Subject: Re: GIGANTIC SPECULATION?
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:07:52 -0600
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Nold Egenter wrote:
> ARCHAEOLOGY / PREHISTORY A GIGANTIC SPECULATION?
>
> Any comparison of the basic term of archaeology 'durable remains' with
> 'material culture' in ethnology shows that durable objects may not even
> account for 1%, 99% being of non-durable (fibroconstructive) character.
> In addition there are reasons to assume that those objects which were of
> ontologically highest values (sacred) were constructed with
> fibroconstructive materials and thus were not durable. This can be taken
> as the main reason why archaeology and prehistory are not able to
> explain the evolution of human culture. Their fixation on 'durability'
> widely makes their finds a scattered tohuwabohu! Have a look at our site
> which reconstructs cultural evolution SYSTEMATICALLY with the assumption
> of a pre-lithic "fibroconstructive" age:
Ahhh...real archaeology is speculation because we don't have
fibroconstructive artifacts (i.e. baskets), so I am going to
systematically reconstruct cultural evolution by ASSUMING such
artifacts.... Sorry, I just don't see the difference.
One point you have forgotten. Fibroconstructive artifacts are ADDITIVELY
made -- you have to put things together to get them. Lithics are
SUBTRACTIVELY made -- you break something to get them. Even though
primates and birds and other animals use tools, they are mostly
subtractive tools (pulling leaves off a twig to get a termite-fishing
stick). Those tools that are additive (handfull o' leaves for
sponging up water) are expedient -- abandoned after use. While
subtractive tools often are as well, occassionally you do see them set
aside.
The point being, that the first tools were probably the results of
subtractive technology rather than additive. It's a lot easier to figure
out how to break something and use the pieces than to figure out how to
make two separate objects stick together well enough to use for anything,
assuming you already have an idea about what you could possibly want to
make out of two or more separate objects.
For the rest of your post...what do you mean, archaeology has not been
able to explain the evolution of human culture? Both `explain' and
`evolution of human culture' are broad enough to mean almost anything in
this context.
As far as the recovery of ontologically important artifacts --
ontologically important to whom? Archaeologists aren't so stupid that we
don't realize how much we are NOT finding. Having realized this, we
frame our research in ways that what we DO find can answer our
questions. This is called 'knowing your limitations.'
But finally, so what if archaeologists only have material culture to rely
on? Does anyone, in any field, ever have ALL the relevant information to
answer a question? Hell no. At some level, all research is ultimately
an educated guess. Even history: people who produce documents have
agendas. They lie. They don't tell the whole story. They only include
what is important to them at that moment, not what may be important to
historians 800 years down the road. Documents get lost. Accepted
histories emerge and contradictory documents are ignored. And there is
no objective reason why written records should be privileged sources of
information.
The same goes for artifacts -- any artifact, durable or not. So you
purport to reconstruct cultural evolution by assuming you know how
baskets evolved. BFD. Just because artifacts of emic ontological
importance probably don't survive, doesn't mean that ARTIFACTS have very
high ontological importance at all. It's still a relative valuation.
You construct your web site so that it is different in DEGREE rather than
KIND from the archaeologists you lambast -- you, like us, privilege
artifacts. But what about oral history? Legends? Prohibitions?
Singing? Social division? There are many, many aspects of culture that
don't show up in artifacts. You haven't escaped that problem.
Is archaeology speculative? In a sense, yes. But then, so is any effort
to reconstruct any past. Humans don't live in an objective world -- we
live in a cultural world. Our world is suffused with meaning and
significance, which are products of our culture. We create the past, we
always have and we always will. Science is a creative exercise, because
it is the cultural means by which we create our understanding of the
world. That doesn't make it wrong -- it makes it human.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: New reference volume on Central Asian archaeology
From: bai34@aol.com
Date: 13 Nov 1996 18:37:33 GMT
Dear Colleagues,
Perhaps the latest volume of the Bulletin of the Asia Institute will be of
interest.
Carol Bromberg, Editor
____________________________________________________________________
The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia
Studies from the Former Soviet Union
(Volume 8 of the Bulletin of the Asia Institute
Published May 1996)
Edited by B. A. Litvinskii and C. A. Bromberg
Contents
A. I. Isakov, "Sarazm: An Agricultural Center of Ancient Sogdiana"
A. Askarov and T. Shirinov, "The 'Palace,' Temple, and Necropolis of
Jarkutan"
V. I. Sarianidi, "Aegean-Anatolian Motifs in the Glyptic Art of Bactria
and Margiana"
I. V. P'iankov, "The Ethnic History of the Sakas"
B. A. Litvinskii and I. R. Pichikian, "The Hellenistic Architecture and
Art of the Temple of the Oxus"
B. I. Vainberg, "The Kalali-Gir 2 Ritual Center in Ancient Khwarazm"
G. V. Shishkina, "Ancient Samarkand"
V. N. Pilipko, "Excavations of Staraia Nisa"
A. Bader, V. Gaibov, and G. Koshelenko, "Materials for an Archaeological
Map of the Merv Oasis"
V. A. Livshits and V. G. Shkoda, "Old Indian Kapala in a Bactrian
Inscription from Qara-Tepe"
E. V. Rtveladze, "Kampir-Tepe: Structures, Written Documents, and Coins"
D. V. Rusanov, "The Fortifications of Kampir-Tepe"
IU. A. Rapoport, "The Palaces of Topraq-Qal'a"
B. I. Marshak and V. I. Raspopova, "Worshipers from the Northern Shrine of
Temple II, Panjikent"
L. V. Pavchinskaia, "Sogdian Ossuaries"
G. A. Pugachenkova, "The Form and Style of Sogdian Ossuaries"
E. V. Zeimal', "The Circulation of Coins in Central Asia during the
Medieval Period"
Bibliography and Index
Clothbound, 8 x 11 ", printed on acid-free paper
ca. 350 pp., 244 ills.
$65 + $8 shipping in U.S. funds, U.S. bank
Pre-payment necessary. Order from:
Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 3287 Bradway Blvd., Bloomfield Hills, MI
48301
Telephone: 810-647-7917; Fax: 810-647-9223
E-mail: bai34@aol.com
Subject: FOSSIL human skull, old as coals carbon-14 biblical Flood (Ramses vs. Moses)
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:42:31 +0000
This is a reply. I have not chosen the header newsgroups this thread is found in.
I have added alt.religion.christian to share with them, however if you
are a christian reading this in alt.religion please do stick to the C-14 topic.
I have difficulty working a scanner.
(Need advise for best scan dpi , format, lineart [?] etc.)
However, I will be posting the C-14 of trees from a published Nobel convention.
A list of dendrochronology dates BP~BC along with C-14 dates BP~BC.
In the list is revealed the fact that trees having C-14 from 2300 BC are being
claimed by dendrochronology as 3000 BC trees favoring Egyptology.
Of course, you are claiming them to be trees from 3000 BC containing
C-14 from that era in larger amounts which falsely produce 2300 BC dates.
I believe the real Egyptology is proven by the Hebrew Genesis back to
2370 BC and not the Turin Papyrus (Septuagint Genesis) back to 3090 BC.
Thus the C-14 is my testimony from God as the truth or word of God,
and not the dendrochronology you worship as the word of God.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/c14TPC.gif
forgive me, when I scanned, I clipped the Pharaohs names off the bottom
(not being able to read them in the GIF until I looked back at the book)
I will change it, but clearly you require more charted evidence so I will
spend my time scanning more charts than waste time on just one.
