Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich") 
Author Message
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

Check it out, not only is he NOT posting on topic,
but he STILL hasn't figured out that "Lee" and "Rich"
are supposed to be two different people....

So I ask the "Rich" sock puppet why any of us should
view his cherry-picked name as an "Expert" -- as
opposed to anyone on the opposite side of the same
issue -- and the "Lee" sock puppet takes great
offense...


Quote:
> "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
>  at around 6,700 years of age:
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

Yes it does, but you being a complete spazz will keep
quoting DIFFERENT cites, and pretending that they
change what this one says.

You are bat shit crazy, if you didn't know...

Anyhow, it's all a strawman that YOU INVENTED, no
doubt while in the throws of one of your many psychotic
episodes.

Take your meds.



Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:22:49 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

 "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

Any 5th grader can see they said the oldest skeletons were
beneath  the 6700 year old ash layer. Beneath means older,
not same as or younger.

Proven by
"Two groups of human bones found at the Marmes rockshelter dating
between 9000 and 10,000 years ago represent the remains of at least
10 people, including 4 children between 6 and 14 years of age. Krantz
1979)."

http://www.archaeology.wsu.edu/county/franklin/45FR50/Marmes5.html
"The human remains span the period from ca. 9000 B.P. to ca.
660 B.P. Some remains from the Marmes Rockshelter are older
than Kennewick Man (Hicks 2004:378)."

Why don't you learn to read before you reply?



Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:28:24 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

So I challenge the collective to describe the beginnings
of agriculture as it sees things, and instead of a failed
attempt at thinking, the psychopath decided to go
with the comfort of Make-Believe...


Quote:
>  "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
>  at around 6,700 years of age:
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

That's true, but it has nothing to do with any argument we
ever had. It's a strawman you made up, but only because
you're a demented freak.

Remember:  You were claiming that the Marmes Rockshelter
provides examples of Clovis DNA and morphological evidence,
and I was pointed out how wrong you are. THAT is the
argument we were having... more than two months ago... before
you suffered your latest meltdown...



Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:04:06 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

"This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
 at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.***.com/

Lies are off topic, moron.

Your own citation says 10,000, not "around" 6,700.
You are too stupid to turn a page, too stupid to understand
"beneath" is 10,000 not "around" 6,700. If you weren't lying you
would type out the direct quotes. You are trapped, once caught
in your lie, you have no other choice but to keep lying, dishonest
as you are.

The citation clearly says "beneath" the ash, and this dishonest
troll,
JTEM, types in "around" instead of "beneath, changing the original
meaning
by thousands of years. By paraphrasing, instead of making a direct
quote, this lying moron can make any claim to fit the needs of his
dishonest argument.

Read correctly by someone who is honest:
Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

Your strawman {*filter*}is a lie, just like "around" 6,700 is a lie.



Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:50:25 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

This moron posting as "Lee" hides behind the ever
shifting handles because he knows what a {*filter*}ing
idiot he is, and wants to protect himself from the
public knowledge of same...

Yup. I challenged the sick {*filter*} to speculate on the
origins of agriculture and he couldn't.

It's beyond his meager scope. Y4eah, he's THAT
stupid...

Come, Lee/etc, I'm directly challenging you. I'm saying
that no matter what you call yourself you're too {*filter*}ing
stupid to even speculate convincingly.

Prove me right, again, by failing to so much as try.


Quote:
>  "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
>  at around 6,700 years of age:
> http://www.***.com/

That's true, but it has nothing to do with any argument we
ever had. It's a strawman you made up, but only because
you're a demented freak.

Remember:  You were claiming that the Marmes Rockshelter
provides examples of Clovis DNA and morphological evidence,
and I was pointing out how wrong you are. THAT is the
argument we were having... more than two months ago... before
you suffered your latest meltdown...



Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:10:23 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

Lie No.1 "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
 at around 6,700 years of age:"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

Rebuttal:
Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

Lie No. 2  "Like I said, you've sometimes even quoted it... exactly.
You know for a fact that it says 6,700 years."

Rebuttal:
Of course the Mazama ash was thought to be 6,700 in 1987,
but Sheppard said the oldest remains were "beneath" the ash.
Beneath means older in the stratigraphy of an archaeological site.

Lie No.3 "Which means the two had to be roughly
the same age.
And I know for a fact also, you can't back up your claim
with numbers:"

Rebuttal:
See Hicks 2004 above:  "beneath" is "about 10,000".

Lie No. 4:
"Now if the remains were two or three layers beneath
(which they weren't), you'd have a point."

