Bad word. Very, very bad word...
JTEM
Over in another thread, in another group I used a
very bad word, and I'm going to use it again.
Now, keep in mind that I am speaking in an
archaeological context here:
We should do a lot of ocean dredging.
Now if anyone isn't shaking their head right now,
or spitting out a few nasty names at me, it's
because you probably don't understand the
issue. See, in archaeology the "context" is
everything. This is why looting and the black
market are so bad (in addition to the flood of
forgeries). If I had you a pot all you've got it a
pot, but if you dig up that same pot than you
have it associated with a certain depth in the
ground... a particular layer. You can search
that whole layer for other pieces of evidence,
you can search deeper (older) layers, shallower
(younger) layers.... the right piece of wood or
charcoal might help you to date the whole lot.
Other artifacts/debris could tell you if it came
from a temple, a palace, or a home... what
kind of home (rich or poor)... whether it was
made locally or came from trade....
Get it? I give you a pot and you just have a
pot, but if you find a pot in situ.... well... there's
a good chance that you've got a story to go with
that pot... some context.
Now here's the deal. If you're a "Global Warming"
believer than you've got to believe that as bad as
ocean dredging is from an archaeological stand
point, it's something we need to start looking at.
Why?
Under sea excavations are difficult, slow, dangerous
and major expensive. And because you believe in
global warming you believe that the sea levels are
only going to rise, that it's only going to get more
difficult, more slow, more dangerous and more
expensive. Which, in turn, means a lot less is going
to get done, and a lot fewer answers than we hoped
for are ever going to be found.
Humans like water. Most humans live close to a
major water source -- a river, lake or the ocean. It's
comfortable to say that this was not only true in
ancient times, but in prehistory.... perhaps pre
human.
As an example, the oldest known village with a human
dug well (intentionally dug for well water) lies about
400 meters off the coast of Israel, and dates to about
6,000 B.C. The dating places it thousands of years
AFTER the ice age ended and the ocean levels began
to rise.
Ocean levels were lower for much of pre-history, and if
we want a glimpse at any of that pre-history we've got
to get it while the getting is good -- unless you want to
discount global warming.
It's bad science, I'm not saying it isn't, it's far from a
best-case scenario. But unless you want to change
your mind about global warming it's pretty much the
only scenario for a majority of potential sites.
What good would it do?
Think of it as a really big "Test Pit."
We could search likely paths, now under water, for
our ancestor's "Out of Africa" trek. If & when we
found evidence for dry land (who knows, maybe even
the remains of an ancestor) we could go back with
a proper excavation. We could map old coast lines,
there by identifying where to look for early boating
technology... fishing.... trade.
Maybe it's time we bit the bullet and just did it.
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
John Harshman
> Over in another thread, in another group I used a
> very bad word, and I'm going to use it again.
>
> Now, keep in mind that I am speaking in an
> archaeological context here:
>
> We should do a lot of ocean dredging.
Don't see it. You're talking about sites currently under at most a
hundred meters or so of water, right? Worst case, they end up under
another hundred meters of water. What significant difference could that
make? Especially one that could cause us to destroy valuable information
in order to get a few artifacts?
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Don't see it.
That would be the default to such a suggestion.
> You're talking about sites currently under
> at most a hundred meters or so of water, right?
Right.
> Worst case, they end up under another hundred
> meters of water.
That first 100 meters has been enough to keep us
from excavating almost everything. If I said that
we've dug even 1% of these potential underwater
sites I'd be exaggerating.
(most undersea "archaeology" is looking for
"sunken treasure," not anything that would
ordinarily be under the ground)
> What significant difference could that
> make?
So your question would be: Why would doubling
an extremely effective barrier to archaeology
be a hindrance to archaeology?
> Especially one that could cause us to
> destroy valuable information
> in order to get a few artifacts?
It's information we've effectively never gotten,
and never will get. But with dredging we could
easily dig enormous "test pits," falsify a
number of theories and/or give us a powerful
incentive to revisit a spot with a proper
excavation.
It's an admittedly horrible solution, but it is
the only workable solution we'd likely to see.
I'm arguing that, given the vast areas we're
talking about, the enormous expense of a proper
exploration and the likelihood that anything
other than the rarest spots will ever get looked
at, the potential gain outweighs the rather
obvious bad.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't see it.
>
> That would be the default to such a suggestion.
It might also be right. At least you should consider the possibility.
>> You're talking about sites currently under
>> at most a hundred meters or so of water, right?
>
> Right.
>
>> Worst case, they end up under another hundred
>> meters of water.
>
> That first 100 meters has been enough to keep us
> from excavating almost everything. If I said that
> we've dug even 1% of these potential underwater
> sites I'd be exaggerating.
>
> (most undersea "archaeology" is looking for
> "sunken treasure," not anything that would
> ordinarily be under the ground)
>
>
>> What significant difference could that
>> make?
>
> So your question would be: Why would doubling
> an extremely effective barrier to archaeology
> be a hindrance to archaeology?
Yes. It seems to me that the first few meters are what makes it
difficult. The next threshold of difficulty wouldn't come until
considerably greater depth. We certainly aren't talking about a
difficulty scale that's linear with depth.
>> Especially one that could cause us to
>> destroy valuable information
>> in order to get a few artifacts?
>
> It's information we've effectively never gotten,
> and never will get.
Not clear. Anyway, if that's true, global warming is irrelevant. If we
can't deal with 100 meters, why worry about increasing that depth?
> But with dredging we could
> easily dig enormous "test pits," falsify a
> number of theories and/or give us a powerful
> incentive to revisit a spot with a proper
> excavation.
>
> It's an admittedly horrible solution, but it is
> the only workable solution we'd likely to see.
>
> I'm arguing that, given the vast areas we're
> talking about, the enormous expense of a proper
> exploration and the likelihood that anything
> other than the rarest spots will ever get looked
> at, the potential gain outweighs the rather
> obvious bad.
Could be. But I see two problems: 1) it assumes that technology will not
improve and 2) there seems to be no logical implication of a need to
hurry; the sites aren't going anywhere, even with global warming. If
anything, sea level rise would argue for accelerated investigation of
sites that are not yet under water, but that could be inundated soon.
Tom McDonald
I think you're right, John. There is no fire, no need to do radical,
destructive things to get partial, nearly useless information.
--
Tom
JTEM
Let's just skip to the important bits...
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> If we can't deal with 100 meters, why worry about
> increasing that depth?
The point of course is that it isn't cost effective
now, it certainly would get less so as depth increased.
And contrary to belief, risks such as the benz do
increase with depth.... require more equipment, more
people and/or more time.
> > I'm arguing that, given the vast areas we're
> > talking about, the enormous expense of a proper
> > exploration and the likelihood that anything
> > other than the rarest spots will ever get looked
> > at, the potential gain outweighs the rather
> > obvious bad.
> Could be. But I see two problems:
Just two? Ha!
> 1) it assumes that technology will not improve
It will have to just to maintain risk & cost at
it's present level....
> and 2) there seems to be no logical implication
> of a need to hurry;
Almost all we know of prehistory is based on a
map that never existed. Everything from the coast
line our earliest ancestors looked at to the route
they took out of Africa (or through the Mediterranean)
is unmapped, let alone explored.
> the sites aren't going anywhere,
And they haven't yielded any knowledge.
> If anything, sea level rise would argue for
> accelerated investigation of sites that are not
> yet under water, but that could be inundated soon.
In many ways that would be hurrying to explore
where we know the answers can't be found.
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> I think you're right, John. There is no fire,
Unless you believe in global warming. Then you
believe that the already nearly insurmountable
obstacle which is the ocean will be much more
or a barrier within a century.
> no need to do radical, destructive things to get
> partial, nearly useless information.
It's not very radical at all. In fact, most of
the world was working to such standards before
adopting the more conservative American standards.
Even today, in China, they still use dynamite...
You're modern, western views on science, instead
of looking at the science.
Secondly, if you had reading comprehension you
would have recognized that identifying exactly
where we can find material and where we can
not is intensely useful....
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/4294769618
> --
> Tom
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> I think you're right, John. There is no fire,
>
> Unless you believe in global warming. Then you
> believe that the already nearly insurmountable
> obstacle which is the ocean will be much more
> or a barrier within a century.
>
>> no need to do radical, destructive things to get
>> partial, nearly useless information.
>
> It's not very radical at all. In fact, most of
> the world was working to such standards before
> adopting the more conservative American standards.
> Even today, in China, they still use dynamite...
>
> You're modern, western views on science, instead
> of looking at the science.
>
> Secondly, if you had reading comprehension you
> would have recognized that identifying exactly
> where we can find material and where we can
> not is intensely useful....
I see. You were not serious. Good to know.
--
Tom
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> I see.
Oh, stop kidding yourself. You do not see. You
do not see at all.