These other Egyptology C-14 chart readings reveal that it is closer to
round the C-14 down to biblical centuries (minus 500 years) believing there
was LESS C-14 and that decades from the Flood were increasing in C-14 to the present,
than to presume the C-14 error as 720 years by claiming that 3000 BC carbon-14
was higher and so now dates younger as 2300 BC. I am presenting
these C-14 charts to declare the current INTERPRETATION of dendrochronology
as a fraud based on a fraudulent Egypt.
Moses did not know Ramses. But when you choose the Turin Papyrus chronology,
you choose 1290 BC Ramses. When I choose the Bible Genesis, I choose
Moses who was bold enough to face all Egypt's scholars twice as being wrong
1554 / 1514 BC. A unanimous group system can save society, it can also
exercise its power to cause total destruction of society by its bold claims of truth
when it is DEAD wrong. You have known little guys before to show up as
correct. But you will not give in whenever the word Bible is mentioned.
I have sent letters off to many institutes, and when I say it is for the Bible,
I get told they're busy, but when that word isnt used, I get a reply.
I think this serves well to indicate the feelings inside of those leading society.
Kerry A. Northrop wrote:
> I take offense at that. I do not charge people to hear what I have to
> say. And as for dendrochronology going against your biblical date, I'm
> afraid I'd have to go with the tree rings. Dendrochronology is one of, if
> not the most accurate chronometric dating method we have. If you want to
> believe that the bible gives the "real" date that's fine, but I tend to
> believe more proven and trusted methods of dating.
> -ka
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
Subject: Re: Please count the numbers of biblibiographed posts....etc etc or scholarship and its demands..
From: "Prof.Faust"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:16:51 -0800
Xina wrote:
>
> At 11:42 AM 11/9/96 +0000, Elijah-With-An-Agenda wrote:
> >
> >Sorry for the B---- word you feel is so offensive despite the television airs
> >it everyday, and hardly ever meet a person who doesnt use that word to
> >describe female audacity.
>
> Oh, the dreaded "B" word is not one I shrink from in the slightest. Au
> Contraire! I *AM* A Bitch. (That's capital B) and its male dominated
> society and attitudes that have made me so. I relish my Bitch-hood, it
> is what keeps women from being put under the veil, barefoot and pregnant
> and being beaten up by slovenly males who use that damned book of yours
> as an excuse.
>
>>***Yes! There is hope for humanity yet! Another woman with "balls", strength and POWER. Good to see ya here! Hope to see you as a regular poster, this group needs it!
Prof. Faust
(Yes, I am too a Bitch, and damn proud of it!)
> Unlike my Christian female counterparts, I am not likely to take it up
> the backside by my male owner (ie husband) and say' thank you for it'.
> I'm not his chattle, and I reject any religion that holds up as a
> requirement that I cling to a man to prove my worth. Nor am I likely to
> swoon because some MAN thinks he knows more than I do, when clearly,
> outside of the "bible" he knows nothing, AND even what he does "know" is
> open to debate because he does NOT embody any Christian principles that
> I am aware of, except praying loudly in the street like the Pharisees
> that the Saviour warned the world about.
>
> Who would that be Elijah? The Whore of Babylon perhaps? What are you
> >> referring to? What are your references, O Pocket Prophet?
> >
> >*** Case example Helen of Troy, or Cleopatra.
>
> Helen? She was never proven to have existed. And as for Cleopatra there
> were Eight of them all total (Cleopatra Selene married Prince Juba of
> Numidia). I would assume you are referring to Cleopatra VII, the one
> who basically could use her whiles and win the world. Ah yes, if a
> woman has power over men, she is a bitch. What was that saying? Oh
> yes.."As a woman you should be a Madonna in every place but the bedroom,
> but there in order to please your husband you must be a 'fabulous
> whore'? It had to be a male who thought that one up.
>
> The prophet Daniel said that
> >kings would advance, and men would advance against the king, all for
> >the daughter of man. But I will agree that you all deny that this behavior is practiced. You dont seem to boycott the superhero cartoons who make use of it.
>
> Oh here we go, the cartoons are OF the devil, the breakfast cereal is OF
> THE DEVIL, incense is of the devil, candles, ditto....lets see, if you
> read anything other than the bible daily that is of course leaving you
> open to the devil's influences. Worshiping the female aspect of
> God...hey thats the devil in drag boys and girls WATCH OUT!!!
>
> >
> >Xina, shame on you that you find nothing wrong with expressions
> >like f------ planet. Is that perhaps how you people prove to God you are deaf.
>
> Excuse me? Im not the one railing here. If I use any word like that I
> will swear in the language it is most effective...one that captures the
> vibration of the word itself. I dont find it offensive because its not
> within my vocabulary, the same as the word "sethekhen" isnt in yours.
> Oh my! Better go wash my hands with soap and water. Dont worry,
> Elijah, you cannot pronounce it properly if you tried, so you wont be
> breaking any godly commandments or offending anyone. Its not just what
> you say its the way you say it.
>
> >Your opinion regarding threats holds no water.
>
> I dont think you want me to produce them. And you know precisely whom
> Im talking about. They wont bother with you anymore because frankly you
> are beneath their dignity, but suffice it to say, you get out of hand
> and its over. Language and suggestablility that would have made a
> sailor blush. ...naughty naughty thats not very Godly!!
>
> As I've said before you
> >accuse even Jesus of threatening to tear down the real temple in 3 days.
>
> He's not here and you are not Him. So why dont we stop this little
> charade right now, and you pipe down and talk in a civilized manner.
>
> >My sole goal is to prove you all do this, I draw forth and expose the witch huntsyou are all easily drawn into while accusing only the Church of doing such
> >horrid things
>
> I KNOW that they did and still do horrid things!! Ive got the bloody
> scars and my people have the bloody history to prove it. Deny it if you
> want, but I dont think you posses the balls or the stomach to do so!
> Why dont you dig in the old documents in regards to the inquisition?
> Let's talk about the Nicene Council in 324 AD, shall we? Let's talk
> about the inquisition and how there were passages in the bible that men
> used to justify the practice of poisoning thier wives if they beleived
> them to be adulteresses, if she lived she was innocent, if she died,
> then she was guilty. Let's talk about how in one village in Germany ONE
> woman was left alive during the witch hunts....lets talk about these
> things. Let's talk about how women are chattle and how during the past
> it was viewed as a husbandly duty for him to beat her to save her soul.
> DO you deny these things came to pass? Sweetheart, why dont you and I
> take a road trip to the British Museum or the Tower of London, and we
> can take a look at the ORIGINAL DAMNED DOCUMENTS!!!
>
> . I have my own little file of threats I've gotten, saved up myself.
>
> I never threatened you, Elijah. I work for a major provider, everything
> absolutely every character I type is logged in three seperate
> locations. My ISP at home, my ISP at work and one in the UK. Now the
> chances of my ability to tamper with all three are monumentally slim.
> It's the easiest thing in the world to doctor emails, but it's very,**
> very** hard to screw with the data tapes of an international ISP,
> especially since our fraud detection and such is the best in the world.
> So don't try to claim *I* ever threatened you with anything. I can
> produced the time stamped originals.
>
> >You only care of what's been said back. You have no business claiming
> >who thinks they are Jesus or God because taking your own stand in
> >esteemed knowledge could also be tagged as replacing God. Does
> >she (God) need replacing this year by yet another human she-god scholar?
