Newsgroup sci.archaeology 50071

Directory

Yes, Yuri.  David is a Master of Shang script as well.  Why don't you email
him up at Harvard?  He shares space with an interesting fellow named Ian
Graham.  I don't know if you've heard of either David or Ian.  My guess is
you probably haven't since you posed the rather uninformed question below. 
The fact that you did pose the question strongly suggests that you ought to
do more reading before you do all of the writing you have done.  There's an
old proverb about  remaining silent and keeping people unsure of your
ignorance as opposed to broadcasting it to the world as you seem intent on
doing.  I think people would take you a little more serious if you didn't
start out so uninformed about whatever you are discussing as it relates to
Mesoamerica.  Since you seem to disagree with most of the research which
has taken place in the last decade, I think you should read what has been
done before you try to discredit it.  Eric Thompson did the same thing and
look where it got him.  If you don't know who Eric Thompson is, let me
know, to.
Paul Pettennude, Ph.D.
Maya Underwater Research Center
Yuri Kuchinsky  wrote in article <564l6h$ol4@news1.io.org>...
> Paul Pettennude (pettennude@usa.net) wrote:
> : Whatever is fantastic, people will believe it unless it's the truth and
> : then people would rather believe the fantastic.  David Stuart is a
master
> : of both Chinese and mesoamerican scripts. 
> 
> Yes, but is he a master of the Shang script? Apparently there's only a 
> handful of researchers in the US who know about this...
> 
> Yuri.
> 
> : I think he'll tell you the only
> : commonality is that a five fingered hand held the carving instrument. 
And,
> : another five fingered hand held the hammer.
> 
> 
> --
>            **    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto   **
>   -- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
>  
> Most of the evils of life arise from man's being 
> unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal
> 

Chattahoochee Elementary  wrote in article
<55smq5$1nn@camel0.mindspring.com>...
> Hi, My name is Matt and I am in 3rd grade. My question is: I would
> like to know about some of the more advanced tools of archeology. I
> know about cameras, shovels, and simpler tools. I am interested in
> learning about the high-tech tools.
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> 
Hi Matt!
The one high-tech tool that is really coming strongly into field
archaeology is of course the computer. We use it to put all our new finds
into a database minutes after it's found. Digital cameras are used to
document structures, colorings etc. We use CAD-programs (Computer-Aided
Design) to make our plans and sections in the field, storing it in a
3D-file.
The benefits of using the computer in the field are many. It's quick, it's
safe and with a bit of programming you can minimize possible errors in the
input. The best thing though, is that in the evening you can get a complete
view of the excavation up until that afternoon and see how finds,
structures and strata relate to each other and you can send these results
over the internet (we use cellular phones for this) to consult your
colleagues back home. 
The drawbacks are some quite basic things. You need a lot of batteries to
be able to use the portabel computer all day unless you can hook it up to a
powersupply near by. Then there's the problem with sunshine which makes it
hard to see the screen. And of course, archaeologists aren't known for the
clean fingers so the keyboard may take a beating.
Best regards,
Dan Ullén
Stockholm
Sweden

Xina wrote:
> Jammal's story should have been verified by the producers of Sun
> Pictures.  It was not. The whole thing had been presented as fact
> because people wanted to believe it.
> 
> CBS's response when confronted with the information that they had
> presented a show that was an archeological and biblical hoax, said 'It
> was just for entertainment purposes".  I feel badly for the believers in
> the bible who watched the show and took it as literal history and
> 'proof' that their faith was being proven before their eyes.  Now they
> have had it reduced to such flim flam the likes of the Cardiff Giant.
Jim Lippard has web pages at:
http://www.skeptic.com/02.3.lippard-ark-hoax.html  and
http://www.skeptic.com/02.4.lippard-ark-hoax.html
Which present the articles Jim had published in _Skeptic_ 
on the topic of this hoax.
Regards,
August Matthusen

Paula.Sanch@emich.edu (Paula Sanch) wrote:
>But didn't Henry VIII live quite a long time as a syphilitic?
We aren't sure he was syphilitic.  We aren't sure his son died from
that, or from something else, or where Edward got it (in the womb??)
if that is what killed Edward.
And if Henry VIII had syphilis, and we can date it by Edward's birth
because he had it too, there really weren't all that many years
between Edward's birth and Henry's death.  Edward was roughly 10 years
old when Henry died.
If Henry got syphilis after Edward's birth, a much more likely event
because he was doing more sleeping around and because Katherine Howard
was doing quite a bit of that too, then Henry didn't actually survive
all that long after getting the disease.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

