Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Pretty neat to see. I didn't realize he did some of that subject matter. I also was not aware of Rockwell's fame outside the U.S.
Overall I thought Ryan did a better job but I thought that Biden did generally what he was probably tasked with doing: make Obama/Biden appear assertive and make Romney/Ryan go on the defensive. This has more to do with style than substance, but I think this is one of the main reasons for debates. Any side which looks unprepared, which does not have an answer, looks like the “unpresidential” side.With that said, although Biden did the things I mentioned above, he did so in a way that came across as arrogant, condescending, and downright un-vice presidential. I feel that Biden was given a task to do by the Obama campaign and that he went in with over-kill. The smiling, laughing, and interrupting will help it go down as one of the most memorable (in a bad way) of all VP debates in recent American memory.
Well, I figure that if someone's answer is that they would send a message to the White House to ask for help, he/she probably wouldn't make a good citizen. On the other hand, if the person's first inclination is to start fishing on his own for survival, that may indicate the type of citizen we would want. 🙂
Wow that is one long test. I only did the first ten and got 10/10, but they are kind of easy. It would almost be better to have some type of problem solving test for those applying to become citizens. “If you were stranded on an island and all you had with you was a stick, a string, a hook, and a carrier pigeon which you knew flew directly between your island and the White House, what would you do?”
I don't think a time machine is needed to confirm the truth of a hypothesis. I think that circumstantial evidence can create a picture which is very compelling in situations where there is no written record. That is, after all, sometimes the only thing we are left with.An example - suppose a cave were to be found with paintings of large animals on the inside. Suppose that testing of the pigments determined that the paintings date to 10,000 B.C. Suppose also that artificial chipping is found on the wall which correspond with parts of the animals near their vital organs. Suppose that spear heads are also uncovered near those paintings which also date to the same period, and these spear heads correspond to the general shape or size of the chippings on the wall. We obviously have no written records to account for why these paintings were made, but that, of course, is the question. I think it's entirely reasonable to use circumstantial evidence to support a theory about why they were made or what they were used for. This theory may have to be revised as new evidence is uncovered in the future. I think it's necessary to label it as a theory, but it helps us better picture the historical context of the cave. This picture can then lead us to new findings down the road - if this cave were used for X, then perhaps we should start looking for Y and Z in this cave as well.So for me, even if we don't know something with 100% certainty, we can still follow evidence which points to greater or lesser probabilities.
The first of what you provide is not even stated as a hypothesis, but is raised as a possibility. It is clearly labeled as such. Perhaps it is a working hypothesis which will later be tested. The second is more of a conclusion of an archaeologist who presumably has sufficient experience to make such a conclusion. Are you seriously telling me that you never raise possibilities in your research when there is something important which is not provided by the historical record? Do you simply leave your conclusion blank if there is something which cannot be factually determined? Perhaps you do, but I think it is entirely acceptable for other historians to start out with an idea, formulate a hypothesis, and then try to verify it. That's what arguing is for in a work of historical scholarship. I don't think that archaeology is any different from the field of history in this regard, and I hardly think the article above shows an example of academic "garbage". It's also important to keep in mind that we're reading a newspaper article, rather than a journal article; we are therefore only getting tidbits of information without all the factual support usually provided in an academic piece of writing.So I respectfully disagree that this article is proof of archaeological "guesswork", or even that that is something common to the field of archaeology. Just as there are good and bad examples of academic history, there are examples of good and bad archaeology. Yet both are by and large incredibly helpful.
I have made the changes here.BTW, if you don't mind me asking, what is the payout structure like at Hubpages? Do they pay you a fixed rate based upon the number of page views? Followers? I have come across Hubpages articles from time to time but never looked at the service very closely.
Guesswork? Where are you getting that from? You make it sound like they're grasping for straws. I just reread the article, and it is all factual except for a few small areas of hypothesizing – something which people in any historical field are allowed to do by following the evidence. Here are the areas of hypothesis:
He said the mixing of the body parts could have been due to “misfortune or carelessness”, but added: “The merging of their identities may have been a deliberate act, perhaps designed to amalgamate different ancestries into a single lineage.”
and
The building where the two mummified skeletons were found may have even become a “house of the dead” with priest-like people living there, professor Pearson believes.He added: “Having six preserved body parts to hand indicates there was sufficient space in which to store them for some time prior to their reassembly.“This raises the possibility that these dead either shared accommodation with the living or were kept in separate, as yet unidentified, 'mummy houses’ which were warm and dry enough to inhibit soft tissue decay.”
If this is "guesswork", then you would probably need to implicate the field of academic history in this as well. It's clearly labeled where he is separating fact from possibilities, which presumably will lead him in future work.
There are as many different dialects of the British accent as there are American accents in the states. You can even tell the difference between Daniel Craig and Jason Statham. Statham is more blue-collar where Craig sounds more aristocratic. I get a kick out of some of these rugby guys who play like beasts and look dumb as a rock, but then when you hear them talk they sound like they have a PhD.
I think that's the difference between a cockney (e.g. "Benny Hill") accent of the commoners and the more refined, "royal" accent which sounds far more sweet to the ears.
Regarding the Brit accent, back in 1960 when I moved to Hollywood for no fame and little fortune, the word was -- if one spoke with a British accent (usually a female secretary or male clothier), the question would be: "Are you from England or merely affected?"
I wonder if you are referring to the "Trans-Atlantic" accent which apparently became popular mid-century, and which seems to be the typical way people spoke in movies around that time. It's kind of an "Britisized-American" way of pronouncing words. In the video below, which I remember came out a few years ago, the very last accent the girl does is "Trans-Atlantic".[html][/html]
I did not realize that “twit” was a word common to the British. It does sound like it's somewhat pretentious, though, so perhaps that is a dead giveaway. 🙂 I think on occasion I have heard someone refer to a "flat" rather than an apartment. I don't think that irks me as much as some other words do.
I don't think everyone's mind is made up yet. Sure, all of our minds are made up, but there are wishy-washy people who either aren't sure or are prone to changing their minds. Even if it's only a few million people, it could still sway the election.
Get used to saying "President Romney" ;D
There's still far too much work ahead. I remember after McCain picked up Palin in 2008 hearing that the Republicans had the election in the bag. Yes, Romney did exactly framed his vision and pinpointed Obama's problems with the economy is very good fashion, while Obama appeared on the defensive and without much pizzazz. But there are still a few more debates and still many people to win over. Let's hope that Paul Ryan can succeed in the debate with Biden in a similar way.
