Nazareth: The Piano Teacher vs the Archaeology Jan 14, 2013 21:03:56 GMT
Post by vridar on Jan 14, 2013 21:03:56 GMT
LOL!!!! Well that says it all! Hello there Tim. Glad you responded. So yes, you can refute my points in the post but you don't feel like doing it. LOL!
But of course the first chance you think you see a slight crack in my arguments you do not lose the opportunity to attempt a rebuttal. Slight inconsistency here??
Anyone with a grasp of English above remedial level can see that I'm rejecting the claim the site didn't have enough water to sustain a village. No-one but a total moron could read what I wrote above and conclude I was saying the site had water therefore it was definitely inhabited. Since Neil seems to have a reasonable grasp of English and doesn't seem functionally moronic, the only conclusion here is that he simply lied about what he said. After all, it's not like anyone in the Treehouse Club was going to object.
Of course, Tim is projecting here. I did not say that Tim used the presence of springs to conclude "therefore it [the area] was definitely inhabited". Since Tim seems to have a reasonable grasp of English etc etc the only conclusion here is that he simply lied about what I said, etc etc.
I rest my case. Tim has been checkmated on his Nazareth post. He is arguing against the right and responsibility of us all to expect research reports to explain and provide the data to show how they reached their conclusions. That is standard practice in the research and academic publication world.