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.
> 
> 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
Damn I like her!
Necron
Temple ofthe Ram

Nold Egenter  wrote:
>of a pre-lithic "fibroconstructive" age:
OK, I'll bite.  What does "fibroconstructive" mean?
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com

Can I recommend Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic
Linguistics, by Sarah Grey Thomason & Terrence Kaufman (Univ of
California Press, 1988) as a very comprehensive recent discussion
of some of the matters that have come up here? They have an
extended discussion of the English-as-Creole hypothesis, and reject it.
They cover a very wide range of language contact phenomena, including
Michif, the French-Cree hybrid that Piotr mentioned. On the classic
pidgins and creoles, their view is that they should be considered new
languages, and not classified as members of any pre-existing language
family, since their history involves a break in normal language
transmission. 

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:08:53 +1100, wilkins@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins)
wrote:
>In article <3287553b.34560842@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fmurray@pobox.com
>wrote:
>>|i suggest that if these worthies are to continue to post to sci.
>>|groups,  they should take that "sci." seriously, drop the ad hominem
>>|attacks on ed, and post evidence refuting ed's claim..
>And it was refuted in talk.origins, with the usual amount of t.o ad homina,
>but citing sources. IIRC, Lucy was found within an area of 11 square feet.
>I suppose one could argue that on an astronomical scale it's within an
>order of magnitude of one square mile.
>
>Conrad has taken a real licking in t.o because there are too many people
>there familiar with the primary literature. 
and yet despite this familiarity with the primary literature we find
that:
steve geller refuted ed by writing:
>A "square mile" should be more like 10 square meters or so.
graeme kennedy refuted ed by writing:
>The consensus is that this is a 40% complete skeleton, including symmetry.
>Johanson's "Lucy" describes the finding of the bones for this individual:
>the largest distance between pieces was about eleven feet.
socrates (presumably a late version) refuted ed by writing:
>ACtually 70% of the entire skeleton was found and all within a few 
>hundered yards.  Also since then several other examples of the same 
>species have been found.  We now have several examples with well over 
>50% of the skeleton.
jim foley refuted ed by writing:
>Lucy was found within a small area.  A knee joint found a year earlier
>and about 1.5 km away was a separate find and has never been claimed to
>be a part of Lucy, creationist claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
what i find interesting here is that the ratio of the largest
refuter's figure to the smallest refuter's figure is larger than the
ratio of ed's figure to the largest refuter's figure...this becomes
true if we take socrates "few hundred yards" to mean a figure above
approx. 132 feet...as we use a larger value for socrate's "few hundred
yards" (his phrase justifies using a larger value), the ratio between
the largest of the refuter's figure and the smallest of the refuter's
figures becomes a multiple of the ratio between ed's figure and the
largest of the refuter's figures....
perhaps something might be wrong with the refuter's figures??...
frank

You can contact Robert Clarke at the JIHA at: iha@euronet.nl, he has
info on recent tests that confirm the clothing found in some of the
graves was made from Cannabis Sativa, hemp!

Yes folks big Giants built the so-called ancient pyramids.
They carried the massive stone blocks on their backs.
They had some little people around for guidance and support.
Some of the giants, who were killed in the great flood,
ended up as fossils on Easter Island.
Those Giant stone "statues" are actually 
the fossilized remains of some Giants.
You can't prove me wrong because you don't know.