>
> Im not a god, I don't claim to be. But I'm not about to simply swallow
> what you or a bunch of Christians say just because you said it was said
> by your god. Sorry, if that were the case, why such a bloody and brutal
> history over the past 2000+ years in order to prove you are right? How
> much had to be concealed, how much manipulation and control was
> exercised by the early church 'fathers' in order to prove a point? (As
> if there was one other than world domination and control). No, I dont
> set myself up as a god. Far from it, but I do know when and HOW to
> validate my sources. I know that if it IS what you say it is then God
> and his "word" stands up in a court of law on its own and destroying or
> manipulating the evidence would be completely unnecessary. But as it
> is, the District Attorney's over the years have got a bad history of
> doing precisely that and we have a right to be skeptical. Once bitten
> twice shy as they say....
> or:
>
> "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me again, shame on me."
>
> The Christian religion is filled with Pharisees and hipocrites, and I
> want no part of them who do not embody the spiritual principles they
> espouse. You, sir, do not embody anything but arrogance and pride... in
> short, YOU are the Pharisee.
>
> >> (snipped a shameless plug to look at his gif)
> >
> >See reference links are given, and you snip them out as
> >being shameless plugs.
>
> Your Picture is a refernece? Sorry I'm not impressed. I dont know who
> you *think* you look like, but I can assure you its not as important as
> all that. And besides, you posted your web page over and over ad
> nauseum.
>
> I like your little schedules you did, but you have no references cited.
>
> It's not advertising. It's my research being
> >submitted free.
>
> Fine. References please, how was the information compiled? What
> schoarly references do you have. No more excuses about not having the
> title because you are so overwhelmed by the books you own you cannot
> remember. I have literally thousands of books and I know *exactly*
> where every single one of them are.
>
> I have many people who regularly collect my info
> >and are given further bibliographies.
>
> Names, affiliated organizations, please.
>
> And I have yet to see you submit
> >a public list of info with bibliographies
>
> You must have been sleeping that day.
>
> Please go back about three or four weeks and I not only cite my sources,
> I give page numbers and all other necessary criteria.
>
> BTW, I have received COUNTLESS thank yous for my references and
> information, when going up against you and your erroneous information.
> I guess I have you to thank for that. You still have not explained why
> in the Nile valley that there are still bilogical material that is much
> older than the 2200 BC date you have cited. If there was a "40 year"
> flood, which there wasn't, it would have destroyed the evidence and the
> mummies (which would literally have dissolved to nothingness.) are still
> in tact. These are things YOU have to consider before you throw them
> out as "wrong" or misdated or whatever theory you are clinging to.
> Don't be that D.A. thats destroying the evidence. You have to deal with
> the evidence and either incorporate it into your own findings or do some
> more research or better still deal with the fact you are outright WRONG
> yourself! This can happen! It has happened to many a scholar before
> you, I have admitted to being wrong, but I will NOT admit to not citing
> my sources. Please check out DejaNews, you responed to each one of those
> posts with references and conveniently IGNORED my evidence and did not
> deal with it at all.
>
> . My research isnt for Xina, it
> >is for those who read and agree with biblical views. It is not your jurisdiction
>
> You're right! Its biblical archaeology! Now there is a contradiction in
> terms! Archaeology turning in on itself in order to prove the
> infallibility of the 'Edited Document!' (aka bible) It's the other way
> around. If you want to prove it, then you have to prove it through
> science, not simply skirting the issue. You tell me WHY the organinc
> materiaal in the Nile valley is older (Dated by C-14 and soil samples,
> also tree ring samples Not Rameses 'messed up calendar') than your
> dates. You tell me that, and then we can move on. I have a strong
> suspicion however, that you are going to do your usual disappearing act
> on that question and simply pretend it wasnt there (Just like my
> references, that you apparently missed).
>
> >to purge people who wish to believe archeology a biblical way,
> >astronomy a biblical way, or any science a biblical way.
>
> Again, its archaeology that eats itself because people will not simply
> take into account that human error is always a factor in translation.
>
> You are right, its not my jurisdiction at all, in fact why dont you keep
> your biblical beleifs on the biblical newsgroups who DO buy your
> theories and quit pestering the rest of us who have more important
> things to do than to listen to your erroneous information and tidings of
> doom and gloom?
>
> >> > (40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
> >
> >> WHERE ARE THE REFERNECES?!?! here is the format if you are
> >> clueless...every jr high student knows how to do this so it should be
> >> do-able for you too...
> >
> >10th grade English I had done nothing for the 1st two quarters.
> >My bibliography closing the 2nd quarter brought me from an F to an A.
>
> How nice for you. In case you havent checked this isn't the 10th grade.
> How come you havent handed a biblibiography in for your assignment this
> time?
>
> >So I have no trouble providing bibliographies.
>
> GOOD!!! Then please **DO** IT!!
>
> However, a bulletin board
> >whether online or at the grocery store is NOT where you publish journals.
>
> Thats not true. You post it with the title and put (long) after it.
> I've done it, and countless others have done it. If its bigger than say
> 9 or ten pages say Part I II II and so on. What's your problem? That
> is what news is for!! I would appreciate SCHOLARLY works online that
> would make Usenet much more worthwhile reading!
>
> >None of you publish such material yourself, and the few who do are foolishto give it to you.
>
> HA! You might take a look at Deja News, Elijah. I've posted quite a
> bit of lenghty material and soon to post more. **AND** I can cite any
> of my sources chapter and verse. How about you?
>
> >Now if you can finger thru a bible, and not just finger at people,
>
> I have no intention of re-reading the book that Ive read through at
> least five times. I dont need it, its not of interest to me, its not
> "holy" to me. I can respect your right to value it as such but if you
> try to force feed it to me Im going to shove it back in your own face.
>
> >you might be able to consider Nehemiah 9:1 as being a reference. Of course that'spending on your ruling, correct !
>
> Which version. DO you want me to read the KJV or will any other
> suffice. See you people who don't do multiplicty of thought dont get
> that this is *quite* important!
>
> >************
> >everyone benefiting from my work please email
> >my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
> >send email to counter those trying to destroy it
>
> Destroy it? No, Im not destroying a thing. Im refuting it based on the
> fact that the dates DO NOT match any dating criteria now in place for
> historically dating any artifact or event. YOu have not matched up the
> criteria, therefore your information is entirely inaccurate and unbacked
> by any scholarly books or records on the subject outside of the bible
> and the documentation which YOU drew up. This is not a case of 'if
> all else fails manipulate the data'. The data had damned well match
> what you are asserting and against all other sources, or I will make
> short work of your 'Work' in about five minutes with the proper
> citations and sources.
>
> IN FACT, Im off...to gander at your web page and dismantle its
> information piece by piece. This should take me about two weeks maximum,
> and I will post every single reference with page number and all that.
>
> You keep em up there, Elijah. May the man or woman with the best
> citations win.
>
> Xina
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 00:41:07 GMT
This is a tiresome and pointless debate, so here is my final contribution.
Steve
: If you think about this for a moment you will realise that the very
: essence of language is interaction with other people.
Which is why every single hunter-gathering and nomadic pastoralist group
ever documented has always been perfectly proficient in language, even
though those languages often are ENTIRELY unrelated to anything spoken by
any urbanized group. Those people are interacting in a big way with all
kinds of people all the time, through a variety of mechanisms (exogamy,
fissioning, etc.)
Steve:
: The more people
: you are surrounded by the more likely you are to encounter new words.
What does this have to do with speaking *language*? Just a few days ago
you had all hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and neolithic
village farmers grunting, clicking and gesticulating at each other. Now,
apparently, they have words, but perhaps not as many.
