preserved for prosperity by Corpuscules
> > quote.
> > >
> > > No idea what you are referring to. I did not
> > edit
> > > my post. Otherwise the Phorum software (which
> > none
> > > of us has access to) would have placed one of
> > > these on the bottom of my post :"Edited 4
> > time(s).
> > > 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
> > post.
>
> 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?

Not really but the Eiffel Tower is a very interesting subject having been one of the first "Mod-ern" non utilitarian structures designed by an engineer as opposed to an architect. Beauty in Functionality, (somewhat similar to the surrounding shrubs), caused quite a stir at the time. Maybe another time...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16-Jun-16 01:31 by Jon Ellison.