Newsgroup sci.archaeology 51945

Directory

Saida wrote:
> 
> Brockstroh wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone-
> >
> > I'm looking for information on the Egyptian pyramids. I get conflicting > information from just about everyone, it seems. One book
> says they're > built by the Egyptians, another says there's no evidence
> to support that > (such as carvings, hieroglyphs, some vague references
> to "pyramid texts", > etc). Is there a definitive source I can go to
> that will give me objective > information on the Egyptian pyramids?
> Anything will be helpful. Thanks > everyone
> > Bryan
> 
> There are several good books on the pyramids.  To start with, read one
> by a man named Edwards.  He has the real dope.  As for those who claim
> the pyramids weren't built by the Egyptian--they ARE the dopes.
I really don't know who built the pyramids, but I wish you could, if you
know, familiarize me with one thing I heard about the pyramids of Giza.
Now, I heard that there was a large quantity of certain stone inside
(the hardest stone on Earth, if I'm not mistaken, but forgot the name)
that has been either cut or drilled, and that modern archaeologists an
scientists claim that with today's "advanced" technologies, we could not
reproduce the cuts on this stone that the pyramid builders had done
thousands of years ago.  And since we all know that there's no
archaeological proof that technology more advanced than the present
existed even a hundred years ago, how can you, or anybody, explain this?
I heard that perhaps people from the lost city of Atlantis, who,
according to Edgar Cayce, had an "advanced civilization," in fact built
the pyramids.  Since Atlantis apparantly plunged into the ocean, could
it be assumed that their technology disappeared with it, since the city
has never been recovered?  Or, another possibility (although very, very
seldom supported by archaeologists and scientists), another intelligent
life form from somewhere in the universe came with technology more
advanced than is today, built the pyramids and the sphinx, and then,
what, left?  Maybe THEY were the people of Atlantis, Atlantis was a
spaceship rather than a city, and it did just the opposite of sank--it
rose into the sky, took off, and the rest is history.  Hey, with all the
hard evidence pointing to this particular question about the cutting of
the stone, I guess anything is possible.

In a previous article, taf2@po.cwru.edu ("Todd A. Farmerie") says:
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:10:58 -0500
>Kaare Albert Lie wrote:
>> 
>> That's exactly the problem. This man seems to have been buried as
>> an honoured member of the native society. I find it difficult to
>> imagine what circumstances would have led to this, if he was just
>> a fisherman who passed by. If, as you say, the Indians came out
>> the worst of those early meetings, why should they want to bury
>> one of those troublesome strangers (and he can hardly have been
>> buried by his ship-mates) as one of their own chiefs?
>
>I am not familiar with the native society in the area at the time,
>but I do not think this is as unlikely as it sounds.  I can even 
>cite an analogous situation, although from much later.  
>
>In frontier North America in the mid to late 1700s, the Indians were
>often getting the worst of it.  However this didn't stop the occasional
>successful raid, and there are numerous reports of their lurking on the
>edge of settlement, and capturing anyone they could get.  The prisoners
>were usually forced to pass through some type of initiation (running the
>gauntlet, or the like).  At that point, they were given to a member of
>the tribe as a ward, and remained as such for years, until either
>escaping or being exchanged or ransomed.  Our sample here is imperfect,
>though, since in almost all cases, we rely on the memoirs of those who
>returned, while assuming that those who didn't died.  In a few cases,
>though, we know otherwise.  
>
>In one such case, a 1781 (I think) raid in Westmoreland Co., Pa. led to
>the capture of 9 year old Johann Peter Klingenschmidt, along with a
>brother and sister who quickly escaped.  Peter never left the tribe, and
>by 1812 was a warleader of the band in the Detroit area, and finally
>died in Canada as a respected chief.  
>
>I have seen other reports of similar "adoptions," which suggest that at
>least some of the native cultures were very willing to accept outsiders
>into their system.  Now when one considers that "sailor" in the context
>of a 16th century fishing vessel could be a boy as young as 8, (and that
>there were a lot less options for a captive in the 16th century than in
>the 18th - after all, where exactly would he escape to) and that we have
>an entire lifespan of contact prior to the Plymouth Colony, I do not
>find a scenario similar to that of Chief "Good Peter" Clingensmith out
>of the question.
>
>(I am not saying that I favor this interpretation, just that it should
>not be as rapidly dismissed.)
>
>Todd
     This is very good information.  Thank you.  One point that makes
a problem tho is the dress of fisherman wear.  A chief would be buried
in his honor dress (native).  A common warrior would not be so honored.
They might include old dress as important in the burial, but not what 
they would bury him in and since the clothes fit, he wasn't a captured
boy from a ship.  It would take substantial time to establish the title
of chief and any old clothes would not survive that length of time.
--
James Conway bb089@scn.org
Seattle Washington USA
Chronology:  http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/

