[tacticalogic]

Oh just terrible. Horrors. Your record here on this thread speaks for itself.

Appropriate testing methodology depends on what it is you're testing. Testing what are believed to be tool or weapon artifacts by taking them, or replicas, and trying to use them for what is believed to be their intended purpose is considered good, valid and practical research. For some reason you have decided to rail at me as being unreasonable, irrational and disingenous for suggesting that we do this with you hypothetical arrowhead. And then you submit that I'm the one that's not interested in having a rational discussion.

[AndrewC]

Appropriate testing methodology depends on what it is you're testing. Testing what are believed to be tool or weapon artifacts by taking them, or replicas, and trying to use them for what is believed to be their intended purpose is considered good, valid and practical research. For some reason you have decided to rail at me as being unreasonable, irrational and disingenous for suggesting that we do this with you hypothetical arrowhead.

So after ignoring prod after prod, You finally present hunting as a test without giving so much as a hint how that "test" would measure "arrowheadness" and then question why I state that you are unreasonable, irrational and disengenuous?