 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » I proved my point on Humbert & Chambon - Qumran... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| crunch... |
 Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
So, they are qualified.
They reported the remains of 2 building 5
stadia south of Qumran.
This is the archaeology and I gave a complete
reference to their work.
Any complaints go to the bozo bin.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
[quote:faf79ef874]No you didn't
[/quote:faf79ef874]
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
[quote:d4c327692a]crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
No you didn't
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even?
[/quote:d4c327692a]
My record on Qumran archaeology speaks for itself.
I just plain know tons more about it than you, Tom,
and Doug.
Remember the Qumran Sundial.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 27, 3:52 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:f393354f80]On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
No you didn't
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even?
My record on Qumran archaeology speaks for itself.
[/quote:f393354f80]
Unfortunately, that's true.
[quote:f393354f80]I just plain know tons more about it than you, Tom,
and Doug.
[/quote:f393354f80]
That's not necessarily true. You may have been exposed to more of it
than have Doug or I; but your inability to adequately answer, in a
normal academic fashion, my questions re: the two folks in the title
shows your knowledge is thin, and folds like a tissue of Kleenex under
the pressure of normal discussion questions.
But sadly, you don't understand that. Either that, or you can't allow
yourself to admit unflattering facts about yourself.
Could be both.
[quote:f393354f80]Remember the Qumran Sundial.
[/quote:f393354f80]
I remember. I remember that you and I came to the understanding that,
absent further work on the subject, the *archaeological* evidence
regarding the thingie was inconclusive wrt its function. You favored
the interpretation that it was used as a sundial/odometer, primarily
because that was what Thiering thought; I favored the interpretation
that what it was, was more likely something else, but that no evidence
had been presented here upon which I could take a more definite stand.
So you may know more about what Thiering would like it to be; but we
both have the same facts about it, and you are willing to take a
definite stand on its nature in spite of the lack of scholarly
consensus; and I am only willing to say the facts at hand now don't
nail it down one way or another or another just yet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 27, 6:23 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:58819b7e80]On Jun 27, 3:52 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
No you didn't
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even?
My record on Qumran archaeology speaks for itself.
Unfortunately, that's true.
I just plain know tons more about it than you, Tom,
and Doug.
That's not necessarily true. You may have been exposed to more of it
than have Doug or I; but your inability to adequately answer, in a
normal academic fashion, my questions re: the two folks in the title
shows your knowledge is thin, and folds like a tissue of Kleenex under
the pressure of normal discussion questions.
[/quote:58819b7e80]
You are behind the curve; I already answered
it with a complete reference.
[quote:58819b7e80]But sadly, you don't understand that. Either that, or you can't allow
yourself to admit unflattering facts about yourself.
Could be both.
[/quote:58819b7e80]
Facts are stubborn things; you'll learn.
[quote:58819b7e80]Remember the Qumran Sundial.
I remember. I remember that you and I came to the understanding that,
absent further work on the subject, the *archaeological* evidence
regarding the thingie was inconclusive wrt its function. You favored
the interpretation that it was used as a sundial/odometer, primarily
because that was what Thiering thought; I favored the interpretation
that what it was, was more likely something else, but that no evidence
had been presented here upon which I could take a more definite stand.
[/quote:58819b7e80]
I know for sure the object was a sundial
on the merits, on the evidence. You were
not paying sufficient attention to the evidence.
[quote:58819b7e80]So you may know more about what Thiering would like it to be; but we
both have the same facts about it, and you are willing to take a
definite stand on its nature in spite of the lack of scholarly
consensus; and I am only willing to say the facts at hand now don't
nail it down one way or another or another just yet.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:58819b7e80]
Scholarly consensus be damned; there is no subject
on the face of the earth with so much scholarly conflict
but for the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran.
You have observed my posts superficially. I tell you
straight out I am on record for calling the leading
scholars, academics, and theologians INCOMPETENT.
AND, I can prove it; let's have it out in FAIR discussion
and debate. Tell your friend Peter to hold himself in
a respectful attitude during it all.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 27, 6:11 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:4fd178302a]On Jun 27, 6:23 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 3:52 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
No you didn't
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even?
My record on Qumran archaeology speaks for itself.
Unfortunately, that's true.
I just plain know tons more about it than you, Tom,
and Doug.
That's not necessarily true. You may have been exposed to more of it
than have Doug or I; but your inability to adequately answer, in a
normal academic fashion, my questions re: the two folks in the title
shows your knowledge is thin, and folds like a tissue of Kleenex under
the pressure of normal discussion questions.
You are behind the curve; I already answered
it with a complete reference.
But sadly, you don't understand that. Either that, or you can't allow
yourself to admit unflattering facts about yourself.
Could be both.
Facts are stubborn things; you'll learn.
Remember the Qumran Sundial.
I remember. I remember that you and I came to the understanding that,
absent further work on the subject, the *archaeological* evidence
regarding the thingie was inconclusive wrt its function. You favored
the interpretation that it was used as a sundial/odometer, primarily
because that was what Thiering thought; I favored the interpretation
that what it was, was more likely something else, but that no evidence
had been presented here upon which I could take a more definite stand.