Oh, and I forgot one other hint that the Phoenicians' word for themselves
was either Chanani or beni Cana'an:  the Greek geographers speak of places
called "Merchant's Bay" (or Cove or Cape) along the shores of Africa,
following the Phoenician and Carthaginian mariners who colonized the coast
of that continent.  I think there's a good case to be made for this being
a mix-up of "merchant" instead of "Phoenician":  in the Bible "Canaanite"
is used several times as a synonym for "merchant."  Thus when Strabo says
"Merchant's Bay" he may have mistaken a figurative use for the literal
"Canaanites' Bay."
vale 
Mike Skupin

Our famous friend opened many reasonable doors. But he also opened
several crazy doors - such as the easy to confirm fact that the
world did not rotate around the sun exactly in 360 days -- as his SIS
followers still love to insist.
One fact is Egyptians added five(5) days to their 360 day civil
calendar as early as Dynaster VI, well before the big 'collision'.
No there was not big collisions that altered the earth's daily rotation
or annual migration around the sun. Of course the SIS types love to
say there is no known Egyptian 365 1/4 day calendar to negate their 
'wild assumption' position.
On 12 Dec 1996, flores wrote:
> Posted the following elsewhere, but after a most kind invitation from Saida
> (shukraan zhazilaan), I'll post it here as well...
> 
> Some 30 years ago a number of books by IVelikovsky appeared: Ages In Chaos,
> Worlds in Collision, and a couple of others. He attempted to revive
> Catastrophism in geology and history (as opposed to the slow steady changes
> of Uniformitarianism). 
> 
> Can anyone characterize Velikovsky's impact? Did he have any? It seems to
> me that the meteorite explanation of the extinction of the dinosaurs, which
> is so popular now, may owe something to this man. 30 years ago such
> Catastrophismic (is that a word?) explanations would have been laughed out
> of geology schools.
> 
> He also made some comparison of the Pharaoh Akenaton with the Greek
> Oedipus, quite plausibly I think. On the other hand, his notions of Venus
> careening about the solar system like a billiard ball seem rather
> cock-eyed.
> 
Yes, the Middle Kingdom chronologies are off, may be as much as 400 years.
The particulars are in question.
> Comments?
> 
Milo Gardner

MV-ARCH has supplied multivariate software to archaeologists 
for the last eight years. MV-ARCH now offers you a service 
for the multivariate analysis of archaeological data. 
Have you longed for a cluster analysis of your pottery 
compositional data - but been too busy to learn the 
packages? Have you wanted a correspondence analysis of the 
frequencies of artefacts at your sites - but been unable to 
justify buying a package for this once off job? What about a 
seriation of your sites or a principal components analysis 
of your projectile measurements?
You send your data in spreadsheet form. MV-ARCH knocks it 
into shape, does the analysis, and sends you back camera-
ready dendrograms or scattergrams - with suggestions on how 
to interpret the results.
All this for $US95 per analysis for data of up to 100 cases.
For free advice, email richardw@jolt.mpx.com.au with a brief 
description of your data and what you want to know about it. 
We'll painlessly talk you through to a beautiful outcome!
*********************************************
Richard Wright, MV-ARCH, 72 Campbell St, Balmain, NSW 2041, 
Australia.
Phone and Fax +61 2 9818 1037
richardw@jolt.mpx.com.au
*********************************************

In article , Keith Grenville
 writes
>Sounds as if they've been trying to boost the already burgeoning tourist trade!!
The last time I looked, the tourist trade in Egypt was in dire straits,
because of the activities of fundamentalist terrorists, who are not
adverse to shooting up the odd tourist bus or boat in Middle Egypt.
The recommendation from UK authorities for the last couple of years has
been "stick to Alexandria/Cairo, Luxor and Aswan, and travel between
Cairo and Luxor by air".
They need all the help they can get.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir
        Were diu werlt alle min von deme mere unze an den Rijn
        des wolt ih mih darben,
        daz diu chunigen von Engellant lege an minen armen!

