Reply #65: Yeah, a big part of my point is that this is reported in other ways

[Bluenorthwest]

in other places, and the text of the article, it took me two seconds to find the telegraph's story on it, the archeologists are quoted and they are simply not making a conclusion as some here are saying. They point to evidence and say 'we believe that possibly...' which is just not 'making a conclusion' it is offering a theory and some of the thinking behind it. I take issue with those who are saying that the archeologists involved are making a conclusion, unlike their great minds, based on a headline from Raw Story, not upon what was actually said by the archeologists. They are not stating that this is fact they now know, they say 'possibly, seems to be, we think' and all of the words one is supposed to use when no making a conclusion.
People seem offended that qualified people put forth a theory they do not care for. They are not addressing the theory, the specific dig, nor the actual culture being studied, or those near by it. They simply declare that the offering of a theory is the same as presenting a final conclusion which it is not.
Bad story in Raw Story. This is better, but still of course, for general readers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html