I wouldn't even grant that premise (not without some documentation from
you, which I know will never be forthcoming), but even if number of words
were relevant here, that's a far cry from claiming they had no real
language.
It's not for nothing you've been compared to a squid. An apt comparison,
in my experience.
Ben:
: >Do you suppose that every one of these New Guinean hunter-gatherer groups
: >are getting their languages from their urbanized cousins?
Steve:
: No, I expect they have the ability to communicate with others about
: all the things that are important to them. My guess is they might have
: a vocabulary of thousands of words. I don't expect them to have a
: vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words which is about average
: or at least not uncommon among people who do a lot of reading.
Most Americans today probably don't have a vocubulary much exceeding a few
thousand words, though I don't really know, and I doubt you do, either.
Miguel?
Of course, once again, having a vocabulary of a few thousand words is
*not* the same thing as not having language, even if your number arguments
are accepted.
Anyway, your word number arguments should not be accepted. Miguel has
posted several excellent posts demonstrating why your repeated claim that
word count is isomorphic with language sophistication is bunk.
[snip]
Ben:
: >You also have a problem with an incredibly old-fashioned, evolutionary
: >conception of cultural development, in which all the delights of being
: >human, such as language, are reserved for city-dwellers like ourselves.
Steve:
: The delights of interaction with other people come most often
: when we put ourselves in a place where there are a lot of other
: people to interact with. The price we pay is that some of the
: interactions are less than delightful.
Of course, people have been interacting with other people for as long as
there have been people. Exogamy is just one common practice among
hunter-gatherers, along with group fissioning and reconstitution,
which implies that there were strong incentives to develop language, even
by your pathetic faux functionalist standard, for ages and ages.
Ben:
: >Everybody else is just a rung or two down the evolutionary ladder,
: >incapable of even speaking, except in the clicks, grunts and
: >gesticulations you wrote about in an earlier post.
Steve:
: If you believe there is such a thing as an evolutionary ladder
: then it is possible to speak of evolution as a process. How far
: along in the process do you have to be before it makes sense
: to call what you have language.
I'm having trouble parsing this. Evolution is NOT thought of as a ladder,
as least not by people who really think about evolution. A bush is a more
apt analogy. Evolution does not imply orthogenesis, despite the best
efforts of many creationists. I'm not surprised that *you* apparently
conceive of evolution as a ladder, with urbanised us at the top rung.
[snip]
Steve:
: I would suggest that language probably evolved at about the same rate
: people did. A Neolithic village or group of hunter gatherers may talk
: to one another less often than they gesture.
Well, people have been evolving for quite some time. People anatomically
indistinguishable from us have been around for at least 40,000 years.
People very much like us have been around quite a bit longer than that --
hundreds of thousands of years.
I can't imagine why you think a major adaptation like language, with
serious associated neurological apparatus, should have only appeared in
the last 6,000 years, and then spread without a single exception to every
group world-wide in such a short period of time. (Or, presumably, much
more recently, since urbanization in most of the world is a very recent
phenomenon.)
This argument also does zilch in explaining how language diffused so fast
without *any* associated material culture, despite the fact that nearly
indestructible and incredibly useful lithic and ceramic technologies were
commonly used by Steve's grunting, clicking and gesticulating
hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists, and neolithic farmers.
Also, Steve's "theory" (I think it lacks enough supporting data to even
make this level), does not account for the incredible variety of human
language, such as the some 60 *families* of languages in New Guinea
*alone* (a group of societies that never really urbanized, by Steve's
standards, until historic times, if then).
Naturally, a conception of language as predating all those things would
have no difficulty whatsoever with any of these objections.
Ben:
: >What language is related to is being human, not to being urbanized.
Steve:
: Sophistication is related to urbanization. The frequency of
: interaction with others is related to our ability to communicate.
Why do you suppose hunter-gatherers and nomadic pastoralists are not
interacting with each other with great frequency? Where is
alienation more common: cities, small villages or hunter-gatherer
bands? Didn't you ever sit around a campfire and tell stories? (To
continue in your tradition of arguing without evidence.)
[snip]
Steve:
: I think you will find that language is intimately linked to the
: structures which make urbanization possible.
Language is intimately linked to *everything* humans do, which is a great
argument for its antiquity.
Steve's whole argument is an elaborate exercise in an argument
from personal incredulity:
"I, Steve Whittet, knowing nothing of the ethnographic record, having no
understanding of linguistics, the historical development of language,
or the anatomy of language, and having a weak grasp of the most basic
historical and chronological outlines of the last 5,000 years, and no
apparent conception of what passed before then, am unable to conceive of
any reason why people used language before they lived like I do now.
Therefore, they didn't have language."
Ugh.
If you're really curious, Steve, why don't you look into the literature?
You can start with Michael Chazan's article in a recent Current
Anthropology (I forget the issue, but it was this summer -- perhaps May?).
Chazan is arguing something quite different than you are, but his interest
is in language at the Middle Paleolithic transition. The reviewers rough
him up a little bit, but the debate is interesting. It will at least give
you a bibliography and a point of reference.
Ben
Subject: Re: Rescuing History From Fundamentalists: Biblical Chronologies vs. Archaeological History Part 1
From: karen@snowcrest.net (Karen McFarlin)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 01:32:02 GMT
> I like the one where astronomers, who are supposedly scientists,
> make the claim that they
> "know there is life on other planets inm the universe."
> How do they know this? Where is there any evidence for this?
> The closest you get is this;
>
> There is life on earth.
> Earth is in the Universe.
> There is life in the Universe.
They are basing their hypothesis on what looks like micro-fossilized
remains found on a piece of mars rock. I haven't seen anything as crude as
the simple syllogism you use above as proof offered by scientists. The
evidence is still being analyzed, it's too early to say what it will show.
> There is no statistical evidence in the
> world that can support a false premise.
The question is - is there any evidence that would convince you of anything?
> Namely,
>
> There is life on earth, therefore there must be life
> elsewhere in the universe.
>
> This is not only pseudoscience, it is just plain naive.
Actually no it isn't. If life grew here, then it follows that if the
materials that caused life to grow here exist in the right mixtures on
another planet, then life could grow there also. It makes a lot more sense
than saying that a giant man, somewhere up there in the heavens, "created"
life one day in a fit of absent-mindedness, then got mad at that life when
it did what he knew (in his omiscient mind) they would do, namely eat an
apple of a forbidden tree. All of the relevant data indicate that life
grew on this planet.
> Believe me, many fine scientists believe in God.
But not in the God of fundamentalism, which misreads and humiliates the
book of Genesis and ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence. It is
possible to have both science and God, but not in the narrow world of
biblical inerrancy.
> > I will state for the record, that I am not an expert in the field of
> > archaeo-astronomy, nor have I studied astrochronologies. My data is
> > gathered from traditional sources thatt have been used to most
> > accurately date the occurance of events in ancient history.
Could you please site some of these sources, I have some humble knowledge
of the "traditional sources" you may be referring to.
> > One of the things that was used in the Chronolgy used by Elijah was the
> >
> > biblical flood. It is my contention that there was never at any time in
> >
> > earth's history the biblical flood of Noah. The data in the bible is
He is correct. There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was covered
by water between 3900 and 1400 BCE.
> Yeah like Schliemann found Troy, so Jericho has been found
> and countless other "biblical" sites to numerous to mention.
Possible relevance please?
> > Kenneth Fedder discusses the logistical *impossibility* of
> >
> > the Ark's construction using the tools available to Noah and his
>
> Was you der sweetheart, how do you know what was available to Noah?
