Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-05 > 1020885131

From: "Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr." <>
Subject: Re: Oppida in Irish Culture; was: Ancient Irish 'Pedigrees' (was Re: History & Genealogy or the Mathematical Study of Genealogy?)
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 12:12:11 -0700
References: <>, <>, <>

Doug, since you are a declared
skeptic, all "facts" I would
ever present to you would be
doubted, approximate or relative.
I have no religious or literal
position concerning Irish
pedigrees, only that proper
evaluation of a record must be
done from the viewpoint of
those who composed them. They
did think the records under
evaluation were historical and
thus proper later evaluation
must take this into consideration
to dissect the layers of formed
construction within them, as they
have been handed down. I believe
this is the rational genealogical
view and that your commentary shows
bias, an evaluation by preconception
through an inadequate appreciation
of the evidence. Cheers!
Doug Weller wrote:

> If you had shown yourself able to conduct a rational discussion I might not have
> considered you a kook. But as you not only could not discuss the archaeological evidence,
> but even resorted to handing me (evidenctly incorrect) dictionary definitions to prove
> some point, and simply fell back on your myths (which now I see include a literal, and
> woefully unhistoric, reading of the Bible), I can only conclude that you are a kook.
> If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to respond to points made in
> discussion, to make it clear what you are quoting from and what exactly the quoted portion
> is, and either back up your Biblical literalism with some arguments or admit that you are
> arguing from a religious position and that facts won't change your mind.
> Doug
> Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to:
> Doug's Archaeology Site:
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

This thread: