>> The archaeologist in question was the one featured in your link.   
   >   
   >So you're saying that the archaeologist who concludes that they   
   >weren't sacrifices concluded that they were. Hmm. Even by your   
   >standards that's pretty dumb.   
      
   Giggle.   
      
   fter the first summer of field work he was saying they appeared to be   
   child sacrifices.   
      
   Apparently in the years since additional work there has him deciding they   
   were not.   
      
   it's called science son, science I say.>   
   >And not sure how any of this even touches on the fact that you   
   >posted a circular argument! Though, maybe that's a bit too   
      
   You wouldn't know one if it bit you in the arse.   
      
   Chicken fat and the sun are yellow.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)