> You don't. you are just operating under the quite erroneous assumption
> that ancient man was equipped with a lesser mentality and inferior
> tools than so called modern man. This is poppycock.
Actually no it isn't. You cannot disprove Kenneth Fedder's information by
simply declaring it "poppycock". I've seen Fedder's essay and read several
similar. No fundamentalist has ever, to my knowledge, been able to remove
the logical, statistical, and technical obstacles that he has outlined.
Clearly the story of Noah's Ark is a parable and has no literal
significance as a statement of fact. Its structure is obviously
mythopetic. It is astonishing to me that any thinking person could take it
literally.
> This is such utter ethnocentric rubbish its unbeleivable.
You can always tell when someone loses an argument. They offer abuse
instead of cogent arguments.
> It needs a little salt.
> And if I wanted to read some other guys book,
> I know where there are libraries.
>
Ever check out a book in one?
Cairns
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 02:46:41 GMT
In article <56dpr3$r14@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu"
says...
>
>This is a tiresome and pointless debate, so here is my final contribution.
>
>Steve
>: If you think about this for a moment you will realise that the very
>: essence of language is interaction with other people.
>
>Which is why every single hunter-gathering and nomadic pastoralist group
>ever documented has always been perfectly proficient in language, even
>though those languages often are ENTIRELY unrelated to anything spoken by
>any urbanized group.
I think you are missing the point Ben. If hunter-gathering and nomadic
pastoralist groups were perfectly proficient in language, language
would not evolve. Language does evolve, and like most other observable
manifestations of mans social evolution toward rather than away from
more complex forms; at about the same exponential rate of change as
may be observed in population increase.
When you say that hunter-gathering and nomadic pastoralist groups
have languages entirely unrelated to anything spoken by any urbanized
group that is incorrect. Studies with children have shown that most
human children learn to speak by age two or three and begin by using
pivot words such as "the", "my" and "that" to which they add additional
words as their vocabularies grow.
The more interactions the children have with other children the faster
ability to form ever more complex sentences grows. Chimpanzees can be
taught to form sentences even though their mouths and vocal cords are
not suited for speech using sign language. Their sentences often use
pivot words just as is the case with children.
> Those people are interacting in a big way with all
>kinds of people all the time, through a variety of mechanisms (exogamy,
>fissioning, etc.)
Perhaps you are confusing speech with language. People have had the
ability to speak for about the last 200,000 years and may have had
several hundred different vocalizations or calls ranging from
grunts and growls to whoops, howls, screeches, screams, barks,
whines, chortles, groans, whimpers, oohs, and aahs to whistles.
By 400 years ago the Chinese had increased this to perhaps 45,000
different ideograms. If you lay this out as an exponential curve
and run a relatively flat horizontal line from 200,000 years ago
up to about 20,000 years ago and a vertical from about 400 years
ago through the present day then the period at which civilization
language, writing and urbanization became a part of our history
all lie in the cusp. Today an average persons vocabulary is in
the hundreds of thousands of words and the reason is our lives are
more complicated than they used to be. Change and our adaptations
to it including language are changing at an increasing rate.
>
>Steve:
>: The more people
>: you are surrounded by the more likely you are to encounter new words.
>
>What does this have to do with speaking *language*? Just a few days ago
>you had all hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and neolithic
>village farmers grunting, clicking and gesticulating at each other. Now,
>apparently, they have words, but perhaps not as many.
The number of words people use as a quantitative measure of
the complexity of their language is by no means a qualitative
measure of the complexity of their language.
Which sections of the curve I described get lumped together depends
on your perspective. If you look at the whole curve, hunter-gatherers,
can describe everybody between c 200,000 and 20,000 BC. Nomadic
pastoralists and neolithic village farmers generally come along
after 10,000 BC. Urban centers emerge after about 3,000 BC. We
come along after the curve has gone vertical. Today you can go off
to the middle of New Guinea and find the tribesmen with cell phones
talking to their brokers in Singapore.
>I wouldn't even grant that premise (not without some documentation from
>you, which I know will never be forthcoming), but even if number of words
>were relevant here, that's a far cry from claiming they had no real
>language.
If we had real language we wouldn't have this failure to communicate.
All I am claiming is that those things which require language build
language. Urban areas tend to have more language building interactions
than non urban areas.
>
>It's not for nothing you've been compared to a squid. An apt comparison,
>in my experience.
Generally it has been my experience that people who have the facts to
make a case need not resort to recycling used invective.
>
>Ben:
>: >Do you suppose that every one of these New Guinean hunter-gatherer groups
>: >are getting their languages from their urbanized cousins?
>
>Steve:
>: No, I expect they have the ability to communicate with others about
>: all the things that are important to them. My guess is they might have
>: a vocabulary of thousands of words. I don't expect them to have a
>: vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words which is about average
>: or at least not uncommon among people who do a lot of reading.
>
>Most Americans today probably don't have a vocubulary much exceeding a few
>thousand words, though I don't really know, and I doubt you do, either.
>Miguel?
As a simple test, determine how many words to a page in each of your
dictionaries which specialise in a different subject, multiply by the
number of pages and then tell me how many words there are in them which
you don't understand.
>
>Of course, once again, having a vocabulary of a few thousand words is
>*not* the same thing as not having language, even if your number arguments
>are accepted.
The point was that language evolved from simple forms to richer
ones, as did everything else. It seems unlikely that the richer
form would evolve in an enviornment with less interactions. It also
seems unlikely that the richer form would borrow from the poorer.
Cities and urban areas would be ahead of the curve in language
just as they were in science, mathematics and technology.
>
>Anyway, your word number arguments should not be accepted. Miguel has
>posted several excellent posts demonstrating why your repeated claim that
>word count is isomorphic with language sophistication is bunk.
Miguel, for whom I have the utmost respect, is arguing quality
(complexity) against quantity (vocabulary). Its apples and oranges.
>
>[snip]
>
>Ben:
>: >You also have a problem with an incredibly old-fashioned, evolutionary
>: >conception of cultural development, in which all the delights of being
>: >human, such as language, are reserved for city-dwellers like ourselves.
>
>Steve:
>: The delights of interaction with other people come most often
>: when we put ourselves in a place where there are a lot of other
>: people to interact with. The price we pay is that some of the
>: interactions are less than delightful.
>
>Of course, people have been interacting with other people for as long as
>there have been people. Exogamy is just one common practice among
>hunter-gatherers, along with group fissioning and reconstitution,
>which implies that there were strong incentives to develop language, even
>by your pathetic faux functionalist standard, for ages and ages.
>
>Ben:
>: >Everybody else is just a rung or two down the evolutionary ladder,
>: >incapable of even speaking, except in the clicks, grunts and
>: >gesticulations you wrote about in an earlier post.
>
>Steve:
>: If you believe there is such a thing as an evolutionary ladder
>: then it is possible to speak of evolution as a process. How far
>: along in the process do you have to be before it makes sense
>: to call what you have language.
>
>I'm having trouble parsing this. Evolution is NOT thought of as a ladder,
Hey Ben, it was your analogy!!!
>as least not by people who really think about evolution. A bush is a more
>apt analogy.
A process is a better term and may be applied to either case.
A ladder model simply graphs the "tree" to draw a horizontal
line at each branch.
Evolution does not imply orthogenesis, despite the best
>efforts of many creationists. I'm not surprised that *you* apparently
>conceive of evolution as a ladder, with urbanised us at the top rung.
Evolution implies change. Change may be measured, weighed and judged.
Once quantified it can be evaluated. Since it is an ongoing an continuing
process there is no top rung, only the point at which you chose to
cut your section.