Rebuttal:
Sheppard 1987 (table 2.1 from Hicks 2004):
" Mazama ash Stratum IV 6,700"
"Stratum II/I 8,700 to 9,540" (inside shelter dates)
On the floodplain 10,130 "minimum" Sheppard 1984.
Here you admitted I was correct (along with WSU, Hicks,
 Rice, Breschini, and Krantz) because Layer IV is
"two or three layers beneath".

You lied when you said "(which they weren't)"
Sorry, but layers II/I are two to three layers beneath
layer IV.

Make your retraction now and save yourself further
embarrassment.

Quote:
> P.S.  Have you figured out that Alaska isn't in Asia yet?

P.S. Have you figured out no one said that yet?
You lied about Sheppard, you snipped and then lied
about Clovis. I'll made this really simple so an idiot like you
won't get confused. The issue was Beringia (you know, the word
you couldn't spell?)

Now listen close you shit-for- brains idiot: Eastern Beringia
was what is now Alaska. Why do you think the  seem to be able
to make is a lie. No "around", no strawman, and Alaska is Eastern
Beringia.

http://arcticstudies.pbworks.com/Beringia
Duh



Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:42:39 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

Sorry, shit for brains, but I had to edit the subject line.
I know the last thing that an obsessive compulsive moron
like you could ever grasp is the concept of "Redundancy,"
so you'll just have to take my word on it when I say I did
you a favor...


Quote:
> "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
>  at around 6,700 years of age:
> "http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

Great. Not sure what you think this has to do with the
origins of agriculture, but that's just great...

It's also a strawman that you invented. It has nothing to
do with me or what I was arguing. In our exchange you
were claiming that the Marmes Rockshelter offers Clovis
DNA and morphology, and I was pointing out that you're
bat shit crazy.

You're a psycho. HINT:  No matter ho many DIFFERENT
cites you post, they are never going to effect what the
original cite said. Ever.

P.S.  Do you still believe that horses stopped and allowed
early hunters to catch up to them, or have you since
gotten a clue?



Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:21:05 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

<more lies>
This troll proves he is lying every time he can't make a direct
quote. All he can do is make accusations but can never prove
what he is lying about. The only arguement he can make is to
change words, too dishonest to use attribution marks or quotation
marks.

A mentally retarded moron, JTEM, thinks he sees the word "around"
somewhere on this page that he cited. It doesn't exist.

Not one person, except a troll, could possibly interpret the oldest
remains are only "around" 6,700 years old at Marmes.
 JTEM claims:
 "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
 at around 6,700 years of age:"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

After months of claiming otherwise, this troll can only repeat like a
parrot
his lies. The people who have worked on this site say about 10,000 for
the shelter
and a "minimum" of 10,130 for the floodplain age of the human
remains.
For example:
Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

All this helpless troll can do is keep repeating over and over his
ignorance
like it will somehow make a lie come true. He is simply too dishonest
to type out the exact quote becaise he knows it would prove he was
lying.

Lie No. 2  "Like I said, you've sometimes even quoted it... exactly.
You know for a fact that it says 6,700 years."

Rebuttal:
Of course the Mazama ash was thought to be 6,700 in 1987,
but Sheppard said the oldest remains were "beneath" the ash
on the very page this moron cited, not "around" the ash as JTEM
claimed and is too stupid to understand what Sheppard was saying.
Beneath means older in the stratigraphy of an archaeological site.
In this case "beneath" is 6 feet beneath and 2000+ years older than
the ash.

Lie No.3 "Which means the two had to be roughly
the same age.
And I know for a fact also, you can't back up your claim
with numbers:"

Rebuttal:
See Hicks 2004 above:  "beneath" is "about 10,000".
And on the inside of the shelter, about 6 feet "beneath"
the ash and sealed by a rock fall.

Lie No. 4:
"Now if the remains were two or three layers beneath
(which they weren't), you'd have a point."

Rebuttal:
Sheppard 1987 (table 2.1 from Hicks 2004):
" Mazama ash Stratum IV 6,700"
"Stratum II/I 8,700 to 9,540" (inside shelter dates)
On the floodplain 10,130 "minimum" Sheppard 1984.
Here you admitted I was correct (along with WSU, Hicks,
 Rice, Breschini, and Krantz) because Layer IV is
"two or three layers beneath".

You lied when you said "(which they weren't)"
Sorry, but layers II/I are two to three layers beneath
layer IV, 6 feet beneath and 2000+ years older.

So there are the numbers for the point you claimed
as fact that couldn't be. You have your head so far
up your ass now, you will never be able to pull it out.



Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:02:01 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 37 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software