Whew!  After what I've just heard, am I ever glad I don't use
killfiles!
The rumor -- from pretty high up -- is that, beginning Jan. 1, 
anyone using a killfile will be assessed  $17.50 a month.
Even worse, I've been told that a person in a killfile must be
compensated $6.25 per week per news group for causing
 ``excruciating intellectual pain by such vile and unethical
behavior.''
Just to be on the safe side, I'd like to repost my snail-mail
zip code: 17976.
                                                         --  Ed Conrad
P.S. Anyone have any idea which Jaguar dealership in Eastern
Pennsylvania will be the first to receive its shipment of 1997 models?

On 9 Dec 1996 03:51:09 GMT, ptimlin@lynx.dac.neu.edu (patrick timlin)
wrote:
>John Sanderson (101521.3471@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
>
>: Due to rapid growth in this lucrative market we require distributors
>[spam spam spam]
>
>: Please disregard this message if it has been posted to an incorrect
>: newsgroup, this message will NOT be posted again. 
>
>Please forward your complaints about this obvious spam to 
>postmaster@compuserve.com and abuse@compuserve.com
>
>The more people who write to CompuServe and complain the more likely they 
>are to do something about this guy.  Also, feel free to send your hate 
>mail directly to the poster as well!  :)
>
>Patrick Timlin    ptimlin@lynx.dac.neu.edu    ptimlin@adex.com
God forbid I defend spam, but this seems pretty harmless. Some of the
most interesting posters to the group slip in a advert, sometimes. ;->
Astronomy is a low-volume product (particularly here in UK) and many
of the products that make the hobby so easy now compared previously
have been developed by amateurs "on the side" .
Cheers
Nigel

"Rohinton Collins"  wrote to
sci.anthropology.paleo.
>This group is for palaeoanthropologists, or people interested in
>palaeoanthropology. It almost goes without saying that posters
> to this newsgroup should accept evolution as fact so that we
>can move on to more interesting subject matter.
My ticket is bought, my bags are packed and, if I listen closely
enough, I think I can even hear the traveling music.
Before I go, Roh, do you have any evidence -- ANY evidence
whatsoever -- that would encourage me to make the trip?
I mean, why should I -- why should we? -- take your word that
evolution is a fact. Last I looked, the pot was empty. And that
was just five minutes ago.

aballero@gte.net wrote:
> 
> Bill Oord wrote:
> >
> > In article <32B0B1EB.51C3@math.auckland.ac.nz>, king@math.auckland.ac.nz
> > says...
> > >
> > >The bridegroom has returned as the divine son of the White Goddess,
> > >to end the patriarchal era and bring in the immortal age.
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > Look, he is coming with the clouds, and EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM, even those
> > who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.
> > So shall it be! Amen.  Rev 1:7
> >
> > Lord Jesus come back quickly and put an end to this nonsense.
> >
> > Bill
> 
> Thank you Bill!  I was thinking of posting a reply to that junk until I
> saw yours.  You took the words right out of my mouth.
> 
> Your brother in Him, forever and ever and ever.......
> Ryan
> aballero@gte.net
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/EVLUTN2.htm
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/stblmngr.htm
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/yulenoel.htm

edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>mgallo@slonet.org (M. Gallo) wrote:
>>        I recently read an article by Robert Wright, 
>>http://www.slate.com/Earthling/96-11-27/Earthling.asp, where 
>>he unflinchingly attacked the reputation of Stephen Jay 
>>Gould.  He writes, "... basically, that Gould is a fraud. He 
>>has convinced the public that he is not merely a great writer, 
>>but a great theorist of evolution. Yet, among top-flight 
>>evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest -- not 
>>just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped 
>>the public's understanding of Darwinism."  
>>        Of course, Gould has been taken to task before by 
>>people such as Richard Dawkins, but is Wright going over the 
>>top here?  Gould, a Harvard professor and columnist for 
>>_Nature_, certainly seems respectable to a layman like me.  
>>How can I evaluate his stature in the scientific community?  
                                 ------------+-------------
I didn't know that Stephen Jay Gould had been ``taken to task"
by Richard Dawkins, whoever the hell HE is.
Sounds like another of those stuffed-shirt big-mouth know-it-all
egomaniacs with an alphabet-soup collection of letters behind
his name but who, if he ever had to stand on his own, wouldn't be able
to fight his way out of that proverbial paper bag.
Maybe Richard Dawkins -- I suppose a power-that-be -- would like
an opportunity to step into the ring with someone his own size for a
change.
He'll learn rather quickly that his nonsensical factless rhetoric
is going in one ear and quickly out the other, and that the only
concrete fact to emerge from what he has to say is that
his bullshit stinks.