>
>[snip]
>
>Steve:
>: I would suggest that language probably evolved at about the same rate
>: people did. A Neolithic village or group of hunter gatherers may talk
>: to one another less often than they gesture.
>
>Well, people have been evolving for quite some time. People anatomically
>indistinguishable from us have been around for at least 40,000 years.
>People very much like us have been around quite a bit longer than that --
>hundreds of thousands of years.
>
>I can't imagine why you think a major adaptation like language, with
>serious associated neurological apparatus, should have only appeared in
>the last 6,000 years, and then spread without a single exception to every
>group world-wide in such a short period of time. (Or, presumably, much
>more recently, since urbanization in most of the world is a very recent
>phenomenon.)
I am measuring it as an exponential curve. All observable social
processes are in fact so measurable because we have a very long
history and have changed greatly very recently on that timeline.
>
>This argument also does zilch in explaining how language diffused so fast
>without *any* associated material culture, despite the fact that nearly
>indestructible and incredibly useful lithic and ceramic technologies were
>commonly used by Steve's grunting, clicking and gesticulating
>hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists, and neolithic farmers.
Language diffused more rapidly as transportation incorporated
both boats and domestic animals to carry trade goods from place
to place. The widespread use of boats after the 3rd millenium BC
is an important part of the picture. So is the use of the horse,
but since people transported their horses in their boats, you
really can't look at either mechanism without considering the other.
>
>Also, Steve's "theory" (I think it lacks enough supporting data to even
>make this level), does not account for the incredible variety of human
>language, such as the some 60 *families* of languages in New Guinea
>*alone* (a group of societies that never really urbanized, by Steve's
>standards, until historic times, if then).
Just to give an analogy, after man arrived in the New World and
hunted big game like bears, bison and mamoths to the point of
extinction horses evolved some twenty two new *species* to fill
the niche. Man has been in New Guinea about 70 times as long
as it took the new World horses to evolve.
Language in New Guinea took hundreds of thousands of years to evolve
and in the last few hundred years has been overwhelmed by western
influences to the point where it may well not survive in its
indiginous form another century.
>
>Naturally, a conception of language as predating all those things would
>have no difficulty whatsoever with any of these objections.
>
>Ben:
>: >What language is related to is being human, not to being urbanized.
>
>Steve:
>: Sophistication is related to urbanization. The frequency of
>: interaction with others is related to our ability to communicate.
>
>Why do you suppose hunter-gatherers and nomadic pastoralists are not
>interacting with each other with great frequency? Where is
>alienation more common: cities, small villages or hunter-gatherer
>bands? Didn't you ever sit around a campfire and tell stories? (To
>continue in your tradition of arguing without evidence.)
Alienation is defined as the perception that you are not a
of the decision making process. People who become alienated
go off and do their own thing, often making up their own language
as for example teenage slang.
Homogeneous hunter gathers and nomadic pastorialists are generally
less alienated because their expected roles are well defined and
less decision making is required.
>
>[snip]
>
>Steve:
>: I think you will find that language is intimately linked to the
>: structures which make urbanization possible.
>
>Language is intimately linked to *everything* humans do, which is a great
>argument for its antiquity.
>
>Steve's whole argument is an elaborate exercise in an argument
>from personal incredulity:
>
>"I, Steve Whittet, knowing nothing of the ethnographic record, having no
>understanding of linguistics, the historical development of language,
>or the anatomy of language, and having a weak grasp of the most basic
>historical and chronological outlines of the last 5,000 years, and no
>apparent conception of what passed before then, am unable to conceive of
>any reason why people used language before they lived like I do now.
>Therefore, they didn't have language."
Ben's argument is that Steve Whittet disagrees with him. Therefore
not only is Steve Whittet wrong but he's a bad and stupid evil person.
>
>Ugh.
>
>If you're really curious, Steve, why don't you look into the literature?
>You can start with Michael Chazan's article in a recent Current
>Anthropology (I forget the issue, but it was this summer -- perhaps May?).
>Chazan is arguing something quite different than you are, but his interest
>is in language at the Middle Paleolithic transition. The reviewers rough
>him up a little bit, but the debate is interesting. It will at least give
>you a bibliography and a point of reference.
>
>Ben
You are right to chide me Ben, I have wasted the last half century
reading the wrong books. I am sure your sources on Anthropology
are more up to date than mine, you are after all still at school.
steve
Subject: Re: Etruscans (or something)
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 03:49:34 GMT
In article <56dpa5$jmj@scream.auckland.ac.nz>, drc@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz
says...
>
>I was getting really curious as to what Steve Whittet was getting
>at with his "Care to put a figure to it?" challenge. Now it becomes
>a bit clearer. Steve, I'm puzzled as to how you can be so sure there
>will be a correlation between vocabulary size and population size when
>you don't seem to have _any_ actual figures on the subject yourself.
That's a good question. You can put a rough number on it by taking the
number of words on a page of any one of your dictionaries then subtracting
from that the number of words you don't understand and multiplying
it by the number of pages.
You might want to consider how many specialised dictionaries you have,
which have different sets of words, and how much redundancy there is
between say Blacks Law Dictionary, a dictionary of words used in physics,
a dictionary of words used in mathematics and so forth.
A better way is to look at it in terms of interactions. How many
occasions are there in a day when you have to say something to
someone and how many words do you use?
Do you do a lot of writing? Do you read a lot? Do these things influence
your vocabulary? As a thought experiment how would you expect a person
who was illiterate to compare to you in terms of word power?
Now look at it in terms of an exponential curve starting with when
man first learned to speak about 200,000 years ago and had a vocabulary
of hundreds of words and moving forward to where we are at today.
Do you see any correlation between vocabulary and the size of population?
If using language builds language, and language evolved like everything
else that people came to depend on in cities, science, law, mathematics
and technology, then it seems reasonable that more interactions allow
language evolved at a more rapid rate in urban areas.
It is thus unlikely that it evolved at a linear rate outside the
influence of the rest of civilization for thousands of years and
suddenly became a major influence when steppe nomads began
domesticating horses.
>What is your certainty based on? You really ought to get out more.
>I guess you're technically right about Tagalog being spoken in "some parts
>of New Guinea or the Philippines" -- it is in fact the national language
>of the Philippines, spoken by several tens of millions of people.
Yes, although the last time I was there most of the Phillipinoes I met
also were fluent in Spanish,and English and some were fluent in Arabic.
>Probably more people than ever spoke Sumerian -- what would that
lead us to expect about its vocabulary?
I would expect Tagalog to be a language with a large vocabulary.
>Let me suggest a few things. Vocabulary size is notoriously difficult to
>estimate. Figures for modern English range up to half a million -- the total
>number of words in the Oxford English Dictionary, say. But everyone admits
>that no individual knows them all. Figures around 50,000 are sometimes
>given for the actual vocabulary of an individual educated English speaker.
Do the dictionary thing. Tell me how many words you estimate are in yours
and then tell me for any one given page what percent of them you didn't
understand.
>So one way English gets huge vocabulary figures is by pooling the lexicons
>of its many millions of speakers. Another way is by having a long literate
>tradition. The OED of course is full of obsolete words; many other words are
>kept in circulation in books which might have been lost in a purely oral
>society.
>If we look at the languages with small numbers of speakers and no long
>tradition of literacy, the "vocabulary size" we find depends a lot on who
has
>done the work of collecting it. As far as I know, nobody who has worked
seriously
>on any living language (pidgins aside), no matter how small its community,
>has found less than several thousand words. Accounts of languages with only
>a few hundred words eked out by grunts and gestures are folklore and no
more.
