Date: July 28, 2019 05:37AM
> This time my comment wasn't to you; it was to
Public bulletin board, public discussion. If you want to go private, send Richard an email.
> And your ad hominem attack criticizing my use of a
> "third hand blog" (actually it is "second hand")
> is particularly rich since the link you gave only
> offers an abstract, and one would need to purchas
> the entire article, something I'm not inclined to
Lets unpack that sentence. First, my saying that you used a bad source is not an "ad hominem" attack. Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary to learn what "ad hominem" means. Second, your source was indeed third-hand. The initial account was the academic publication, the second-hand account was the CBC article, and the third-hand account was the gizmodo article that you linked. One, two, three.
As for whether you want to read the full article or not, I don't really care. The fact is you didn't even bother to read the authors' abstract which, as indicated by the quotation I provided, contradicts what you say. You didn't even read the second-hand account but went right to a tertiary article by a person who doesn't even list a college degree on his resume. Where some have an instinct for the jugular, you go right for the capillaries.
> Whoops, I forgot to call you on one more bit of
> dishonesty and prevarication:
> >>It is ironic that you now cite Roosevelt's
> 20-year-old dictum to negate her subsequent
> research and findings. She clearly disagrees with
> both your substance and with your approach to
> science and knowledge.
> So you've appointed yourself to speak for her?
Why would it be dishonest of me to appoint myself to speak for her? Rash, perhaps, but dishonest? Maybe you need to look that word up too.
And how is my honesty, or lack thereof, relevant to the substance of the discussion? She has explained fully that she changed her mind and now accepts the pre-Clovis hypothesis.
> Here's an update on that subject in her own
> >>All the new evidence, therefore, has revealed
> that the first Americans had settled in many
> different regions by 11,000 years ago. Not only
> the plains but also the coasts and tropical
> forests were occupied by the earliest-known
> people. Thus, Clovis was just one regional
> specialization among many. Although the new data
> suggest a different scenario for colonization of
> the hemisphere, the much earlier dates remain
> problematic. An initial entry at about 12,000
> years ago remains the most viable conclusion.
You have got to be kidding. Read the Article History on that page and you will see that Roosevelt wrote that article in the 1990s. Click also on the "Learn More" button. It will tell you that the article is outdated and "presented on the site "as archival content, intended for historical reference only." So what you claim is an update on Roosevelt's thinking is in fact more than two decades old and explicitly labeled as outdated. You can hardly use that to conceal Roosevelt's current position, which by dint of nearly 20 years of new and better research is diametrically opposed to yours.
So stop the name-calling and do your homework. Otherwise you are going to keep embarrassing yourself.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2019 05:54AM by Lot's Wife.