mgallo@slonet.org (M. Gallo) wrote:
>        I recently read an article by Robert Wright, 
>http://www.slate.com/Earthling/96-11-27/Earthling.asp, where 
>he unflinchingly attacked the reputation of Stephen Jay 
>Gould.  He writes, "... basically, that Gould is a fraud. He 
>has convinced the public that he is not merely a great writer, 
>but a great theorist of evolution. Yet, among top-flight 
>evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest -- not 
>just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped 
>the public's understanding of Darwinism."  
>        Of course, Gould has been taken to task before by 
>people such as Richard Dawkins, but is Wright going over the 
>top here?  Gould, a Harvard professor and columnist for 
>_Nature_, certainly seems respectable to a layman like me.  
>How can I evaluate his stature in the scientific community?  
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~
You can simply ask Ed Conrad.
How DARE Robert Wright attack the reputation of Stephen Jay Gould,
such a fine upstanding scientist?
However, I have to frankly admit that, once upon a time, I also
THOUGHT Stephen Jay Gould was a horse's ass.
And I really thought Harvard University had the corner on horse's
asses because I knew of at least two: Gould and David Pilbeam,
anthropologist.
Then I saw Gould being interviewed -- on a number of occasions --
during that terrific 75-part baseball series by What's-His-Name.
I thought to myself, ``Hmmm, Stephen Jay Gould sounds human. Maybe he
*ISN'T* a horse's ass."
Then, over the past few days, I came to the conclusion that I indeed
was mistaken and came to the conclusion that Stephen Jay Gould isn't
really such a bad guy after all.
You see, someone in the news groups quoted him as saying
the evolution of man from inhuman primates is nothing more
than ``an adult's fairy tale."
Obviously, Stephen Jay Gould is perfectly right -- echoing what I've
been saying for a long, long time. But I never dreamed, being who he
is and where he is, he'd ever have the nerve to come out and flatly
say so -- and in quite those eloquent terms.
Naturally, this fully explains why Stephen Jay Gould is now the target
of criticism by his colleagues in the scientific establishment, even
though their harsh words are nothing more than sour grapes.
And it certainly explains why, at least in this particular case,
Robert Wright may not realize it but he's really Robert Wrong.

[article has not shown up on my main news server yet]
John A. Halloran wrote:
> 
> Elamite invaders only entered the southern Zagros in the late 4th millenium BC.
Not according to my sources, which do not mention any major
discontinuity or invasions during Susiana a-e (c. 5000 BC - 4000 BC) or
Susa A-D (c. 4000 BC - 2000 BC).
> Here is a quote from the 1997 Grolier encyclopedia on the origins of the Indus
> civilization.
> 
> "Because its script remains undeciphered, the Indus civilization is known only
> from archaeological evidence. Its origins traditionally were viewed as the
> result of the diffusion of farming and technology from more advanced cultures
> in Mesopotamia and on the Iranian plateau to Baluchistan and ultimately to the
> Indus Valley. Today this theory is seen as largely incorrect. Knowledge about
> early plant and animal domestication in lands east of the Iranian plateau is
> still obscure, but the results of excavations at the important site of
> Mehrgarh, at the foot of the Bolan Pass, indicate that large settlements may
> have existed as early as the 7th millennium BC."
You are right.  I had completely forgotten about the early dates for
Mehrgarh (6,000 BC according to my notes from this thread).
If knowledge about early plant and animal domestication in the area is
still obscure, the conclusion must remain, for the time being, that
wheat/barley and sheep/goat were domesticated in the Near East.
If this happened c. 8,000 BC in Palestine, Eastern Anatolia and the
Zagros, there is still ample time for early farmers/pastoralists to
reach Merhgarh by 6,000 BC.  
A curious parallel between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley/Punjab is
the apparent time gap between Neolithic techiques appearing on the hill
sides bordering on the river valley (Jarmo, Ganj Dareh Tepe, Ali Kosh;
Mehrgarh), and the actual colonization of the alluvial plain itself.
Agoraphobia?
> What language would you assign to Pakistan in the 7th millenium BC?
Neither Mesopotamia nor the Indus Valley seem to have been very popular
with the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations either.  Nothing can be
said about the languages spoken in the area prior to the colonization by
Neolithic farmers, except to note that the language isolate Burushaski
(neither Dravidian nor Indo-European) is still spoken up in the Kashmir
mountains.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal                     ~ ~
Amsterdam                   _____________  ~ ~
mcv@pi.net                 |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig

