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,

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

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?

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

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?

On May 9, 6:43 pm, 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, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago.

If you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things

no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in.

On May 10, 9:43 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On May 10, 6:18 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 10, 8:20 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 3:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 9, 7:26 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 9, 4:09 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 9, 6:43 pm, 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, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago.

You have the balls to ask me for a better cite?

If you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things

What new things is that, Mr. Cite Free poster?

no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in.

Says who, the person who is so well read on this matter that Roosevelt
2002
is not enough of a clue, I thought you knew it all already?

Since you hadn't read the 2002 paper, how do you know what's in it or
if there
has been anything new published on what the paper was about? So why
don't you
start citing all what is 6 years out-of-date with that paper, fool.

A "better cite" would probably include the full name of the author,

And a better reply from you would have been to back up your groundless
accusation.
Rather than cite evidence to the contrary of Roosevelt (2002). You
demand a cite from me,
but you produce zero data of your own (arrogant troll, demanding from
me what you can't
do yourself) to defend this statement:
Jack: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If you have
that
sort of tolerance for learning new things no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in."

1) Just because something is 2002 does not mean it's out-of-date.
2) The proper citation has been given on this list previously; on
short notice, it would have
required me to type out an extremely long citation, and for what
reason,
like your are going to follow it up?
3) You made an accusation, "stuck in a dead groove" yet you have
answered
nothing to the contrary. That's always fair policy to a troll.

the title of the work, the source if not a separate publication, a
publisher, and the date. What you posted looks like what we used to
call "a second footnote", that is one which follows the primary
footnote that would or should have had all of the elements I described
above.

I have typed out more citations longhand than you on this list (and
others).
I have found when I'm dealing with illiterate people like you it is a
total waste of time.
Experts will know just from the name and date, since they are familiar
with the
literature in the first place.

By the way does Ms Roosevelt still hold those views on the dating of
Monte Verde?

You claimed: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If
you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things.."

Fools shouldn't be allowed to call others fools while looking in a
mirror.

Now, Jackass, put up or shut up. Either produce those "new things"
that demonstrate
Roosevelt (2002) + Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch, Haynes  are old stuff
(don't forget to make
perfect citaions and include the page number), or make your appology
to me that you
were 100% wrong in your accusation.

Is this the paper you couldn't type out the title and source? Note,
the date of the symposium, 1999. Now nine years of other measurements,

Fool, I said on short notice, you don't read very well do you? Why
didn't you look it up
in the first place if it was so easy? That's why I didn't cite it, I
have the paper, it's aesy to find.

Tedd cited that paper on this list years ago, don't you remember?

including the seaweed one I cited above.

What does seaweed have to do with the dates critized by Roosevelt,
Haynes,
Dincauze, Lynch, and Fiedel? The dates are from the original site
report, by Dillehay (1997).

What other measurements, you dirt simple moron? What other dates,
other than
the originals from the original site report of 1997??? Are those too
old and out of date for you also?

God, you are a dense example.

Stop looking in the mirror when you write. The dates in question are
from 1997. Roosevelt's critique
is after 1997, can you count better than you imagine what doesn't
exist?

Old, old, old news...1997 is so ago, even 20th century.

Try the
seaweed, it's supposed to be medicinal.

On May 10, 7:07 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:



On May 10, 9:43 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 6:18 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 10, 8:20 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 3:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 9, 7:26 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 9, 4:09 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 9, 6:43 pm, 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, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago.

You have the balls to ask me for a better cite?

If you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things

What new things is that, Mr. Cite Free poster?

no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in.

Says who, the person who is so well read on this matter that Roosevelt
2002
is not enough of a clue, I thought you knew it all already?

Since you hadn't read the 2002 paper, how do you know what's in it or
if there
has been anything new published on what the paper was about? So why
don't you
start citing all what is 6 years out-of-date with that paper, fool.

A "better cite" would probably include the full name of the author,

And a better reply from you would have been to back up your groundless
accusation.
Rather than cite evidence to the contrary of Roosevelt (2002). You
demand a cite from me,
but you produce zero data of your own (arrogant troll, demanding from
me what you can't
do yourself) to defend this statement:
Jack: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If you have
that
sort of tolerance for learning new things no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in."

1) Just because something is 2002 does not mean it's out-of-date.
2) The proper citation has been given on this list previously; on
short notice, it would have
required me to type out an extremely long citation, and for what
reason,
like your are going to follow it up?
3) You made an accusation, "stuck in a dead groove" yet you have
answered
nothing to the contrary. That's always fair policy to a troll.

the title of the work, the source if not a separate publication, a
publisher, and the date. What you posted looks like what we used to
call "a second footnote", that is one which follows the primary
footnote that would or should have had all of the elements I described
above.

