Maya water engineering discovery
Mike R
Listeros,
The Maya may have mastered running water, creating fountains and
toilets by controlling water pressure. The Maya site of Palenque in
Chiapas had the most intricate water management in the ancient Maya
world with elaborate subterranean aqueducts to deal with floods and
erosion. The site was called "Lakamha" by the Maya meaning "big
water." A steeply engineered aqueduct could have been used to power a
large fountain and this was contructed at 750 CE.
Live Science has the story here;
http://www.livescience.com/history/091223-mayan-water-pressure.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29
A tiny URL;
http://tinyurl.com/ydgdgrk
Mike Ruggeri
Mike Ruggeri's Maya Archaeology News and Links
http://tinyurl.com/atpsd9
SolomonW
Can a city exist without a water system?
doublePlusPaleo
>
> Mike Ruggeri's Maya Archaeology News and Links
> http://tinyurl.com/atpsd9
More fanciful suppositions. The steeply angled 'aqueducts' were
probably used to flow the blood and wastes produced by these murderous
primitive peoples.
Tom McDonald
Which murderous people do you prefer?
And Maya were no more primitive than Europeans of their times --
and even later.
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Tom McDonald
Depends on what you mean by 'system'. Cities always require a
source of water, but in the past (and in some places today)
didn't provide water through a centralized,
governmentally-maintained manner.
Although cities of some minimum size would have had to have had
some sort of method of getting clean water to their inhabitants,
and probably some method of removing waste. (But think European
cities of the early Middle Ages; sometimes the system is gravity
and rain washing the literal crap from the streets.)
crunch
> SolomonW wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:38:19 -0800 (PST), Mike R wrote:
>
> >> Listeros,
>
> >> The Maya may have mastered running water, creating fountains and
> >> toilets by controlling water pressure. The Maya site of Palenque in
> >> Chiapas had the most intricate water management in the ancient Maya
> >> world with elaborate subterranean aqueducts to deal with floods and
> >> erosion. The site was called "Lakamha" by the Maya meaning "big
> >> water." A steeply engineered aqueduct could have been used to power a
> >> large fountain and this was contructed at 750 CE.
>
> >> Live Science has the story here;
>
> >> A tiny URL;
> >>http://tinyurl.com/ydgdgrk
>
> >> Mike Ruggeri
>
> >> Mike Ruggeri's Maya Archaeology News and Links
> >>http://tinyurl.com/atpsd9
>
> > Can a city exist without a water system?
>
> Depends on what you mean by 'system'. Cities always require a
> source of water, but in the past (and in some places today)
> didn't provide water through a centralized,
> governmentally-maintained manner.
>
> Although cities of some minimum size would have had to have had
> some sort of method of getting clean water to their inhabitants,
> and probably some method of removing waste. (But think European
> cities of the early Middle Ages; sometimes the system is gravity
> and rain washing the literal crap from the streets.)
Water / Irrigation Systems
“'Sometime in the third millennium B.C., the Harappan civilization of
the Indus Valley built water systems that in many ways would rival and
surpass any other water system, except that of the Romans, until the
middle of the 19th century.' (Carter)"
David Christainsen
Peter Alaca
Maya > Harappa
You really have no clue.
Eric Stevens
I would be interested to see you justify your claim that 'Maya >
Harappa'. Upon what do you base your conclusion?
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
>>> the Indus Valley built water systems that in many ways would rival and
>>> surpass any other water system, except that of the Romans, until the
>>> middle of the 19th century.' (Carter)"
>>>
>>> David Christainsen
>> Maya > Harappa
>> You really have no clue.
> I would be interested to see you justify your claim that 'Maya >
> Harappa'. Upon what do you base your conclusion?
Yiu don't understand what I wrote
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
How about clarifying what it was that you intended?
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
>>>>> the Indus Valley built water systems that in many ways would rival and
>>>>> surpass any other water system, except that of the Romans, until the
>>>>> middle of the 19th century.' (Carter)"
>>>>>
>>>>> David Christainsen
>>>> Maya> Harappa
>>>> You really have no clue.
>>> I would be interested to see you justify your claim that 'Maya>
>>> Harappa'. Upon what do you base your conclusion?
