[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ad Yurii Gloriam (Was Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated)


On16 Jan 1997 16:03:48 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <[email protected]> wrote:

> Douglas Weller ([email protected]) wrote:
> : On 13 Jan 1997 13:37:41 GMT, [email protected] (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> 
> : >a) As Johannessen's research indicates that maize was a staple crop in
> : >that area, these cob fossils shouldn't really be that difficult to turn
> up : >in excavations. Is anyone looking for them? 
> 
> : Yuri, no one has to look for them, if they are there they will be
> obvious! We : had this discussion before about chicken bones. Whenever
> archaeologists dig : they examine everything they find, and they'd be
> noticed. 
> 
> Doug, with all due respect, I find your reasoning hopelessly flawed.
> 
> Lets try this. You go to the bookstore to buy a certain book. Would your
> chances of finding this book be better if you were actually looking for it
> in the bookstore? Or -- if you were wandering aimlessly among the isles
> waiting for that book to fall off its shelf into your lap -- by itself?
> 
> Think about it and let me know about the outcome of your deliberations...

So then the only archaeology that would be valid would be that which is 
looking to prove or substantiate something *specific? Since they are not 
specifically looking for corncobs, they won't find them, is that what you are 
saying? Maybe they just gather them for tinder with which to start the fires 
in which they burn conflicting, unwanted evidence that what they learned in 
school was wrong. This is really what you are accusing "mainstream" 
archaeologists of doing, that is, promoting what you imagine to be a 
nondiffusionist status quo point of view. At the same time you fault them for 
not being specific in what they seek...I wonder in which year of school these 
people get converted and initiated.
If your hypothetical bookstore and its "isles" were a dig, the more likely 
scenario would be that every page of every book would be checked, examined, 
recorded, filed, written up, (at least until the money, time, or beer ran 
out)...to look only for a specific book is actually what you generally accuse 
them of doing, now you say that's what should be done...yow, Zippy needs a 
donut...I guess I just miss the subtlety of this thinking...if one were 
focused on one book, or one idea, or one "hypothesis", one might miss 
information in the other 10,000 books in this store, wouldn't you think?
One other outcome of my unsolicited deliberations...I used to wonder why 
anyone would expend so much energy responding to you and others with 
alternative viewpoints; maybe they're like HYDRA, "Cut off one arm and seven 
more take its place", then again maybe they're like plebes doing latrine duty 

*The ancient Hebrew stuff found **only by Mormons and confirming Mormon 
teachings is a wonderful example of this style.

**Okay, so I don't know this part specifically to be true; you don't expect me 
to actually research it, do you?
>             =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
>   --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
> 
> *** PLEASE NOTE *** my Address and Webpage Location to change soon *** 
>        this address will remain valid: [email protected]
> 
> We should always be disposed to believe that that which 
> appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 
> Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola

If you have faith you can't lose, because in the end that's all there is.

Yours
DJ