Foxy, Paul,

don't kid yourselves, this topic died after the first page.
The evidence is there for all to see.
Posting 46 times over 40 pages, because you keep baiting people, doesn't count.
Foxy, before you type another word, look back at the postings and check for yourself.
They're all arguments against you and your stance on this rubbish bin topic.
The moderators aren't stupid, they have been following you and your antics and I can only imagine what you will be getting, and it ain't any award you would want.
You know very well the topic fell away after the first page as every posting thereafter was in rejection of your stubborn promotion of it.
Loudmouth and others have more than outed not only the author of the book, but even the fact that this so wondrous joke of a find to even be considered for World Heritage Listing, is a farce, and history will reveal the truth in time.

Paul,
I was hoping for a better comeback, but anyway don't let it bother you.
Be happy in the thought of what it's costing me to keep these "toys" in playing condition.
That should comfort you knowing what a financial burden they all are.
As for this topic being anything, if these latest postings are anything to go by, you have just made my point for me.
Rolls Royces, Bentleys and elephants have nothing to do with rubbish bins, so you see another wasted irrelevant series of postings to put the last nail in this useless topics coffin.

Hi Altrav,

I have nothing against putting the eel trapping system in western Victoria on the World Heritage List if what its proponents claim is genuine. That trapping system shows the ingenuity of hunting and gathering economies and should be celebrated for what it is: a sophisticated form of hunting, trapping and gathering.

Such systems are common all over the world, varying in sophistication from simple stone tidal and riverine and billabong traps to elaborate systems such as at Budj Bim.

But they don't represent farming. Pulling the 'best' eels out of a series of stone traps is not farming. My bet, by the way, is that the young eels, rather than the mature ones, would have been chosen, since they would have been the sweetest. That's the way it seems to work in traditional hunting practices. But I don't know how one could 'prove' all of that one way or the other, except by the somewhat suspect means of hearsay and observations in early accounts.

Perhaps Paul can tell us :)

Cheers,

Joe

ALTRAV,

1) This topic has continued with now over 524 responses.
Therefore your claim that it died after the first
page is simply wishful thinking.

2) Offering explanations, looking critically at
circumstances, context, evidence presented, reading
the book being discussed and any other considerations
does not constitute "baiting". It is only unacceptable
to those more interested in condemnation than explanation.

3) People cannot rationally "out" any author if they
haven't read their work.

4) Your opinion of this topic being "rubbish" is negated
by your continued comments on it.

5) You are of course entitled to your opinions but not
your facts.

6) Nobody likes or supports an illogical, abusive
debater. They are not taken seriously. And their opinion
is not respected. If you want to be taken seriously,
as has been suggested to you in the past by several others -
you need to lift your standard of communication.

As for your collection of cars? My grandson has many as well.
He keeps then in a special box under his bed.

Not sure what this has to do with any discussion though.

Foxy,

tell that to Paul, he is the one fixated and concerned about MY cars.
As I have already said to him, what's cars and elephants got to do with this topic?
Now, as for you.
You have no concept of rational thinking.
I have pointed out fact after fact about the value of this topic, and you just refuse to accept it because it will out you and show you up.
Your last entry is another perfect point in case.
You simply repeated the same old drivel you have been spewing from the start, and you know I'm not going to let you get away with you trying to demonstrate, unsuccessfully, how smart YOU think you are.
Foxy, EVERYONE on OLO can cut and paste, and quote links and so on, but they don't, they give an opinion, their opinion, not someone else's.
You keep repeating yourself thinking that if you say the same thing over and over, people will start believing it's true.
Well not if I can help it.
I will now repeat myself and say again, your idea of the world is wrong and you have a very nasty side to you.
You promote yourself as if a supposed angelic image, but you are quite the deceiver, and in fact harbour some very questionable attitudes.
And once more this entry is just like the rest, in challenging you and your obstinance, in pushing a valueless topic.

ALTRAV,

1) Illogical and abusive rants do not win
arguments.

2) Unreasonable generalisations need to be replaced
with sound reasoning.

3) Personal attacks indicate - you are
arguing on an emotional level not a mature
intelligent one.

4) Sounding too dogmatic you are deemed to be
pig-headed and will subsequently be ignored.

5) Always know your topic. It makes your arguments
credible and adds authenticity to your opinions.

6) Finally you need to remain civil. And remember to
think before you post. Because no one likes or supports an
abusive, illogical or weak debater.

When and if - you have acquired these skills -
I shall be happy
to engage in further conversation with you. Until then,
I shall leave you to continue talking to yourself.
I imagine it's something you're quite used to doing.

LOL.

Foxy;

In response, by numbers;

1) No logical and affirmative ones, like mine do.

2) Correct, my sound reasoning, more than replaces your unreasonable and unfounded generalisations.

3) Concerted and focused responses, not attacks, (that's your M.O.), responding in a mature and intelligent, pragmatic way.
I leave the emotional attacks to you, with your stubborn misguided attitude.

4) Finally you have managed to express what is a description of yourself.
Words like, dogmatic, pig-headed and being ignored, are all your traits and faults, to a 'T'.

5) One does not need to "know the topic" if one senses the topic is flawed by virtue of it's flawed credibility and lack of objectivity and conviction or provenance.

6) This line of reasoning is of your opinion, which highlights your lack of rational thinking.
If/whenever I choose to be be 'un-civil', it is in response to an 'un-civilised' person or comment.
It is you who must think before you post, as you generate anger and frustration from even the most saintly posters.
So it is you who have attempted to promote yourself as something you clearly are not, because of your dogmatic, stubborn, illogical, inflexible, will not listen and overreaching attitude.

These skills I have, and more.
It is you who needs to listen to what others are saying.
If, as you say, I am 'talking to myself', it is because talking to you and your un-willingness to listen and learn, is like, 'talking to myself'.
With you moving on, I won't need to talk to myself, until I have to once more, try to enlighten you in another topic.
Rest assured, I engage with ALL other OLO'ens, it's only with you that it is a 'one way' conversation.