Chemistry in Archaeology
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
have a decisive role in archaeological studies. The immediate advntages
were in warmth and cooking. Its significance in history is most easily
seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
The most readily available metals to early mankind were gold, silver
and coper as they are relatively or totally inert to oxidation. Hence
they can be extracted directly in the metallic state. Samples of cast
copper go back at lest to ca 4,000 B C ( Egypt and Babylonia). Tin is
also readily extracted from its ores and when alloyed with copper it is
known as bronze. Hence the beginning of the Bronze Age.
Silver was known in predynastic Egypt (ca 4,000 B C.) and is not
oxidised in the cold or when heated, similarly with gold. Both found
favour with the ancients as ornaments rather than as weapons because of
the greater efficiency of copper and bronze.
The extaction of iron represented a major step forward as it requires
very high temperatures to eextact it from its oxides. The most common
oxide used in ancient times was magnetite, which has its own
significance in history as a component in the compass. But that was
much later.
Alumina can now be reduced to aluminium at very high temperatures, but
it took the development of electrolysis by Davy and later Faraday to
extract it by electrolyis. Without this element it is unlikely that
aircraft and space vessels would exist.
The use of fire made the development of alchemy possible. Aristotle
believed that matter in its simplest form consisted of four elements:
Fire; earth; air & water .
Robert Boyle published his book " The Sceptical Chymist" in the early
17 Century and destroyed the basis of alchemy by listing genuine
elements for the first time. Later Mendelelev classified these in his
Periodic Table.
There is another less well known classification of the metals in the
Ellingham Diagrams. Ellingham's work is largley forgotten There are
only 25 references to the diagrams in the Google Search Box and all of
these are from metallurgical or physical chemistry journals. In graphic
form they show how the properties of the metallic oxides can be used to
illustrate the history of metal extaction based on the thermodynamic
properties of their ores.
Ironically, the transmutation of base metals into gold is now
achievable through nuclear fission, but it too expensive and hazardous.
B C.
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
Allah.
Jesus Christ. Once is enough. Allah.
Searles O'Dubhain
<bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1134210900.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>
> The use of fire made the development of alchemy possible. Aristotle
> believed that matter in its simplest form consisted of four elements:
> Fire; earth; air & water .
>
> Robert Boyle published his book " The Sceptical Chymist" in the early
> 17 Century and destroyed the basis of alchemy by listing genuine
> elements for the first time. Later Mendelelev classified these in his
> Periodic Table.
>
It took the advent of Quantum Mechanics to re-establish a four element
approach for matter. I suppose that one's chemistry is shaped by the
powers of modeling based on observation in cause and effect.
Searles O'Dubhain
nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com
>The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
>have a decisive role in archaeological studies. The immediate advntages
>were in warmth and cooking. Its significance in history is most easily
>seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
I must admit I see this in a completely different sense - I don't think
archaeologists were particularly active when fire was being invented. Having
said that, I've met a few, who, well, I guess it's possible...
What I would like to do is understand how different isotopes can be used to
distinguish between fish eating cultures and land food eating ones - I gather
C14 dates everyone a few centuries wrongly but that some other isotope can
correct that. Do you know anything about techniques in this area?
Philip Deitiker
news:p32mp1la4l9qv6lfk...@4ax.com by
nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com . . . :
Bernard is presenting a potential perspective, the fire tinkerer and
manipulator as one who can see human in an archaeological versus
paleontological sense. Albeit early hominids are not interested in
studying the origins as modern archaeologist so the analogy is a
great stretch, but the point is that by making fire he is taking
control, natural selection is loosing its grip and artificial
selection is gaining its grip. With fire he can specialize in durable
crops that can be made nutritious to humans by cooking, only
nutritious to other animals through rotting and detritus. Potatoes
are an example, only through cooking are they edible.
When one studies archaeology one is primarily interested in the
artefacts of human creation, secondarily anatomical remains which is
the scope of paleontology. Therefore the fire users are creating that
which archaeology studies. From an anthropological sense however the
fire is where people sat and talked about their histories, religion
and origins. These discussion end up in the art and technologies of
those peoples that are then studied, leaving a record of who they
were and what they might have thought about around those campfires.
For them it was not archaeology, but survival and entertainment, for
an archaeology its an attempt to uncover the natural history of a
people.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Michael Kuettner
<bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1134210900.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
> have a decisive role in archaeological studies.
Could you rephrase that ?
> The immediate advntages
> were in warmth and cooking. Its significance in history is most easily
> seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
>
Some thousands of years between them; but it would be niggardly
to point that out ...
Watching nature to know that treating wooden stakes with the nice
ripe juices of old corpses doesn't make it chemistry ...
> The most readily available metals to early mankind were gold, silver
> and coper as they are relatively or totally inert to oxidation.
Gold and silver also had the advantage of being totally useless for
tools. Too soft ...
And if silver were that inert to oxidation, why does one have to clean
one's cutlery made of silver ?
> Hence
> they can be extracted directly in the metallic state. Samples of cast
> copper go back at lest to ca 4,000 B C ( Egypt and Babylonia). Tin is
> also readily extracted from its ores and when alloyed with copper it is
> known as bronze. Hence the beginning of the Bronze Age.
>
<Sarcasm on>
Interesting. I didn't know that !
<sarcasm off>
Your point ?
> Silver was known in predynastic Egypt (ca 4,000 B C.) and is not
> oxidised in the cold or when heated,
And how does one call the patina on silver ?
Non-oxidation ?
> similarly with gold. Both found
> favour with the ancients as ornaments rather than as weapons because of
> the greater efficiency of copper and bronze.
>
Oh, a chemists view of hardness !
It was easier to take gold with a sword of copper than the other way round.
Just as a hint.
> The extaction of iron represented a major step forward as it requires
> very high temperatures to eextact it from its oxides. The most common
> oxide used in ancient times was magnetite, which has its own
> significance in history as a component in the compass. But that was
> much later.
>
What are "ancient times" ?
You really should try to define your vocabulary at least a little bit.
> Alumina can now be reduced to aluminium at very high temperatures, but
> it took the development of electrolysis by Davy and later Faraday to
> extract it by electrolyis. Without this element it is unlikely that
> aircraft and space vessels would exist.
>
And that has to do with archaeology exactly what ?
> The use of fire made the development of alchemy possible. Aristotle
> believed that matter in its simplest form consisted of four elements:
> Fire; earth; air & water .
>
It was LITTLE bit more complicate than that, but OK.
Again, what is your point ?
> Robert Boyle published his book " The Sceptical Chymist" in the early
> 17 Century and destroyed the basis of alchemy by listing genuine
> elements for the first time. Later Mendelelev classified these in his
> Periodic Table.
>
And that was the birth of chemistry, fine.
But that's history, not archaeology.
> There is another less well known classification of the metals in the
> Ellingham Diagrams. Ellingham's work is largley forgotten There are
> only 25 references to the diagrams in the Google Search Box and all of
> these are from metallurgical or physical chemistry journals. In graphic
> form they show how the properties of the metallic oxides can be used to
> illustrate the history of metal extaction based on the thermodynamic
> properties of their ores.
>
Now, THAT would be an interesting point if you could expand on how that
classification might have had any effects in antique metal-working.
> Ironically, the transmutation of base metals into gold is now
> achievable through nuclear fission, but it too expensive and hazardous.
>
We know that, too. Your point ?
If you want to be taken seriously around here, try to make a point instead
of just babbling.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
PS :
IE Johansson is a stupid bitch, btw. And Deppo Renfors is a moron.
If you want to keep that company, just say so. It's early killfiling,
then.
Tom McDonald
> The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
> have a decisive role in archaeological studies.
Bernard,
I don't clearly understand much of what you are saying, and I
would like to. If you would bear with me, I'd like to clarify for
myself what you mean in several instances; and perhaps challenge
you in a couple of others.
What do you mean by the first sentence?
Humans did not so much invent fire as discover ways to use it. I
make an assumption here that we found that naturally-occurring
fires held some utility for us, and first exploited fire before
we could make it. When we began to make fire on our own, I would
agree that we had then invented a technology to control fire.
I don't think you mean that archaeological studies were going on
half a million years ago (give or take an order of magnitude). I
take it that you mean that human's use of rapid oxidation of dry
biological materials was the first unequivocal use of a
non-biological chemical process that we have evidence for in the
archaeological record. If that's what you mean, I can't think of
any reason right now that suggests you might be mistaken.
However, there are some biochemical issues relating to
archaeology that are interesting in their own rights. Archaeology
suggests that the interaction among brain size, bi-pedalism, tool
making and diet resulted in increased use of high-energy meat,
which spurred brain development, which spurred technological
invention, etc. This slower chemical process, ISTM, has a place
in early hominid archaeology.
And, of course, fire does not seem to have been a
once-and-for-all discovery. Some evidence from Swartkrans, South
Africa, suggests possible hominid use of fire ca. 1.5 million y.a.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3557077.stm
From some other reading I've done, I think near-universal use of
fire seems to be related (although cause and effect seem muddy to
me) to the emergence of AMH something over 100,000 y.a.
> The immediate advntages
> were in warmth and cooking.
It is also useful for making poor stone into better stone for
knapping. Far more recently, before metallurgy, it was useful for
firing clay pots and other ceramics.
> Its significance in history is most easily
> seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
I would like you to clarify this for me. When you use 'history'
here, do you mean the time after writing? Or are you using the
term more loosely, as another way of saying 'part of the human
story'? If the first, then I would have to disagree, since at
least some metallurgy occurred long before writing in some
locales. If the latter, I understand; but could wish you would
define your terms for us.