I have typed out more citations longhand than you on this list (and
others).
I have found when I'm dealing with illiterate people like you it is a
total waste of time.
Experts will know just from the name and date, since they are familiar
with the
literature in the first place.

By the way does Ms Roosevelt still hold those views on the dating of
Monte Verde?

You claimed: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If
you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things.."

Fools shouldn't be allowed to call others fools while looking in a
mirror.

Now, Jackass, put up or shut up. Either produce those "new things"
that demonstrate
Roosevelt (2002) + Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch, Haynes are old stuff
(don't forget to make
perfect citaions and include the page number), or make your appology
to me that you
were 100% wrong in your accusation.

Is this the paper you couldn't type out the title and source? Note,
the date of the symposium, 1999. Now nine years of other measurements,

Fool, I said on short notice, you don't read very well do you? Why
didn't you look it up
in the first place if it was so easy? That's why I didn't cite it, I
have the paper, it's aesy to find.

Tedd cited that paper on this list years ago, don't you remember?

including the seaweed one I cited above.

What does seaweed have to do with the dates critized by Roosevelt,
Haynes,
Dincauze, Lynch, and Fiedel? The dates are from the original site
report, by Dillehay (1997).

What other measurements, you dirt simple moron? What other dates,
other than
the originals from the original site report of 1997??? Are those too
old and out of date for you also?

God, you are a dense example.

Stop looking in the mirror when you write. The dates in question are
from 1997. Roosevelt's critique
is after 1997, can you count better than you imagine what doesn't
exist?

Old, old, old news...1997 is so ago, even 20th century.

Site reports are old news????? What planet are you from? Do you know
anything
at all about archaeology?

Try the
seaweed, it's supposed to be medicinal.

Try a class in archeaology 101 at your nearest community college.

Roosevelt (2002) and the Dillehay (1997) old, old, old references to
those
dates were cited in a paper on the latest up-to-date data in a
comprehensive
review by Waters and Stafford (2007).

You have read the Waters and Stafford paper, haven't you? Right in the
references,
all typed out nice and neat is the full citation to the Roosevelt
paper. Instead of
writing out flame posts, try spending a little more time acutually
reading the literature,
rather than asking others do it for you. That way you won't
continually come across
looking like a total ignorant jerk.

On May 10, 6:18 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On May 10, 8:20 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On May 10, 3:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On May 9, 7:26 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 9, 4:09 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On May 9, 6:43 pm, 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, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago.
You have the balls to ask me for a better cite?
If you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things
What new things is that, Mr. Cite Free poster?
no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in.
Says who, the person who is so well read on this matter that Roosevelt
2002
is not enough of a clue, I thought you knew it all already?
Since you hadn't read the 2002 paper, how do you know what's in it or
if there
has been anything new published on what the paper was about? So why
don't you
start citing all what is 6 years out-of-date with that paper, fool.
A "better cite" would probably include the full name of the author,
And a better reply from you would have been to back up your groundless
accusation.
Rather than cite evidence to the contrary of Roosevelt (2002). You
demand a cite from me,
but you produce zero data of your own (arrogant troll, demanding from
me what you can't
do yourself) to defend this statement:
Jack: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If you have
that
sort of tolerance for learning new things no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in."
1) Just because something is 2002 does not mean it's out-of-date.
2) The proper citation has been given on this list previously; on
short notice, it would have
required me to type out an extremely long citation, and for what
reason,
like your are going to follow it up?
3) You made an accusation, "stuck in a dead groove" yet you have
answered
nothing to the contrary. That's always fair policy to a troll.
the title of the work, the source if not a separate publication, a
publisher, and the date. What you posted looks like what we used to
call "a second footnote", that is one which follows the primary
footnote that would or should have had all of the elements I described
above.
I have typed out more citations longhand than you on this list (and
others).
I have found when I'm dealing with illiterate people like you it is a
total waste of time.
Experts will know just from the name and date, since they are familiar
with the
literature in the first place.
By the way does Ms Roosevelt still hold those views on the dating of
Monte Verde?
You claimed: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If
you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things.."
Fools shouldn't be allowed to call others fools while looking in a
mirror.
Now, Jackass, put up or shut up. Either produce those "new things"
that demonstrate
Roosevelt (2002) + Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch, Haynes are old stuff
(don't forget to make
perfect citaions and include the page number), or make your appology
to me that you
were 100% wrong in your accusation.
Is this the paper you couldn't type out the title and source? Note,
the date of the symposium, 1999. Now nine years of other measurements,

Fool, I said on short notice, you don't read very well do you? Why
didn't you look it up
in the first place if it was so easy? That's why I didn't cite it, I
have the paper, it's aesy to find.

Tedd cited that paper on this list years ago, don't you remember?

including the seaweed one I cited above.

What does seaweed have to do with the dates critized by Roosevelt,
Haynes,
Dincauze, Lynch, and Fiedel? The dates are from the original site
report, by Dillehay (1997).

What other measurements, you dirt simple moron? What other dates,
other than
the originals from the original site report of 1997??? Are those too
old and out of date for you also?

God, you are a dense example.

Stop looking in the mirror when you write. The dates in question are
from 1997. Roosevelt's critique
is after 1997, can you count better than you imagine what doesn't
exist?

On May 10, 7:07 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On May 10, 9:43 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On May 10, 6:18 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On May 10, 8:20 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 10, 3:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On May 9, 7:26 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 9, 4:09 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On May 9, 6:43 pm, 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, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago.
You have the balls to ask me for a better cite?
If you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things
What new things is that, Mr. Cite Free poster?
no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in.
Says who, the person who is so well read on this matter that Roosevelt
2002
is not enough of a clue, I thought you knew it all already?
Since you hadn't read the 2002 paper, how do you know what's in it or
if there
has been anything new published on what the paper was about? So why
don't you
start citing all what is 6 years out-of-date with that paper, fool.
A "better cite" would probably include the full name of the author,
And a better reply from you would have been to back up your groundless
accusation.
Rather than cite evidence to the contrary of Roosevelt (2002). You
demand a cite from me,
but you produce zero data of your own (arrogant troll, demanding from
me what you can't
do yourself) to defend this statement:
Jack: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If you have
that
sort of tolerance for learning new things no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in."
1) Just because something is 2002 does not mean it's out-of-date.
2) The proper citation has been given on this list previously; on
short notice, it would have
required me to type out an extremely long citation, and for what
reason,
like your are going to follow it up?
3) You made an accusation, "stuck in a dead groove" yet you have
answered
nothing to the contrary. That's always fair policy to a troll.
the title of the work, the source if not a separate publication, a
publisher, and the date. What you posted looks like what we used to
call "a second footnote", that is one which follows the primary
footnote that would or should have had all of the elements I described
above.
I have typed out more citations longhand than you on this list (and
others).
I have found when I'm dealing with illiterate people like you it is a
total waste of time.
Experts will know just from the name and date, since they are familiar
with the
literature in the first place.
By the way does Ms Roosevelt still hold those views on the dating of
Monte Verde?
You claimed: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If
you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things.."
Fools shouldn't be allowed to call others fools while looking in a
mirror.
Now, Jackass, put up or shut up. Either produce those "new things"
that demonstrate
Roosevelt (2002) + Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch, Haynes are old stuff
(don't forget to make
perfect citaions and include the page number), or make your appology
to me that you
were 100% wrong in your accusation.
Is this the paper you couldn't type out the title and source? Note,
the date of the symposium, 1999. Now nine years of other measurements,
Fool, I said on short notice, you don't read very well do you? Why
didn't you look it up
in the first place if it was so easy? That's why I didn't cite it, I
have the paper, it's aesy to find.
Tedd cited that paper on this list years ago, don't you remember?
including the seaweed one I cited above.
What does seaweed have to do with the dates critized by Roosevelt,
Haynes,
Dincauze, Lynch, and Fiedel? The dates are from the original site
report, by Dillehay (1997).
What other measurements, you dirt simple moron? What other dates,
other than
the originals from the original site report of 1997??? Are those too
old and out of date for you also?
God, you are a dense example.
Stop looking in the mirror when you write. The dates in question are
from 1997. Roosevelt's critique
is after 1997, can you count better than you imagine what doesn't
exist?
Old, old, old news...1997 is so ago, even 20th century.

Site reports are old news????? What planet are you from? Do you know
anything
at all about archaeology?

Try the
seaweed, it's supposed to be medicinal.

Try a class in archeaology 101 at your nearest community college.

Roosevelt (2002) and the Dillehay (1997) old, old, old references to
those
dates were cited in a paper on the latest up-to-date data in a
comprehensive
review by Waters and Stafford (2007).

You have read the Waters and Stafford paper, haven't you? Right in the
references,
all typed out nice and neat is the full citation to the Roosevelt
paper. Instead of
writing out flame posts, try spending a little more time acutually
reading the literature,
rather than asking others do it for you. That way you won't
continually come across
looking like a total ignorant jerk.

On May 10, 10:55 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On May 10, 7:07 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 10, 9:43 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 6:18 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 10, 8:20 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 3:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 9, 7:26 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 9, 4:09 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 9, 6:43 pm, 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, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago.

You have the balls to ask me for a better cite?

If you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things

What new things is that, Mr. Cite Free poster?

no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in.

Says who, the person who is so well read on this matter that Roosevelt
2002
is not enough of a clue, I thought you knew it all already?

Since you hadn't read the 2002 paper, how do you know what's in it or
if there
has been anything new published on what the paper was about? So why
don't you
start citing all what is 6 years out-of-date with that paper, fool.

