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

<snip>

Quote:
> 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?

LOL!

Great stuff, JTEM.

JTEM, I don't have a sock puppet.  But if I did it would be just like
you.



Thu, 04 Apr 2013 01:11:29 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

Quote:

> <snip>

> > 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?

> LOL!

> Great stuff, JTEM.

> JTEM, I don't have a sock puppet. ?But if I did it would be just like
> you.

Sure, Jim McGinn, you don't have a sock
puppet.  And JTEM is a paragon of virtue --
as evidenced by *his* readily available posting
history.  You guys (you are two separate posters,
are you not) are a hoot.

=============================
"Like I said, it's easy to make big claims.
Its hard to back them up."
--Dimmy, 12/03/2005



Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:18:19 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")

Quote:

> Sure, Jim McGinn, you don't have a sock
> puppet. ?And JTEM is a paragon of virtue --
> as evidenced by *his* readily available posting
> history.

Gee, thanks, Lee/Rich/etc.

That really means a lot coming from someone as
intensely insane as you. Are you {*filter*} yet, are
have you still not killed anyone?



Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:53:33 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


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

Quote:

> Great stuff, JTEM.

Gee, two netloons hugging and kissing to comfort each other,
how sweet.


Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:30:37 GMT
 Hey, RichTard ("Lee" posting as "Rich")


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

Quote:

> > Sure, Jim McGinn, you don't have a sock
> > puppet. ?And JTEM is a paragon of virtue --
> > as evidenced by *his* readily available posting
> > history.

> Gee, thanks, Lee/Rich/etc.

Notice how this delusional nutcase JTEM can make an
accusation, but is always too stupid back up his claims with
anything rational?
Must be a mental short circuit that occurs when the mind can't grasp
the difference between  words such as "beneath"
and "around". His eyes sees one thing and his mind another.

For example:

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

Wow, nothing around on that page.

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)."

Just when you think it couldn't get any worse, he comes up with
this:
  "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.
In this case "beneath" is 6 feet beneath and 2000+ years older than
the ash.

 "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:"

ROFL

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.

 "Now if the remains were two or three layers beneath
(which they weren't), you'd have a point."

Yep I've got a point alright, you are delusional.

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)"
Ah, 10,130 is a number, two or three layers "beneath",
 so thanks for proving my point.



Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:42:37 GMT
 
 [ 37 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software