> The most readily available metals to early mankind were gold, silver
> and coper as they are relatively or totally inert to oxidation.
Gold, yes. Copper and silver do achieve patinas; and over enough
time without human intervention, do oxidize pretty completely.
> Hence
> they can be extracted directly in the metallic state. Samples of cast
> copper go back at lest to ca 4,000 B C ( Egypt and Babylonia). Tin is
> also readily extracted from its ores and when alloyed with copper it is
> known as bronze. Hence the beginning of the Bronze Age.
>
> Silver was known in predynastic Egypt (ca 4,000 B C.) and is not
> oxidised in the cold or when heated,
Silver does oxidize. What do you mean here?
> similarly with gold. Both found
> favour with the ancients as ornaments rather than as weapons because of
> the greater efficiency of copper and bronze.
>
> The extaction of iron represented a major step forward as it requires
> very high temperatures to eextact it from its oxides. The most common
> oxide used in ancient times was magnetite, which has its own
> significance in history as a component in the compass. But that was
> much later.
This is new information to me. (Not the magnetic properties of
magnetite, but that it was the most commonly used version in
'ancient times.' BTW, could you define 'ancient times' for me?) I
have always thought that limonite (bog iron) was what was mostly
used to get iron. Other than, of course, meteoric iron.
I hope you can clarify for me what you mean.
Thanks.
Tom
<snip>
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
Tom McDonald wrote:
> bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
> > have a decisive role in archaeological studies.
>
> Bernard,
>
> I don't clearly understand much of what you are saying, and I
> would like to. If you would bear with me, I'd like to clarify for
> myself what you mean in several instances; and perhaps challenge
> you in a couple of others.
>
> What do you mean by the first sentence?
>
> Humans did not so much invent fire as discover ways to use it. I
> make an assumption here that we found that naturally-occurring
> fires held some utility for us, and first exploited fire before
> we could make it. When we began to make fire on our own, I would
> agree that we had then invented a technology to control fire.
>
You are quibbling. It is clear that I was referring to the making of
fire by humans.
> I don't think you mean that archaeological studies were going on
> half a million years ago (give or take an order of magnitude). I
> take it that you mean that human's use of rapid oxidation of dry
> biological materials was the first unequivocal use of a
> non-biological chemical process that we have evidence for in the
> archaeological record. If that's what you mean, I can't think of
> any reason right now that suggests you might be mistaken.
>
> However, there are some biochemical issues relating to
> archaeology that are interesting in their own rights. Archaeology
> suggests that the interaction among brain size, bi-pedalism, tool
> making and diet resulted in increased use of high-energy meat,
> which spurred brain development, which spurred technological
> invention, etc. This slower chemical process, ISTM, has a place
> in early hominid archaeology.
>
> And, of course, fire does not seem to have been a
> once-and-for-all discovery. Some evidence from Swartkrans, South
> Africa, suggests possible hominid use of fire ca. 1.5 million y.a.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3557077.stm
Obviously fire was probably produced by hominids ivariosu eras and
places but i like to keep my communications brief.
>
> From some other reading I've done, I think near-universal use of
> fire seems to be related (although cause and effect seem muddy to
> me) to the emergence of AMH something over 100,000 y.a.
>
> > The immediate advntages
> > were in warmth and cooking.
>
> It is also useful for making poor stone into better stone for
> knapping. Far more recently, before metallurgy, it was useful for
> firing clay pots and other ceramics.
>
Yes this was an early use of chemistry.
I am not attempting to write a textbook of chemical history.
> > Its significance in history is most easily
> > seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical weaponry.
>
> I would like you to clarify this for me. When you use 'history'
> here, do you mean the time after writing? Or are you using the
> term more loosely, as another way of saying 'part of the human
> story'? If the first, then I would have to disagree, since at
> least some metallurgy occurred long before writing in some
> locales. If the latter, I understand; but could wish you would
> define your terms for us.
>
I doubt if anyone could agree on the precise beginning of history.
My preferred time is the paintings on the Lascaux caves in France. With
hindsight this involved chemisty too.
> > The most readily available metals to early mankind were gold, silver
> > and copper as they are relatively or totally inert to oxidation.
>
> Gold, yes. Copper and silver do achieve patinas; and over enough
> time without human intervention, do oxidize pretty completely.
Yes but they were not known at the time. The concept of oxide did not
exist.
> > Hence
> > they can be extracted directly in the metallic state. Samples of cast
> > copper go back at lest to ca 4,000 B C ( Egypt and Babylonia). Tin is
> > also readily extracted from its ores and when alloyed with copper it is
> > known as bronze. Hence the beginning of the Bronze Age.
> >
> > Silver was known in predynastic Egypt (ca 4,000 B C.) and is not
> > oxidised in the cold or when heated,
>
> Silver does oxidize. What do you mean here?
I should have used the past tense. As siver existed in the free state
it was not necessary to reduce its ores.
>
> > similarly with gold. Both found
> > favour with the ancients as ornaments rather than as weapons because of
> > the greater efficiency of copper and bronze.
> >
> > The extaction of iron represented a major step forward as it requires
> > very high temperatures to eextact it from its oxides. The most common
> > oxide used in ancient times was magnetite, which has its own
> > significance in history as a component in the compass. But that was
> > much later.
>
> This is new information to me. (Not the magnetic properties of
> magnetite, but that it was the most commonly used version in
> 'ancient times.' BTW, could you define 'ancient times' for me?) I
> have always thought that limonite (bog iron) was what was mostly
> used to get iron. Other than, of course, meteoric iron.
>
> I hope you can clarify for me what you mean.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tom
>
It is clear that my reference to the magnetic properties of magnetite
were much later.
B C.
> <snip>
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
Presumably you are referring to the proton the electron the neutron and
the positron.
What about the sub-nuclear particles?
B C
> Searles O'Dubhain
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
I understand that the range of accuracy of Carbon 14 dating is within
about 130 years.
I am writing from memory but I recall the the date given for the
weaving and painting of the Turin Shroud was 1260 AD to 1390 AD.
B C.
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
I never respond to personal abuse.
B C.
Doug Weller
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
You need to do a bit more research on radiocarbon dating. Start here:
http://www.c14dating.com/
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-052165209x-1
Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology
by Catherine Batt
Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology
Pollard, Mark; Batt, Catherine; Young, Suzanne
Archaeological Chemistry
Orna, M.V.
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/books/0854045236.asp
Archaeological Chemistry
Pollard, A. Mark; Heron, Carl (both of Department of Archaeological
Sciences, University of Bradford)
Archaeological Chemistry Materials, Methods, and Meaning
Jakes, Kathryn A
Traces of the Past Unraveling the Secrets of Archaeology Through Chemistry
New ed
Lambert, Joseph B. (Clare Hamilton Hall Professor of Chemistry,
Northwestern University, USA)
Tracing Mobility and Identity Bioarchaeology and Bone Chemistry of the
Bronze Age Sant'Abbondio Cemetery (Pompeii, Italy)
Tafuri, Mary Anne
http://archaeology.about.com/od/chemistry/
links to chemistry as an archaeological tool
You can get a degree such as Reading University's BSc. Chemistry with
Archaeology
Or one-off University courses:
http://www.swxrflab.net/anth131.htm
and some detail about a couple of them:
CHM 4932-901
Course Syllabus - Fall 1998
ARCHAEOLOGY IN CHEMISTRY
Ti me and Room: TR 6-7:15 CHE
Instructor: Professor Jay W. Palmer, SCA 127, Tel. #974-0014
Office Hours: TR 4-5:50 p.m.
Course Description:
Archaeology in Chemistry, a 3 hour course in the natural science area, is
designed for those students who are interested in how chemistry can be
used in unraveling the secrets of the past through Archaeology.
Over the last few decades, an unappreciated common ground between
chemistry and archaeology has begun to be explored. Chemistry is the study
of matter and its changes; archaeology uncovers and studies the material
remains of past cultures. The chemist who analyzes these remains has now
become partly an archaeologist. The results of such studies provide a
better understanding of both fields, not only contributing to our
knowledge of past cultures but also documenting the early development of
chemistry. Thus, we can better understand how chemistry helped move the
human species along its cultural evolution. Two themes are explored in
this course: the chemical development of the materials of daily life and
the chemical analysis of these materials in the archaeological context.
These themes describe chemistry both as creator and as analyst of culture.
Course Structure and Requirements:
Textbook:
Lambert, Joseph B., Traces of the Past, Reading Massachusetts, Helix Books
Addison-Wesley, 1997.
Course Topics: Stone, soil, pottery, color, glass, organics, metals, and
humans.
Chemistry 020, Chemistry and Archaeology
Fall 2005
Ann Sheffield
Contact info:
Office: C.015, Doane Hall of Chemistry
Phone: 814-332-5357 (office) 814-425-1474 (home)
email: ann.sh...@allegheny.edu
Web page:
http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/a/asheffie/Sheffield.html
Office Hours: Monday, 2:30 ? 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, 11 a.m. ? 12 noon
Wednesday, 2:30 p.m. ? 4:30 p.m.
Friday, 11 a.m. ? 12 noon
Course Goals:
My goals are to persuade you that:
* Chemistry is interesting
* Chemistry is useful
* You (yes, you) can understand and do chemistry
To do well in the course, you will need to accomplish the following:
1. Understand fundamental chemical concepts:
* Structure of the atom, including isotopes
* Oxidation state
* Electronegativity and its application to ionic and covalent bonding
* Atomic and molecular spectroscopy
* Stoichiometry (including the dreaded mole)
* Acidity and pH
* Intermolecular forces and their application to separation techniques
2. Apply chemical concepts to problems in archaeology:
* Determining the provenance of artifacts (where did this come from?