>>
>> Yiu don't understand what I wrote
>
> How about clarifying what it was that you intended?
The Carl changed from Maya to Harappan.
Is that enough to get you on track?
Tom McDonald
I hate to do this, because David will take this as a personal
victory (which it is not); but he was replying to my post. I was
replying to SolomonW, who asked whether a city could exist
without a water system.
In that context, David's post is not OT or a change in topic, but
rather an example of an ancient city's water system. Actually, a
type of water system used in a number of Indus Valley
Civilization communities.
His link, however, was crap, and he showed no knowledge of how
the system worked.
Peter Alaca
>>>>>> the Indus Valley built water systems that in many ways would rival and
>>>>>> surpass any other water system, except that of the Romans, until the
>>>>>> middle of the 19th century.' (Carter)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Christainsen
>>>>> Maya> Harappa
>>>>> You really have no clue.
>>>> I would be interested to see you justify your claim that 'Maya>
>>>> Harappa'. Upon what do you base your conclusion?
>>> You don't understand what I wrote
>> How about clarifying what it was that you intended?
> I hate to do this, because David will take this as a personal
> victory (which it is not); but he was replying to my post. I was
> replying to SolomonW, who asked whether a city could exist
> without a water system.
>
> In that context, David's post is not OT or a change in topic, but
> rather an example of an ancient city's water system. Actually, a
> type of water system used in a number of Indus Valley
> Civilization communities.
Far away in space and time. And he changed the subject line.
Tom McDonald
That's not relevant.
> And he changed the subject line.
That is relevant, and to the point.
>> His link, however, was crap, and he showed no knowledge of how
>> the system worked.
>
>
SolomonW
This is silly, even today human waste is used as fertilizer.
SolomonW
> SolomonW wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:38:19 -0800 (PST), Mike R wrote:
>>
>>> Listeros,
>>>
>>> The Maya may have mastered running water, creating fountains and
>>> toilets by controlling water pressure. The Maya site of Palenque in
>>> Chiapas had the most intricate water management in the ancient Maya
>>> world with elaborate subterranean aqueducts to deal with floods and
>>> erosion. The site was called "Lakamha" by the Maya meaning "big
>>> water." A steeply engineered aqueduct could have been used to power a
>>> large fountain and this was contructed at 750 CE.
>>>
>>> Live Science has the story here;
>>> http://www.livescience.com/history/091223-mayan-water-pressure.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29
>>>
>>> A tiny URL;
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ydgdgrk
>>>
>>> Mike Ruggeri
>>>
>>> Mike Ruggeri's Maya Archaeology News and Links
>>> http://tinyurl.com/atpsd9
>>
>>
>> Can a city exist without a water system?
>
> Depends on what you mean by 'system'. Cities always require a
> source of water, but in the past (and in some places today)
> didn't provide water through a centralized,
> governmentally-maintained manner.
So to have a water system you do not need a centralized or
governmentally-maintained.
>
> Although cities of some minimum size would have had to have had
> some sort of method of getting clean water to their inhabitants,
> and probably some method of removing waste. (But think European
> cities of the early Middle Ages; sometimes the system is gravity
> and rain washing the literal crap from the streets.)
Some places it is a river flowing through the city that does both.
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
According to my news reader, this thread is about Harappan.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
Which he is entitled to do. The problem seems to stem from your
reluctance to acknowledge the change.
>
>
>> His link, however, was crap, and he showed no knowledge of how
>> the system worked.
>
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
In Thunderbird's thread view, the whole thread is under Mike
Ruggeri's "Maya water engineering discovery".
David changed the thread name to "Harappa - M.L. Anderson, 2009"
in his reply to my reply to SolomonW. So the sub-thread appears
to be about Harrapa and the Indus Valley Civilization's hydrolic
engineering. However, the link he gave appears to be to something
like a high school-level report on the IVC, with large swaths
snagged from Wikipedia without (AFAICT) attribution.
The link is also a species of the dreaded long-web-page,
link-less, funny-looking-font genus. It's about the IVC as a
whole, and you have to scroll though lots of crap to come to the
relevant bits. Which, as you may have surmised, were better done
even in Wikipedia.
