300,000-year-old throwing stick documents the evolution of hunting

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Quote:
I have never before heard such nonsense...

It would seem that livinglava is expanding their horizons in an ongoing show of idiocy.

I'm still uncertain if it's true ignorance or an act.

You forgot one other possibility: misinterpretation by readers.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I don’t know why any of you bother. Livinglava is one of the stupidest posters on A2K. In a vain attempt to mask his ignorance he uses long convoluted sentences that don’t go anywhere.

He doesn’t have a position, so he just tries to muddy the water with a load of word salad. It doesn’t make him look any less stupid, just a lot more tedious.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I don’t know why any of you bother. Livinglava is one of the stupidest posters on A2K. In a vain attempt to mask his ignorance he uses long convoluted sentences that don’t go anywhere.

He doesn’t have a position, so he just tries to muddy the water with a load of word salad. It doesn’t make him look any less stupid, just a lot more tedious.

It might seem like word salad to you because you can't understand what you're reading.

You could ask but you and many other people are too ridicule-oriented to ever show weakness by asking for clarification on something you don't understand.

In desperate fear, scare animals/humans lash out at the thing that confuses them instead of seeking clarification and understanding.

It is understandable when they don't have the security of knowing they will be safe if they admit when they don't understand.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Congratulations on being able to admit it, though by doing so you are opening yourself of to have that information used against you by people who only look at personal information as ammunition to use against others.

Well, it has been (and still is) in my CV, for getting jobs or when working at university, since more than 35 years (after my therapy).

livinglava wrote:

Are you getting paid to discuss anything here? I'm not. If we were, it would be professional. When you do things not for pay, it is amateur, i.e. for love only

Oh, I didn't know that. We (and the French and those, who speak British) use it differently: amateur: someone who is unqualified or insufficiently skilful. Or someone, who is a hobbyist.

It seems unreal to me personally that, for example, a surgeon, who describes here on a thread a method for treating bone fractures, should be an amateur. But if that's the way you feel about it, okay.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I said he was an idiot.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Somehow the observation that e must be drunk to pose such a statement is often just the utterings of a small mind. I too had an alcohol problem and , like smoking, weight control, and drinking, we
seem to overcome.And you still sound many many times more rational than Ll.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, it has been (and still is) in my CV, for getting jobs or when working at university, since more than 35 years (after my therapy).

This is the internet. People are anonymous and some will take any personal information and use it provocatively against you. I try not to do so, but people get the best of me with nasty things they say and I hit back with what I have. I find Farmerman particularly mean-spirited when he chastizes me for not having had the academic career that he seems to have had. A good professor doesn't disrespect amateurs when discussing science. He and Maxadonna do because they aren't good enough thinkers to be totally self-confident instead of going on and on about how great scientists and science are and how no one can think or say anything of any validity until they have done all the classes they have.

livinglava wrote:

Are you getting paid to discuss anything here? I'm not. If we were, it would be professional. When you do things not for pay, it is amateur, i.e. for love only

Oh, I didn't know that. We (and the French and those, who speak British) use it differently: amateur: someone who is unqualified or insufficiently skilful. Or someone, who is a hobbyist.[/quote]
People often use it pejoratively, but that is a negative cultural pattern that discourages people from doing things they're not professionals at. You don't have to make money at something to do it. Just because you don't make money at it doesn't mean you should let other people ridicule you and chase you out of doing something you love. The culture of hate/ridicule is relentless and it would kill itself with negativity if it didn't scare itself into scapegoating others instead.

Quote:

It seems unreal to me personally that, for example, a surgeon, who describes here on a thread a method for treating bone fractures, should be an amateur. But if that's the way you feel about it, okay.

You might be a professional outside of internet discussion, but when you are discussing something publicly free of charge, it is amateur work.

Don't think of 'amateur' in its negative connotation. Just think of it as doing work voluntarily out of love and not for money. It is more honorable to do something as an amateur than as a professional, just as it is more honorable to love someone from a pure heart than because you're getting paid.