Who made it?). Ex: How pottery workshops were organized.
* Understanding ancient technologies (how was this made?). Ex.: How
glass was made by different cultures.
* Analysis of organic material to determine its nature and origin
(what is this stuff?). Ex.: What jars from a shipwreck originally
contained.
* Analysis of human remains (how did this person live and die?) Ex.:
How much meat a person ate.
Grading:
Exams: 3 x 20% = 60 %
Activities/homework: 20 %
Laboratory: 15 %
Attendance: 5 %
Exams: Three exams will be given. Exams will be given during lab periods
to provide ample time for finishing. There is no final exam in this
course.
Activities: This category includes problem sets done inside and outside of
class, writing assignments, etc..
It is acceptable to collaborate with classmates on activities. Note that
?collaborate? means that all of you should work on all the problems and
discuss them to reach agreement on the best answers. The whole point of
the activities is to help you learn the material and prepare for exams;
for this to happen, you must be actively engaged in the process. If you
choose to work with a group, one copy of the assignment should be turned
in, and all group members must sign the Honor Code Pledge.
Laboratory: The assignment for each experiment is a worksheet. It will
often be possible to complete the worksheet by the end of the laboratory
period. Turn in one worksheet for your lab group (all members of the
group must sign the Honor Code Pledge). Note that you must be present and
help to perform the experiment to get credit for that laboratory; excused
absences from lab may be made up by arrangement with the instructor.
Attendance and Participation: There is no textbook for this course because
no textbook on the subject at an appropriate level exists. Therefore,
class attendance is critical because this is where all material will be
presented. Active engagement in learning activities, laboratory
experiments, etc. is essential for success.
Chemistry 020 Schedule, Fall 2005
Week of Topic Lab
8/29 No class this week; the first class session will be Monday, Sept. 5
9/5 Inorganic Materials; Decay of Materials
Ceramics
9/12 Ceramics [no lab]
9/19 Ceramics Elemental Analysis of Glass
9/26 Glass EXAM 1
9/28: review session for exam
10/3 Glass Problem session: percents
10/10 Metals Winning Copper from Ore
10/17 Fall Break Problem session: moles
Metals
10/24 Metals EXAM 2
10/26: review session for exam
10/31 Organics; Des Dyeing with Mordant Dyes
11/7 Dyes Dyeing with Indigo
11/14 Natural Products Soap
11/21 Natural Products Thanksgiving Break
11/28 Natural Products EXAM 3
11/30: review session for exam
12/5 Human Remains Chromatography
12/12 Human Remains [classes over ? no lab]
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
e.johansson@telia.com I E_Johansson
now you for the third time in a raw tries to put yourself on high horses
above specialists of the discipline you try to emply you know so much about.
Why can't you accept what Bernard wrote:
"I am now retired. My profession is Chemistry and I worked in a senior
scientific position before my retirement."
news:1133979787.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:qn1op1hhqr5lvphbh...@4ax.com...
Peter Alaca
> You need to do a bit more research on radiocarbon dating. Start here:
> http://www.c14dating.com/
Just for those who are interested:
Dating the Past
http://tinyurl.com/dnof2
Chronological Methods
http://tinyurl.com/7p823
Using Radiocarbon Dating to Establish
the Age of Iron-Based Artifacts
http://tinyurl.com/b67c4
Archaeobotany
http://archaeologic.com/archaeobotany.htm
Basic and Applied Research in the Field of Ceramology
http://www.geol.lu.se/kfl/index.htm
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Tedd Jacobs
<bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
>
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>> bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> > The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
>> > have a decisive role in archaeological studies.
>>
>> Bernard,
>>
>> I don't clearly understand much of what you are saying, and I
>> would like to. If you would bear with me, I'd like to clarify for
>> myself what you mean in several instances; and perhaps challenge
>> you in a couple of others.
>>
>> What do you mean by the first sentence?
>>
>> Humans did not so much invent fire as discover ways to use it. I
>> make an assumption here that we found that naturally-occurring
>> fires held some utility for us, and first exploited fire before
>> we could make it. When we began to make fire on our own, I would
>> agree that we had then invented a technology to control fire.
>>
>
> You are quibbling. It is clear that I was referring to the making of
> fire by humans.
no, he is not, and no you did not make it clear. fire was not an
"invention", unless you are prepared to say air, water, and dirt are an
"invention". your experience in the scientific community given your post
regarding your profession (retired) should afford you the knowledge and
experienc that language and wording are important.
<snip remainder>
nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com
That's probably correct, but I'm talking about reservoir effects. The most
relevant of these is the ocean, where living off the sea (like early Eskimos
tended to) gives about four centuries different - i.e. older - samples.
For example, it is commonly supposed that the Greenland Norse lived off the
produce of land-based farms, as was traditional, and died out because they
couldn't adapt to changing climate.
Actually, they switched from land to sea as a source of food during the period
of their occupation. Because of this, you get anomalous results, e.g. a woman
C14 dated to the beginning of the settlement period, wearing clothes that C14
date to the end.
So there are other techniques, involving d13C and d15N - d being delta - to
calibrate the results. This shows the woman in question was subsisting on
marine protein almost exclusively, which make her appear four centuries older,
while her clothes had been produced from terrestrial sources which were
therefore "normal" for land C14 dating.
This page describes it http://tinyurl.com/dzrns
I don't fully understand the chemistry behind this so I thought it would be
educational to ask.
Doug Weller
<inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:
>Good God Doug,
>now you for the third time in a raw tries to put yourself on high horses
>above specialists of the discipline you try to emply you know so much about.
>Why can't you accept what Bernard wrote:
>"I am now retired. My profession is Chemistry and I worked in a senior
>scientific position before my retirement."
>news:1133979787.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
You're funny, Inger. I try to contribute a lot of information about
chemistry in archaeology and you complain. I'm sure if he doesn't like my
post he has the ability to tell me himself.
Bernard, my post was not meant as an insult to you, but as a positive
contribution to the discussion you began. Perhaps Inger's response to
that might make it clearer why she annoys some people.
Doug
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
Thank you for updating me on the most recent developments in
radiocarbon dating.
B C.
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
I E_Johansson wrote:
> Good God Doug,
> now you for the third time in a raw tries to put yourself on high horses
> above specialists of the discipline you try to emply you know so much about.
> Why can't you accept what Bernard wrote:
> "I am now retired. My profession is Chemistry and I worked in a senior
> scientific position before my retirement."
> news:1133979787.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Inger E
Thank you Inger
B C.
Doug Weller
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>I E_Johansson wrote:
>> Good God Doug,
>> now you for the third time in a raw tries to put yourself on high horses
>> above specialists of the discipline you try to emply you know so much about.
>> Why can't you accept what Bernard wrote:
>> "I am now retired. My profession is Chemistry and I worked in a senior
>> scientific position before my retirement."
>> news:1133979787.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Inger E
>
>Thank you Inger
You think my post about courses in archaeology and chemistry and books on
the subject is me trying to put myself on 'high horses'? I thought you
didn't like insults. I'm disappointed, as I said in reply to Inger, I was
trying to make a positive contribution and one that I thought you would
find interesting and relevant. And in reply I get insults from Inger and
now you.
Doug
Philip Deitiker
news:409op1tgpvhlh31ks...@4ax.com by
nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com . . . :
> Apparently on date 11 Dec 2005 00:56:56 -0800,
Its not so much chemistry as physics. Chemistry principally involves
non-nuclear reactions. When carbon-14 decays one neutron is converted
to a proton Carbon-8N6P becomes Nitrogen-7N7P and the the atomic
weight of Carbon is 12.011 which means most of the carbon is in the
6N6P state and a small proportion is in the 7N6P and a very small
amount of 8N6P that changes after death of an organism. Note: the
weight of measurement of atoms is based on essentially 6N6P6E =
12.0000. A Neutron = 1.00867, Proton = 1.00728 and electron = 0.00055
the unassembled weight is 12.099 and E=MC² predicts that some of the
mass is lost as a result of binding energy (energy of nuclear
stabilization). The difference between unassembled and assembled
weight of an atom gives a statistic known as relative stabilization
per nucleon Carbon 14 = (14.11634-14.003242)/14 = 0.00807/N. Nitrogen
14 (14.1155-14.003074)/14 = 0.00803/N which means N14 is
theoretically a more stable isotope than C14 relative to Nucleon, and
the reaction can occur if C14 has a greater atomic mass C14-N14 =
0.000168, this is not the full weight of an electron 0.00055 but the
additional energy imparted on the electron will send the electon into
a higher orbit around the proton, so high in fact that it is ejected
from the atom called beta decay. If you have a scintillation counter
and some cocktail you can detect these beta decays as they make the
cocktail glow.
