I did consider them l. I even googled them. And it is clear that the DM story is sketchy and unreliablespringrain wrote:Well, it's no use throwing insults back and forth. I'd sooner be called an idiot than discard claims without at least considering them. How awful to brush something off simply because it doesn't appear in their favourite newspaper. I'll continue to keep an open mind.
who is smarter ? khmer or thai
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
Indeed, it would have been surprising if he weren't. Quite remarkable it is, their ability to stir shit and drag the discussion down to their level within a very short time.scobienz wrote:Playboy wrote:Fuck me, this thread turned into a bizarre hand-shandy pile of toss.
Hardly surprising given Neilo is one of the five culled two weeks ago.
Springrain - I unfortunately had very little time available when I was back in town last week, so we'll have to put off discussions for some future point in time, at least face to face ones. In regard to your latest post, I don't see the lag in time between perception and knowledge of events to be at all troubling. While we're always going to have a slight gap between what is experienced and its actual taking place, it occurs within a framework that is entirely predictable. Thus, while we perhaps cannot directly experience reality due to a slight lag between our senses and our consciousness, what we do experience is consistent with our senses and what we have experienced both prior to and after any event. Furthermore, we can predict future events and experiment to prove that what we expect to see will occur with absolute certainty. Therefore I have no problems with stating that I am experiencing an objective reality. The observations, science and knowledge of millions of other independent observers leads me to believe that they too experience similar phenomena as I do. Hence this supports my observations and confirms to me that this is not a solipsistic view, a hologram or some other contrivance that has tricked me into seeing something that is not there or not seeing something that is there.
Does this mean that I believe that all there is to know is that which can be seen, detected, or inferred? By no means. For example, if one believes that the mathematics behind String Theory is correct, then there are 6 or 7 additional dimensions that we cannot detect or measure. No doubt these dimensions would interact with and affect the properties of the things we can see and measure within our paltry four. And no doubt we're going to look back upon this present era's physics with similarly arched eyebrows that one now looks upon Newtonian physics with. That's science, and progress, and I won't put it past us to eventually figure out a way to explore even these un-experienceable dimensions. Ain't half been some clever bastards among us. But I won't attribute what we find to magic, nor will I look with contempt upon the Einsteins and others who have allowed us to incrementally increase our understanding along the way, even as their limitations are progressively exposed as being more crude approximations rather than elegant proofs. I really hope I'm around long enough for some of the really cool stuff to come out in the coming technological explosion before (and during while) the shit hits the fan.
- springrain
- I'm on 3000; na na, na na na
- Reactions: 48
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:25 pm
Looks like this thread has run its course. I'm not attempting to revive it, but I just want to thank JC for his detailed reply. Sorry to be a bit daft getting well into my second bottle of wine (as is my wont on a Sunday afternoon), but I do have genuine concerns about our history and its possible* cover ups. (it's what I have found a lot even if many say otherwise; it merits greater attention, I reckon)
Sorry if LL & shitegeist were put off by my rather petulant stance. I genuinely want to pick the brains of LL (due to his encyclopedic knowledge of things Cambodian) & shitegeist (who appears to be actively involved in the archaeology of AW). Hemmingway, if I had the resources to do a Hancock and go exploring the worldwide sites myself, I surely would (I did some exploring in Notts/Yorks as a young man, at any rate). In the absence of such wherewithal, I make use of the net as I can.
Anyway, that's cool if peeps want to disagree. Thanks also to harold for a dignified reply. I trawl several discussion sites, but it is always difficult to get a decent reply concerning 'reality' & perception. JC gave a quick (always difficult to do on the spur of the moment) appraisal and I really appreciate that. It is a fascinating question. All we can 'know' with any certainty can surely be cogito ergo sum and that's about it. It concerns a little bit more than little green men (or big red ones for that matter)!
Anyway, I hope I can continue to ask questions of the various interesting minds on this forum, perhaps on other threads of similar interest.
Sorry if LL & shitegeist were put off by my rather petulant stance. I genuinely want to pick the brains of LL (due to his encyclopedic knowledge of things Cambodian) & shitegeist (who appears to be actively involved in the archaeology of AW). Hemmingway, if I had the resources to do a Hancock and go exploring the worldwide sites myself, I surely would (I did some exploring in Notts/Yorks as a young man, at any rate). In the absence of such wherewithal, I make use of the net as I can.
Anyway, that's cool if peeps want to disagree. Thanks also to harold for a dignified reply. I trawl several discussion sites, but it is always difficult to get a decent reply concerning 'reality' & perception. JC gave a quick (always difficult to do on the spur of the moment) appraisal and I really appreciate that. It is a fascinating question. All we can 'know' with any certainty can surely be cogito ergo sum and that's about it. It concerns a little bit more than little green men (or big red ones for that matter)!