I know for sure the object was a sundial
on the merits, on the evidence. You were
not paying sufficient attention to the evidence.
So you may know more about what Thiering would like it to be; but we
both have the same facts about it, and you are willing to take a
definite stand on its nature in spite of the lack of scholarly
consensus; and I am only willing to say the facts at hand now don't
nail it down one way or another or another just yet.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Scholarly consensus be damned; there is no subject
on the face of the earth with so much scholarly conflict
but for the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran.
You have observed my posts superficially. I tell you
straight out I am on record for calling the leading
scholars, academics, and theologians INCOMPETENT.
AND, I can prove it; let's have it out in FAIR discussion
and debate. Tell your friend Peter to hold himself in
a respectful attitude during it all.
[/quote:4fd178302a]
Old man yells at cloud. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:
[quote:5f684aa7d4]On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
No you didn't
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
[/quote:5f684aa7d4]
Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
crunch <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:52 wrote:
[quote:487970f6ed]On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
No you didn't
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even?
My record on Qumran archaeology speaks for itself.
I just plain know tons more about it than you, Tom,
and Doug.
[/quote:487970f6ed]
So what? Who cares? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| crunch... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 28, 9:59 am, "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote:014af97a44]"crunch" <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84ff0c32-cadc-41ee-b0c9-e0f50ddff8e4 at (no spam) l34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 6:23 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 3:52 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
No you didn't
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even?
My record on Qumran archaeology speaks for itself.
Unfortunately, that's true.
I just plain know tons more about it than you, Tom,
and Doug.
That's not necessarily true. You may have been exposed to more of it
than have Doug or I; but your inability to adequately answer, in a
normal academic fashion, my questions re: the two folks in the title
shows your knowledge is thin, and folds like a tissue of Kleenex under
the pressure of normal discussion questions.
You are behind the curve; I already answered
it with a complete reference.
But sadly, you don't understand that. Either that, or you can't allow
yourself to admit unflattering facts about yourself.
Could be both.
Facts are stubborn things; you'll learn.
Remember the Qumran Sundial.
I remember. I remember that you and I came to the understanding that,
absent further work on the subject, the *archaeological* evidence
regarding the thingie was inconclusive wrt its function. You favored
the interpretation that it was used as a sundial/odometer, primarily
because that was what Thiering thought; I favored the interpretation
that what it was, was more likely something else, but that no evidence
had been presented here upon which I could take a more definite stand.
David Christainsen wrote:
"I know for sure the object was a sundial on the merits, on the evidence.
You were not paying sufficient attention to the evidence."
And I nbw inquire:
Isn't it strange, David, that I cannot read any peer reviewed publication
that the artifact in question is in fact a sundail,other than, perhaps, in a
peer reviewed article authored by Dr. Thiering? Are you asserting that
there's a conspiracy of the experts in this field to disregard her views?
[/quote:014af97a44]
Well, for the purposes of your inquiry, Google Scholar is
the place to start for your own investigation. Further, you
will find that Dead Sea Discoveries is the top publication
in its field. Dead Sea Discoveries published at least
3 articles on the artefact in question. So, the issue
boils down to the merits among the authors in this narrow
context.
Last - the abuse in the scholarly world takes the form
of leading experts within Qumran Studies NOT reading
Dr. Thiering in the first place or having NO INTEREST
in looking at the Qumran archaeology comprehensively.
I could go on but surely you get my drift...
[quote:014af97a44]So you may know more about what Thiering would like it to be; but we
both have the same facts about it, and you are willing to take a
definite stand on its nature in spite of the lack of scholarly
consensus; and I am only willing to say the facts at hand now don't
nail it down one way or another or another just yet.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Christainsen continued:
"Scholarly consensus be damned; there is no subject on the face of the earth
with so much scholarly conflict
but for the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran.
You have observed my posts superficially. I tell you straight out I am on
record for calling the leading
scholars, academics, and theologians INCOMPETENT.
AND, I can prove it; let's have it out in FAIR discussion and debate. Tell
your friend Peter to hold himself in
a respectful attitude during it all."
And I'll observe:
"Hmmm..... A person with absolutely no credentials in archaeology or
anthropology, (either academic or in terms of publications), and certainly
no credentials regarding Qumran in general and the artifact in question
specifically, has decided that he knows more about this topic than
'scholars, academics, and theologians,' and then calls them 'incompetent.'
[/quote:014af97a44]
Yet, here you repeat USENET libel about me
ignorantly. The real point here is that my case
about their incompetence can be RICHLY demonstrated
to YOUR satisfaction.
[quote:014af97a44]So in essence, David, you know more than people who have devoted their
lives, or significant portions thereof, to study of the discipline in
general and the artifact in particular. And you base this on having read
the works of, and become a devoted follower of, a single author in the
field, who colors her works with religious interpretations.
[/quote:014af97a44]
No, I do not. My background is way wider than
just Dr. Thiering.
[quote:014af97a44]You understand that you are, of course, incompetent to take your position
(or, for that matter, any position on the topic of Qumran), and have with
this post, demostrated to the entire Usenet world exactly why you are
incompetent. That, and that alone, is the only value of your posts. Good
job.