As a result 6N6P goes to 7N7P. Nitrogen exists in 2 isotopes 99.63%
N14 (probably as a result of billions of years of carbon14 decay) and
N15 0.37% (AM=15.000109) = 14.00676 One would predict that the
average atomic mass of nitrogen will decrease with time however I
would thing that the decrease would be so miniscule that one would
need to count huge numbers of nitrogen atoms to detect this. In
addition When C14 decays to N15, let us suppose that the C14 was in
CO3, that immediately becomes NO3+ which is very unstable. How about
a alpha carbon in collogen -NCO2CR- recomes -NN(+)02CR and that mess
breaks down, one reaction produces N gas or Nitrous Oxide, and that
will not stay in the sample. Trying to measure residual nascent
nitrogen seems to me a ify proposition. Now, if one knows specific
compounds that are generated by C14 decay one can use ones mass spec
to detect these. N15 however can be used in the same way as C13 as
another potential indicator of diet and this is what they are talking
about in this paper. "As they are the most "marine" individuals that
we are aware of at present, we assume a 100% marine diet, although
only future isotopic research (for example, d15N as an indicator of
trophic level) can reveal whether a significant terrestrial (e.g.,
reindeer) diet component was present.". In the oceans at least
Nitrogen turn over with atmosphere is determined by the rate of
denitrification to N2 via excess, for example decay on the ocean
floor. In the ocean actually there is very little waste, and most
nitrogen goes to ammonia which is rapidly adsorbed by bacteria.
Nitrogen is removed by birds and humans. The nitrogen it returned to
the oceans via rivers (pollution) however the differential is
determined by free phosphorous (PO4-phosphates). When Nitrogen is
used as a fertilizer significant amounts are lost do to terrestrial
denitrification causing an excess of PO4 to wash into streams and
rivers. Cyanobacterium then take the PO4 and 'fix' atmospheric
nitrogen (while this may seem clever, the chemistry involved is very
nasty to almost all other forms of life, and PO4 excess can cause the
'death' of waterways). This brings atmospheric nitrogen back into the
ecosystem and when the typical N to P ratio of the oceans is reached
N is driven up the food chains of the oceans, releasing ammonia and
this is then turned over. The 'fishy' taste of fish and shrimp is
primarily determined by how much nitrogen fixing cyanobacterium in
that ecosystem. Carp for instance store the compounds in oil
reservoirs close to the lateral line, and this affords them
protection against predators. Ergo if you eat alot of carp from nasty
rivers, chances are you have alot of atmospherically derived N, and
the nastier the river, the larger the carp in that river may grow.
The chinese determined, many thousands of years ago that if you take
the carp and starve them for a period of a few days, the toxins leach
out of the fish, and you can eat them safely. Aren't they smart, it
still hasn't caught on in the west, and rivers are plagued by
nusiance carp noone wants to eat. :^). Therefore the biological
nitrogen in the oceans is older, and there are reservoirs in the deep
oceans that are 1000s of years old. The degree this affects ratios I
have no idea about.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-
8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-14,GGLD:en&q=15N+tropic+level
http://www.gcrc.ntu.edu.tw/paperdb/upload/abstract/%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B
5.pdf
http://www.biologie.uni-
hamburg.de/bzf/oknu/proceedingsneotropecosys/p0115-
p0132_lectures_session_2.pdf
Whereas C13 ratios to c12 should stay constant. But C13 uptake by
biota differ between terrestrial plants and marine organisms so that
C13 can be used to reference the source and determine a differential.
C3 (dry grassland plants) have C13/C12 levels that differ markedly
from atmospheric levels. This bias also affects C14 uptake and so in
that regard when one measures C14 one should also measure C13.
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk
It is obvious that I was not referring to the phenomenon of fire which
is an aspect of energy all over the known universe. Please let us not
get involved with the God Hypothesis.
It must have been perfectly clear that I was using the word in the
normal English usage of "making a fire". This was an invention. Of
course it probably happened many times in different parts of the globe
in different eras but the first hominid who ignited a fire was the
prime inventor. Why is it necessary to explain such elementary school
material in a scientific Group?
Of course you can speculate that ancient hominids crawled towards
volcanic vents with long poles of dried wood, ignited them and then
ran back to ignite a pile of tinder at a cave door.
That might be material for a novel or a film but is definitely not
archaeology.
B C.
Doug Weller
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think the point being made is that our ancestors may have been using
fire long before they invented a way to create a fire. Using fires
started by lightning strikes and perpetuating those fires is obviously not
the same thing as finding a way to start a fire.
Everyone, can we move on from here now?
Searles O'Dubhain
<bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1134291087....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Actually,I was referring to the:
1. Strong Force (nucleus, nucleons, gluons)
2. Electro-magnetic Force (particles, photons)
3. Weak Force (quark flavors and bosons)
4. Gravity (mass, spin, gravitons)
This URL gives a good synopsis of these fundamental forces:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
I've mentioned these as just another way that scientists and
philosophers can quantify nature and reality. Such has been the case
since humans have been observing their surroundings in an objective
manner. The atomic model and the periodic table are just one way of
quantifying or modeling what occurs in nature.
Searles O'Dubhain
Tedd Jacobs
"Doug Weller" wrote...
[...]
> Everyone, can we move on from here now?
i agree, this one will go nowhere.
Uwe Müller
> were in warmth and cooking. Its significance in history is most easily
> seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
>
> they can be extracted directly in the metallic state. Samples of cast
> copper go back at lest to ca 4,000 B C ( Egypt and Babylonia). Tin is
> also readily extracted from its ores and when alloyed with copper it is
> known as bronze. Hence the beginning of the Bronze Age.
>
> favour with the ancients as ornaments rather than as weapons because of
> the greater efficiency of copper and bronze.
>
> very high temperatures to eextact it from its oxides. The most common
> oxide used in ancient times was magnetite, which has its own
> significance in history as a component in the compass. But that was
> much later.
>
> it took the development of electrolysis by Davy and later Faraday to
> extract it by electrolyis. Without this element it is unlikely that
> aircraft and space vessels would exist.
>
> believed that matter in its simplest form consisted of four elements:
> Fire; earth; air & water .
>
> Robert Boyle published his book " The Sceptical Chymist" in the early
> 17 Century and destroyed the basis of alchemy by listing genuine
> elements for the first time. Later Mendelelev classified these in his
> Periodic Table.
>
> Ellingham Diagrams. Ellingham's work is largley forgotten There are
> only 25 references to the diagrams in the Google Search Box and all of
> these are from metallurgical or physical chemistry journals. In graphic
> form they show how the properties of the metallic oxides can be used to
> illustrate the history of metal extaction based on the thermodynamic
> properties of their ores.
>
> achievable through nuclear fission, but it too expensive and hazardous.
>
>
Tedd Jacobs
<bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
>
> Tedd Jacobs wrote:
>> <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
>> >
>> > Tom McDonald wrote:
>> >> bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[...]
>> >> Humans did not so much invent fire as discover ways to use it.
>> > You are quibbling. It is clear that I was referring to the making of
>> > fire by humans.
>>
>> no, he is not, and no you did not make it clear. fire was not an
>> "invention", unless you are prepared to say air, water, and dirt are an
>> "invention".
>> <snip remainder>
>
> It is obvious that I was not referring to the phenomenon of fire which
> is an aspect of energy all over the known universe. Please let us not
> get involved with the God Hypothesis.
semantics is a god hypothesis??
>
> It must have been perfectly clear that I was using the word in the
> normal English usage of "making a fire". This was an invention.
define 'invention'.
> Of
> course it probably happened many times in different parts of the globe
> in different eras but the first hominid who ignited a fire was the
> prime inventor. Why is it necessary to explain such elementary school
> material in a scientific Group?
i see a patern developing here... you'll be in welcome company with
inger/seppo/stevens/yuri and an assortment of other residents we currently
have (s)trolling about usenet.
Seppo Renfors
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
> > have a decisive role in archaeological studies.
>
> Bernard,
>
> I don't clearly understand much of what you are saying, and I
> would like to. If you would bear with me, I'd like to clarify for
> myself what you mean in several instances; and perhaps challenge
> you in a couple of others.
>
> What do you mean by the first sentence?
I don't think it matters a hoot to the germane part of the point if he
uses "invent", "discover" or "capture" for fire. The POINT being that
this is the "beginning" of the use of chemistry by the Homo genus and
as it relates to archaeology.
[snip hair splitting of irrelevant matters - not germane to the issue]
>
> I don't think you mean that archaeological studies were going on
> half a million years ago (give or take an order of magnitude). I
> take it that you mean that human's use of rapid oxidation of dry
> biological materials was the first unequivocal use of a
> non-biological chemical process that we have evidence for in the
> archaeological record. If that's what you mean, I can't think of
> any reason right now that suggests you might be mistaken.
Again that is more trivial hair splitting. The use of fire can
actually be VERY important to archaeology and for dating purposes.
Charcoal being the residue left behind - heat stressed rocks are also
significant indicator of human presence.
On the other hand fire as a mechanism that lead to further discovery -
eg copper or other metals is also an issue. Though it cannot be the
sole cause. It requires more, else metals would have been discovered
much, much earlier than they were.
> However, there are some biochemical issues relating to
> archaeology that are interesting in their own rights. Archaeology
> suggests that the interaction among brain size, bi-pedalism, tool
> making and diet resulted in increased use of high-energy meat,
> which spurred brain development, which spurred technological
> invention, etc. This slower chemical process, ISTM, has a place
> in early hominid archaeology.
Those can hardly be called "biochemical issues". Biochemistry is
another field - eg drug manufacture. Tom, you mince around with
narrow, highly 'technical' definitions and pretend you cannot
"understand", but are unable to resort to the same level of
"technical" accuracy (or even a common understanding) yourself - it
does show a certain prejudice and an intent NOT to focus on the actual
issues presented.
Molecular biology on the other hand is indeed a tool for investigating
movement/relationships between people, it is a very specific, fairly
narrow field of research. It is not in itself part of archaeology, but
has a great bearing on it.
[..]
