 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / August 2009Sniveling Coward
Let's see what Larry-turned-Weland was saying about my cite, my "century old text" only a few short weeks ago... : Ah, well, there's one of your problems, you're a : century out of date! That explains some of the : difficulties you have. Do make an effort to : catch up, eh? Another time he almost sounded like he has an I.Q. in the double digits, but there was a huge problem... : Exactly the problem: you cite a century old : book as if it were the state of the field currently : or that the basis of the field has remained what : was done centuiries ago and not reverified since. : It's like rejecting evolution because Darwin was : Christian. Here's the problem: There's no "verification." In fact, the loser was challenged, challenged again and again to justify his interpretation, but steadfastly refuses to do so... while squaking about 'Gs' and then claiming he has. As has been pointing out to him, the explicit claim, "I found the name of Omri in the text" includes an implicit claim that you can map the text to a very specific time and place. This isn't rocket science here. The nutters are claiming to find a biblical king: You have to connect the text to the place where this king supposedly was, at a time he was supposedly there. But none of the bible thumpers do this. They can't do it. You have never done this. > Let's see what Larry-turned-Weland was saying > about my cite, my "century old text" only a few [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > : difficulties you have. Do make an effort to > : catch up, eh? Indeed, and the topic was how modern Assyriologists are not dependent on what 19th century scholars did and the field has not remained static. In response you cited a 134 year old text. A tad out of date...and note that the problem isn't with the text, it is with your use of it as if it said something about the state of Assyriology in 2009. > Another time he almost sounded like he has an > I.Q. in the double digits, but there was a huge [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > refuses to do so... while squaking about 'Gs' and > then claiming he has. Poor JTEM, the literacy challenged. Rather than repeatedly refuse, I've repeatedly done so. But JTEM just snips and carries on like everyone reading doesn't know that he's been proven wrong. > As has been pointing out to him, the explicit claim, > "I found the name of Omri in the text" includes an > implicit claim that you can map the text to a very > specific time and place. Already been addressed...though I do appreciate the moving of the goalposts. Heck, we're still laughing at you for citing a text that had nothing to do with what you claimed it did! Rich stuff, JTEM! > This isn't rocket science here. Oh, it isn't. But it does take knowing the languages.... The nutters are claiming > to find a biblical king: You have to connect > the text to the place where this king supposedly was, > at a time he was supposedly there. Gee, JTEM, you mean mentioning the guy, calling him a king, naming his capital city, and dating the damn inscription all of which matches the other text isn't doing just that? Huh.... > > Let's see what Larry-turned-Weland was saying > > about my cite, my "century old text" only a few [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > are not dependent on what 19th century scholars did > and the field has not remained static. No it wasn't. Secondly, the fact that you exactly mirror there bible thumping doesn't exactly jive with "Not dependent on them." Then again, you've never been very bright... >>>Let's see what Larry-turned-Weland was saying >>>about my cite, my "century old text" only a few [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No it wasn't. Yes it was. I introduced it. The point I was making that you kept snipping was that Assyriology has not stood still and that current investigators can not be charged with being "bible thumpers"...in response you cited a 134 year old book. Secondly, the fact that you exactly mirror > there bible thumping doesn't exactly jive with "Not > dependent on them." Because the measure isn't whether they were bible thumpers or not, but rather what the evidence bears, and in this situation, they were by and large correct in their decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform. (Much less the fact that those who worked on the decipherment weren't "bible thumpers", but that's another story. > Then again, you've never been very bright... Oh indeed...just brighter than you. > Yes it was. Oh, give it up. It's pretty clear that your idea of "Truth" is whatever you happen to need it to be at THAT particular moment... and HIGHLY likely to change. You know, EXACTLY like the way you both agree and don't agree with the "century old text," depending on what answer you require in order to pretend that you're "Right." >>Yes it was. > > Oh, give it up. It's pretty clear that your idea of > "Truth" is whatever you happen to need it to be > at THAT particular moment... and HIGHLY likely > to change. AH, JTEM, I htink you confused me with that guy staring at you in the mirror! > You know, EXACTLY like the way you both agree > and don't agree with the "century old text," > depending