So, probably a legitimate thread name change; but poorly executed
in terms of adding useful information. IOW, a DC special.
Peter Alaca
I have no problems with (occasionally) changing the subject line
for clarity, but David Christ's was only the fourth post in a
thread about Maya water engineering. Discussion hardly started and
certainly was not changed to water supply in Harappa at all.
He only stated by a quote that the Harappans had an advanced water-
supply system. If that had any relevance to the discussion, it is
not a good reason to change the subject line from Maya to Harappa.
But you know how he is, it was an opportunity to ride one of his
hobbyhorses again. No clue required to ride ones hobbyhorse.
Jack Linthicum
> Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> 27/12/2009 15:59 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:18:30 +0100, Peter Alaca
>
> >>> Eric Stevens<eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> 26/12/2009 23:09 wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:33:08 +0100, Peter Alaca
>
> >>>>> Eric Stevens<eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> 25/12/2009 23:23 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:52:20 +0100, Peter Alaca
>
> >>>>>>>> “'Sometime in the third millennium B.C., the Harappan civilization of
Carl has "New Information", something that no one else has, because he
is the teacher and you are the students. But he can't read the
syllabus for content.
crunch
wrote:
Not my name; my name is David Christainsen.
Further, the tone of your message is bunk of the purest
kind.
Further, as Eric Stevens says, I am entitled to change
the subject line.
Further, here in your message, you have nothing to
say about the water supply at Harappa.
Bottom line -
do you challenge that the Harappa system was advanced?
David Christainsen
Peter Alaca
The subject of this thread is "Maya water engineering discovery"
Nothing to do with Harappa.
>
> Further, the tone of your message is bunk of the purest
> kind.
The subject of this thread is "Maya water engineering discovery"
Nothing to do with Harappa.
>
> Further, as Eric Stevens says, I am entitled to change
> the subject line.
The subject of this thread is "Maya water engineering discovery"
Nothing to do with Harappa.
> Further, here in your message, you have nothing to
> say about the water supply at Harappa.
The subject of this thread is "Maya water engineering discovery"
Nothing to do with Harappa.
>
> Bottom line -
The subject of this thread is "Maya water engineering discovery"
Nothing to do with Harappa.
>
> do you challenge that the Harappa system was advanced?
The subject of this thread is "Maya water engineering discovery"
Nothing to do with Harappa.
>
> David Christainsen
>
The subject of this thread is "Maya water engineering discovery"
Nothing to do with Harappa.
crunch
>
> - Show quoted text -
You speak only for yourself and everybody knows
you go off the deep end in your interactions with me.
So, since you DID NOT change the subject line, I
will answer my own question, posed to Jack, by saying
that the Harappa system was indeed advanced.
Peter Alaca
So what? The subject of this thread is "Maya water engineeringy"
Tom McDonald
This is not news to archaeologists or those who know even a
little archaeology.
So your comment is true but trivial.
I could also say that the trilithons at Stonehenge are large.
True, but trivial.
Eric Stevens
That's strange. I normally use Agent as a news reader but I do have
Thunderbird.
I called up sci.archaeology in Thunderbird and found that Thunderbird
identifies a unique and distinct thread "Re: Harappa - M.L. Anderson,
2009". Further when expanded, the articles comprising this thread is
under the title "Re: Harappa - M.L. Anderson, 2009". That is,
Thunderbird thinks the title has been changed also. I don't know why
Peter Alaca is not willing to bring himself to acknowledge that fact.
It may be that there is an option in Thunderbird to not start a new
thread when the subject title changes (I know Agent has this ability)
but that is a deliberate choice by the user. If this is what is
troubling Peter Alaca then he is the victim of his deliberate choices
on setup.
>
>David changed the thread name to "Harappa - M.L. Anderson, 2009"
>in his reply to my reply to SolomonW. So the sub-thread appears
>to be about Harrapa and the Indus Valley Civilization's hydrolic
>engineering. However, the link he gave appears to be to something
>like a high school-level report on the IVC, with large swaths
>snagged from Wikipedia without (AFAICT) attribution.
