On May 10, 2:52 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:43:56 -0700 (PDT), Lee Olsen





paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 9, 3:30 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On May 9, 6:15 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 8, 1:33 pm, michaelrugg... at (no spam) mac.com wrote:

Listeros,

Tom Dillehay, the excavator of Monte Verde, the first Pre-Clovis site
in the Americas that received the acceptance of the entire scientific
community as being genuinely Pre-Clovis,

Roosevelt 2002:186-87 does not accept the validity of Monte Verde,
gives
 very convincing reasons why, and she  cites Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch,
and Haynes as questioning the obvious problems with Monte Verde also.
That
leaves some of the most senior people in the "entire scientific
community"
not convinced.http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9887.php

snip

Oh boy. Gee whiz, Golly gosh, do you have a real reference for that?

Nothing that you would be able to find.

Like one that includes the last six years? and something that actually
identifies it?

Six years of what?

Time?

Your cite is from 2002. It is now 2008. There are the six years.

No, that is not true. What makes you think there are no other papers?

Why is it, that the people who cite nothing are continually demanding
more from others when they give nothing themselves?

On May 8, 1:33 pm, michaelrugg... at (no spam) mac.com wrote:
Listeros,

Tom Dillehay, the excavator of Monte Verde, the first Pre-Clovis site
in the Americas that received the acceptance of the entire scientific
community as being genuinely Pre-Clovis,

Roosevelt 2002:186-87 does not accept the validity of Monte Verde,
gives
very convincing reasons why, and she cites Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch,
and Haynes as questioning the obvious problems with Monte Verde also.
That
leaves some of the most senior people in the "entire scientific
community"
not convinced.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9887.php

snip


There are (at least) two claims made about about human occupation

On May 10, 2:53 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:

but you have used them as a
club rather than a source of enlightenment.

He got just what he dished out, do you have a problem with that?

I will try to stay out of it, but LO's tone makes me angry.

...
The price of victory is usually a hinderance at best whether verbally or
literally. Being defeated or victorious in such things only means that one
is know for lower attributes and not for who they actually are (unless they
actually are a "dick" that is).  That being said; we've all acted like a
"dick" in our lives, I'm certain. I know I have (hopefully, only on
occasion).
...

On May 11, 8:43 am, "Searles O'Dubhain" <odubhain at (no spam) *comcast*.net
wrote:

...
The price of victory is usually a hinderance at best whether verbally or
literally. Being defeated or victorious in such things only means that one
is know for lower attributes and not for who they actually are (unless they
actually are a "dick" that is). That being said; we've all acted like a
"dick" in our lives, I'm certain. I know I have (hopefully, only on
occasion).
...

I think what you say is generally true and I read your posts because
they often hit the mark and make me see the light.

IMHO a little tolerance would go a long way on sci.arch and make it
a more pleasant place. For example, a mere amateur like myself
would never dream of challenging Tom McDonald on archaeology
(except for his limited hard knowledge of the Qumran site by the
Dead Sea). Yet, civility has its place and Tom certainly lost
control of his emotions at times with his penchant towards
reckless and abusive language. He actually thinks foul language
is legitimate to drive away a poster like myself on whom he once
waged a campaign to belittle. (Whew! That's a load off my chest.)

---

As for the seaweed that was found, that is exactly
the scientific data I am comfortable with.

David Christainsen

...
Searles, could you tell David to get lost?

On May 11, 3:10 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

...
Searles, could you tell David to get lost?

Considering what Searles just posted, I bet he is more
tolerant than you. I rushed into print because it felt good
to explain my justified complaint against Tom McDonald.

Because curiosity is just that no matter who has it, I
recommend you consult my recent thread -

"Pre-clovis Pacific coastal model - the devil is in the details"

You seem well read on the Pacific coastal model; what
is your opinion of the correct time frame of these ancient
migrations? Do you put any credibility in even much earlier
migrations to America? (But, how could this be in the teeth
of the heavily-entrenched Ice Age?)

Only good archaeology can settle it.

d.c.

P.S.
The National Geographic site was very disappointing to me
for giving a non-vague overview although the genetic project
they are pursuing will doubtless advance our knowledge.

On May 11, 4:06 pm, David <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:



On May 11, 3:10 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

...
Searles, could you tell David to get lost?

Considering what Searles just posted, I bet he is more
tolerant than you. I rushed into print because it felt good
to explain my justified complaint against Tom McDonald.

