"Hal S." <h.sanders@xxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> "ie" <I_e,johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > "Doug Weller" <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:6p0sg1tacrnnhgtgp1c6jsud15t3lm4foq@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:03:44 -0500, in sci.archaeology,
> >> "t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> wrote:
> >> >ie wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> tk,
> >> >> sorry but you are wrong - there are a lot of confirmed artifacts to
> > prove
> >> >> you wrong.
> >> >
> >> >Then you should have no trouble giving a example, any example, of such
> >> >"confirmed artifacts."
> >> She means confirmed by her friends,
> > Not only them Doug. Definitely not only by them. Had that been the case
> > wouldn't have written what I did.
> > The iron artifacts been known(!) confirmed and probably
> > forgotten that they been confirmed. Might be due to the ones I have in
> > mind
> > were found and analysed during the period short before and short after
> > Pearl
> > Habor. Many things that were found also outside US seems to have fallen
> > into
> > shadow due to more important things to think about and deal with.
> > Testresults were concrete. Refered to in one of the books/works to which
> > Eric S and I have refered to when discussing the Pre-Columbian iron
> > artifacts found in NA.
> > So I can give information, but I will not do so. As I said before about
> > 'pearls'....... you have been given the opportunity to go looking in an
> > edited book/work. Had you not been so keen asking for quotes but listen
> > what I have said many times - a quote taken out of it's context isn't
> > worth
> > much, you would have read the refered chapters, at least. Had you done
> > you would have known where to go looking for full information. Since you
> > all
> > have been given the opportunity more than ones and not only by me, I
> > intend to do your homework. You will have to wait for details till it
> > suits
> > me to present them. You have had your chance, make no mistake about
> > Inger E
> In other words (after cutting through all your balderdash), you can't come
> up with any "confirmed artifacts."
In other words I have sent you and the others direct instruction which
edited book to look up in, including chapter and page, to read about some of
the confirmed(!!!!) artifacts. That you and some other here written ad
Hominem and abuse instead of doing your simple homework, trying to get hold
of the refered books and read, that's not my problem and as I said many
times before pearls have better not be thrown away. Why do you ask about ref
when you never bothered to look those I sent up?
> Hal S.