Anyway, I hope I can continue to ask questions of the various interesting minds on this forum, perhaps on other threads of similar interest.
'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'
Attributed to Napoleon
Attributed to Napoleon
I respect that you have been courteous and dignified even when I have been a bit rude towards you.
Good luck to you and may you enjoy great prosperity, strength, health, and a long happy life.
Good luck to you and may you enjoy great prosperity, strength, health, and a long happy life.
-
- I Have Not Been Outside in a Week
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:20 pm
Not really, I was tired of getting trolled by nielo1 or whatever he was, and I don’t know that there’s much more that I can really contribute to this thread anyway.springrain wrote:Sorry if LL & shitegeist were put off by my rather petulant stance.
The main points of contention seem to be that (a) Angkor wasn’t built by Khmers and that (b) academia is prone to covering up things that don’t conform to the orthodox point of view.
IMHO I gave a series of pretty compelling reasons, along with real-world examples (e.g. that Angkor is covered with inscriptions in Khmer, the discovery of Homo floresiensis, etc...), about why I find both of these ideas to be pretty absurd, and have so far seen nothing in reply that would change my view.
To begin with I still haven’t heard a single reason why Angkor wouldn’t be attributed to the Khmers.
Plus I share Harold’s scepticism of your list of weird stuff, most of which seems to do with cranial deformation practises and pathologies that are common in cultures worldwide.
Also, I was keen to hear of a single example of a scholar of the past who’d been hounded out of academia as a result of advancing extremely controversial views (instead of showered with grants and promotions and acclaim like the hobbit guys and countless other examples), and have so far got in return:
1. Pat Sutherland, a not particularly well-known or controversial Canadian archaeologist who got sacked and then launched a media campaign as a free-speech martyr, with petitions on change.org and so on, until eventually her ex-employer got fed up with all that shit and revealed she’d actually been fired for serious professional misconduct following a lengthy independent investigation;
2. Richard Cremo, a prolific and successful author who has apparently never had anything to do with academia;
3. Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who also never entered academia, but who as a student authored some wildly controversial articles that were nonetheless published in the peer-reviewed literature and which have spawned a healthy (and ongoing) academic debate between geologists and archaeologists that has produced scores of peer-reviewed publications spanning fifty years;
4. Henry F. Schafer, who in spite of his highly controversial religious views is one of the world’s most highly-cited scientists and holds a full professorship at a flagship American university;
5. Richard Milton, a prolific and successful author who has apparently never had anything to do with academia;
6. Mark Doutré, the author of a book who has apparently never had anything to do with academia; and
7. Michael Tsarion, a prolific and successful author who has apparently never had anything to do with academia.
So, of the seven examples provided by you and the troll that got banned, only one turns out to be a bona-fide controversial academic, and it turns out that he has an outstanding and successful career, a Nobel nominee and all.
The rest are random people who've published a fuckton of books and papers etc. and are apparently butthurt because no-one in some kind of fantastical “academic establishment” has paid any attention to their theories about alien lizard people and ancient master races and shit... which they then of course characterise as a “conspiracy” and a “cover up”.
Interestingly, I see no evidence that any of them ever even attempted to actually complete a higher degree and enter academia… which after all as I mentioned is exactly the opposite of a cabal of people bound to a secret covenant to uphold the “mainstream” orthodoxy. It's open to anyone you realise, right? If you don't like the academic orthodoxy, you're welcome to join an entire system that is specifically designed to reward you for proving everyone else wrong.
There are, however, some very basic standards of evidence and logic that you have to meet before you submit theses and get things get published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and let me tell you, for most pay-to-publish open access journals these days the bar is very low indeed. So, if there was any merit at all to anything in any of the links you posted, then academics would be literally clawing each other’s fucking eyes out in the race to be the first one to publish it. I guarantee you this.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Rumors of thai king passing on social media
by Phuket2006 » Sat May 15, 2021 3:53 pm » in Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar and Lao forums - 4 Replies
- 2144 Views
-
Last post by logos
Sat May 15, 2021 10:55 pm
-
-
-
please help me to understand my khmer gf
by patrick49000 » Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:49 am » in Family, children and relationships - 33 Replies
- 7154 Views
-
Last post by David Hasselhoff
Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:15 am
-
-
-
Lucky Supermarket, all prices are now in khmer riel
by upstage2 » Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:04 pm » in Money, Banking and Insurance - 10 Replies
- 2287 Views
-
Last post by scintil
Sun Feb 18, 2024 6:39 am
-
-
-
Is it OK to cockblock barangs when they hitting on khmer chicks?
by the chicken » Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:22 am » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 7 Replies
- 3153 Views
-
Last post by erictheking
Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:36 am
-