shadowminister,

Toning down your language doesn't detract from the fact you asserted: "Pascoe added words that weren't in the original text to make his directly fraudulent point."

Where? In what part of the book? Please give even a single example.

Oh! Steele, you've caught shonkyminister with his pants on fire! He hasn't read the bloody book! He doesn't read unapproved literature, he said so himself! Next question!

SR,

If you have the book you can find it yourself. Are you going to put your credibility on the line and claim that Sutton's book does not say that most of Pascoe's work is factual? I think not. Unless you do my point is made.

Pauliar,

Your pants are continually on fire as you are a consistent liar.

"Now, as finely tuned, thinking readers will know, two passionately truth-loving and scholarly academics, social anthropologist and linguist Peter Sutton and archaeologist Keryn Walshe, have written their own book, Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate. In their book, they forensically take Pascoe's book apart for its falsifications and wrong-headedness. In recent days I have read and listened to everything Sutton and Walshe have publicly had to say about Dark Emu and am persuaded they are right.

There is no room here to do the controversy justice. It is very well covered elsewhere, especially in Stuart Rintoul's recent, long-form Debunking Dark Emu: did the publishing phenomenon get it wrong?

Basically, Pascoe argues that the First Australians were never the "mere" primitive hunter-gatherers they've been dismissed as but were sophisticated farmers. The scholars, horrified, say that the First Australians were never farmers, that they were always hunter-gatherers, but that there has never been anything "mere'' or primitive about hunter-gatherers, their way of life requiring sophistication and spiritual attunements to their world of which Pascoe is totally ignorant. The scholars' case is evidence-based. Pascoe's is largely made up."

shonkyminister,

Steele has read 'Dark Emu' unlike you, who is relying on third hand biased critiques by the likes of your man 'Beat Up' Bolt. Steele asked a very simple question about your claim; "Pascoe added words that weren't in the original text to make his directly fraudulent point."

Steele asks; "Where? In what part of the book? Please give even a single example." Since you are totally ignorant of what's in the book, you had the cheek to ask Steele; "If you have the book you can find it (the parts that offend me) yourself." Amazing logic shonky!

Pauliar,

You are as thick as a plank. Quoting others does not make what I say false. When serious critics call it bullsh1t I tend to believe them over a poster that continuously lies.

shonky, Steele asked you for references from the book 'Dark Emu' that particularly offend you as being false. You failed to supply any such references (because you haven't read the book), instead you asked Steele to find that in the book that offends you. I'll try to help you out.

Steele, can you please put up some quotes from 'Dark Emu' that particularly offend shonky? Juicy bit if you've got them, he likes juicy bits. Can you find that quote where Pascoe said he dug up a stone age 'combine harvester' in his backyard, still in working order, or that pre historic 100,000 ton bulk grain carrier still sitting in Collins St Melbourne that Burke and Wills missed, B & W missed a lot you know.