George, be good.

George Knysh wrote:
"General Note: For those who are confused by Steve
Long's hop skip and jump method of argumentation,
viz., completely ignoring certain points.., raising
new issues in mid-stream, red herrings, etc., please
be advised that this is nothing new. Have a look at
message 280 on the European Archaeology list (November
29 2000). Let's hope we're not in for more of the same
here..."

George, George, George.

For those on the other hand who want to see George really get his tail waxed
- by the same guy, BTW - read messages 1288 and 1293 on the European
Archaeology list on Yahoo. Let's hope we're in for more of the same here.

If you want an explanation for message 280, read message 48 where I rip Paul
Barford good for his remarks on Przeworsk, probably too personally. And
although I went at it with Paul a lot, I'm sure I'm on much better terms with
him right now than George is.

What Paul wrote about George's "failure to apply the same
standards to his own postings that he requires of others..." is relevant
here. George certainly doesn't read other people's posts as closely as he
reads his own.

And George may also have trouble with archaeologists who say things he
doesn't like. So that Barford had to write: "Well, I am an archaeologist,
and I am "here" but when I gave my reasons "why
not", all I hear is that [George] does not want to hear this and is looking
for comments from other archaeologists with different views and wondering why
he is not receiving them." - message 1288.

As far as George's (and even Paul's) objection to my approach, all I can say
is that if you can't keep up, it may be my fault. Or it might be yours.

If it's my fault, I apologize. If it's yours,...

Regards,
Steve Long