>
>The link is also a species of the dreaded long-web-page,
>link-less, funny-looking-font genus. It's about the IVC as a
>whole, and you have to scroll though lots of crap to come to the
>relevant bits. Which, as you may have surmised, were better done
>even in Wikipedia.
>
>So, probably a legitimate thread name change; but poorly executed
>in terms of adding useful information. IOW, a DC special.
Quite true but all of this has grown out of my query re Peter Alaca's
cryptic line 'Maya > Harrapa'. It now seems he may have used '>' as
'not equal'. I initially took it to mean 'greater than' which is why I
questioned it in the first place. Peter does not seem to have
understood what he wrote. Nor has he been capable of explaining it.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
That happens when you click on the 'Subject' bar.
However, if you click on the 'Click to display message thread'
(you may have to activate this column from the little gear-icon
'Click to select columns to display'), Thunderbird shows the
thread from its beginning, including any subject name changes the
thread has undergone.
I notice that it takes a little while for the whole thread view
to display when I click the 'Click to display message thread'
icon. If you try it, be patient.
David did change the subject line without retaining the original
subject line parenthetically (as in '(Was: . . .). Whilst that
does make it look like a new thread, Thunderbird makes it clear
that that wasn't the case.
Plus, of course, the M.L. Anderson, 2009 link was obviously crap,
and unworthy of a subject line change.
<snip>
Peter Alaca
I think you are the victim of misunderstanding. In my Thunderbird
the subjectline is changed without breaking the thread, as is the
case in any other newsreader I use.
Parts of a thread are not connected by the title, but by the number,
regardless of the title.
And does the fact that the "Harrappa" thread you see starts with
"Re:" tells you nothing?
In the thread "Maya water engineering discovery" Google says
at the appearance of Carl in the thread: "Discussion subject changed
to "Harappa - M.L. Anderson, 2009" by crunch"
Note that the discussion was not about Harappa, nor about one
Mr Anderson. All that changed was the subjectline. Unjustified.
So, try again to tell I am wrong.
>> David changed the thread name to "Harappa - M.L. Anderson, 2009"
>> in his reply to my reply to SolomonW. So the sub-thread appears
>> to be about Harrapa and the Indus Valley Civilization's hydrolic
>> engineering. However, the link he gave appears to be to something
>> like a high school-level report on the IVC, with large swaths
>> snagged from Wikipedia without (AFAICT) attribution.
>>
>> The link is also a species of the dreaded long-web-page,
>> link-less, funny-looking-font genus. It's about the IVC as a
>> whole, and you have to scroll though lots of crap to come to the
>> relevant bits. Which, as you may have surmised, were better done
>> even in Wikipedia.
>>
>> So, probably a legitimate thread name change; but poorly executed
>> in terms of adding useful information. IOW, a DC special.
>
> Quite true but all of this has grown out of my query re Peter Alaca's
> cryptic line 'Maya> Harrapa'. It now seems he may have used '>' as
> 'not equal'. I initially took it to mean 'greater than' which is why I
> questioned it in the first place.
It is supposed to mean 'from Maya to Harappa'
> Peter does not seem to have
> understood what he wrote. Nor has he been capable of explaining it.
I am afraid you are unwilling or not capable to understand.
Peter Alaca
I read my messages in Thunderbird sorted by 'Order received'-
'Ascending' - 'Threaded' (Set under 'View' > 'Sort by')
>
> David did change the subject line without retaining the original
> subject line parenthetically (as in '(Was: . . .). Whilst that
> does make it look like a new thread, Thunderbird makes it clear
> that that wasn't the case.
As indicates the 'Re'
Tom McDonald
> Tom McDonald <tmcdon...@charter.net> 27/12/2009 23:14 wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
<snip>
>>> I called up sci.archaeology in Thunderbird and found that Thunderbird
>>> identifies a unique and distinct thread "Re: Harappa - M.L. Anderson,
>>> 2009". Further when expanded, the articles comprising this thread is
>>> under the title "Re: Harappa - M.L. Anderson, 2009". That is,
>>> Thunderbird thinks the title has been changed also. I don't know why
>>> Peter Alaca is not willing to bring himself to acknowledge that fact.
>>
>> That happens when you click on the 'Subject' bar.
