Re Chemistry in Archaeology

Document Sample
Re Chemistry in Archaeology Powered By Docstoc
					                                       Re: Chemistry in Archaeology

Re: Chemistry in Archaeology

Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2005−12/msg00399.html



      • From: Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
      • Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:46:07 GMT



Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:54:18 +0000, Doug Weller
> <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I wonder whether the fellow that Seppo claims to have cleaned
> >>out was the unfortunate other party in that otherwise−humorous
> >>court case? Or does he get into this sort of thing frequently?
>>
> >He doesn't say he cleaned them out, just implies it. He doesn't even say
> >it was a legal case.
> >>
> >> I believe that the world would be better off without the kind of
> >>behavior this alleged person betrays.
> >>
> >I'm hardly going to waste cash on suing Seppo, who I suspect could never
> >pay up anyway. In the UK I'd just do it myself with no lawyer

Yeah, yeah...... all mouth and no balls again! Maybe his lawyer
laughed at him and is still laughing at Douggie..... what a JOKE he
is!

> >There is no possible way he could win −− he's called me a puppy farmer,

There is no possibility DOUGGIE could win a defamation case on that
one − that is 100% sure.

> I note that he offers no proof − because there is none.

NOT TRUE again − no wonder it is a habitual liar. I provided the proof
− I stated it was a public confession by Douggie! I stand by it. HE
knows it is true, *I* know it is true − irrespective of what LIES he
may resort to.

> And it's funny, he
> >calls me a coward −− but the coward is Seppo, who libels people and then


Re: Chemistry in Archaeology                                                        1
                                       Re: Chemistry in Archaeology

> >refuses to provide evidence>
>
> I've noted this accusation of Seppo's for severl months

THIS of course is a LIE − what is it with people when they NEED to LIE
− for what reason? Are the so damned banal that they cannot make a
point without resorting to LIES to big note themselves with?

The post the Douggie objected to was the FIRST time I had ever
referred to him as a "puppy farmer". Got that! It is only THREE DAYS
ago (Sun, 11 Dec 2005)!!

> and I've only
> just got around to finding out what he means. See
> http://www.thedogscene.co.uk/articles/buying/puppyfarms.htm
> Whatever else Doug might do, it certainly isn't run a puppy farm.

Wrong − that is one person's bent opinion and not a fact. It is often
part of a public campaign to scare purchasers to only purchase from
breeders and not pet shops to whom "puppy farmers" may sell their
"product". Also there are nutter mobs like "Animal Liberation" and
"Animal rights activists" try to put an unsavoury spin on everything
uncaring of the truth of the matter.

It is closer to the meaning of "puppy MILL" − being a breeder (usually
a back yard breeder most often a single dog operation) who mates the
bitch far too soon after a litter and more often than they should for
the long term good of the bitch. It does NOT mean that any of the dogs
are mistreated or ill kept in any other way − though that may be so in
some cases.

The term "mill" is that makes it offensive, as it implies churning out
puppies in a mass production, uncaring of the health of the bitch(es).

Fact: Dog breeders breed dogs for money − the MAIN reason. "Farm" has
no offensive connotations − or a dairy farm would be an offensive term
too − it is not. So pull your head in.

The Douggie is full of false indignation as is so often the case to
HIDE the real issue of him INSULTING newcomers to the forum −
something he was falsely "indignant" about too when it was noted by
another and the target of the insults!

> The
> neigbours would never stand for it, for a start. :−)
>
> Once Seppo gets going on this kind of theme, the only way to describe
> him is as 'bonkers'.

Oh dear − NOT accepting the right for certain people to abuse and
defame others with impunity is "bonkers" − so that means behaving like

Re: Chemistry in Archaeology                                              2
                                       Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
a right arsehole without a conscience or morals would amount to
"sanity" − in Eric's 'mind'. No wonder Eric comes to the aid of the
likes of Douggie! It say's far more about Douggie than anyone
else...... oh and of Eric himself of course!
>
> What sin are you going to ascribe to me, Seppo? Numeracy?

Resorting to fabrications and LIES −again. Ignorance and ill−will. Oh,
and that would have been "innumeracy" you meant surely!

See here:
http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/1999/archives/25/roadtests/dog_breeds/designer_dogs
http://sekaiseifuku.net/puppyfarm.html
http://www.saynotopuppyfarms.org.uk/
http://tinyurl.com/andcj
http://www.wctatel.net/web/bostons/
<html>
<head>
<title>Jelsi Puppy Farm</title>
<meta CONTENT="JELSI PUPPY FARM" HTTP−EQUIV="Bulletin−Text">
<meta CONTENT="Tue, 17−Mar−98 20:54:02" HTTP−EQUIV="Bulletin−Date">

So now we see that the Douggie is whistling dixie, while peeing into a
gale and getting splattered − but why should you stand beside him in
that situation?!? When UK Governments grant money to "puppy farms" it
cannot be "defamatory" of the Douggie, who is in the UK! He is
definitely a LOSER in this case!!



−−
SIR − Philosopher unauthorised
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
.



      • Follow−Ups:
             ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                    ◊ From: Eric Stevens

      • References:
             ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                    ◊ From: bernard_connor
             ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                    ◊ From: Doug Weller
             ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                    ◊ From: I E_Johansson

Re: Chemistry in Archaeology                                                           3
                                    Re: Chemistry in Archaeology

            ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                   ◊ From: Doug Weller
            ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                   ◊ From: Seppo Renfors
            ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                   ◊ From: Alan Crozier
            ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                   ◊ From: Doug Weller
            ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                   ◊ From: Seppo Renfors
            ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                   ◊ From: Tom McDonald
            ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                   ◊ From: Doug Weller
            ♦ Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
                   ◊ From: Eric Stevens

     • Prev by Date: Re: Teaching ID as religion is a dangerous affair
     • Next by Date: Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
     • Previous by thread: Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
     • Next by thread: Re: Chemistry in Archaeology
     • Index(es):
            ♦ Date
            ♦ Thread




Re: Chemistry in Archaeology                                             4