tjj wrote:
I used the word to describe the whole tone of the thread. It hasn't really been a discussion but a dismissive dismantling of a piece of work done by an archaeologist who is otherwise respected.
There was a lot of posts in the thread and what looked like a lot of discussion . I quoted comments to highlight the errors within them , I don't think that is unfair or even dogmatic .
tjj wrote:
I don't agree or disagree with the theory as don't have the astrological software at my disposal (or the understanding) to do so. [/quote]
That doesn't apply to the contents of the article or what could be considered a scientific paper , it was in "Nature" which is not usually given to printing the type of stuff you describe .
Part of me thinks I can't really be arsed anymore but another part says I won't be intimidated or belittled. You don't need any , I certainly didn't use any to be aware of and highlight the problems .
tjj wrote:
Generally speaking I'm a fan of logic but there are other elements to which logic cannot always be applied. We have often talked on this forum about how certain sites induce a feeling of well being and/or inexplicable euphoria - perhaps just the effort and sense of achievement of getting there, or a particularly blue sky, or the appearance of a rare bird. Just something not always easily put
rds. [/quote]That doesn't apply to the contents of the article or what could be considered a scientific paper , it was in "Nature" which is not usually given to printing the type of stuff you describe .
[quote="
[/quote]
Same here .