We're not doing this now. The area is far too
large, the risks are far too great, the costs
are far too high and we would be working totally
blind. You believe it is going to get WORSE --
not better -- over the next century. That, instead
of the water getting any lower or easier to
surmount, it will only get DEEPER.
We could use dredging as a giant "test hole."
We can then say, "We have found no interesting
material in our sifting, nothing that suggest
this spot is worth all the time, trouble and
expense of genuine underwater archaeology." Or...
"We have found material that suggest that this
was dry land during the same period as man's
ancestor was supposed to be leaving Africa." Or...
The alternative is nothing. No knowledge. No
excavations.
Moron.
Mike Dworetsky
In fact, dredging has been very extensively used by archaeologists to study
the area known as the Dogger Banks in the North Sea, which was known to be a
dry land bridge until sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age. The
land was inhabited by people whose culture (judged from dredged artifacts)
was very similar to that of people of the time in present day France,
Belgium, Netherlands and England.
Look for references to "Doggerland", you may find more information.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
John Harshman
> Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> I think you're right, John. There is no fire,
>
> Unless you believe in global warming. Then you
> believe that the already nearly insurmountable
> obstacle which is the ocean will be much more
> or a barrier within a century.
Why "much more"? What, effectively, is the difference between, say, 100
meters of water and 200 meters?
Free Lunch
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Thousands of square miles of flooding?
Tom McDonald
Please get help. You're going off the deep end (no pun intended).
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
places rather than 100 meter deep off-shore locations. If for no other
reason than the money available for archaeological survey would be much
better spent that way.
--
Tom
JTEM
"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> In fact, dredging has been very extensively used by
> archaeologists to study the area known as the Dogger
> Banks in the North Sea, which was known to be a dry
> land bridge until sea levels rose at the end of the
> last ice age.
Wow, I always knew that the Europeans were far (far, FAR)
less conservative in their approach towards antiquities
than the American school, but I had no idea...
> Look for references to "Doggerland", you may find
> more information.
I just did, and then I added "dredging"... wow.
Now I would think that if you've already identified a
place as archaeologically significant, you wouldn't
want to do the dredging (for the reasons people have
raised here).
But, wow....
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> Please get help. You're going off
Did you read Mike Dworesky's post? The one
talking about Doggerland and dredging?
I hope you like the taste of crow...
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> Which would argue for
I'll explain it, and you still won't get it...
Homo habilis. Not I'm not saying it's a fact,
but there are many who argue that the famous
"Hobbit" -- Homo floresiensis -- is a direct
ancestor of Homo habilis. That, going by
morphology (which is pretty much all they ever
go by), Homo floresiensis appears more like
Homo habilis than more recent ancestors...
If this is true -- "If" -- or if there's any
truth at all to "Aquatic Ape," or even if we
just want to get Homo out of southeast Africa
without passing through north Africa (as
Anthropologists seem to always want to do)
then the route they took (this prehistoric
Homo Highway) is underwater. And I'm sorry,
but you can't have them on beaches AT LEAST
from southeast Africa all the way to the
Arabian peninsular without them exploiting
the ocean... adapting to the ocean.
HINT: They wouldn't have been on a pilgrimage
to Mecca, they weren't following the Yellow
Brick Road, and they weren't in search of the
promised land. If they were following the
coast (which nearly every theory requires)
they had to be living off that coast, which
means that a huge portion of human evolution
(perhaps the most significant portion) has
never been studied.
....and if all we ever learned from
such a study -- from dredging -- is the
routes they took (and one presumes the
"when" as these routes weren't always
available), that would be a whole lot more
than we know now.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Why "much more"? What, effectively, is the
> difference between, say, 100 meters of water
> and 200 meters?
You are aware of the connection between ocean
pressure and depth, right?
But the point you're missing is we already
don't excavate. That 100 meters is already
"Too Deep," and yet you're claiming that
there's no reason to believe that we won't
be able to do it safely & economically at
200 meters. But there is. There's a great
reason to believe we won't be able to: We
can't do it at half that depth!
You're not arguing you're obfuscating.
Mike Dworetsky
As I recall, the original idea for doing this came from trawlers who would
occasionally bring up artifacts or skeletal remains in their nets.
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> Now here's the deal. If you're a "Global Warming" believer than you've
> got to believe that as bad as ocean dredging is from an archaeological
> stand point, it's something we need to start looking at.
>
> Why?
