Didn't much care for that either :-)

> ----------
> From:         Galke, Laura[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
> Sent:         Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:17 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: the end of the world as we know it?
>
> As opposed to the past weeks discussion of archaeology saints?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MacLeod, Heather [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 December, 2000 1:49 PM
> > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:      Re: the end of the world as we know it?
> >
> > "historic" or "historical"....I agree with Tim, I do feel the thread
> > digressing somewhat from the whole HISTARCH vein.
> > Just my 2 cents worth...
> > Heather
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From:         Austin, Stephen P
> > > SWF[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Reply To:     HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
> > > Sent:         Thursday, December 14, 2000 1:01 PM
> > > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject:      Re: the end of the world as we know it?
> > >
> > > "Historical Archaeology" Tim.  That was decided at the first SHA
> meeting
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Stephen P. Austin
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Timothy K. Perttula [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:41 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: the end of the world as we know it?
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 12/14/00 11:39:20 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
> > >
> > > << Are you mad? We should be thinking about how long umemployment will
> > > stretch
> > > under the RepubliKans. >>
> > >
> > > We ought to be thinking about something having to do with historic
> > > archeology...?
> > >
>