>>
>> However, if you click on the 'Click to display message thread'
>> (you may have to activate this column from the little gear-icon
>> 'Click to select columns to display'), Thunderbird shows the
>> thread from its beginning, including any subject name changes the
>> thread has undergone.
>>
>> I notice that it takes a little while for the whole thread view
>> to display when I click the 'Click to display message thread'
>> icon. If you try it, be patient.
>
> I read my messages in Thunderbird sorted by 'Order received'-
> 'Ascending' - 'Threaded' (Set under 'View' > 'Sort by')
Just tried that. I guess I'm too old to change my ways that
radically. :-) It gave me fits trying to find my place.
>> David did change the subject line without retaining the original
>> subject line parenthetically (as in '(Was: . . .). Whilst that
>> does make it look like a new thread, Thunderbird makes it clear
>> that that wasn't the case.
>
> As indicates the 'Re'
There is no 'Re' in the subject line of David's first post that
changed the subject line, even in thread view. If it reads that
way in your Thunderbird iteration, you are not seeing the thread
the way I am. In that case, you and Eric may be, to a certain
extent, talking past each other.
>> Plus, of course, the M.L. Anderson, 2009 link was obviously crap,
>> and unworthy of a subject line change.
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
>
Peter Alaca
Im am sorry. You are right. He even removed that.
> In that case, you and Eric may be, to a certain
> extent, talking past each other.
That was clear from the beginning. And I am afraid
it will never change.
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
Not in my version of Thunderbird which I think is the latest. I have
not varied the configuration of Thunderbird from the standard so if
you and Peter are seeing something else it is because of the
alternative configuration which you have chosen.
>
>Plus, of course, the M.L. Anderson, 2009 link was obviously crap,
>and unworthy of a subject line change.
That may or may not be true but I'm still looking for a justification
or even an explanation of Peter Alaca's writing of 'Maya > Harrapan'.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
Then you should be well aware of the fact that are a number of
different ways of organising messages in Thunderbird. You should not
try to compel everyone to organise them the way you do.
>
>>
>> David did change the subject line without retaining the original
>> subject line parenthetically (as in '(Was: . . .). Whilst that
>> does make it look like a new thread, Thunderbird makes it clear
>> that that wasn't the case.
>
>As indicates the 'Re'
The use of 'Re' is a newsgroup convention which means that, in this
case, there was an initial message titled "Harappa - M.L. Anderson,
2009". It is only succeeding messages that are titled "Re: Harappa -
M.L. Anderson, 2009".
I again ask, what exactly did you mean by writing "Maya > Harappa"?
>
>> Plus, of course, the M.L. Anderson, 2009 link was obviously crap,
>> and unworthy of a subject line change.
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
As a long time user of Usenet, I am well aware of the different ways
of organising threads. I'm not trying to impose my way on Peter Alaca
but I do wish that he would recognise that he is trying to impose his
way on everyone else.
>
>>> Plus, of course, the M.L. Anderson, 2009 link was obviously crap,
>>> and unworthy of a subject line change.
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>
>>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
That's how you start a new thread.
>
>
> > In that case, you and Eric may be, to a certain
>> extent, talking past each other.
>
>
>That was clear from the beginning. And I am afraid
>it will never change.
It might help if you develop the capability of analysing what is going
on and explaining what it is you are doing.
What did you mean by "Maya > Harrapa"?
>
>
>>>> Plus, of course, the M.L. Anderson, 2009 link was obviously crap,
>>>> and unworthy of a subject line change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
Huh??? Are you mad?
Peter Alaca
Why not just read what I wrote?
> What did you mean by "Maya> Harrapa"?
Why not just read what I wrote?
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
The Usenet woprld is not constructed entirely around your choice of
news readers.
>Parts of a thread are not connected by the title, but by the number,
>regardless of the title.
That's an option which Usenet allows you to select or reject.
>And does the fact that the "Harrappa" thread you see starts with
>"Re:" tells you nothing?
It doesn't. The first article is titled "Harappa - M.L. Anderson,
2009"
>
>In the thread "Maya water engineering discovery" Google says
>at the appearance of Carl in the thread: "Discussion subject changed
>to "Harappa - M.L. Anderson, 2009" by crunch"
>Note that the discussion was not about Harappa, nor about one
>Mr Anderson. All that changed was the subjectline. Unjustified.