Xina wrote:
> 
> History and archaeology have in place several determining factors in
> 
> order to prove whether or not events actually took place or not.
> 
> Recently, information has been provided online that attempts to displace
> 
> the dendrachronology and archaeological data that traditionally has been
> 
> used to pinpoint a date that an event or suspected event may have or
> 
> certainly did (or did not) happen.
> 
> Recently, religious fundamentalists, and different approaches used in a
> psuedo-scientific manner in order to "prove" the bible and its stories
> as literalisms have come up with some very interesting approaches.
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.
There is no statistical evidence in the 
world that can support a false premise.
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.
Believe me, many fine scientists believe in God.
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> contradictory and the science simply do not match up. Further, the
> second event that Elijah is basing his chronology on is the Isrealite
> Exodus or Epoch.  While I believe that a migration of the Isrealite
> people was possible during acient times, I do not agree with the
> magnitude nor the time table that Elijah has cited in his web page.
> Nothing of the Isrealite Exodus is ever mentioned in any Egyptian text
> save one: The Isrealite stelae.
> 
>  Scientific Creationists have tried to heal the gaps between the bible
> and solid varifiable archeological evidence in recent years.  This
Yeah like Schliemann found Troy, so Jericho has been found
and countless other "biblical" sites to numerous to mention.
> discussion is hopefully going to bring some of these issues to light and
> we can discuss them rationally.
> 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.
> family.  "Using this measurement, Noah's ark, built entirely by hand
> 
> tools and by a few people, would have been about 500 feet long and about
> 
> 80 feet wide! This would have been an enormous ship.  The technology
> 
> necessary to construct a seaworthy ship this size did not exist until
> 
> the nineteenth century AD, and would have taken hundreds of people to
> 
This is such utter ethnocentric rubbish its unbeleivable.
That your greatgranfather only heard of it then
in no way makes a case that other peoples' great great great ...nthgreat
grandfather did not know of such things.
Sure Count Volta "invented" the voltaic cell which was 
found in Iraq. And dated some 2000 years ago.
Nice baiting me but I don't care to eat this
entire entree. Leave some for the vultures to pick at.
It needs a little salt. 
And if I wanted to read some other guys book,
I know where there are libraries.
> build , not the four men and four women who made up Noah's family"
> 
> Another problem we have with the 'Ark Scenario' is that how could the
> 
> people involved have saved each and every animal species on earth?  How
> 
> could Noah and his family gathered all the animals of every mammal,
> 
> reptile, bird and incect species some from as much as 12,000 miles away
> 
> from continents *UNKOWN* to anyone during biblical times?  How exactly
> 
> did Llamas and alpacas (South America) and kangaroo and koalas get to
> 
> the ark in the first place?  Estimated animal counts would be
> 
> approximately, according to Fedder, (Page 215) 25,000 species of birds,
> 
> 15,000 species of animals, 6,000 species of reptiles, 2,500 species of
> 
> amphibians and more than 1,000,000 species of insects, all multiplied by
> 
> the two if each kind of seven pairs of each kind.  The bible story is
> 
> ccontradictory on the number of each species) were brought on board
> 
> taken car of for about a year (not years   40 as some have stated on
> 
> this newsgroup).  The small number of people on board could not possibly
> 
> have fed watered and cared for all of those animals, not to mention
> 
> mucking out the stalls! ;)

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, at 04:50:05, Peter Rofner cajoled electrons into
this
>Marc Line  wrote:
>
>>Goodness!  Is this new?!?!  I've been using one of these for the best
>>part of 10 years.  I call it "The Marc Marker!" :)
>>
>>It comes in two sizes, 1 metre and 2 metres square.  The frame is
>>further subdivided into a 100mm grid of piano wire which can be used to
>>mark out soft surfaces.  It can also be used as a frame for scale
>>planning and/or photography.  The whole thing can be made at home in an
>>afternoon and costs less than 10 UK Pounds.
>>
>>I suppose it *was* too much to hope that this was more than a thinly
>>veiled advertising ploy.
>
>Marc,
>
>No need to be so negative.  
Thanks for your assurance. :)
>ie. thinly veiled advertizing ploy.  
Bad choice of words? :)
>No
>one is getting rich quick at $44.95 (CDN), considering the cost of the
>metal, MIG welding equipment, etc..  
There's principle and there's degree. :)
>My archaeology tools were
>designed after working in the field as a volunteer and later as field
>staff in an effort to improve the efficency of the crew and to make
>life a little easier.  
A laudable objective to be sure. :)
>I am sure many people would be able to
>fabricate a tool, such as the Peter Metre; however, not many
>archaeologists have the time and/or equipment to do it.  
Granted.  Do skill and inclination figure in that as well. :)
>Lighten up,
>Marc.  
:) :) :) :) :)  Better? :)  BTW - the diet is going well! :)
>Not everybody is out on the take.
Well if you're not making any profit and just covering your costs then
you have my unreserved apology Peter.  If, however, you are making a
single cent above unit cost per unit sale, then you don't.  :)
I guess I'm just becoming cynical what with all the get-rich-quick
schemes and advertisements we are subjected to on this forum.  The
observation (possibly erroneous and I stand to be corrected) that you
haven't been here prior to this may have had something to do with it as
well, as did the fact that you didn't mention anything about $$$$$$ in
your first post.  Sprat & Mackerel come to mind for some reason.  Yes,
just getting cynical in my old age. :))
Hey, who am I to complain?  I am forever clogging up the system with
*my* garbage.  Call me a hypocrite and have at it.  :)
BTW - If anyone is interested in plans and/or instructions for making
such a device at home, in less than 2 hours, at a cost of less than 10
UK Pounds, apply here.  I shall be more than happy to forward details to
them free of charge, indeed, at my own expense.  :))
>Sincerely,
Regards, and good luck with the business,
>Peter
Marc

