The Black Vault

rath wrote:Chinese as well as half a dozen other nations from south east Asia
all reached Australia centuries before the English did.

Furthermore .....

Australia was never lost, but was / is a nation inhabited by one of the oldest civilisation in the world.

You finally said it for me. For months I’ve been trying to get you to say it. Now you did. Thank you.

The English who are nothing more then the bastard children of the Romans, Normans & the vikings.

Man has only lived in what we now call the British Isles for some 6000 - 8000 years.
Pre-Roman Britain - The Neolithic Age

The new age of settlement took place around 4,500 BC, in what we now term the Neolithic Age.


compare that to the indigenous culture of Australia that dates back 80,000 years - 120,000 years.

I’ll give you a hint. Don’t argue with me on prehistory.

Lower Palaeolithic (Old Stone Age, for people like you witch was up to 250,000 years ago)
There is evidence from bones and flint tools found in coastal deposits near Happisburgh in Norfolk and Pakefield in Suffolk that a species of Homo was present in what is now Britain around 700,000 years ago.

That is from wiki but that is pretty much what is said in Britain BC (a book for you)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Britain


You know F*** all about prehistory compared to me, so don’t try and use it against me, just like I don’t know much about modern history so I don’t use it.

The prehistory of Australia is the period between the first human habitation of the Australian continent and the first definitive sighting of Australia by Europeans in 1606, which may be taken as the beginning of the recent history of Australia. This period is estimated to have lasted between 40,000 and 70,000 years.[1]

This era is referred to as prehistory rather than history because there are no written records of human events in Australia which pre-date this contact.

The minimum widely-accepted timeframe for the arrival of humans in Australia is placed at least 40,000 years ago.

That is wrong. I agree with you that it was about 120,000 ish years BP.

Lashmar wrote:

rath wrote:Chinese as well as half a dozen other nations from south east Asia
all reached Australia centuries before the English did.

Furthermore .....

Australia was never lost, but was / is a nation inhabited by one of the oldest civilisation in the world.

You finally said it for me. For months I’ve been trying to get you to say it. Now you did. Thank you.

The English who are nothing more then the bastard children of the Romans, Normans & the vikings.

Man has only lived in what we now call the British Isles for some 6000 - 8000 years.
Pre-Roman Britain - The Neolithic Age

The new age of settlement took place around 4,500 BC, in what we now term the Neolithic Age.


compare that to the indigenous culture of Australia that dates back 80,000 years - 120,000 years.

I’ll give you a hint. Don’t argue with me on prehistory.

Lower Palaeolithic (Old Stone Age, for people like you witch was up to 250,000 years ago)
There is evidence from bones and flint tools found in coastal deposits near Happisburgh in Norfolk and Pakefield in Suffolk that a species of Homo was present in what is now Britain around 700,000 years ago.

That is from wiki but that is pretty much what is said in Britain BC (a book for you)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Britain


You know F*** all about prehistory compared to me, so don’t try and use it against me, just like I don’t know much about modern history so I don’t use it.

The prehistory of Australia is the period between the first human habitation of the Australian continent and the first definitive sighting of Australia by Europeans in 1606, which may be taken as the beginning of the recent history of Australia. This period is estimated to have lasted between 40,000 and 70,000 years.[1]

This era is referred to as prehistory rather than history because there are no written records of human events in Australia which pre-date this contact.

The minimum widely-accepted timeframe for the arrival of humans in Australia is placed at least 40,000 years ago.

That is wrong. I agree with you that it was about 120,000 ish years BP.

= on you.

You know F*** all about prehistory compared to me, so don’t try and use it against me, just like I don’t know much about modern history so I don’t use it.

your a Blow hard.

You assume you are the B.V authority on everything archaeological and anthropological, but you don't have have all the facts, & who are you to say what (PHD's) or ( BSc) other members of the black vault hold.

Like i said ..... your making assumptions, & you should never assume.

assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
assume.

I’ll give you a hint. Don’t argue with me on prehistory.

Lower Palaeolithic (Old Stone Age, for people like you witch was up to 250,000 years ago)
There is evidence from bones and flint tools found in coastal deposits near Happisburgh in Norfolk and Pakefield in Suffolk that a species of Homo was present in what is now Britain around 700,000 years ago.

That is from wiki but that is pretty much what is said in Britain BC (a book for you)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Britain

Oh brother ...... another student of wikipedia, with a PHD, in ignorance & a Bsc, in stupidity


wikipedia

you all know how much i respect wikipedia.

As I said I got it from wiki but it’s pretty much the same from Britain BC. Learn to read before you type.


By the way. Our degrees don’t hold much water anymore (thanks to labour) so I’m willing to bet I know more than most students of archeology.

Lashmar wrote:As I said I got it from wiki but it’s pretty much the same from Britain BC. Learn to read before you type.


By the way. Our degrees don’t hold much water anymore (thanks to labour) so I’m willing to bet I know more than most students of archeology.

/

Your assuming still.

Some of those ads are interesting and may help. Some are over-the-top - like the one where the girl in the bakery gets her fingers sliced, - and to a lesser extent the one where the young lad gets a nail from his nailgun bouncing back into his eye.

* With goggles that boy might still have lost his eye.

But I want to warn of the other type of ad I saw on your list (Rath) which is incorrect and potentially dangerous if one follows it.

It is about the risk of cancer from the sun. Wearing clothing which shades the skin so it doesn't burn is sensible. But NOT sunscreen. Apart from the deletarious effects of sunscreen (esp the new 'nano' particle-sunscreens), you have to realize that we need exposure to the sun, and providing you don't get too much of it (indicated by sunburn), then your health will benefit in every way.

* I didn't really want to watch that ad where the girl puts her fingers in the bread slicer - I could see it was coming.