You are welcome to think that, but that is what he did and he is
allowed to do so.
>
>So, try again to tell I am wrong.
You are wrong to insist there has not been a new thread created by the
change of subject. What did you mean by "Maya > Harrapa"?
>
>
>>> David changed the thread name to "Harappa - M.L. Anderson, 2009"
>>> in his reply to my reply to SolomonW. So the sub-thread appears
>>> to be about Harrapa and the Indus Valley Civilization's hydrolic
>>> engineering. However, the link he gave appears to be to something
>>> like a high school-level report on the IVC, with large swaths
>>> snagged from Wikipedia without (AFAICT) attribution.
>>>
>>> The link is also a species of the dreaded long-web-page,
>>> link-less, funny-looking-font genus. It's about the IVC as a
>>> whole, and you have to scroll though lots of crap to come to the
>>> relevant bits. Which, as you may have surmised, were better done
>>> even in Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> So, probably a legitimate thread name change; but poorly executed
>>> in terms of adding useful information. IOW, a DC special.
>>
>> Quite true but all of this has grown out of my query re Peter Alaca's
>> cryptic line 'Maya> Harrapa'. It now seems he may have used '>' as
>> 'not equal'. I initially took it to mean 'greater than' which is why I
>> questioned it in the first place.
>
>It is supposed to mean 'from Maya to Harappa'
You should be aware that '>' is commonly used to mean 'greater than'.
If you could not bring yourself to write 'to', the use of '=>' is an
acceptable alternative.
>
> > Peter does not seem to have
>> understood what he wrote. Nor has he been capable of explaining it.
>
>I am afraid you are unwilling or not capable to understand.
I can, now that you have, for the first time, explained what you were
trying to say.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
Is that why you started reading later posts first and replied
to them before you read this one? Do you try to impose an order
of reading on us?
I think there is something seriously wrong with you. Don't blame
others for it.
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
--- snip ----
>> It might help if you develop the capability of analysing what is going
>> on and explaining what it is you are doing.
>
>
>Why not just read what I wrote?
>
>> What did you mean by "Maya> Harrapa"?
>
>
>Why not just read what I wrote?
Read the time stamps. You will see that I did not get to your response
which actually explained your cryptic comment until after I (again
(and again (and again ... ))) asked you what you meant.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Not at all.
Its just that in this case I understand what you are doing better than
you seem to.
>
>>>
>>>>> Plus, of course, the M.L. Anderson, 2009 link was obviously crap,
>>>>> and unworthy of a subject line change.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Check the time stamps. I think you find that the order in which you
encounter my posts is determined by your threading and not the time at
which I read and responded to yours.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
Perhaps you can make a living out of that.
Am am doing nothing. Just reading. It is not my fault
that you do not understand things.
Don't blame others for your misunderstanding of threading
in usenet groups.
Peter Alaca
Check the content of your posts. Most of the content was superfluous
if you read this one first.
Now piss off and check your own behaviour and motivations.
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 28/12/2009 23:44 wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:06:40 +0100, Peter Alaca
>> <p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I can, now that you have, for the first time, explained what you were
>>>> trying to say.
>>>
>>> Is that why you started reading later posts first and replied
>>> to them before you read this one? Do you try to impose an order
>>> of reading on us?
>>> I think there is something seriously wrong with you. Don't blame
>>> others for it.
>>
>> Check the time stamps. I think you find that the order in which you
>> encounter my posts is determined by your threading and not the time at
>> which I read and responded to yours.
>
>Check the content of your posts. Most of the content was superfluous
>if you read this one first.
Time machine?
>Now piss off and check your own behaviour and motivations.
Eric Stevens
crunch
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:49:57 +0100, Peter Alaca
>
>
>
>
>
> >EricStevens<eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> 28/12/2009 23:40 wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:47:30 +0100, Peter Alaca
>
> >>> EricStevens<eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> 28/12/2009 09:43 wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:54:40 -0600, Tom McDonald
> >>>> <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Peter Alaca wrote:
> >>>>>>> EricStevenswrote:
I completely agree.
David Christainsen