Ancient Migration-Coming to America

[Bill]

painshill, I had no trouble opening your document and I have already posted my reply earlier this morning about that post, on this thread. Please read it and you will discover with absolutely no nonsense, I have addressed your alarm, drama, and fears. In other words chill out dude!
In that post I thoroughly explained why their data if flawed there fore cannot be used to make inferences about events that happened 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. Please read my post for a through explanation
I explained in my earlier post this morning, why their flawed conclusion in ruling out the possibility of an Atlantic migration was bogus. Please read my post of earlier this morning.   
I explained in my post earlier this morning that there I was did not and was not guilty of plagiarizing anything. Please read my post of earlier this morning for details.
So far you have been wrong three out of three. Congratulations Pain or Roger, you just won a trifecta!
I wish you a good day and say hip hip, and cheerio (and toasted oats too!) to you  B) .

[Bill]

Nothing alarming Charlie, you are over thinking this stuff.
Will “Clovis from Solutrean” become the same thing and have the same chilling effect as “Clovis first” had and would it cause the same kind of tunnel vision. Would it “become a dogma that would inhibit research to the contrary” I believe you said and I believe you inferred.
Are you kidding (just joking)? Have you noticed that most of the archaeological community alone has come out firmly against such a preposterous idea as Clovis from Solutrean. That alone should convince you that there will be plenty of drama but there will be no dogma. Pro Archs will be going out of their way to find ways not to believe it.
Just look at how this issue divides folks into determined, different camps on these forums. When the subject comes up the same kind of heated arguments develop just like politics or religion cause. I don’t know why this is because, in the case of Clovis from Solutrean, why rail against something that is just an archaeological theory?
Are people afraid it is true? Are people afraid it is not? I don’t know lets wait and watch for the archaeological investigations discover. It will be a really cool show and will be fun to watch too.
By the way there will be plenty of drama in the professional Archaeological community and if you thought it was hard to get them to accept Preclovis, and they are still arguing about that one, it will be ten of twenty times harder to get those guys to accept Clovis from Solutrean!

[painshill]

Thanks for the efforts to convert my Word doc to text. This is what I actually said:
[[[What utter nonsense!
What you did Bill was to lift a piece of text word for word from the paper by Kashani et al. for which I posted the abstract. I didn’t post the entire paper for copyright reasons. That’s what abstracts are for… to summarise the conclusions. You selected a piece of text out of context in a partisan manner and presented it as your own counter-argument, which is disgraceful. If you call yourself a scientist you should be deeply ashamed.
Kashani et al. included that text as a frank admission of the possible flaws in genetic evidence in general. It doesn't detract from the evidence they present. Do you think they would present such a firm conclusion in a paper that also contains a dismissal of that same conclusion? What colour is the sky on your planet?
What you missed is that the text was included in the interests of fairness and balance but also as a reassurance that the authors recognised any possible limitations and had allowed for this in their rigorous anaylysis. That is, they were confident that they hadn’t fallen into a possible hole.
You selectively omitted the positive elements from the follow-on text and the main body of evidence and also very clearly missed the conclusion from the data (even allowing for any possible shortcomings). The words used were: “… definitively dismisses the controversial Solutrean hypothesis…”
By drawing attention to the wider context, you have unwittingly reinforced the arguments that rubbish Stanford’s theory. Not the other way round. So, well done. We’ll make a scientist of you yet. Well… probably not, eh?]]]
The three biggest sins in science are plagiarising someone else's data without proper attribution; selectively presenting data out of context and inventing data that wasn't gathered experimentally. You managed two out of three. Wanna go for the full set?
[PS: I am Roger, but stayed with my forum persona Painshill to avoid confusion with another Roger on the site. Painshill is simply where I live. No drama there Bill]

[CMD]

Bill, you wrote:

"Well CMD if you will excuse me, and I apologize in advance, you seem to be guilty of exactly that."  Bill, yes, I do in fact believe we are kindred spirits, and I do apologize for overly harsh comments I made earlier in this thread. However, I'm confused as to what you're saying I'm guilty of? Do you mean irrational fear of the Solutrean hypothesis?? I'm just wondering, as I've gone back over my most recent posts and I'm unsure what I'm guilty of.

[roustabout149]

Bill wrote:

roustabout149, I simply place direct material in italics and believed folks would realize that. I apologize for the confusion.