>So there probably _is_ some correlation between vocabulary size and number
>of speakers. If an average speaker in a small, local, tribal society has,
>let's say, a 5,000 word vocabulary, an educated, literate speaker in a much
>larger, more complex society might have ten times as many. (If we allow the
>large, literate languages to expand their vocabularies in the ways explained
>above, the contrast becomes greater.)
>Did you want to claim anything more than this?
I would at least suggest that it is likely that language evolved
at a more rapid rate in urban areas than in non urban areas in the
period between 4000 BC and 2000 BC and thus that is when and where
you should go to look for a PIE. That points to the urban areas of
Mesopotamia.
From there you want to look at how language diffused.
Here the factory is what gives the greatest mobility gives the most
interactions. The domestication of the horse and the increased use
of boats after c 3000 BC suggest you want to look at trade routes
and that means rivers. Interestingly enough the Tigris and Euphrates
lead to the Black Sea and from that sea we have a number of rivers
like the Danube and the Dneister flowing through our proposed IE
homeland. Mesopotamia is also adjacent to the empires of the Hittites,
the Hurrianss, Mittani,and Kasites. Phoenicia and Egypt abut it.
From the Mediterranean there is a connection with Crete and with
Mycenean Greece after c 1700 BC. Everything suggests that language
traveled around relatively late along with the written evidence of it.
>
>Ross Clark
>
steve
Subject: Re: Please count the numbers of biblibiographed posts....etc etc or scholarship and its demands..
From: Timothy Sutter
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:33:54 -0800
I'm drunk right now , can you either post this at a latere
date or else I can't respond top it?
Seriously.
Prof.Faust wrote:
>
> Xina wrote:
> >
> > At 11:42 AM 11/9/96 +0000, Elijah-With-An-Agenda wrote:
> > >
> > >Sorry for the B---- word you feel is so offensive despite the television airs
> > >it everyday, and hardly ever meet a person who doesnt use that word to
> > >describe female audacity.
> >
> > Oh, the dreaded "B" word is not one I shrink from in the slightest. Au
> > Contraire! I *AM* A Bitch. (That's capital B) and its male dominated
> > society and attitudes that have made me so. I relish my Bitch-hood, it
> > is what keeps women from being put under the veil, barefoot and pregnant
> > and being beaten up by slovenly males who use that damned book of yours
> > as an excuse.
> >
> >>***Yes! There is hope for humanity yet! Another woman with "balls", strength and POWER. Good to see ya here! Hope to see you as a regular poster, this group needs it!
>
> Prof. Faust
> (Yes, I am too a Bitch, and damn proud of it!)
> > Unlike my Christian female counterparts, I am not likely to take it up
> > the backside by my male owner (ie husband) and say' thank you for it'.
> > I'm not his chattle, and I reject any religion that holds up as a
> > requirement that I cling to a man to prove my worth. Nor am I likely to
> > swoon because some MAN thinks he knows more than I do, when clearly,
> > outside of the "bible" he knows nothing, AND even what he does "know" is
> > open to debate because he does NOT embody any Christian principles that
> > I am aware of, except praying loudly in the street like the Pharisees
> > that the Saviour warned the world about.
> >
> > Who would that be Elijah? The Whore of Babylon perhaps? What are you
> > >> referring to? What are your references, O Pocket Prophet?
> > >
> > >*** Case example Helen of Troy, or Cleopatra.
> >
> > Helen? She was never proven to have existed. And as for Cleopatra there
> > were Eight of them all total (Cleopatra Selene married Prince Juba of
> > Numidia). I would assume you are referring to Cleopatra VII, the one
> > who basically could use her whiles and win the world. Ah yes, if a
> > woman has power over men, she is a bitch. What was that saying? Oh
> > yes.."As a woman you should be a Madonna in every place but the bedroom,
> > but there in order to please your husband you must be a 'fabulous
> > whore'? It had to be a male who thought that one up.
> >
> > The prophet Daniel said that
> > >kings would advance, and men would advance against the king, all for
> > >the daughter of man. But I will agree that you all deny that this behavior is practiced. You dont seem to boycott the superhero cartoons who make use of it.
> >
> > Oh here we go, the cartoons are OF the devil, the breakfast cereal is OF
> > THE DEVIL, incense is of the devil, candles, ditto....lets see, if you
> > read anything other than the bible daily that is of course leaving you
> > open to the devil's influences. Worshiping the female aspect of
> > God...hey thats the devil in drag boys and girls WATCH OUT!!!
> >
> > >
> > >Xina, shame on you that you find nothing wrong with expressions
> > >like f------ planet. Is that perhaps how you people prove to God you are deaf.
> >
> > Excuse me? Im not the one railing here. If I use any word like that I
> > will swear in the language it is most effective...one that captures the
> > vibration of the word itself. I dont find it offensive because its not
> > within my vocabulary, the same as the word "sethekhen" isnt in yours.
> > Oh my! Better go wash my hands with soap and water. Dont worry,
> > Elijah, you cannot pronounce it properly if you tried, so you wont be
> > breaking any godly commandments or offending anyone. Its not just what
> > you say its the way you say it.
> >
> > >Your opinion regarding threats holds no water.
> >
> > I dont think you want me to produce them. And you know precisely whom
> > Im talking about. They wont bother with you anymore because frankly you
> > are beneath their dignity, but suffice it to say, you get out of hand
> > and its over. Language and suggestablility that would have made a
> > sailor blush. ...naughty naughty thats not very Godly!!
> >
> > As I've said before you
> > >accuse even Jesus of threatening to tear down the real temple in 3 days.
> >
> > He's not here and you are not Him. So why dont we stop this little
> > charade right now, and you pipe down and talk in a civilized manner.
> >
> > >My sole goal is to prove you all do this, I draw forth and expose the witch huntsyou are all easily drawn into while accusing only the Church of doing such
> > >horrid things
> >
> > I KNOW that they did and still do horrid things!! Ive got the bloody
> > scars and my people have the bloody history to prove it. Deny it if you
> > want, but I dont think you posses the balls or the stomach to do so!
> > Why dont you dig in the old documents in regards to the inquisition?
> > Let's talk about the Nicene Council in 324 AD, shall we? Let's talk
> > about the inquisition and how there were passages in the bible that men
> > used to justify the practice of poisoning thier wives if they beleived
> > them to be adulteresses, if she lived she was innocent, if she died,
> > then she was guilty. Let's talk about how in one village in Germany ONE
> > woman was left alive during the witch hunts....lets talk about these
> > things. Let's talk about how women are chattle and how during the past
> > it was viewed as a husbandly duty for him to beat her to save her soul.
> > DO you deny these things came to pass? Sweetheart, why dont you and I
> > take a road trip to the British Museum or the Tower of London, and we
> > can take a look at the ORIGINAL DAMNED DOCUMENTS!!!
> >
> > . I have my own little file of threats I've gotten, saved up myself.
> >
> > I never threatened you, Elijah. I work for a major provider, everything
> > absolutely every character I type is logged in three seperate
> > locations. My ISP at home, my ISP at work and one in the UK. Now the
> > chances of my ability to tamper with all three are monumentally slim.
> > It's the easiest thing in the world to doctor emails, but it's very,**
> > very** hard to screw with the data tapes of an international ISP,
> > especially since our fraud detection and such is the best in the world.
> > So don't try to claim *I* ever threatened you with anything. I can
> > produced the time stamped originals.