Timothy Sutter  wrote:
>Xina wrote:
 	[snip]
>> Recently, religious fundamentalists, and different approaches used in a
>> psuedo-scientific manner in order to "prove" the bible and its stories
>> as literalisms have come up with some very interesting approaches.
>
>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.
>
>There is no statistical evidence in the 
>world that can support a false premise.
>
>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 you report the statment in a wrong manner.
	First you have to start from your available data, i.e:
	- We observe life on Earth, what is related to life
	as we know it? Well, two things (among other, I am simplyfing!!):
	-- Carbonioum / Oxigen (*) 
	-- presence of Liquid Water (**)
	so the question is, for example, what is the possibilty
	of having a planet with Liquid Water?
	the answer is the probabilty of having on a significant part of the planet the
	range of temperature desired, for example 100 C (boiling of water at 1 atm)
	is too much.. say between 1-50C
	The biologist say the range of temperature
	and the astronomers calculate the probability of having it,
	I suppose that it is related to the average distance from the star
	and the kind of star considered.
	We need also an atmosphere, so a planet with a mass within a certain
	range (geologist+astronomer). 
	Also we need that, in order to have life as we know it, that the evolution
	of the star system will be similar to our own(***) so again geologist/paleobiologist	
	etc.. will end up with an estimate of the possibility of having this condition.
	Before going on let's explain (*),(**) & (***). Here we are estimating
	the probability of having ON ANOTHER PLANET, the SAME condition that
	caused the developing of life on our earth. Clearly one can imagine that
	exist, for example, a Si based form of life (look at your periodical table,
	this possibility was described by Asimov who was a ScienceFiction writer AND
	a Chemist) but, given that we have not observed it we cannot estimate the
	probability of finding a Si based form of life. Also I know that some people
	contest the range of temperature, putting lower and higher limit
	(even on earth it is possible to observe form of life at incredible
	- for human being - temperatures) but, let's say that this is a matter that could be
	fixed.. .I am just giving a simplified overwiew.
	Finally we have got a nice amount of probabilty, which are numbers.
	If the events are indipendent the probability of the intesection of all
	these events (i.e. planet with good mass, reasonable distance from sun etc..)
	is: P(a^b^c...^n)=P(a)P(b)...P(n)
	where P(i)=probability of event i, ^= intersection
	(if the events are not indipendent there is another formula)
	So you end up with a number, that maybe is very small but,
	considering the huge amount of stars and the huge amount of time
	makes the people quite confident that exist life somewhere out.
	This for the sound reason that the relative frequency of an event
	(which is what we observe) converges (hmm.. in square root fashion etc..)
	to the probability of an event (which is what we calculate). 
	In plain word, If something has a probability different 
	from 0, no matter how small, from here to eternity (t-->infinity)
	this will happen.
	So your statment
***********************************
>There is life on earth, therefore there must be life 
>elsewhere in the universe.
>This is not only pseudoscience, it is just plain naive."
***********************************
	is completly wrong.
	Could be pseudoscience saying that there are aliens visting
	us, now or in the past, because, up to our physical knowledge,
	there is NO way to build an engine capable of making us
	travel between stars. This is it not a technological limit
	but it is, up to now, a physical limit.
	here we go...
>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.
	I think that it is almost impossible to call you back to earth;
	but I wrote this post for the people who were just curious
	about how one can state that there is life in other place
	than earth, i hope that I was clear enough.. it was my
	english exercise of the day..
	Claudio De Diana
	P.S. fell free to ask for more details if I was not
	able to make myself clear.