  Understood.  Quite a bit of reading involved!!!
P.S.  I should have questioned my thoughts immediately rather than assume seriousness on your part.  I did see your references on the post.  I am not faultless. :S

[Bill]

roustabout149, I simply place direct material in italics and believed folks would realize that. I apologize for the confusion.

[Bill]

CMD, I apologize for the confusion. Since they are not here, I thought everyone would see the humor when I replying for them.
Let me state for the record and to be absolutely clear, I am not Dennis Stanford or Bruce Bradley.

[Bill]

Well CMD if you will excuse me, and I apologize in advance, you seem to be guilty of exactly that.
However I agree with and respect the rest of you post because believe it or not I think we are kindred spirits in many ways.
But I must take issue with the phrase you just posted “I have begun to wonder if Stanford/Bradley are engaged in an intellectual con game.” I am just as skeptical as you are because I have been following this First American stuff for a long, long time. I am attracted to S and Bs argument and theory because it fits the artifacts at the heart of that argument. I am convinced Drs. S and B are indeed convinced of the truth of their theory.
I was fortunate to have enjoyed a conversation with Dr. Stanford at least fifteen years ago at the Topper site in South Carolina and he was questioning Clovis across the land bridge even back then. He was questioning that theory because he had been at sites and analyzed artifacts on both sides of the Bearing Strait. When he compared Clovis artifacts to those he couldn’t see the continuation or nexus between them.
I agree with you because to really make the theory fly there need to be some Solutrean artifacts found in the Del Marva Peninsula area. However, if Clovis and the Solutrean from the Cantabria area of Spain are directly related there may be no daylight between the artifacts of both areas. 
If Drs. S and B are right I would expect to see this proven by them in the course following years or even less. Will this mean that there were no really early Preclovis people here? No it does not because Clovis will be Clovis and Preclovis will still be Preclovis. Both theories can and will coexist because ond did not necessarily spring from the other.
I am also convinced that Dr. S and B are not cherry picking their data. That is what it is because both of these professionals have placed their careers on the line and realize subsequent finds will be closely and constantly examined by their peers. I am convinced they are blue ribbon Scientists and because their careers are on the line, they will do it right.

[CMD]

Butch Wilson wrote:

here is the latest attemt to paste Painshills text:
  WhatUtterNonsense.txt

  Thank you so much, Butch. I couldn't get that far. Way to go!!

[CMD]

I managed to open Roger's doc. Well put, Roger and I quite agree. I do hope you can post it here in text form when the server allows as everyone should read it as it does indeed point out the error of Bill's ways, just as you said it would.

[roustabout149]

Bill wrote:

Actually it was my response but I'll take that as a compliment B)  B)

  Can't blame me for being confused.  I certainly read the comments.  If you don't use the quote option, then it's rather difficult to tell what is being referenced.  What are you saying here to help me understand?

[Butch Wilson]

here is the latest attemt to paste Painshills text:
  WhatUtterNonsense.txt

[Bill]

roustabout149, I am convinced that many of the people who love creating drama don’t take time to read and understand the posts they attempt to answer. Don’t be one of those people. Before answering, please be sure you understand exactly what was posted.
I have never (and I said NEVER!) made post in which I attempted to personally take credit for something someone else wrote or said. I always place excerpts from source material in direct quotes and/or post the tile, authors, and source from where it was taken.
This is why I say that no one who has taken the time to read or understand my post will have the idea that I personally, took credit for the quoted material which I placed in quotation marks and listed the source too.
Roger or whatever his name is because he goes by the nom de plume of “Painshill” (I love it) loves to spent his time creating and posting humorous anecdotes (and what a funny fellow he is too). When his humor has become unnecessarily harsh, cutting, or disrespectful then he has earned the right to be called to account. This is something he has chosen.
I hope that now you can feel assured that it’s all good!

[roustabout149]

It IS dramatic when you claim title to someone else's words other than your own.    You screwed yourself, Bill.  Roger just pointed it out.  Then...you proceed to attempt to twist it all up by accusing Roger to be in error for calling you on it.  The only thing I'm learning from you at this point  Bill, is "the art of deception!"

[CMD]

If anyone is able to open Roger's word doc, and perhaps copy and paste it(?) here, that would be great.
I've been trying to no avail, and I'm sure it's because of my lack of computer skills.