>
> > Its significance in history is most easily
> > seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
>
> I would like you to clarify this for me. When you use 'history'
> here, do you mean the time after writing? Or are you using the
> term more loosely, as another way of saying 'part of the human
> story'? If the first, then I would have to disagree, since at
> least some metallurgy occurred long before writing in some
> locales. If the latter, I understand; but could wish you would
> define your terms for us.
Again you are resorting to petty definitions totally unnecessarily, as
the meaning is clear from the context.
[again this is a move sideways, away from the main direction intended
by the author]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
[..]
> Albeit early hominids are not interested in
> studying the origins as modern archaeologist so the analogy is a
> great stretch, but the point is that by making fire he is taking
> control, natural selection is loosing its grip and artificial
> selection is gaining its grip.
Can we have a translation of that into understandable English please.
*IF* one was to read that as it is written it requires:
A - time travel (with all the implications that go with that)
B - creationism to be a reality
[..]
Seppo Renfors
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com wrote:
> > Apparently on date 10 Dec 2005 02:35:01 -0800, bernard...@yahoo.co.uk said:
> >
> > >The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
> > >have a decisive role in archaeological studies. The immediate advntages
> > >were in warmth and cooking. Its significance in history is most easily
> > >seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
> >
> > I must admit I see this in a completely different sense - I don't think
> > archaeologists were particularly active when fire was being invented. Having
> > said that, I've met a few, who, well, I guess it's possible...
> >
> > What I would like to do is understand how different isotopes can be used to
> > distinguish between fish eating cultures and land food eating ones - I gather
> > C14 dates everyone a few centuries wrongly but that some other isotope can
> > correct that. Do you know anything about techniques in this area?
>
> I understand that the range of accuracy of Carbon 14 dating is within
> about 130 years.
No it rather depends on a lot of things (mostly the calibration
curve), but 50,000 years is the usual limit placed on it.
> I am writing from memory but I recall the the date given for the
> weaving and painting of the Turin Shroud was 1260 AD to 1390 AD.
--
Seppo Renfors
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> On 11 Dec 2005 05:37:03 -0800, in sci.archaeology,
> bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >I E_Johansson wrote:
> >> Good God Doug,
> >> now you for the third time in a raw tries to put yourself on high horses
> >> above specialists of the discipline you try to emply you know so much about.
> >> Why can't you accept what Bernard wrote:
> >> "I am now retired. My profession is Chemistry and I worked in a senior
> >> scientific position before my retirement."
> >> news:1133979787.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Inger E
> >
> >Thank you Inger
>
> You think my post about courses in archaeology and chemistry and books on
> the subject is me trying to put myself on 'high horses'? I thought you
> didn't like insults. I'm disappointed, as I said in reply to Inger, I was
> trying to make a positive contribution and one that I thought you would
> find interesting and relevant. And in reply I get insults from Inger and
> now you.
Oh dear, Douggie.... Douggie what are we to do with you?
You tell a retired professor of Chemistry to "go take lessons so you
know what you talk about", for christ sake - it is a clear implication
YOU elevate yourself (high horse) into a position where you allege you
can "evaluate" the educational status of a professor of chemistry!
And that, Douggie, is from an "expert" (a has been drip under pressure
- you) who openly admits to have NO reputation in archaeology to
protect - indeed you have stated that the reputation you DO have to
protect is in puppy farming!
If you don't see your "suggestion" to be insulting then you are
dreaming! A puppy farmer, telling a professor of chemistry to "go take
lessons"!!
[..]
Alan Crozier
news:439CB60E...@not.com.au...
You are confusing the words "profession" and professor". Bernard Connor
never claimed to be a professor.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
bernard...@yahoo.co.uk () wrote:
> You are quibbling. It is clear that I was referring to the making of
> fire by humans.
He has a point though, the use of fire probably predated the ability
to start one. Natural fires date from before the hominids. Prior to
matches starting a fire was not trivial.
Ken Young
Uwe Müller
> have a decisive role in archaeological studies. The immediate advntages
> were in warmth and cooking. Its significance in history is most easily
> seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
So we'd have a first stage, where fire would have been used, if it could be
gotten somwhere, a second stage, where fire starting was discovered, and
lost, and re-discovered, ..., till we come to stage three, where the
knowledge of fire starting was so widely distributed, that it was no longer
forgotten.
As tool working technics were invented and re-invented a number of times, I
feel it is a safe guess, that the same thing happened with fire starting.
>
> The most readily available metals to early mankind were gold, silver
> and coper as they are relatively or totally inert to oxidation. Hence
> they can be extracted directly in the metallic state. Samples of cast
> copper go back at lest to ca 4,000 B C ( Egypt and Babylonia). Tin is
> also readily extracted from its ores and when alloyed with copper it is
> known as bronze. Hence the beginning of the Bronze Age.
There is more to metallurgy than discovering the principle and applying it
to various ores. Right now it seems to be pottery, which by developing
better controlled ovens, that could produce more heat, led the way for more
and more ores to be smelted.
Bronze metallurgy is a case in point, because some of the earliest coppers
used contain arsenic or tin in varying degrees. So it was the search for
ores that produced a metall, that could be used without adding other metals,
and the knowledge of how to smelt a certain type of ore, that got bronze
technology started.
One main problem for the full Bronze age was, that you needed two kinds of
ores, usually you would only have one readily available. So you'd have to
rely on trading to acquire the 2nd. Which means building up a surplus
economy, long distance contacts, a stable social organisation, etc.
> snip >
> The extaction of iron represented a major step forward as it requires
> very high temperatures to eextact it from its oxides. The most common
> oxide used in ancient times was magnetite, which has its own
> significance in history as a component in the compass. But that was
> much later.
Here in Germany there are a number of different iron sources. In the north
there was realy only bog iron to work with, and it was smelted in big sites,
that remind me of professional manufacturers.
> snip >
There is a second notion of Chemistry in Archaeology to be considered, the
help of chemistry in archaeological research. The analysis of the material
of artefacts is the first point, that comes to my mind, closely followed by
the determination of the content of phospor in the soil, to point out
heavily used areas, stables in houses, fields that have been fertilized,
etc. In a few cases analysis was able to determin the contents of vessel by
residues left in them.
If you could develop a method to show organic substances in acidic soils,
for instance for graves, where all the bones have deteriorated, or for
mesolithic pits, which show no difference in colour or texture to the
surrounding soil, archaeologists would be really gratefull. If this would be
somewhat easy to use, inexpensive and not poisonous, your name would never
be forgotten.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Doug Weller
True. Bernard Connor never said he was a professor, Seppo is making that
up. And Bernard thanked me for the link. Of course, I didn't say the
words in quotes either, Seppo is lying again.
And he is repeating his libelous lies about puppy farming.
Ok, Seppo, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. What is the
evidence for my being involved in puppy farming?
Shame he isn't in the UK, I'd have him in court for that.
George
Australian law isn't to far removed.from British law
And international libels have been successfully prosecuted..
Seppo Renfors
Fair enough, it was my careless reading - still the arguments is
equally as valid just the same.
Seppo Renfors
.....or perhaps he thanked Inger for pointing out your insults and
taking you to task over it, that you then complained bitterly about!
Here is the evidence:
<mkeop1h4n7bkb3jbe...@4ax.com>
In fact Bernard saying "Thank you Inger", you considered being an
INSULT to you! Douggie, forget the puppy farm, you are ready for the
funny farm!
> Of course, I didn't say the
> words in quotes either, Seppo is lying again.
....of course the meaning is there and paraphrasing is quite
legitimate AND accurate, and so understood by a number of people,
including the target of your libellous insult - therefor no LIE.
Observe also, he did NOT thank you for telling him to go take lessons,
did he!
>
> And he is repeating his libelous lies about puppy farming.
Truth is NOT "libellous". Breeding dogs IS puppy farming - unless the
Douggie has found a way to reproduce ADULT dogs instantly!
(ADVERTISING: Douggie's Instant dog, just add water and stir)
Note the less nice term is "puppy MILL" - also used of dog breeders,
though of the less reputable kind (eg the back yard variety), even
though not conducting anything ILLEGAL even then.
> Ok, Seppo, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. What is the
> evidence for my being involved in puppy farming?
Your confession to that effect!
> Shame he isn't in the UK, I'd have him in court for that.
So SUE ME! You have every opportunity to do so - a known pest, serial
litigant from the UK has resorted to suing Australian people in the
past. All you do is go you your lawyer, instruct them to instruct a
solicitor here who instructs a barrister to issue proceedings. Simple
just have bags full of cash, as it WILL cost you - hell, I'll even
write the statement of claim for you if you wish - can't be fairer
than that!!
Oh, just so you know, the last person to take me on lost his house,
business and Mrs, so have a go yer mug! What have you got to lose?
However the pertinent point of you insulting people, then lying about
it is the issue - an insult that could indeed also be "libellous", the
issue you are EVADING - again you resort to the well worn old tactic
of derailing an issue AWAY from the central point of it.
Michael Kuettner
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:dni6a...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
>>
>> Tedd Jacobs wrote:
>>> <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
>>> >
>>> > Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> >> bernard...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> >> > The invention of fire(...)
> [...]
>>> >> Humans did not so much invent fire as discover ways to use it.
> [...]
>>> > You are quibbling. It is clear that I was referring to the making of
>>> > fire by humans.
>>>
your sloppy phrasing, bozo.
>>> no, he is not, and no you did not make it clear. fire was not an
>>> "invention", unless you are prepared to say air, water, and dirt are an
>>> "invention".
> [...]
