11-05-2006, 12:04 PM
Quote:We should go with what gets discovered and interpreted, step by step. There is ample room for interpretation without having to go 100% experimental and then showing your prototypes to the general public as part of some history class.Ebusitanus: I also think that such experimentation should have at least some factual basis, either from archeological records or historical records.
Some questions, since I'm a RAT newcomer & so far haven't found enough directly relevant textual evidence in RAT threads... (I understand some comments in this thread are based on eye-witness accounts, televised accounts, etc.)
Has AD been 100% experimental & then gone public with major new items?
Quote:I guess I feel I could not show up with a squamata made of sea shells and say "We do not know if it was not done".:lol: Has AD or a prominent AD member made such "long shot" conjectures so far from the archeological evidence/historic records?
Quote:I mean, Dario should be the first one interested in explaning his theories rather than dismissing such a big part of the international community, not only the anglo-saxxon, with his secretive patronizing ways.The first clause of this statement is clearly critical, and it's clearly aimed at Dario.
Has Dario been so dismissive?
The second clause of the statement is also clearly critical, but it is not clearly aimed.
Who is this unidentified "anglo-saxxon" [sic]? Is he or she also dismissive with his or her "ways"? Or were you refering to Dario again? Or did you mean something else?
I appreciate your comments on evidence-based experimentation, and look forward to your additional information on the other points. +r
AMDG
Wm. / *r
Wm. / *r