We have to get paid to get money because we need money, but all the things we do outside of making money are good if they are ethical. It is better to spend your free time putting your mind to work in discussion than doing other things that would be more harmful/destructive, so no one should be ridiculing anyone for amateurism.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Taking this analogy further in regards to science, what you do is discourage people from playing amateur baseball in their free time by telling them that they should just watch professionals play and not think that when they are throwing a ball or hitting it with a bat that doing so constitutes some form of baseball because real baseball players go to spring training and join professional teams, have managers, etc.

No , real skill comes from talent , training and PRACTICE, none of which seems to be your problem. When you try to make excuses for your lack of unerstanding you how me how ill equipped you are in these discussions.

Youve said that youve read many of the editions or the scientiic literature Id posted and reccommended to you. I know really well that youre a liar because Ive frequently posted direct quotes from several of them that just went over your had and you never once acknowledged that maybe someone else said something similar.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Somehow the observation that e must be drunk to pose such a statement is often just the utterings of a small mind. I too had an alcohol problem and , like smoking, weight control, and drinking, we
seem to overcome.And you still sound many many times more rational than Ll.

Your belligerence makes you sound like you're drinking. You say really nasty things in your posts. You say pompous things against people who believe in religion and/or talk about science though they may not have a professional academic career.

You cannot just stick to discussing a topic. It shows that you just aren't as smart as your supposed academic status makes you seem, because otherwise you should be able to understand the things you just react violently to.

You criticized the use of the term, 'brute,' but you often act like a brute in discussion. When you pompously accuse others of lacking scientific credentials, and/or dismiss their thoughts by citing books/articles that could add to the discussion if you would simply have a discussion about them instead of posting them to trump someone else's idea; that is pure status-territorialism.

You don't seem to understand that the point of academia is to do scientific and other intellectual work for the benefit of mankind; not to engage in status competition and put others down for thinking about things that academicians have published books and articles on. You make science and intellectualism into a competition for domination instead of a free market for exchanging and engaging ideas.

I don't know why you would do that unless you have a lot of anger inside, and I mention alcoholism because it is often the case that pent up anger and alcoholism go together. Anyone who has seen alcoholism up close in themselves and/or others should know that.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

you have to resort to accusing me of not being a scientist, that just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are in responding to my post

How am I intellectually bankrupt when Im correct. Were you fellow worker in some science wed have a common lingo with which to discuss ccertain areas common to all sciences.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

This is the internet. People are anonymous and some will take any personal information and use it provocatively against you.

It is known here in Germany since ... well, at least more tha 30 years, in print.
It is known on the internet - I've never posted anything anonymously - since I used it.

livinglava wrote:

The culture of hate/ridicule is relentless

Yes. You prove that often enough.

livinglava wrote:

You might be a professional outside of internet discussion, but when you are discussing something publicly free of charge, it is amateur work.

You don't read scientific papers and publication, it seems.
Many, many just exist because of their unpaid writers.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
you have to resort to accusing me of not being a scientist, that just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are in responding to my post
How am I intellectually bankrupt when Im correct. Were you fellow worker in some science wed have a common lingo with which to discuss ccertain areas common to all sciences.

It is intellectual bankruptcy when you avoid discussing the substance of a topic and instead just resort to citing some other work that is a reigning theory in academia.

E.g. in the thread about the meteor impact causing the Hawaiian hot spot, you just start citing books and saying that the reigning theory of how the Hawaiian hot spot formed is different from what the poster proposed.

It's fine if you want to cite and post what you've read. And it's good if you bring up relevant information. But what is intellectually bankrupt is when you just dismiss what the poster says because it's different than what you've read in academic texts.

When someone posts alternative thinking on a topic, you should treat that as an opportunity to explore what you know about a subject, which can lead to falsification of the person's ideas, but they have to come to that understanding because they understand the reasoning and not just because someone else with a distinguished faculty position somewhere has already come up with a different theory.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It is known here in Germany since ... well, at least more tha 30 years, in print.
It is known on the internet - I've never posted anything anonymously - since I used it.

You use what seems to be a first and last name as your username. I don't pay attention to usernames or research people offline because I want to remain neutral in discussion.

Quote:

livinglava wrote:
The culture of hate/ridicule is relentless
Yes. You prove that often enough.