> >
> > >You only care of what's been said back. You have no business claiming
> > >who thinks they are Jesus or God because taking your own stand in
> > >esteemed knowledge could also be tagged as replacing God. Does
> > >she (God) need replacing this year by yet another human she-god scholar?
> >
> > Im not a god, I don't claim to be. But I'm not about to simply swallow
> > what you or a bunch of Christians say just because you said it was said
> > by your god. Sorry, if that were the case, why such a bloody and brutal
> > history over the past 2000+ years in order to prove you are right? How
> > much had to be concealed, how much manipulation and control was
> > exercised by the early church 'fathers' in order to prove a point? (As
> > if there was one other than world domination and control). No, I dont
> > set myself up as a god. Far from it, but I do know when and HOW to
> > validate my sources. I know that if it IS what you say it is then God
> > and his "word" stands up in a court of law on its own and destroying or
> > manipulating the evidence would be completely unnecessary. But as it
> > is, the District Attorney's over the years have got a bad history of
> > doing precisely that and we have a right to be skeptical. Once bitten
> > twice shy as they say....
> > or:
> >
> > "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me again, shame on me."
> >
> > The Christian religion is filled with Pharisees and hipocrites, and I
> > want no part of them who do not embody the spiritual principles they
> > espouse. You, sir, do not embody anything but arrogance and pride... in
> > short, YOU are the Pharisee.
> >
> > >> (snipped a shameless plug to look at his gif)
> > >
> > >See reference links are given, and you snip them out as
> > >being shameless plugs.
> >
> > Your Picture is a refernece? Sorry I'm not impressed. I dont know who
> > you *think* you look like, but I can assure you its not as important as
> > all that. And besides, you posted your web page over and over ad
> > nauseum.
> >
> > I like your little schedules you did, but you have no references cited.
> >
> > It's not advertising. It's my research being
> > >submitted free.
> >
> > Fine. References please, how was the information compiled? What
> > schoarly references do you have. No more excuses about not having the
> > title because you are so overwhelmed by the books you own you cannot
> > remember. I have literally thousands of books and I know *exactly*
> > where every single one of them are.
> >
> > I have many people who regularly collect my info
> > >and are given further bibliographies.
> >
> > Names, affiliated organizations, please.
> >
> > And I have yet to see you submit
> > >a public list of info with bibliographies
> >
> > You must have been sleeping that day.
> >
> > Please go back about three or four weeks and I not only cite my sources,
> > I give page numbers and all other necessary criteria.
> >
> > BTW, I have received COUNTLESS thank yous for my references and
> > information, when going up against you and your erroneous information.
> > I guess I have you to thank for that. You still have not explained why
> > in the Nile valley that there are still bilogical material that is much
> > older than the 2200 BC date you have cited. If there was a "40 year"
> > flood, which there wasn't, it would have destroyed the evidence and the
> > mummies (which would literally have dissolved to nothingness.) are still
> > in tact. These are things YOU have to consider before you throw them
> > out as "wrong" or misdated or whatever theory you are clinging to.
> > Don't be that D.A. thats destroying the evidence. You have to deal with
> > the evidence and either incorporate it into your own findings or do some
> > more research or better still deal with the fact you are outright WRONG
> > yourself! This can happen! It has happened to many a scholar before
> > you, I have admitted to being wrong, but I will NOT admit to not citing
> > my sources. Please check out DejaNews, you responed to each one of those
> > posts with references and conveniently IGNORED my evidence and did not
> > deal with it at all.
> >
> > . My research isnt for Xina, it
> > >is for those who read and agree with biblical views. It is not your jurisdiction
> >
> > You're right! Its biblical archaeology! Now there is a contradiction in
> > terms! Archaeology turning in on itself in order to prove the
> > infallibility of the 'Edited Document!' (aka bible) It's the other way
> > around. If you want to prove it, then you have to prove it through
> > science, not simply skirting the issue. You tell me WHY the organinc
> > materiaal in the Nile valley is older (Dated by C-14 and soil samples,
> > also tree ring samples Not Rameses 'messed up calendar') than your
> > dates. You tell me that, and then we can move on. I have a strong
> > suspicion however, that you are going to do your usual disappearing act
> > on that question and simply pretend it wasnt there (Just like my
> > references, that you apparently missed).
> >
> > >to purge people who wish to believe archeology a biblical way,
> > >astronomy a biblical way, or any science a biblical way.
> >
> > Again, its archaeology that eats itself because people will not simply
> > take into account that human error is always a factor in translation.
> >
> > You are right, its not my jurisdiction at all, in fact why dont you keep
> > your biblical beleifs on the biblical newsgroups who DO buy your
> > theories and quit pestering the rest of us who have more important
> > things to do than to listen to your erroneous information and tidings of
> > doom and gloom?
> >
> > >> > (40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
> > >
> > >> WHERE ARE THE REFERNECES?!?! here is the format if you are
> > >> clueless...every jr high student knows how to do this so it should be
> > >> do-able for you too...
> > >
> > >10th grade English I had done nothing for the 1st two quarters.
> > >My bibliography closing the 2nd quarter brought me from an F to an A.
> >
> > How nice for you. In case you havent checked this isn't the 10th grade.
> > How come you havent handed a biblibiography in for your assignment this
> > time?
> >
> > >So I have no trouble providing bibliographies.
> >
> > GOOD!!! Then please **DO** IT!!
> >
> > However, a bulletin board
> > >whether online or at the grocery store is NOT where you publish journals.
> >
> > Thats not true. You post it with the title and put (long) after it.
> > I've done it, and countless others have done it. If its bigger than say
> > 9 or ten pages say Part I II II and so on. What's your problem? That
> > is what news is for!! I would appreciate SCHOLARLY works online that
> > would make Usenet much more worthwhile reading!
> >
> > >None of you publish such material yourself, and the few who do are foolishto give it to you.
> >
> > HA! You might take a look at Deja News, Elijah. I've posted quite a
> > bit of lenghty material and soon to post more. **AND** I can cite any
> > of my sources chapter and verse. How about you?
> >
> > >Now if you can finger thru a bible, and not just finger at people,
> >
> > I have no intention of re-reading the book that Ive read through at
> > least five times. I dont need it, its not of interest to me, its not
> > "holy" to me. I can respect your right to value it as such but if you
> > try to force feed it to me Im going to shove it back in your own face.
> >
> > >you might be able to consider Nehemiah 9:1 as being a reference. Of course that'spending on your ruling, correct !
> >
> > Which version. DO you want me to read the KJV or will any other
> > suffice. See you people who don't do multiplicty of thought dont get
> > that this is *quite* important!
> >
> > >************
> > >everyone benefiting from my work please email
> > >my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
> > >send email to counter those trying to destroy it
> >
> > Destroy it? No, Im not destroying a thing. Im refuting it based on the
> > fact that the dates DO NOT match any dating criteria now in place for
> > historically dating any artifact or event. YOu have not matched up the
> > criteria, therefore your information is entirely inaccurate and unbacked
> > by any scholarly books or records on the subject outside of the bible
> > and the documentation which YOU drew up. This is not a case of 'if
> > all else fails manipulate the data'. The data had damned well match
> > what you are asserting and against all other sources, or I will make
> > short work of your 'Work' in about five minutes with the proper
> > citations and sources.
> >
> > IN FACT, Im off...to gander at your web page and dismantle its
> > information piece by piece. This should take me about two weeks maximum,
> > and I will post every single reference with page number and all that.
> >
> > You keep em up there, Elijah. May the man or woman with the best
> > citations win.
> >
> > Xina
I