>>> <snip remainder>
>>
>> It is obvious that I was not referring to the phenomenon of fire which
>> is an aspect of energy all over the known universe. Please let us not
>> get involved with the God Hypothesis.
>
> semantics is a god hypothesis??
>
For Bozo Connor, obviously.
>>
>> It must have been perfectly clear that I was using the word in the
>> normal English usage of "making a fire". This was an invention.
>
Especially an invention which had nothing to do with chemistry.
Now, bozo, what's your point ?
> define 'invention'.
>
The child of the "Mothers of" and F. Zappa.
>> Of
>> course it probably happened many times in different parts of the globe
>> in different eras but the first hominid who ignited a fire was the
>> prime inventor. Why is it necessary to explain such elementary school
>> material in a scientific Group?
For Bernard "Bozo" Connor :
Because banging rocks together or rubbing hard and soft wood to create
fire has absolutely nothing to do with chemistry, you bozo ?
Because your ill-written piece of offal offered nothing ?
>
> i see a patern developing here... you'll be in welcome company with inger/seppo/stevens/yuri and an assortment of other residents
> we currently have (s)trolling about usenet.
>
I see the same pattern emerging;
and I see Doug begging another kook to make some sense...
I've killfiled Moronsdottir - I've killfiled Kookinsky; I've even killfiled
the moronic Deppo Renfors; just to keep peace and quiet in the group.
What do I get for my troubles ?
Every second post is Doug Weller whining "Inger, what do you mean ?"
"Inger, what are your sources ?" or "Inger, you're not telling the truth !"
Or "Inger, you're attacking me"
AS IF WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT ALREADY !
Either the rest of the regulars killfile the usual bozos or I'll unkillfile all
and we'll have a merry, crossposted flame-war.
And no, Doug, I won't stop this time.
The group sci.arch is a fucking shambles thanks to you.
By your mindless replying and your masochistic attitude towards kooks
you have helped to destroy this group.
It doesn't help a sci.group when you always kiss Ingers ass by whining
"What do you mean, Inger ?"
Killfile the bitch and be done with it ! Are you really this stupid ?
I've told you the same thing nicely over the years; you didn't listen and
thanks to you we have all the shitheads here.
Stop whining - bless your poodles and other doggies - and develop some
backbone !
YES, I know that you're a nice guy and that you want to bring some understanding
of Archaeology to everyone.
BUT : It's been year after year with the slightly deranged Swedish moron.
If you'll keep replying, I'll un-killfile.
And then it's flame-war.
But that's better than the current affair of wet farts.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
<bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1134291693.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michael Kuettner wrote:
>> <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1134210900.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
>> > have a decisive role in archaeological studies.
>>
>>
>> > The immediate advntages
>> > were in warmth and cooking. Its significance in history is most easily
>> > seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
>> >
>> to point that out ...
>> Watching nature to know that treating wooden stakes with the nice
>> ripe juices of old corpses doesn't make it chemistry ...
>>
>> > The most readily available metals to early mankind were gold, silver
>> > and coper as they are relatively or totally inert to oxidation.
>>
>> tools. Too soft ...
>> And if silver were that inert to oxidation, why does one have to clean
>> one's cutlery made of silver ?
>>
>> > Hence
>> > they can be extracted directly in the metallic state. Samples of cast
>> > copper go back at lest to ca 4,000 B C ( Egypt and Babylonia). Tin is
>> > also readily extracted from its ores and when alloyed with copper it is
>> > known as bronze. Hence the beginning of the Bronze Age.
>> >
>> Interesting. I didn't know that !
>> <sarcasm off>
>> Your point ?
>>
>> > Silver was known in predynastic Egypt (ca 4,000 B C.) and is not
>> > oxidised in the cold or when heated,
>>
>> Non-oxidation ?
>>
>> > similarly with gold. Both found
>> > favour with the ancients as ornaments rather than as weapons because of
>> > the greater efficiency of copper and bronze.
>> >
>> It was easier to take gold with a sword of copper than the other way round.
>> Just as a hint.
>>
>> > The extaction of iron represented a major step forward as it requires
>> > very high temperatures to eextact it from its oxides. The most common
>> > oxide used in ancient times was magnetite, which has its own
>> > significance in history as a component in the compass. But that was
>> > much later.
>> >
>> You really should try to define your vocabulary at least a little bit.
>>
>> > Alumina can now be reduced to aluminium at very high temperatures, but
>> > it took the development of electrolysis by Davy and later Faraday to
>> > extract it by electrolyis. Without this element it is unlikely that
>> > aircraft and space vessels would exist.
>> >
>>
>> > The use of fire made the development of alchemy possible. Aristotle
>> > believed that matter in its simplest form consisted of four elements:
>> > Fire; earth; air & water .
>> >
>> Again, what is your point ?
>>
>> > Robert Boyle published his book " The Sceptical Chymist" in the early
>> > 17 Century and destroyed the basis of alchemy by listing genuine
>> > elements for the first time. Later Mendelelev classified these in his
>> > Periodic Table.
>> >
>> But that's history, not archaeology.
>>
>> > There is another less well known classification of the metals in the
>> > Ellingham Diagrams. Ellingham's work is largley forgotten There are
>> > only 25 references to the diagrams in the Google Search Box and all of
>> > these are from metallurgical or physical chemistry journals. In graphic
>> > form they show how the properties of the metallic oxides can be used to
>> > illustrate the history of metal extaction based on the thermodynamic
>> > properties of their ores.
>> >
>> classification might have had any effects in antique metal-working.
>>
>> > Ironically, the transmutation of base metals into gold is now
>> > achievable through nuclear fission, but it too expensive and hazardous.
>> >
>>
>> If you want to be taken seriously around here, try to make a point instead
>> of just babbling.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Michael Kuettner
>>
>> PS :
>> IE Johansson is a stupid bitch, btw. And Deppo Renfors is a moron.
>> If you want to keep that company, just say so. It's early killfiling,
>> then.
>
>
> I never respond to personal abuse.
>
Showing your errors is personal abuse ?
Pointing out that you have no point is personal abuse ?
Or are you referring to the PS, which was a friendly warning ?
But as I see elsewhere, you seem to fit in with those bozos rather
nicely.
I've left the post above intact. Just so that you can show that silver
doesn't show oxidazation or that gold and silver were mined earlier than
copper.
But I won't hold my breath ...
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> So SUE ME! You have every opportunity to do so - a known pest, serial
> litigant from the UK has resorted to suing Australian people in the
> past. All you do is go you your lawyer, instruct them to instruct a
> solicitor here who instructs a barrister to issue proceedings. Simple
> just have bags full of cash, as it WILL cost you - hell, I'll even
> write the statement of claim for you if you wish - can't be fairer
> than that!!
>
> Oh, just so you know, the last person to take me on lost his house,
> business and Mrs, so have a go yer mug! What have you got to lose?
And there you have it. Seppo is happiest when he can hate people
through the legal system. And he will use any tactic that he
thinks will give him an edge, no matter how low or vicious.
We have fun watching Seppo make up definitions for words in
order not to lose, or to think he wins, arguments. By now, we
have all read the proceedings involving Seppo with the Industrial
Magistrate, and there we have seen the vicious vacuity and
willingness to try to drown the opposition with inanities and
bile. It was fun to read, as it showed Seppo as he is; a nasty clown.
I wonder whether the fellow that Seppo claims to have cleaned
out was the unfortunate other party in that otherwise-humorous
court case? Or does he get into this sort of thing frequently?
I believe that the world would be better off without the kind of
behavior this alleged person betrays.
<snip>
Tom McDonald
Your argument is not equally valid either way. As a professional
chemist, one might not be expected to be reasonably current in
issues outside his/her primary field. OTOH, a professor of
chemistry would be expected to have a better grasp than Bernard
showed on a broad range of chemistry-related issues. Like 14C
dating.
Thinking that 14C dating has a 130-year range betrays an
unfamiliarity with the subject that any scientist would like to
be corrected about. It must be embarrassing to be told about a
misunderstanding in the public place where the misunderstanding
happened. It would be more embarrassing to continue the
misunderstanding.
Tedd Jacobs
"Tom McDonald" wrote...
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
<snip>
>>>You are confusing the words "profession" and professor". Bernard Connor
>>>never claimed to be a professor.
>>
>>
>> Fair enough, it was my careless reading - still the arguments is
>> equally as valid just the same.
>
> Your argument is not equally valid either way. As a professional chemist,
> one might not be expected to be reasonably current in issues outside
> his/her primary field. OTOH, a professor of chemistry would be expected to
> have a better grasp than Bernard showed on a broad range of
> chemistry-related issues. Like 14C dating.
i would take it a set farther- bernard never said he was a professional,
only that he worked in the chemestry "profession".
<snip remainder>
Philip Deitiker
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> . . . :
> i would take it a set farther- bernard never said he was a
> professional, only that he worked in the chemestry "profession".
Senior scientist = non-acedemic position, probably in industry.
Not everyone is crazy enough to be an acedemic scientist, still
others are too crazy. You know what the difference between an
acedemic chemist and industrial chemist is? About $70,000/year.
BTW, as an archaeology student in Idaho, do they make you
dig for your own potatoes (as practice of course)? :^).
Tedd Jacobs
"Philip Deitiker" wrote...
no, but they do teach us how to make our own vodka.