David Christainsen
Steve Marcus
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:014af97a44]
Sorry, Steve - you'll have to do a 180 on USENET,
which I will enjoy immensely.
David Christainsen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 28, 12:23 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
[quote:332ee5f9d8]Sorry, Steve - you'll have to do a 180 on USENET,
which I will enjoy immensely.
[/quote:332ee5f9d8]
Sorry, Carl. You will have to go first. So far, you have been nothing
but a millstone around Barbara's neck on Usenet.
Unless you change, Carl, that will be your legacy here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steve Marcus... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"crunch" <pchristainsen at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84ff0c32-cadc-41ee-b0c9-e0f50ddff8e4 at (no spam) l34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 6:23 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:292e894243]On Jun 27, 3:52 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> 27/06/2009 22:44 wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:41 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al... at (no spam) invallid.invalid> wrote:
No you didn't
Back up what you say; you get off too
easy most of the time.
IOW you throw punches but you can't take
a punch.
Remember - I was on sci.arch way before you
were.
Even if that was true, what is your point?
Does that make you a scholar? An archaeologist even?
My record on Qumran archaeology speaks for itself.
Unfortunately, that's true.
I just plain know tons more about it than you, Tom,
and Doug.
That's not necessarily true. You may have been exposed to more of it
than have Doug or I; but your inability to adequately answer, in a
normal academic fashion, my questions re: the two folks in the title
shows your knowledge is thin, and folds like a tissue of Kleenex under
the pressure of normal discussion questions.
[/quote:292e894243]
You are behind the curve; I already answered
it with a complete reference.
[quote:292e894243]But sadly, you don't understand that. Either that, or you can't allow
yourself to admit unflattering facts about yourself.
Could be both.
[/quote:292e894243]
Facts are stubborn things; you'll learn.
[quote:292e894243]Remember the Qumran Sundial.
I remember. I remember that you and I came to the understanding that,
absent further work on the subject, the *archaeological* evidence
regarding the thingie was inconclusive wrt its function. You favored
the interpretation that it was used as a sundial/odometer, primarily
because that was what Thiering thought; I favored the interpretation
that what it was, was more likely something else, but that no evidence
had been presented here upon which I could take a more definite stand.
[/quote:292e894243]
David Christainsen wrote:
"I know for sure the object was a sundial on the merits, on the evidence.
You were not paying sufficient attention to the evidence."
And I nbw inquire:
Isn't it strange, David, that I cannot read any peer reviewed publication
that the artifact in question is in fact a sundail,other than, perhaps, in a
peer reviewed article authored by Dr. Thiering? Are you asserting that
there's a conspiracy of the experts in this field to disregard her views?
[quote:292e894243]So you may know more about what Thiering would like it to be; but we
both have the same facts about it, and you are willing to take a
definite stand on its nature in spite of the lack of scholarly
consensus; and I am only willing to say the facts at hand now don't
nail it down one way or another or another just yet.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:292e894243]
Christainsen continued:
"Scholarly consensus be damned; there is no subject on the face of the earth
with so much scholarly conflict
but for the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran.
You have observed my posts superficially. I tell you straight out I am on
record for calling the leading
scholars, academics, and theologians INCOMPETENT.
AND, I can prove it; let's have it out in FAIR discussion and debate. Tell
your friend Peter to hold himself in
a respectful attitude during it all."
And I'll observe:
"Hmmm..... A person with absolutely no credentials in archaeology or
anthropology, (either academic or in terms of publications), and certainly
no credentials regarding Qumran in general and the artifact in question
specifically, has decided that he knows more about this topic than
'scholars, academics, and theologians,' and then calls them 'incompetent.'
So in essence, David, you know more than people who have devoted their
lives, or significant portions thereof, to study of the discipline in
general and the artifact in particular. And you base this on having read
the works of, and become a devoted follower of, a single author in the
field, who colors her works with religious interpretations.
You understand that you are, of course, incompetent to take your position
(or, for that matter, any position on the topic of Qumran), and have with
this post, demostrated to the entire Usenet world exactly why you are
incompetent. That, and that alone, is the only value of your posts. Good
job.
David Christainsen
Steve Marcus
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christopher Ingham... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 28, 1:56 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:d8758aa5fe]On Jun 27, 8:21 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Old man yells at cloud.
...
Trite comment from a non-serious Tom McDonald.
Your crunchybunxious trollery is not appreciated in[/quote:d8758aa5fe]
soc.history.ancient.
Christopher Ingham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sir David... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 28, 2:07 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering... at (no spam) comcast.net>
wrote:
[quote:20b6306db9]On Jun 28, 1:56 pm, crunch wrote:
crunchybunk redacted
Your crunchybunxious trollery is not appreciated
[/quote:20b6306db9]
Etymology can be very crunchy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 28, 12:56 pm, crunch <pchristain... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:9e4fc91701]On Jun 27, 8:21 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Old man yells at cloud.
...
Trite comment from a non-serious Tom McDonald.
[/quote:9e4fc91701]
Dead serious comment to a seriously trite Carl.
<snip> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:38 pm
|
|