>
> Under sea excavations are difficult, slow, dangerous and major
> expensive. And because you believe in global warming you believe that
> the sea levels are only going to rise, that it's only going to get more
> difficult, more slow, more dangerous and more expensive. Which, in turn,
> means a lot less is going to get done, and a lot fewer answers than we
> hoped for are ever going to be found.
> [...]
Seems to me you have just made a case that the top priority in archeology
should go to proper excavations of site currently near sea level, before
they too go under water.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Please get help. You're going off
>
> Did you read Mike Dworesky's post? The one
> talking about Doggerland and dredging?
Yes, I've known about that for quite a while. AFAIK, it hasn't been done as
part of a scientific investigation, but rather by fisherfolk whose
environmentally-unfriendly practice of deep trawling has sometimes brought
up stuff of archaeological value.
You don't seem to consider the environmental damage as much of a reason not
to do this on a larger scale, and one that would be sanctioned by
universities and other institutions that should know better.
I stand by my position. And I don't understand yours--unless you think
getting to the suspected good stuff by destroying the unsuspected good stuff
is good practice. Though you might.
> I hope you like the taste of crow...
Tastes like bald eagle.
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Which would argue for
>
> I'll explain it, and you still
will think you need professional help.
<snip>
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
>
> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Why "much more"? What, effectively, is the
>> difference between, say, 100 meters of water
>> and 200 meters?
>
> You are aware of the connection between ocean
> pressure and depth, right?
>
> But the point you're missing is we already
> don't excavate. That 100 meters is already
> "Too Deep," and yet you're claiming that
> there's no reason to believe that we won't
> 200 meters. But there is. There's a great
> reason to believe we won't be able to: We
> can't do it at half that depth!
You're betting that we can never do it at the deeper depths. That's a very
bad bet, and it involves making future underwater archaeologists cry.
> You're not arguing you're obfuscating.
You're one to talk!
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
and destructive exercise and, given the conservatism of (at least) the
British archaeological system these days, at best an outlier in the
armamentarium of present-day archaeologists.
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 16:17:56 -0700, JTEM wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Now here's the deal. If you're a "Global Warming" believer than you've
>> got to believe that as bad as ocean dredging is from an archaeological
>> stand point, it's something we need to start looking at.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Under sea excavations are difficult, slow, dangerous and major
>> expensive. And because you believe in global warming you believe that
>> the sea levels are only going to rise, that it's only going to get more
>> difficult, more slow, more dangerous and more expensive. Which, in turn,
>> means a lot less is going to get done, and a lot fewer answers than we
>> hoped for are ever going to be found.
>> [...]
>
> Seems to me you have just made a case that the top priority in archeology
> should go to proper excavations of site currently near sea level, before
> they too go under water.
>
--
Tom
Mike Dworetsky
The trawlers are fishing vessels, not archaeological survey ships. Once
there was incidental evidence of something interesting, the archaeologists
did some cores of the seabed and once in a while they brought up fragments
consistent with ancient humans, such as bone tools, burial remains, and
suchlike.
Tom McDonald
archaeological technique of coring suspected sites based on, essentially,
amateurs doing 'surface collecting'.
--
Tom
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Why "much more"? What, effectively, is the
>> difference between, say, 100 meters of water
>> and 200 meters?
>
> You are aware of the connection between ocean
> pressure and depth, right?
>
> But the point you're missing is we already
> don't excavate. That 100 meters is already
> "Too Deep,"
So why did you bring up global warming at all? If that's true, what
you're looking for is as inaccessible now as it would be in 100 years.
> and yet you're claiming that
> there's no reason to believe that we won't
> be able to do it safely & economically at
> 200 meters.
I'm saying that there's no reason to believe that global warming will
make currently accessible underwater sites inaccessible. Since you claim
they're already inaccessible, you would seem to agree. And I also claim
that advancing technology will probably improve our ability to do a
great many things.
> But there is. There's a great
> reason to believe we won't be able to: We
> can't do it at half that depth!
So what's the point about global warming? Instead you should be making a
completely different argument: we'll never be able to do proper studies
no matter what, so dredging is the best we can ever do.
> You're not arguing you're obfuscating.
You seem to be obscuring your real argument behind a pointless focus on
global warming. Why?
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> Yes, I've known about that for quite a while.
So you knew for a fact that everything you said
was a enormous, wet, stinking turd...
To be honest, knew you were squeezing it out, too.
JTEM
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Seems to me you have just made a case that the top
> priority in archeology should go to proper
> excavations of site currently near sea level, before
> they too go under water.
I don't know why it would seem that way to you.