on what answer you require in order to > pretend that you're "Right." The problem was, and still is, your deliberate, dishonest misuse of that poor text to make it say something it doesn't say at all. Such dishonest citation is pretty clear that your idea of truth is whatever you happen to need it to be at that particular moment....or in other words, JTEM, you're an amoral, hatemonger whose only claim to intelligence...well, who has no claim to intelligence, not even creative insults. You're pathetic, and if it weren't for your entertainment value, you'd be killfiled long ago. > AH, JTEM, I htink you confused me You confused? So what else is new... Sheesh! Anyhow, you STILL refuse to tell us how you pull the exact same bible names out of the ancient text that the bible thumpers (using the bible as their "source") found. As has been pointed out: When you claim to find the name of a specific person, you are tying that text to a very specific time and a very specific place where that person existed. Originally I explained this as the explicit/implicit claims. You can't explicitly state that you bought something in Paris, for example, without the implicit claim that you traveled to Paris and back. So, again, tell us how you are mapping these bible names to the times and places where these bible characters & places actually existed. ....AFTER that, we'll move on to trying to teach you what is and is not "Evidence." You know, like your idiotic claim that "Jehuty" was pronounced differently from the ancient Egyptian "Djuhty," when nobody knows how ancient Egypt should be pronounced, and nobody really even knows how *Any* words were pronounced more than 2,000 years ago. >>AH, JTEM, I htink you confused me > > You confused? So what else is new... Sheesh! "AH, JTEM, I think you confused me with that guy staring at you in the mirror!" Perhaps JTEM's confusion is what causes his consistent misquoting of all kinds of sources? > Anyhow, you STILL refuse to tell us how you pull > the exact same bible names out of the ancient > text that the bible thumpers (using the bible as > their "source") found. I've already explained it to you, several times. Even other posters have told you so. Oh wait, what JTEM snips ceases to exist...yeah, right. I'm not going to explain it again just to have you snip and ignore it. Go back, stop snipping and sniping, and read my previous posts. <snip typical JTEMery> > ....AFTER that, we'll move on to trying to teach > you what is and is not "Evidence." HA! Like you citing a book that is talking about something completely different than you are, yet somehow it proves your point...yeah, that's evidence. Its like today's sports scores proves that life on Mars is possible. > You know, like your idiotic claim that "Jehuty" was > pronounced differently from the ancient Egyptian > "Djuhty," when nobody knows how ancient Egypt > should be pronounced, Um, I've never made any such claim and haven't been involved in any discussion about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian. and nobody really even knows > how *Any* words were pronounced more than 2,000 > years ago. So, according to you then, there are no records we can understand other than Greek and Latin, and that anything we say about history in Assyria, or Sumer, or Cyrpus, etc is all wrong because we don't what those records say. Is that what you're saying now? > > how *Any* words were pronounced more than 2,000 > > years ago. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or Sumer, or Cyrpus, etc is all wrong because we don't what those > records say. Is that what you're saying now? Actually, he's saying we can't read them because we can't pronounce them. Which tells you a lot about JTEM's reading level - most people have learned to read silently by the age of 5. > Actually, he's saying we can't read them because > we can't pronounce them. No, you sh.t for brains. He claimed that the Egyptian "Djehuty" and everybody else's "Jehuty" couldn't be the same because they were pronounced differently, when nobody has any idea how either were pronounced. You frigging retards.... >>Actually, he's saying we can't read them because >>we can't pronounce them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > same because they were pronounced differently, when > nobody has any idea how either were pronounced. I made no such claims. > >>Actually, he's saying we can't read them because > >>we can't pronounce them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I made no such claims. Are you sure you're not "egoblaze" there? It's so hard to tell you apart. Perhaps if either one of you decided to say something original... >>>>Actually, he's saying we can't read them because >>>>we can't pronounce them. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It's so hard to tell you apart. Perhaps if either one of you > decided to say something original... Ah poor JTEM, who himself says nothing original confuses original with factual. You see, ol' Dragonblaze, who is not me, and I both agree that facts are better than the daydreams your drug addled sh.t pile produces. [snip] > >>>No, you sh.t for brains. He claimed that the Egyptian > >>>"Djehuty" and everybody else's "Jehuty" couldn't be the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > factual. You see, ol' Dragonblaze, who is not me, and I both agree that > facts are better than the daydreams your drug addled sh.t pile produces. Agreed there. As regards Egyptian pronounciation, if JTEM had not so little knowledge that he is a positive menace to mankind, he might be aware (if that idiot can be said to be aware) that we do have a pretty good idea of what the Egyptian phonemes were like. Coptic (though I doubt he has ever heard of it) is the late stage of Egyptian, written in Greek alphabet with some special characters added. We also have quite a few Egyptian names recorded in other texts, such as Akkadian and Greek. From these sources we can know that the snake sign which is transliterated as d or dj was pronounced as "j" as in the English "jump" earlier (voiced palato-aveolar affricative). It can also correspond to a "j" (jîm) in Arabic. But never let it be said that JTEM would let facts change his opinions. > Agreed there. ....before he said anything. You missed it, Egoblaze, but the guy was just DISAGREEING with you. Oh, I know, you're far too stupid, and fat too consumed in a personalities game (rather than historical truths) to notice, but I'll explain it for you... and you'll fail to grasp it anyway... I had mistaken YOUR sorry-a.s, lame as hell argument to the effect that "Djehuty" and "Jehuti" couldn't be the same word because they're pronounced differently for HIS sorry-as, lame as hell argument. (Psst, nobody knows how the ancients pronounced their words, and that goes double for the ancient Egyptians). > As regards Egyptian pronounciation, You're full of sh.t, as per your customary lack of any supporting cites there, Weland...errr...Larry... Egoblaze. For starters, we're talking about a span of 3,400 years. If anyone has any difficulty grasping what that means: Pick up a 400 year old copy of Shakespeare, for crying out loud! What you're trying so hard to avoid -- if I'm not granting you too much intelligence here -- is the incredibly backwards argument your kind usually rely on.... See, Akkadian is actually the best indication of how ancient Egyptian words were pronounced -- and the Amarna letters in particular: : The best evidence of the pronunciation of Late Egyptian, : however, is from the documents found in the diplomatic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : languages, Babylonian and Assyrian; and its system of : writing, cuneiform, represented vowels. http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm OO! A cite! Imagine that, JTEM always supports what he says with cites.... Anyhow, sh.t for brains, at the heart of your position isn't Coptic, it's reading what you want to read. What tells you that the Akkadian/Assyrian/Babylonian is pronounced differently? Your desire for it to be pronounced differently, and nothing else. As for "Backwards".... where these languages usually tell us how to pronounce the Egyptian, you're insisting that they should only ever be pronounced differently than ancient Egyptian. I betcha that's *Far* too subtle for you though, isn't it? Nimrod. >>Agreed there. > > ....before he said anything. > > You missed it, Egoblaze, but the guy was just > DISAGREEING with you. WOW!!!!! I said Dragonblaze and I were agreed on the issue, and Dragonblaze said "Agree there", and in JTEM's poor little mind that means I disagree with Dragonblaze!! Now, that's pathetic!!! > Oh, I know, you're far too stupid, and fat too consumed > in a personalities game (rather than historical truths) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (Psst, nobody knows how the ancients pronounced their > words, and that goes double for the ancient Egyptians). And I pointed out your error, saying I had never said any such thing in spite of your attribution to me. I never said that I disagreed with it or that it was wrong. >>As regards Egyptian pronounciation, > > You're full of sh.t, as per your customary lack of any > supporting cites there, Weland...errr...Larry... Egoblaze. Ah, poor JTEM....er Giwer, er Cinnabon.....gets it wrong again.... > For starters, we're talking about a span of 3,400 years. If > anyone has any difficulty grasping what that means: Pick > up a 400 year old copy of Shakespeare, for crying out loud! JTEM can't read Shakespeare! God that's funny! > What you're trying so hard to avoid -- if I'm not granting you > too much intelligence here -- is the incredibly backwards [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > OO! A cite! Imagine that, JTEM always supports what he > says with cites.... That he doesn't bother to read. In the section of Dragonblaze's post that JTEM snipped, Dragonblaze says: "From these sources we can know that the snake sign which is transliterated as d or dj was pronounced as "j" as in the English "jump" earlier (voiced palato-aveolar affricative). It can also correspond to a "j" (jîm) in Arabic." The site JTEM points to says this about the snake sign transliterated as d or dj: "The picture of a snake, this has become a "d" or a "t" in Coptic, but is thought to have been a "j" as in the English "jump" earlier (voiced palato-aveolar affricative). It can correspond to a "j" (jîm) in Arabic." Huh, both say that the sign represents a voiced palato-aveolar affricative. Huh, both