before posting? Would you for example read the following before you started a serious thread? https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/long-lost-golden-age-just-myth-008803
Your question is ambiguous. Are you asking if some of us would read that site before we posted a serious thread on it? That would kind of depend on whether a] we were interested in the topic b] believed the site had something useful c] had a question about the topic. Are you asking if we would read that site before you posted something serious? Seems to me that would be an undue burden. Ask first, then we'd read up on it. And we'd read up on sources we thought were reliable.
previous unknown civilizations----------no problem---however---something in the archaeological record would be desired.
So? I would not treat reading a crank site as useful "research" before starting a serious thread. Which is what you asked. I might, I suppose, read one before criticising a thread started by someone else and containing crank ideas.
sometimes i am ware not making the point to not just click on any site the subject sounds a bit convoluted ancient-origins ... myths-legends ... if it is an ancient origin than there is am pmlied fact of it being real which makes it not a myth and also not a legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age "The Lost Golden Age" .. per say is a fairly well establish myth is it also a legend ? maybe... probably... is there any actual archaeological evidence ? yes and no there is substantial evidence of lost semi-golden age's however attributing them to a single age seems somewhat miss directing. i have read dozens of such web sites over the years. could you maybe add some specific discussion points you wish to discuss ? for example the lost city/island of Atlantis i personally believe it is real were they in a collective Golden age ? i don't think so, though i think they pre-dated the Romans & the Greeks and i think they were where Greek folk legends came from. possibly pre-dated the ancient Greeks by 1 to 2 thousand years as a rough guess, maybe more. that is my rough inclination by the many many web pages i have read and various modern archeology i have read. i do not hold that as a scientific fact, my opinion is changeable with new or different information. e.g the tower of bable probably from the same era just after the lost city of Atlantis when a clearly advanced level of engineering was well known and thrived for many century's. The hanging gardens The Great Library of Alexandria etc etc ... There are factual sounding cross references to these that show they are highly likely and some shared high levels of engineering technology across many century's. like some of the temples that seem to pre date the Egyptians by thousands of years, the real facts are extremely difficult if not impossible to establish. The technology of the Egyptian empires seems to be far greater than any surrounding evidence can point to in capability to achieve what is there. this leaves the question if it was built by their previous ancestors maybe hundreds(if not thousands) of years before. The dating of the pyramids and various temples seems very hit n miss with a great deal of openly admitted doubt to ability to gain accuracy by the scientists. There is a great deal of speculation Globally about various temples that would require modern engineering to build that may pre-date many other structures. Drawing a sense of it all happening all mostly at one era or age seems a little bit of a convenient catch all to fit nicely into someones desire to simplify something that is vastly more complicated. another well documented example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derinkuyu_underground_city Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It was an example, If you want to reply, link an example of a typical web site you would use if we were discussing... comics about the green hornet.
cookie assist auto population memory...(clip-board) delete everything in your bottom message box where you type. then refresh your page, then put your cursor in the box see if it auto populates again. if it does then you may need to highlight then delete it. occasionally(you have to post quit a lot before you come across this) this can be required to be done several times because of caching and international server lag. if that still doesn't clear it then clean your cookies and re-start your PC if that doesn't fix it then it might be a local issue of someone working on your local server and your running from a back up cached server while they fix something. mostly it is a cookie/sync/cache issue with your PC and the sci-forums site server, which corrects once you have put your cursor in the box, allowed it to auto populate what is in the "clipboard" and then deleted then refreshed your page... twice.
stone age(pre-dark age?) people with sticks & rocks building a fitted rolling 2 ton door underground in a narrow passage... how did they get it there ? what was used to make it ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-38758559/exploring-a-hidden-underground-city-in-turkey Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is way simpler than RS indicates. When you edit a message that contains one or more opening quotes: [ QUOTE ], you must ensure that there is a matching closing quote: [ /QUOTE ]. If, somewhere in the process of editing the text, you either delete or mangle the closing quote, then the system will see a post without a matching quote pairs, and will add one to the end. Check that your opening and closing quotes match, and that they do not have typos in them. You can always go back and edit the post to fix it. (and once you fix the broken one, don't forget to remove the extra end quote).
Uhh.... "A monastery dating back to the 6th Century... " Unless there is more to the article, you're off by at least 2500 years.
Yeah they do. just keeps throwing a end quote in. I think I have the solution from rainbow, just debating to myself whether or not it is worth losing all my google accounts cookies to fix this? Nah, Rainbow understood.