A question for those who doubt the Biblical Universal/Global flood.  Why is
it that the vast majority of ethnic groups have "mythological" stories
dealing with a  World Flood.  From the Polynesians, to the Maya, to the
Sumerian, to the New Guinean, etc.  Even the norse have a world flood
story.  They believed that it snowed for x amount of days, at that the
world was covered by ice.  This variations is probably due to the fact that
the flood story was passed on by their elders, but because of their cold
region, they altered the story to fit their particular climatic
circumstances.  
Anyway, I guess all of the global flood accounts from peoples from
(literally) all over the world can be explained by one big flood limited to
Sumer.  Yeah, makes sense to me.  
Douglas Weller  wrote in article
<32aa968d.656424@betanews.demon.co.uk>...
> On Sun, 08 Dec 1996 00:31:08 -0600, Russ & Rebecca Brownlow
>  wrote:
> 
> >You could also figure in that at the end of the last ice age, water held
> >as ice at the poles melted and rose sea levels significantly causing
> >what would appear to be a great flood to all those people living in the
> >vicinity of the rising water.
> Are you sure of your time scale? I understood this was so slow that the
> nomadic peoples (because remember this was before fixed settlements)
wouldn't
> have noticed the gradual increase. 

cdyer@infochan.com (Charles Dyer) wrote:
>Hey, the newsreader I use allows me to flag stuff . . . I find Ed
>tasteless, so I don't even see his stuff. Maybe if the snipits 
>of his stuff I see in other folks posts seem interesting,
>he'll come out of the killfile. But, til then, he stays.
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please, PLEASE, Charlie! Let me out! It's suffocating
in here.                                                       -- Ed

On 2 Dec 1996 17:45:41 GMT, ab787@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Aadu Pilt)
wrote:
>R. Gaenssmantel (rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Kjell T Svindland (kjells@ibg.uit.no) wrote:
>: : In article <848935384.23269@dejanews.com>, aander16@counsel.com wrote:
>
>: : >   -- Can a recent sample (10, 20 years old) be pinpointed by 
>: : >   the month (might be a silly expectation, and I'm sure you'll
>: : >   let me know :) ) 
>
>: : Because of nuclear pollution, 1950 is considered as year 0 in radiocarbon
>: : dating. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I guess the method will be
>: : useless for any material that was alive after Hiroshima :-(
>
>: I hadn't thought of it that way, but maybe there's some trueth to it. I don't 
>: know what byproducts you get during a nuclear explosion (normal radioactive 
>: decay goes along well defined chains and ends up in Pb or Fe). In order to 
>: pollute the C14 measurements you'd have to be able to seriously split atoms 
>: (creating two new atoms rather than one lighter atom + radiation). One of the 
>: products would have to be either C14 itself or any nuclid whose chain of decay 
>: passes through C14 (e.g. Be14).
>
>: Have you got any more details about this nuclear pollution thing?
>
>This is indeed a serious problem. The 14C inventory of the Earth has 
>increased significantly in the last 50 years vecause of both nuclear 
>waepons and nuclear power stations.  Exactly how significantly, howeever, 
>I do not know offhand I guess I could work it out one day when I have 
>more time :-).  Any experts out there?
You're completely off the mark in blaming nuclear power stations.  The
amount of C14 in the biosphere has increased, along with all other
naturally occuring isotopes of carbon, because of our habit of digging
up carbon deposits (coal, oil, etc.) and then burning them.  If you
measured the day-to-day radioactive emissions from a nuclear power
plant and a coal-fired power plant, you would actually find the latter
giving off more radioactivity, because of the C14 going up the chimney
in the form of CO2.
There are lots of valid reasons for being concerned about nuclear
issues, but this isn't one of them.
>Aadu Pilt
>aadu.pilt@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Paul

armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
> 
> 
> > There is a point I cannot understand the statement 'in 245o the
> > shouthern shaft of the Quing Chamber was pointing to Sirius' is
> > meaningless unless you say when during that year(when with day hour and
> > minute).
> 
> The alignments in question are said to point to the meridian transit
> of these stars.  Every day, Sirius traces the same path across the sky,
> so every day when it reaches the meridian (its highest point in the south,
You have partially answered my question. You are telling me that the 
time is the meridian pass (moment of the day where the start is the 
highest on the horizon). Nevertheless the elevation (using the proper 
Astronomical term) of a start is not the same each day of the year. That 
is the reason days are longer in summer than in winter. The maximum 
elevation of the Sun at midday is higher at summer. This applies to any 
celestial body. Nevertheless there are two 'significative' elevations: 
the maximum elevation at transit during summer solstice and the minimum 
elevation at transit during winter solstice. You could also add the 
elevation corresponding to both equinoxes and more dates that could be 
considered 'significative' for Egyptians e.g. dates ralated with the 
level of the Nile. 
As you can see the possibilities are many and it is easy to find so 
called 'interesting pointings' that are really pure chance.

just a guy wrote:
> 
> I really don't know who built the pyramids, but I wish you could, if you
> know, familiarize me with one thing I heard about the pyramids of Giza.
> Now, I heard that there was a large quantity of certain stone inside
> (the hardest stone on Earth, if I'm not mistaken, but forgot the name)
> that has been either cut or drilled, and that modern archaeologists an
> scientists claim that with today's "advanced" technologies, we could not
> reproduce the cuts on this stone that the pyramid builders had done
> thousands of years ago.  And since we all know that there's no
The item you speak about is the sarcofagus in Diorita. Indeed a very 
hard stone but not the hardest material on Earth. Two stones that are 
harder are diamond and alumina. It is utely false that we cannot machine 
it. We will use alumina dust and high speed grinding. Egyptian could 
also do it using alumina dust an a lot of time (low speed grinding). It 
is also false that Egyptian could not machine it. You could look in 
dejanews a e-mail from me over Egyptian machining.
Attack against profesional Egyptologist follow:
I have the impresion that a good history of Egyptian technology is 
pending. Why this aspect of the Egyptian culture as received much less 
attention of the professionals that it deserves? Had we a good book on 
that, perhaps we will not receive as much nonsense as we get.

Karl Kluge  wrote:
>edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
>> messert@moscow.com (Troy Messer) wrote (to sci.anthropology.paleo):
>> 
>> >	For those of you that bemoan this moron posting his diatribes, 
>> >relax.  He provides us a lot of entertainment. First there is the crap 
>> >that he comes with as fact.  Secondly, and more importantly, are the 
>> >responses to his nonsense. They show a great deal of wit and creativity.
>> 
>> They sure do, Troy!
>> But, quite frankly, while I'm having a few laughs and enjoying the
>> ``entertainment," I can't help admitting -- just between the two of us
>> -- that I'm getting scared stiff.
>> 
>> Suppose this frickin' nincompoop is correct? Suppose he's proven
>> right? Suppose he proves that all of us all wrong?
>> 
>> They say, ``He,  who laughs last, laughs best"
>> Hmmm! I wonder if Ed Conrad is going to have the last laugh?
>> 
>> Oh, God forbid!
                                       --------------
>Great. Now Conrad is sufficiently gone into schizophrenia to start
>talking about himself in the third person.
                     ________X_________
Karl:
You ain't seen nothin' yet!
Do you realize my schizophrenia is so far advanced that I can even
talk about myself in the FOURTH person.
In fact, I'm planning to hold a roundtable discusson in which all four
participants will be ME.
One ME obviously will be ME. One other ME will be Andrew MacRae.
Another ME will be Ted Holden. And the fourth ME will be Carl Sagan
who will open the discussion by stating:
``Millions    upon      millions      upon      millions      of
years    ago  .  .  .  "
As can be expected, we'll discuss some very controversial topics --
but don't expect any harsh words, temper tandrums and name-calling.
THAT would be physically impossible, Karl, since all four MEs will be
ME.