I am not proactive in it, though. It may feel like ridicule to read some critical things I say about politics, academia, or egotism generally; but those are just observations not specifically intended to insult. If I notice a pattern of egotism in academia, for example, am I supposed to keep quiet about it because someone might get their academic pride hurt by reading that academicians are not purely disinterested researchers?

Quote:

livinglava wrote:
You might be a professional outside of internet discussion, but when you are discussing something publicly free of charge, it is amateur work.
You don't read scientific papers and publication, it seems.
Many, many just exist because of their unpaid writers.

Maybe so, but many are trying to build resumes, get promotions, tenure, grants, and escape losing their jobs/careers when the budget contracts. What's more, the people who keep their jobs have high salaries and are protected by unions, which means they're not going to expand budgets to hire more people in low-paying positions; those people have to go out and get jobs in the businesses where the professors are spending their money. You pay tuition to study under a professor, then you work for the economy where they spend their money.

It's not that bad to work outside academia, but if you have a mind and interest in discussing things that are also discussed in university, you shouldn't have academia-defenders ridiculing you for not going back to school. You shouldn't have to pay for classes just to discuss things online.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

It is intellectual bankruptcy when you avoid discussing the substance of a topic

Indeed posting something like adding 'worship' to a thread and not discussing the substance (sic!) of the topic

Quote:

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I leave out anything else, but respond only to that below quotet part of your response

livinglava wrote:

You use what seems to be a first and last name as your username. I don't pay attention to usernames or research people offline because I want to remain neutral in discussion.

You wrote:

This is the internet. People are anonymous and some will take any personal information and use it provocatively against you.

So I answered to that, but didn't respond to "my username on A2K", since you didn't question that.

Why would you leave your "neutrality" when you know the name of a person? (It doesn't only seem so but it is my full registered name since my birth.)
You can't respond objectively when knowing a persons name?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

livinglava wrote:
It is intellectual bankruptcy when you avoid discussing the substance of a topic

Indeed posting something like adding 'worship' to a thread and not discussing the substance (sic!) of the topic

Maybe, but when I read in the quoted article where the author compared the 'specialness' of finding 300,000 year old relics to the 'specialness' of setting foot on the moon, I realized it was about ethnic/national rivalry more than science.

You see, I will be the first to admit that taking the moon landings as a cause for national pride is a deviation from the science of studying the moon; but it only cements and adds to that egotism to suggest that an archeological finding should be worthy of awe in the same way.

So, I'm sorry that I didn't just stick to discussing the science, but that aspect of the article was problematic and deserved being noted.

If I wouldn't have noted it, it would have passed unnoted and thus I would have contributed to propagating that false appropriation of science as a source of ethnic/national pride and rivalry.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Why would you leave your "neutrality" when you know the name of a person? (It doesn't only seem so but it is my full registered name since my birth.)
You can't respond objectively when knowing a persons name?

Your real name might be Bob Smith, but I'm not interested in knowing about you personally because discussions are about content, not people.

When you write a book, it's not for you but for your readers, correct? If you could sit down and write a book but you knew it would never be read by anyone, never be published, never end up in any library, etc. would you waste time and energy writing it?

Hopefully your answer is no, so then you agree with me that the point of reading and writing in a public forum is to honor the fundamental purpose of information, which is to communicate content for the sake of readers.

I wish neither you nor anyone else any harm, but these discussions aren't ultimately about just us. They are about the content of our thoughts that we are posting publicly for the benefit of readers.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

"...they are something very 'special,' i.e. worthy of worship." Bad analysis.
More like special as in memorabilia. No one in science worships scientific artifacts.

Joe(you do what you like)Nation

4 Replies

@Joe Nation,

now wash off yer keyboard and sanitize with gin

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

"...they are something very 'special,' i.e. worthy of worship." Bad analysis.
More like special as in memorabilia. No one in science worships scientific artifacts.

Why would the quoted article then compare 300,000 year old spears with the moon landings?

What scientific relevance does such a comparison have? It only makes sense to say that if you are seeking prestige/status for your research finds relative to other research achievements in terms of their prestige.

Face it, this article is a valuable gem of an artifact when it comes to proving there is worship of scientific artifacts. It might even rival the moon landings in terms of how special it is as a textual artifact, don't ya think?

0 Replies

300,000-year-old throwing stick documents the evolution of hunting

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know