Right now everything we think we know about
anthropology is based on a whopping huge selection
bias. We don't necessarily dig in the places that
best typified their environment. We dig where it's
convenient for us today.
You say it sounds to you like I'm calling for more
of the same. I'm not. I'm saying that we need to
address this selection bias, and we've got to do it
now -- ACCORDING TO YOU PEOPLE -- because things
are only going to get a lot worse over the next
century.
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> You're betting
I'm not betting anything. And I can't make you think.
Here's what a 100 meter rise would mean to northern
Europe today:
http://vrstudio.buffalo.edu/~depape/warming/europeCloseup.jpg
Look at everything we're losing. It's the equivalent
to THAT which is missing from anthropology RIGHT NOW.
And it's even WORSE than the map implies.
How?
If I excavated the U.K. after such a rise in sea
level I would likely find reference to the missing
areas and their importance. So I'd likely know that
London existed, that it was the largest city on the
island, that it went back thousands of years and
was the national capital.... blah, blah, blah & blah.
We don't have this kind of information for pre-history
and there's no way of ever getting it. The only way
we can ever gleem a site's importance is by actually
digging it. So, __All__ of the prehistoric
equivalents to London, Paris, THE ENTIRE FREAKING
COUNTRY OF HOLLAND are gone and have left us no
clues to their existence.
AND NOBODY IS LOOKING FOR THEM. Nobody.
Now, according to most everybody here, all the things
that keep us from looking for them are going to get
worse -- not better -- over the next century. The
disincentive to excavating is going to grow. Clearly
that means if we are learn of our past we have to
act, and act quickly. And that means using methods
which aren't perfect, which we'd never ordinarily
use, but we have no choice now because the alternative
is literally NOTHING.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> So why did you bring up global warming at all?
Honestly? It's a mystery to you? Sheesh!
> If that's true,
If what YOU SAY is true...
> what you're looking for is as inaccessible now
> as it would be in 100 years.
No. It will be even less accessible in 100 years,
according to you.
So we can't employ the best methods because of
the time & costs.... things are only going to
grow worse the longer we wait... yup, now's the
time to take some risks.
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I've known about that for quite a while.
>
> So you knew for a fact that everything you said
> was a enormous, wet, stinking turd...
>
> To be honest, knew you were squeezing it out, too.
You wouldn't know honesty if it introduced itself to you under oath.
I knew about the activity; I didn't say I supported it.
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
You may be talking about paleoanthropology, where much of the work is
salvage, walking outcroppings of likely hominid locales and seeing what is
eroded out on the surface.
Archaeology does take into account paleoenvironemntal issues. I've done
archie survey, and know that you have to have an eye for the environment of
long ago, not today's environment.
Get your disciplines straight. Your thinking is at best idiosyncratic and
mis-applied.
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
>
> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> So why did you bring up global warming at all?
>
> Honestly? It's a mystery to you? Sheesh!
>
>> If that's true,
>
> If what YOU SAY is true...
>
>> what you're looking for is as inaccessible now
>> as it would be in 100 years.
>
> No. It will be even less accessible in 100 years,
> according to you.
>
> So we can't employ the best methods because of
> grow worse the longer we wait... yup, now's the
> time to take some risks.
>
>
>
of the time and money available would be in doing just what John
suggested--survey and dig near current sea level. Anything under the sea
that still exists from long ago will be not much more difficult to reach in
a few decades, or even a few centuries; while the currently low-lying areas
above sea level will be flooded and that much harder to get at.
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> You're betting
>
> I'm not betting anything. And I can't make you think.
>
> Here's what a 100 meter rise would mean to northern
> Europe today:
>
> http://vrstudio.buffalo.edu/~depape/warming/europeCloseup.jpg
>
> Look at everything we're losing. It's the equivalent
> to THAT which is missing from anthropology RIGHT NOW.
> And it's even WORSE than the map implies.
>
> How?
>
> If I excavated the U.K. after such a rise in sea
> level I would likely find reference to the missing
> areas and their importance. So I'd likely know that
> London existed, that it was the largest city on the
> island, that it went back thousands of years and
>
> We don't have this kind of information for pre-history
> and there's no way of ever getting it. The only way
> we can ever gleem a site's importance is by actually
> digging it. So, __All__ of the prehistoric
> equivalents to London, Paris, THE ENTIRE FREAKING
> COUNTRY OF HOLLAND are gone and have left us no
> clues to their existence.
>
> AND NOBODY IS LOOKING FOR THEM. Nobody.
