Re: Larry Athy and His Logical Analyses.

On Sat, Nov 29, 2003, 10:27am, Old McDweller posted here and made it
clear that he does not understand the basics of archaeology.
=================
I had written: ++ In statistical analysis of problems, the opinions of
linguists, archys, and janitors are rarely of an importance. ++
---------
He, now: ~~ One wonders why Larry bothers with posting on an archaeology
ng, then. One is clear, however, about why he doesn't post on
linguistics ngs. ~~
---------
+++ Old Mc does not seem to understand that many inscriptions are found
by archys, who then depend on linguists for analysis.  Linguists have
not been able to agree on the language used in the vowelless Ogam
inscriptions in the U.S. or B.I..  
-  My paper simply provides additional information on the linguistic
aspects of the history of those inscriptions and the intercontinental
movements of the authors.
-  Some archys are interested in the historical significance of their
work; others simply dig holes in the ground.
-  If Old Mc were an archy, he would only fit into the later group. +++
---------------
~~ Additionally, of course, his failure to understand the abilities and
techniques of scientists like archies and linguists shows his
prejudices, and indicates the ability he has to do research beyond the
end of his nose. ~~
--------
+++ But I am the one that has done the research and am quite aware of
the limitations of the abilities of archys and linguists.  Old Mc does
not understand anything about any of this and has contributed nothing
positive. +++
         Regards,  Larry Athy, P.E.