Dragonblaze and JTEM's cited site say that the sign is thought to have been pronounced like a "j" as in English "jump". Most would find this a confirmation of Dragonblaze's statement, as if we needed it. But not JTEM! No, in JTEM's world where two people agree stating the same thing in nearly the same words, they actually disagree! > Anyhow, sh.t for brains, at the heart of your position isn't > Coptic, it's reading what you want to read. Just like the site you cited!! > > You missed it, Egoblaze, but the guy was just > > DISAGREEING with you. > > WOW!!!!! I said Dragonblaze and I were agreed on the issue, Translation: You FLED from the claim, distanced yourself from it. Here, I quote you: : Um, I've never made any such claim and haven't been : involved in any discussion about the pronunciation of : ancient Egyptian. Then again, given your tenuous (at best) grip on reality, you will now invent a new position and never so much as acknowledge your previous claims.... >>>You missed it, Egoblaze, but the guy was just >>>DISAGREEING with you. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > : involved in any discussion about the pronunciation of > : ancient Egyptian. Pointing out your misattribution...I wasn't involved in any discussion about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, and for you to claim I was is your typical JTEMery of misattribution, miscitation, and baseless argumentation. > Then again, given your tenuous (at best) grip on reality, > you will now invent a new position and never so much > as acknowledge your previous claims.... Oh, I stand by pointing out that I wasn't involved in the discussion you claim I was involved in. Once again, it just illustrates your lack. > > : Um, I've never made any such claim and haven't been > > : involved in any discussion about the pronunciation of > > : ancient Egyptian. > > Pointing out your misattribution... Okay, so now (for THIS ONE POST) you're back to agreeing with it, holding the position that you do in fact know the proper pronunciation of ancient words, including ancient Egyptian. And, oh, you get all this from Coptic. You're completely full of sh.t, of course, and will most likely flip-flop yet again, granted, but I'll prove you wrong for the time being, and you being a pussy will never accept it: : There is now some controversy about the pronunciation of : Coptic. Coptic died out as a primary spoken language in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : compromise "academic" pronunciation, partially based on : the academic pronunciation of Greek, is used. http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm >>>: Um, I've never made any such claim and haven't been >>>: involved in any discussion about the pronunciation of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > proper pronunciation of ancient words, including ancient > Egyptian. I never disagreed with it, I just pointed out I didn't participate in that discussion, you were wrong. As usual. > And, oh, you get all this from Coptic. No, actually, Coptic is but one place, already made clear to you. Oh, wait, you snipped that too. > flip-flop yet again, granted, but I'll prove you wrong for the > time being, and you being a pussy will never accept it: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > : the academic pronunciation of Greek, is used. > http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm You should read the rest of the paragraph, and take note especially that what controversy there is deals with vowels. You do know what vowels are, don't you? Or is that too much for you? > > Okay, so now (for THIS ONE POST) you're back to agreeing > > with it, holding the position that you do in fact know the > > proper pronunciation of ancient words, including ancient > > Egyptian. > > I never disagreed with it, Which proves that you're an idiot. > > And, oh, you get all this from Coptic. > > No, actually, Then you're back to NOT agreeing with it. Amazing how fast that worked out... > Coptic is but one place, Coptic is a great deal more removed from ancient Egyptian than Shakespearean English is from us. Or at least that WAS true, but nobody really knows how THAT Coptic was pronounced, as per the cite: > > : Most classical Coptic literature was > > : written in the Sahidic dialect, and when that is taught [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You should read the rest of the paragraph, and take note > especially that what controversy there is deals with vowels. Unless you're pretending that the pronunciation is the same regardless of which vowel you use, you have no point. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't end in the next sentence nor the next paragraph. You're simply cherry picking in order to make it artifically appear as if you have a case... Skipping down even five paragraphs, all the ambiguity remains, while you pretend it's gone by the end of the first... Sheesh! What's it like have to make things up, because you're too much of a pussy to admit that you're wrong? >>>Okay, so now (for THIS ONE POST) you're back to agreeing >>>with it, holding the position that you do in fact know the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which proves that you're an idiot. Non sequitur....but logical fallacy is part of the usual JTEM mode. >>>And, oh, you get all this from Coptic. >> >>No, actually, > > Then you're back to NOT agreeing with it. Amazing how > fast that worked out... Ah, there's that lack of reading comprehension we've come to expect from our champion spinner in the wind! >>Coptic is but one place, > > Coptic is a great deal more removed from ancient > Egyptian than Shakespearean English is from us. Since you can't understand either one, distance in time is immaterial. > Or at least that WAS true, but nobody really knows > how THAT Coptic was pronounced, as per the cite: Which you've again misread and misunderstood...oh dear. >>>: Most classical Coptic literature was >>>: written in the Sahidic dialect, and when that is taught [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Unless you're pretending that the pronunciation is the same > regardless of which vowel you use, you have no point. Nope, the point is that you haven't a clue what you're babbling about, and can't even read the cites you give. But no matter, I wasn't involved in that discussion....and I won't be now, simply because you're attempting a bait and switch. You got caught, you refuse to admit it, so now you switch topics. > But it doesn't matter. It doesn't end in the next sentence nor > the next paragraph. You're simply cherry picking in order to > make it artifically appear as if you have a case... Uh, actually that's your modus operandi, demonstrated time and again. And the sad part is that most of your cherries are rotten. > What's it like have to make things up, You should tell us....that's all of what you say in any forum, just your own made up nonsense. > Non sequitur.... No, honey, it's not. Coptic isn't pronounced like ancient Egyptian. In fact, Coptic isn't even pronounced like classical Coptic, or at least as far as anyone knows. As a matter of fact, the convention is to always insert a letter 'e' in ancient Egyptian text, when a vowel is needed. Anyways, for anyone interested in facts and not the psychotic episodes of Larry/Weland here, this is the cite he's misrepresenting: http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm >>Non sequitur.... > > No, honey, it's not. Aw, you're sweet on me, that's why you keep coming back for more! And yes, it was. > Coptic isn't pronounced like ancient Egyptian. How would you know since you don't know either language, anything about linguistics, and are taking a footnote out of context? And why do you insist that our only knowledge of how ancient Egyptian was pronounced comes from Coptic? In fact, > Coptic isn't even pronounced like classical Coptic, > or at least as far as anyone knows. > > As a matter of fact, the convention is to always insert a > letter 'e' in ancient Egyptian text, when a vowel is needed. Exactly. That's because ancient Egyptian didn't represent VOWELS. You do know the difference between a vowel and consonant, don't you? Well, from this discussion, apparently not. > Anyways, for anyone interested in facts and not the > psychotic episodes of Larry/Weland here, this is the > cite he's misrepresenting: > > http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm Yes, in fact, I invite any reader interested to read the WHOLE page, and not quote mine like JTEM. Also take note that the page that JTEM here points to said exactly what Dragonblaze said in almost exactly the same words, but JTEM says they contradict each other. > > Coptic isn't pronounced like ancient Egyptian. > > How would you know Because it's been twice as long since Coptic died as it's been since Shakespeare died, and we both know how much English has changed since then. Coptic has been heavily influenced by Greek and Arabic, but that's not all.... The time of the Mesha Stele? Well, that was only two times as far from the beginnings of Coptic as Shakespearean English is from us... about 2,000 years removed from the end of Coptic. Then there's all the cites, not one of which supports you. So, yeah, it's no coincidence that the best you could do is mine from & misrepresent one of my cites. But, go on, pretend that you're male, and an adult, and construct a case using cites. Why not? It should be good for a laugh... >>>Coptic isn't pronounced like ancient Egyptian. >> >>How would you know > > Because it's been twice as long since Coptic died Good thing our knowledge doesn't only come from Coptic then, eh? > as it's been since Shakespeare died, and we both > know how much English has changed since then. So? If you knew the issues involved 1% as well as you think you do, you'd know that that has been factored in, and pertains to vowels rather than consonants. You apparently don't know the difference. > Coptic has been heavily influenced by Greek and > Arabic, but that's not all.... Here's the kicker...if as you claim we can't know how Coptic was pronounced, how do we know it was heavily influenced by Greek and Arabic....I expect you'll snip this so as not to answer. > The time of the Mesha Stele? Well, that was only > two times as far from the beginnings of Coptic as > Shakespearean English is from us... about 2,000 > years removed from the end of Coptic. YOU CAN COUNT!!!! Oh JTEMETTE! There just might be a glimmer of hope for you yet! But, um, the Mesha Stele is written in Aramaic, not