>
> Now, according to most everybody here, all the things
> that keep us from looking for them are going to get
> worse -- not better -- over the next century. The
> disincentive to excavating is going to grow. Clearly
> that means if we are learn of our past we have to
> act, and act quickly. And that means using methods
> which aren't perfect, which we'd never ordinarily
> use, but we have no choice now because the alternative
> is literally NOTHING.
You would create a desert and call it archaeology.
Oh, and why not have you and Paul Crowley and Denk make a club to actually
study what you are claiming to know so much about, but really, really don't.
--
Tom
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On 5/21/2011 9:53 AM, JTEM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> Why "much more"? What, effectively, is the
> >> difference between, say, 100 meters of water
> >> and 200 meters?
>
> > You are aware of the connection between ocean
> > pressure and depth, right?
>
> > But the point you're missing is we already
> > don't excavate. That 100 meters is already
> > "Too Deep," and yet you're claiming that
> > there's no reason to believe that we won't
> > 200 meters. But there is. There's a great
> > reason to believe we won't be able to: We
> > can't do it at half that depth!
>
> You're betting that we can never do it at the deeper depths. That's a very
> bad bet, and it involves making future underwater archaeologists cry.
What about the deep-sea hydrothermal vents?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Black_smoker#Black_smokers_and_white_smokers>
Mark Isaak
Okay. That's a decent basis for an argument. Perhaps you should write a
post expanding on it.
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> You would create a desert and call it archaeology.
The word I used was anthropology, but so much
for reading comprehension...
> Oh, and why not have you
You've been emotionally derailed by this topic.
You;re not even capable of seeing the words
("anthropology," for example), let alone address
anything I've said.
I love this. I reduced you to a blubbering, emotional
mass, and all I did was point out some rather obvious
facts. Man, you're unhinged....
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> Even if
I'll make a deal with you, you emotional basket
case. If you respond to the things I've actually
said point by point -- instead of what your
jerking knee keeps inventing -- I will attempt a
serious conversation with you.
Until then, you're nothing more than a deeply
disturbed idiot who has yet to accurately
paraphrase any of my words, let alone my
position.
Idiot.
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> You may be talking about
I've tried to explain. I didn't draw you pictures
but I provided you with a map demonstrating the
issue in a way that should have been clear to you.
It didn't work.
I don't see why I should consider you as anything
other than an emotionally disturbed crack up who
can't handle ideas that seem new to him (even when
his own ideas are at least partly based on them).
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> You may be talking about
>
> I've tried
everyone's patience to the extreme. Quit while you're dead last.
<snip>
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Even if
>
> I'll make a deal with you,
No deal, you freaking nutjob. Even if you wanted to, your mental problems
would stop you dead on the first post.
ESAD. Please.
<snip>
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> You would create a desert and call it archaeology.
>
> The word I used was anthropology, but so much
> for reading comprehension...
You wrote "anthropology" but you described "archaeology". I, kindly, let
that pass.
>> Oh, and why not have you
>
> You've been emotionally derailed by this topic.
> You;re not even capable of seeing the words
> ("anthropology," for example), let alone address
> anything I've said.
Stop snipping without noting the fact and perhaps a conversation might
ensue. Although, given your mental problems, probably not.
> I love this. I reduced you to a blubbering, emotional
> mass, and all I did was point out some rather obvious
> facts. Man, you're unhinged....
That would be you.
--
Tom
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> everyone's patience
You're an idiot. You have nothing to offer, certainly
nothing of substance, absolutely nothing to add to
the discussion. Yet, you've already posted, what, 16
articles in this thread alone?
You clearly have a very powerful EMOTIONAL investment
in the topic. It's too bad you couldn't swap that out
for an intellectual effort...
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> You wrote "anthropology" but you
...meant anthropology.
I understand that autistic people fixate and that they
really have no control over these things. Enjoy.
JTEM
> Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> I'll
I now count 16 posts from you in this thread, not a
single one rising above ad hominem.
Nothing has changed. Our view of human evolution and
late pre-history are all akin to a history of the
United States that never even heard of a Boston, New
York City... Washington D.C.... Philadelphia... etc...
Nothing is going to change. In fact, you believe the
situation is going to get a lot worse. I've raised
the only solution that is both technically and
economically feesable and you in turn got upset and
had a tantrum.
JTEM
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> will think you need professional help.
Free Clue: If anyone sees what you were replying to,
let alone sees all your other 15 posts in this thread,
they are going to know you're a mental case.
But only because you are.
You are incapable of a serious, intelligent discourse.
For real.