Seppo Renfors
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > So SUE ME! You have every opportunity to do so - a known pest, serial
> > litigant from the UK has resorted to suing Australian people in the
> > past. All you do is go you your lawyer, instruct them to instruct a
> > solicitor here who instructs a barrister to issue proceedings. Simple
> > just have bags full of cash, as it WILL cost you - hell, I'll even
> > write the statement of claim for you if you wish - can't be fairer
> > than that!!
> >
> > Oh, just so you know, the last person to take me on lost his house,
> > business and Mrs, so have a go yer mug! What have you got to lose?
>
> And there you have it. Seppo is happiest when he can hate people
> through the legal system. And he will use any tactic that he
> thinks will give him an edge, no matter how low or vicious.
Don't project your won image on me Tom.
[..]
>
> <snip>
Doug Weller
wrote:
He doesn't say he cleaned them out, just implies it. He doesn't even say
it was a legal case.
>
> I believe that the world would be better off without the kind of
>behavior this alleged person betrays.
>
I'm hardly going to waste cash on suing Seppo, who I suspect could never
pay up anyway. In the UK I'd just do it myself with no lawyer
There is no possible way he could win -- he's called me a puppy farmer, I
note that he offers no proof - because there is none. And it's funny, he
calls me a coward -- but the coward is Seppo, who libels people and then
refuses to provide evidence>
Seppo Renfors
Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
> In sci.archaeology message news:dnle9...@enews2.newsguy.com by
> "Tedd Jacobs" <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> . . . :
>
> > i would take it a set farther- bernard never said he was a
> > professional, only that he worked in the chemestry "profession".
>
> Senior scientist = non-acedemic position, probably in industry.
Ohhh..... watch the old jumped up janitor and bottle washer resort to
denigrating a person it knows nothing about! Pull your claws back in
Deitiker!
[..]
>
> BTW, as an archaeology student in Idaho, do they make you
> dig for your own potatoes (as practice of course)? :^).
...and there is that redneck reference even I'm aware off - people of
Idaho are as dumb as the potatoes they farm!
Tedd Jacobs
"Seppo Renfors" wrote...
>
>
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
[...]
> [..]
>>
>> BTW, as an archaeology student in Idaho, do they make you
>> dig for your own potatoes (as practice of course)? :^).
>
> ...and there is that redneck reference even I'm aware off - people of
> Idaho are as dumb as the potatoes they farm!
need some dog food, seppo? as a 'redneck' from idaho i got a rifle you could
borrow...
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder whether the fellow that Seppo claims to have cleaned
>>out was the unfortunate other party in that otherwise-humorous
>>court case? Or does he get into this sort of thing frequently?
>
>He doesn't say he cleaned them out, just implies it. He doesn't even say
>it was a legal case.
>>
>> I believe that the world would be better off without the kind of
>>behavior this alleged person betrays.
>>
>I'm hardly going to waste cash on suing Seppo, who I suspect could never
>pay up anyway. In the UK I'd just do it myself with no lawyer
>
>There is no possible way he could win -- he's called me a puppy farmer, I
>note that he offers no proof - because there is none. And it's funny, he
>calls me a coward -- but the coward is Seppo, who libels people and then
>refuses to provide evidence>
I've noted this accusation of Seppo's for severl months and I've only
just got around to finding out what he means. See
http://www.thedogscene.co.uk/articles/buying/puppyfarms.htm
Whatever else Doug might do, it certainly isn't run a puppy farm. The
neigbours would never stand for it, for a start. :-)
Once Seppo gets going on this kind of theme, the only way to describe
him is as 'bonkers'.
What sin are you going to ascribe to me, Seppo? Numeracy?
Eric Stevens
Dylan Sung
>
>
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > business and Mrs, so have a go yer mug! What have you got to lose?
>>
>> And there you have it. Seppo is happiest when he can hate people
>> through the legal system. And he will use any tactic that he
>> thinks will give him an edge, no matter how low or vicious.
>
> Don't project your won image on me Tom.
>
I don't think he could. Your own words speak for yourself.
Dyl.
Philip Deitiker
news:ch0tp1peihqi93o1k...@4ax.com by Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> . . . :
> Once Seppo gets going on this kind of theme, the only way to
> describe him is as 'bonkers'.
What Seppo needs is to be universally plonked until he can learn to
converse without become hysterical. I completely agree with Micheal
Knuetter, Doug opens himself up for these kinds of attacks because he
has not learned that Inger and Seppo are attention starved little
children who have temper tantrums when everything does not go their
idiosyncratic ways. So he should just ignore the pants off of them.
His language last year finally cleaned up, although he went absent
for a while. He appears to be still very unhappy and vengeful about
that.
Philip Deitiker
>
> "Philip Deitiker" wrote...
>> In sci.archaeology message news:dnle9...@enews2.newsguy.com by
>> "Tedd Jacobs" <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> . . . :
>>
>>> i would take it a set farther- bernard never said he was a
>>> professional, only that he worked in the chemestry "profession".
>>
>> Senior scientist = non-acedemic position, probably in industry.
>> Not everyone is crazy enough to be an acedemic scientist, still
>> others are too crazy. You know what the difference between an
>> acedemic chemist and industrial chemist is? About $70,000/year.
>>
>> BTW, as an archaeology student in Idaho, do they make you
>> dig for your own potatoes (as practice of course)? :^).
>
> no, but they do teach us how to make our own vodka.
>
That's chemistry. Vodka made from potatoes is called Sho[w]chu.
Used to be made from Taro root in Japan.
Peter Alaca
> .... Seppo, who libels people and then refuses
> to provide evidence
He also sees boobs without evidence.
Leave the man alone with his fantasies.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º
Tom McDonald
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:54:18 +0000, Doug Weller
> <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> I wonder whether the fellow that Seppo claims to have cleaned
>>>out was the unfortunate other party in that otherwise-humorous
>>>court case? Or does he get into this sort of thing frequently?
>>
>>He doesn't say he cleaned them out, just implies it. He doesn't even say
>>it was a legal case.
>>
>>> I believe that the world would be better off without the kind of
>>>behavior this alleged person betrays.
>>>
>>
>>I'm hardly going to waste cash on suing Seppo, who I suspect could never
>>pay up anyway. In the UK I'd just do it myself with no lawyer
>>
>>There is no possible way he could win -- he's called me a puppy farmer, I
>>note that he offers no proof - because there is none. And it's funny, he
>>calls me a coward -- but the coward is Seppo, who libels people and then
>>refuses to provide evidence>
>
>
> I've noted this accusation of Seppo's for severl months and I've only
> just got around to finding out what he means. See
> http://www.thedogscene.co.uk/articles/buying/puppyfarms.htm
Thank you for that, Eric. I have been assuming that a 'puppy
farm' was a more responsible version of a 'puppy mill,' a place
where dogs were bred in order to sell their offspring, but where
the animals were generally respected and well cared for. Like the
vast majority of animals on farms around here (western
Wisconsin). I wonder whether Seppo is trying to claim that this
is what he meant? If so, he should now apologize to Doug and
leave off the 'puppy farm' business.
But that's not the way to bet.
> Whatever else Doug might do, it certainly isn't run a puppy farm. The
> neigbours would never stand for it, for a start. :-)
>
> Once Seppo gets going on this kind of theme, the only way to describe
> him is as 'bonkers'.
You are kind, Eric. There are others. Libelous, at minimum.
> What sin are you going to ascribe to me, Seppo? Numeracy?
What, you support government by numbers? Splitter!
Tom McDonald
See what Renaissance people archaeologists are?
<snip>
Doug Weller
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
I doubt that he knows what he means. He's just copying James Lumpkins'
libels. He doesn't care about evidence.
>
>> Whatever else Doug might do, it certainly isn't run a puppy farm. The
>> neigbours would never stand for it, for a start. :-)
>>
>> Once Seppo gets going on this kind of theme, the only way to describe
>> him is as 'bonkers'.
>
> You are kind, Eric. There are others. Libelous, at minimum.
>
>> What sin are you going to ascribe to me, Seppo? Numeracy?
>
> What, you support government by numbers? Splitter!
Doug
Eric Stevens
Voter.
Eric Stevens
George
Tom McDonald wrote:
snip
> And there you have it. Seppo is happiest when he can hate people
> through the legal system. And he will use any tactic that he
> thinks will give him an edge, no matter how low or vicious.
>
> We have fun watching Seppo make up definitions for words in
> order not to lose, or to think he wins, arguments. By now, we
> have all read the proceedings involving Seppo with the Industrial
> Magistrate, and there we have seen the vicious vacuity and
> willingness to try to drown the opposition with inanities and
> bile. It was fun to read, as it showed Seppo as he is; a nasty clown.
>
> I wonder whether the fellow that Seppo claims to have cleaned
> out was the unfortunate other party in that otherwise-humorous
> court case? Or does he get into this sort of thing frequently?
had he done so he would have boasted of it in a certain .au group
where he attempts to pass himself off as a quasi law something or other
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:54:18 +0000, Doug Weller
> <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I wonder whether the fellow that Seppo claims to have cleaned
> >>out was the unfortunate other party in that otherwise-humorous
> >>court case? Or does he get into this sort of thing frequently?
> >
> >He doesn't say he cleaned them out, just implies it. He doesn't even say
> >it was a legal case.
> >>
> >> I believe that the world would be better off without the kind of
> >>behavior this alleged person betrays.
> >>
> >I'm hardly going to waste cash on suing Seppo, who I suspect could never
> >pay up anyway. In the UK I'd just do it myself with no lawyer
Yeah, yeah...... all mouth and no balls again! Maybe his lawyer
laughed at him and is still laughing at Douggie..... what a JOKE he
is!