Because curiosity is just that no matter who has it, I
recommend you consult my recent thread -

"Pre-clovis Pacific coastal model - the devil is in the details"

You seem well read on the Pacific coastal model; what
is your opinion of the correct time frame of these ancient
migrations? Do you put any credibility in even much earlier
migrations to America? (But, how could this be in the teeth
of the heavily-entrenched Ice Age?)

Only good archaeology can settle it.

d.c.

P.S.
The National Geographic site was very disappointing to me
for giving a non-vague overview although the genetic project
they are pursuing will doubtless advance our knowledge.

May I recommend that you google the words like Erlandson, Kelp
Highway, Fladmark, E. James Dixon, coprolites, Paisley caves, Michael
Waters, Thomas Stafford, in various combinations and read the results
for content. For your final exam try

...
May I recommend that you google the words like Erlandson, Kelp
Highway, Fladmark, E. James Dixon, coprolites, Paisley caves, Michael
Waters, Thomas Stafford, in various combinations and read the results
for content. For your final exam try "Mitochondrial Population
Genomics Supports a single Pre-Clovis origin with a Coastal Route for
the peopling of the Americas", J. R. Nelson first listed author.

On May 11, 5:08 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:





On May 11, 4:06 pm, David <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 11, 3:10 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

...
Searles, could you tell David to get lost?

Considering what Searles just posted, I bet he is more
tolerant than you.  I rushed into print because it felt good
to explain my justified complaint against Tom McDonald.

Because curiosity is just that no matter who has it, I
recommend you consult my recent thread -

"Pre-clovis Pacific coastal model - the devil is in the details"

You seem well read on the Pacific coastal model; what
is your opinion of the correct time frame of these ancient
migrations?  Do you put any credibility in even much earlier
migrations to America?  (But, how could this be in the teeth
of the heavily-entrenched Ice Age?)

Only good archaeology can settle it.

d.c.

P.S.
The National Geographic site was very disappointing to me
for giving a non-vague overview although the genetic project
they are pursuing will doubtless advance our knowledge.

May I recommend that you google the words like Erlandson, Kelp
Highway, Fladmark, E. James Dixon, coprolites, Paisley caves, Michael
Waters, Thomas Stafford, in various combinations and read the results
for content. For your final exam try

"Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a single Pre-Clovis origin
with a Coastal Route for > the peopling of the Americas", J. R. Nelson
first listed author.

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00139-0-

David wrote: on, 12/05/2008 02:05:
On May 11, 5:08 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
...
May I recommend that you google the words like Erlandson, Kelp
Highway, Fladmark, E. James Dixon, coprolites, Paisley caves, Michael
Waters, Thomas Stafford, in various combinations and read the results
for content. For your final exam try "Mitochondrial Population
Genomics Supports a single Pre-Clovis origin with a Coastal Route for
the peopling of the Americas", J. R. Nelson first listed author.

Do you realize that Peter Alaca's The Carl has managed to get on
speaking terms with both Lee Olsen and yourself?

Do you realize how pathetic that sounds?

...
Yes it does, very pathetic. It not only sounds
pathetic, it /is/ pathetic.

...
Since this is sci.archaeology, it is better that you
leave if you don't like the company of archaeologists.
...

On May 12, 2:41 am, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) purple.invalid> wrote:
David wrote: on, 12/05/2008 02:05:
On May 11, 5:08 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
...
May I recommend that you google the words like Erlandson, Kelp
Highway, Fladmark, E. James Dixon, coprolites, Paisley caves, Michael
Waters, Thomas Stafford, in various combinations and read the results
for content. For your final exam try "Mitochondrial Population
Genomics Supports a single Pre-Clovis origin with a Coastal Route for
the peopling of the Americas", J. R. Nelson first listed author.

Do you realize that Peter Alaca's The Carl has managed to get on
speaking terms with both Lee Olsen and yourself?

Do you realize how pathetic that sounds?

It does not sound pathetic at all;

you and Tom McDonald
would do well to improve your own interpersonal skills. But
not just you two - archaeology itself seems prone to
chronic heated controversies..

On May 12, 5:51 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) purple.invalid> wrote:
...
Yes it does, very pathetic. It not only sounds
pathetic, it /is/ pathetic.

On the contrary appearances have deceived you.

...
Since this is sci.archaeology, it is better that you
leave if you don't like the company of archaeologists.
...

When you learn to listen to what other people have to
say, let me know. Just now, you come across as in
love with your own ideas.