A "better cite" would probably include the full name of the author,

And a better reply from you would have been to back up your groundless
accusation.
Rather than cite evidence to the contrary of Roosevelt (2002). You
demand a cite from me,
but you produce zero data of your own (arrogant troll, demanding from
me what you can't
do yourself) to defend this statement:
Jack: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If you have
that
sort of tolerance for learning new things no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in."

1) Just because something is 2002 does not mean it's out-of-date..
2) The proper citation has been given on this list previously; on
short notice, it would have
required me to type out an extremely long citation, and for what
reason,
like your are going to follow it up?
3) You made an accusation, "stuck in a dead groove" yet you have
answered
nothing to the contrary. That's always fair policy to a troll.

the title of the work, the source if not a separate publication, a
publisher, and the date. What you posted looks like what we used to
call "a second footnote", that is one which follows the primary
footnote that would or should have had all of the elements I described
above.

I have typed out more citations longhand than you on this list (and
others).
I have found when I'm dealing with illiterate people like you it is a
total waste of time.
Experts will know just from the name and date, since they are familiar
with the
literature in the first place.

By the way does Ms Roosevelt still hold those views on the dating of
Monte Verde?

You claimed: "Time, fool, 2002 is is a minimum of six years ago. If
you have that
sort of tolerance for learning new things.."

Fools shouldn't be allowed to call others fools while looking in a
mirror.

Now, Jackass, put up or shut up. Either produce those "new things"
that demonstrate
Roosevelt (2002) + Feidel, Dincauze, Lynch, Haynes  are old stuff
(don't forget to make
perfect citaions and include the page number), or make your appology
to me that you
were 100% wrong in your accusation.

Is this the paper you couldn't type out the title and source? Note,
the date of the symposium, 1999. Now nine years of other measurements,

Fool, I said on short notice, you don't read very well do you? Why
didn't you look it up
in the first place if it was so easy? That's why I didn't cite it, I
have the paper, it's aesy to find.

Tedd cited that paper on this list years ago, don't you remember?

including the seaweed one I cited above.

What does seaweed have to do with the dates critized by Roosevelt,
Haynes,
Dincauze, Lynch, and Fiedel? The dates are from the original site
report, by Dillehay (1997).

What other measurements, you dirt simple moron? What other dates,
other than
the originals from the original site report of 1997??? Are those too
old and out of date for you also?

God, you are a dense example.

Stop looking in the mirror when you write. The dates in question are
from 1997. Roosevelt's critique
is after 1997, can you count better than you imagine what doesn't
exist?

Old, old, old news...1997 is so ago, even 20th century.

Site reports are old news????? What planet are you from? Do you know
anything
at all about archaeology?

Try the
seaweed, it's supposed to be medicinal.

Try a class in archeaology 101 at your nearest community college.

Roosevelt (2002) and the Dillehay (1997) old, old, old references to
those
dates were cited in a paper on the latest up-to-date data in a
comprehensive
review by Waters and Stafford (2007).

You have read the Waters and Stafford paper, haven't you? Right in the
references,
 all typed out nice and neat is the full citation to the Roosevelt
paper. Instead of
 writing out flame posts, try spending a little more time acutually
reading the literature,
rather than asking others do it for you. That way you won't
continually come across
looking like a total ignorant jerk.

You mean the line The C14 dates from these sites traditionally place
Clovis between 11,500 and 10,900 C14 yr. BP (1,7,. However, the C14
dates from 11 of these sites are problematic and do not provide
accurate or precise chronological information to determine the age of
Clovis.

note 7 is Roosevelt.

In other words her paper is cited but with the caveat that the
information is based on problematical data and is not accurate or
precise.

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,

You should note the the three papers are dated 1996, 2002,
and 1992. Old.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about Haddock (2008)?

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,

On Sat, 10 May 2008 05:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Lee Olsen





paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
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?

Nobody said there are no other papers.

The argument was about the
weight which can be placed on the Roosevelt paper.

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,

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

Maybe they are hoping for some cooperation and assistance?

I know you
have since found a number of more recent papers on the subject,

which
is what Jack Linthicum was asking for,

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

On May 10, 2:54 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:

Surely there is something since 2002?

That cites Roosevelt? Yes.




no wonder you are stuck in
the dead groove you seem to be in.

Says who, the person who is so well read on this matter that Roosevelt
2002
is not enough of a clue, I thought you knew it all already?

Since you hadn't read the 2002 paper, how do you know what's in it or
if there
has been anything new published on what the paper was about? So why
don't you
start citing all what is 6 years out-of-date with that paper, fool.

You mean, you don't know?

Yes, I know, but I know he doesn't know or he would have cited it by
now.
He is too busy calling me a fool to do that.

Eric Stevens- Hide quoted text -

Since we already have s.a.p. as a free-fire zone, I wonder
whether it is necessary to use G.T.A.-like gunslinging in s.a.?