> >There is no possible way he could win -- he's called me a puppy farmer,
There is no possibility DOUGGIE could win a defamation case on that
one - that is 100% sure.
> I note that he offers no proof - because there is none.
NOT TRUE again - no wonder it is a habitual liar. I provided the proof
- I stated it was a public confession by Douggie! I stand by it. HE
knows it is true, *I* know it is true - irrespective of what LIES he
may resort to.
> And it's funny, he
> >calls me a coward -- but the coward is Seppo, who libels people and then
> >refuses to provide evidence>
>
> I've noted this accusation of Seppo's for severl months
THIS of course is a LIE - what is it with people when they NEED to LIE
- for what reason? Are the so damned banal that they cannot make a
point without resorting to LIES to big note themselves with?
The post the Douggie objected to was the FIRST time I had ever
referred to him as a "puppy farmer". Got that! It is only THREE DAYS
ago (Sun, 11 Dec 2005)!!
> and I've only
> just got around to finding out what he means. See
> http://www.thedogscene.co.uk/articles/buying/puppyfarms.htm
> Whatever else Doug might do, it certainly isn't run a puppy farm.
Wrong - that is one person's bent opinion and not a fact. It is often
part of a public campaign to scare purchasers to only purchase from
breeders and not pet shops to whom "puppy farmers" may sell their
"product". Also there are nutter mobs like "Animal Liberation" and
"Animal rights activists" try to put an unsavoury spin on everything
uncaring of the truth of the matter.
It is closer to the meaning of "puppy MILL" - being a breeder (usually
a back yard breeder most often a single dog operation) who mates the
bitch far too soon after a litter and more often than they should for
the long term good of the bitch. It does NOT mean that any of the dogs
are mistreated or ill kept in any other way - though that may be so in
some cases.
The term "mill" is that makes it offensive, as it implies churning out
puppies in a mass production, uncaring of the health of the bitch(es).
Fact: Dog breeders breed dogs for money - the MAIN reason. "Farm" has
no offensive connotations - or a dairy farm would be an offensive term
too - it is not. So pull your head in.
The Douggie is full of false indignation as is so often the case to
HIDE the real issue of him INSULTING newcomers to the forum -
something he was falsely "indignant" about too when it was noted by
another and the target of the insults!
> The
> neigbours would never stand for it, for a start. :-)
>
> Once Seppo gets going on this kind of theme, the only way to describe
> him is as 'bonkers'.
Oh dear - NOT accepting the right for certain people to abuse and
defame others with impunity is "bonkers" - so that means behaving like
a right arsehole without a conscience or morals would amount to
"sanity" - in Eric's 'mind'. No wonder Eric comes to the aid of the
likes of Douggie! It say's far more about Douggie than anyone
else...... oh and of Eric himself of course!
>
> What sin are you going to ascribe to me, Seppo? Numeracy?
Resorting to fabrications and LIES -again. Ignorance and ill-will. Oh,
and that would have been "innumeracy" you meant surely!
See here:
http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/1999/archives/25/roadtests/dog_breeds/designer_dogs
http://sekaiseifuku.net/puppyfarm.html
http://www.saynotopuppyfarms.org.uk/
http://tinyurl.com/andcj
http://www.wctatel.net/web/bostons/
<html>
<head>
<title>Jelsi Puppy Farm</title>
<meta CONTENT="JELSI PUPPY FARM" HTTP-EQUIV="Bulletin-Text">
<meta CONTENT="Tue, 17-Mar-98 20:54:02" HTTP-EQUIV="Bulletin-Date">
So now we see that the Douggie is whistling dixie, while peeing into a
gale and getting splattered - but why should you stand beside him in
that situation?!? When UK Governments grant money to "puppy farms" it
cannot be "defamatory" of the Douggie, who is in the UK! He is
definitely a LOSER in this case!!
Seppo Renfors
Ahhh... isn't it NICE to see people come into a huddle to make right
FOOLS of themselves - and a lot of mutual kissy-kissy and hugging....
in public at that.
You mob of drongos are so bloody predictable it is like a bloody BOT
being activated. What a PATHETIC mob of LOSERS you are..... bloody
PATHETIC!
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ---
>> Once Seppo gets going on this kind of theme, the only way to describe
>> him is as 'bonkers'.
>
>Oh dear - NOT accepting the right for certain people to abuse and
>defame others with impunity is "bonkers" - so that means behaving like
>a right arsehole without a conscience or morals would amount to
>"sanity" - in Eric's 'mind'. No wonder Eric comes to the aid of the
>likes of Douggie! It say's far more about Douggie than anyone
>else...... oh and of Eric himself of course!
It has absolutely nothing to do with "the right for certain people to
abuse and defame others with impunity...". It has everything to do
with the way you rave, froth at the mouth and spray spittle in all
directions when sufficiently provoked - not that it takes much
provocation.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
And yet, in a trial, it's folks like us who would be on the jury.
Dylan Sung
"George" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:1134512961.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Having had a few discussion on this group with him, it's best to take
everything he says as unreliable, until it can be independently verified. Of
course, that doesn't amount to much as most of it his interminable abuse and
character assination.
Dyl.
Paul Burke
> The invention of fire was probably the point where chemistry began to
> were in warmth and cooking. Its significance in history is most easily
> seen in the evolution of metallurgy and chemical eaponry.
snippysnipsnipsnip...
The point of this schoolboy essay is?
e.johansson@telia.com I E_Johansson
"Paul Burke" <pa...@scazon.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:40b0m2F...@individual.net...
How about learning that your "schoolboy" is a retired senior scholar
specialist in Chemistry?
How about learning that you yourself aren't up to the standard needed to sit
on high horses?
How about presenting arguments or contra-arguments instead of Ad hominem?
Inger E
Tedd Jacobs
"I E_Johansson" wrote...
1. it is a judgement on the quality of the writing.
2. he's not a senior "scholar specialist" in chemestry.
3. yes, some of us are up to the standards needed to make these types of
observations.
4. we have presented the arguments.
5. we have gotten no substance in reply to arguments.
your days are numbered johansson.
bogar...@uwlax.edu
All of our days are numbered... we can only hope they are filled
with less nonsense than in the past.
While BC maybe got off to a weak start in this group, I'm not
bothered by anything he's said. He hasn't come out in favor
of any particularly wacky theories, and may make useful contributions
to the discussions here. *He* hasn't claimed to be a professor or
scholar (and I don't really care if he is or not). Maybe with a bit
more exploration, something of his interests will become apparent.
At least he says he doesn't respond to personal abuse, and so far,
I don't see that he's generated any. (No addiction to name-calling and
the like).
Let's cut BC some slack. (But not Inger, of course ;-)
Lloyd
*****
Tom McDonald
I agree.
(But not Inger, of course ;-)
Inger's had her slack. At this point, there'd be a 50-foot fall
before the satisfying 'snap.'
Tedd Jacobs
"Tom McDonald" wrote...
there are things i observe about bc that doesnt lead me to belive he's all
he presents. mostly 'birds of a feather...'
Tom McDonald
Maybe. But think of the crisp 'snick' at the end.
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:46:07 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> --- snip ---
This is where the suitably grovelling and humble apology should be for
your LIES and fabrications about me. Where is it..... or is it that
you are simply not MAN enough, and don't have the BALLS to be honest,
lest you lose kudos with the odious gang members you are pandering to?
> >> Once Seppo gets going on this kind of theme, the only way to describe
> >> him is as 'bonkers'.
> >
> >Oh dear - NOT accepting the right for certain people to abuse and
> >defame others with impunity is "bonkers" - so that means behaving like
> >a right arsehole without a conscience or morals would amount to
> >"sanity" - in Eric's 'mind'. No wonder Eric comes to the aid of the
> >likes of Douggie! It say's far more about Douggie than anyone
> >else...... oh and of Eric himself of course!
>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with "the right for certain people to
> abuse and defame others with impunity...".
You resorted to LIES, misrepresentation and fabrication to DEFEND
exactly those kind of activities. Is sinking to their level in the
sewers worth it to earn kudos from the dregs of society you are
pandering to, eh? You know "do as they do" to gain their approval of
yourself - to be accepted in the GANG, -certainly you have resorted to
their mentality!!
> It has everything to do
> with the way you rave, froth at the mouth and spray spittle in all
> directions when sufficiently provoked - not that it takes much
> provocation.
Oh dear..... standing up for what is right against what is wrong,
appears to be a SIN to you - judging by your language and LACK OF
APOLOGY for resorting to blatant LIES about me - a dishonest offensive
act to provide something for others to feed off - an act that you do
not resille from in any way. In other words you NEED ME to stand on to
be noticed! Hope that made you "tall" enough to be noticed!
The ISSUE was Douggie being INSULTING to other people, and then
resorting to a pretend "ingignation", in order to resume his long
standing slagging of Inger. THAT is what you are defending and now
attack ME, for NOT supporting that odious activity.
Oh, You'll score well with the your new "mates" now.
Tom McDonald
Q bloody ED.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I really must work out how to fit a wiper to the inside of my monitor.
But then, I will have to fit a drain to the bottom also.
Eric Stevens
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net (Tom McDonald) wrote:
> nger's had her slack. At this point, there'd be a 50-foot fall
> before the satisfying 'snap.'
A bit messy that, one of the more important skills of a hangman was
calculating the drop. Too short and the subject suffocates, too long
and you get a rather ragged beheading.
Ken Young
bogar...@uwlax.edu
If you're going to be picky and squeamish, you should
go do something else, and not spoil it for the rest of us.
George
here kook here kook :-)