"Eric Stevens" wrote...
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 00:10:37 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
> <TJacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:32:03 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
>>> <TJacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>>>> If archaeological investigations are not carried out for the purpose
>>>>> of indulging someone's curiousity, then what are they fore. Have they
>>>>> become a mere ritual task intended to purify the way for the
>>>>> contractor's bulldozer? Surely not but I fear that's what is
>>>>this is probably the most asinine statement i have ever seen emit from
>>> I suggest you reconsider.
>>okay, it's the second most asinine statement i have ever seen emit from
>>postings. that better?
> Evasion of the question noted.
wantful ignorance of archaeology and unwillingness to accept archaeologists
concept of what archaeologists do and what archaeology is, noted (again).
> What is it that has made you take up archaeology? Are you saying that
> you are not looking for answers?
as a graduate student, i deal with the 'curiosity' issue on a regular basis
from public and undergrads. they are less educated than you and yet open
enough to still wrap their minds around concepts you ademently refuse to
accept. the easiest way i can spell this out is: you, as an engineer, are
going to tell archaeologist how to do archaeology and what archaeology is
based upon you think/want/wish/whim archaeology to be. it doesnt work that
way and every time someone here tries to explain to you the reasons why, you
fall back on the same behavior and tactics (polarization, word games, and
squink). it is for these reasons i refuse to even bother trying to help you
understand or even discuss it with you when you get like this. tom is still
the patron saint of patience and i would suggest listening to him more than
arguing with others. (and as a hint-- your line of questioning in most of
these posts is combative, not out of a desire to understand, combativeness