Egyptian, so distance in time is no difference in this case. Further, length of time doesn't matter, what matters is how much information and what kind of information one has about the language. According to your "reasoning", I use the term very loosely when applied to you, a reader of Latin in the 21st century in Russia often using Russian pronunciation can not possibly read Plautus at a remove of some 2300 years or even older Latin inscriptions. > Then there's all the cites, not one of which supports > you. Oh, they all do....its just that you keep misrepresenting/misunderstanding the positions that DB and I hold as well as those "cites", creating a situation where you're complaining that we're saying something we're not and that your cites are saying something they're not. > So, yeah, it's no coincidence that the best you could > do is mine from & misrepresent one of my cites. No, no...that's your procedure. The author pretty explicitly said exactly what Dragonblaze said in almost the same terms and using the same examples. That you can not enlarge your mind to take a wider view than a footnote you've misunderstood is not problem of ours. > Good thing Cites. C_I_T_E_S. Numerous cites have been presented here, and not a single one supported your idiotic claim. In fact, universally it's stated that we don't know how ancient Egyptian is pronounced. Form a case that involves something other than your worthless assertions, or go back to f.cking your mother's skanky hole. Thanks in advance. >>Good thing > > Cites. C_I_T_E_S. > > Numerous cites have been presented here, and not a > single one supported your idiotic claim. Poor JTEM, the poor idiot...he hasn't even gotten straight what I, or Dragonblaze has claimed yet, much less what his "cites" say! HILARIOUS!!!! > In fact, universally it's stated that we don't know how In that last message that JTEM is here responding to, I said: "Here's the kicker...if as you claim we can't know how Coptic was pronounced, how do we know it was heavily influenced by Greek and Arabic....I expect you'll snip this so as not to answer." I was right. > Good thing our knowledge doesn't only come from > Coptic then, eh? When it comes to the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, our "knowledge" is as thick as the list of your cites. And there's a reason why you couldn't offer any cites... >>Good thing our knowledge doesn't only come from >>Coptic then, eh? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And there's a reason why you couldn't offer any > cites... Yes, it's because you couldn't understand them; you can't even understand the position or the sources of knowledge much less citations! > >>Good thing our knowledge doesn't only come from > >>Coptic then, eh? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yes, it's because you couldn't understand them; you can't even > understand the position or the sources of knowledge much less citations! JTEM can't even manage the fact that the Romans are ancient history. If you can't even get him to comprehend that, how're you going to get him to understand cites? > > When it comes to the pronunciation of ancient > > Egyptian, our "knowledge" is as thick as the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, Exactly. You couldn't offer any cites because aliens ordered the Elvis clowns to hide them from you.... or something like that. Clearly you're not man enough to admit that they don't exist, that you're wrong (as per your usual). >>>When it comes to the pronunciation of ancient >>>Egyptian, our "knowledge" is as thick as the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>Yes, Ah, intellectually and morally bankrupt, JTEM once again turns to snipping and lying..... > Ah, Nope, still no cite and you're still not man enough to admit that nobody knows how to pronounce ancient Egyptian. My, you are a pussy.... >>Ah, > > Nope, Still no sign of intelligent life from JTEM > >>Ah, > > > Nope, > > Still no sign of intelligent life from JTEM You do understand that when they found microbes in Antarctica, JTEM's immediate family tree had to be extended. > Still What's it like, your "reality" so weak, so feeble that acknowledging any weakness, any mistake threatens to tear the whole thing down? Because you and Egoblaze did pretend to be a couple of language experts, yet you're both so out of touch with the real world of languages that you thought that the correct pronunciation of ancient Egyptian was known. I'm laughing at you. >>Still > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'm laughing at you. This is why its so fun to deal with you JTEM: even when you're so wrong that your "cites" prove you wrong in the first 3 paragraphs 3 different times, you still come out swinging pretending that its all the other guy who's wrong. It is quite the funny show you put on!!! [snip] > This is why its so fun to deal with you JTEM: even when you're so wrong > that your "cites" prove you wrong in the first 3 paragraphs 3 different > times, you still come out swinging pretending that its all the other guy > who's wrong. It is quite the funny show you put on!!! Hmm.... Maybe I should let JTEM the Right Man Syndrome poster boy out of my killfile. It appears from the quotes that he is currently emptying whole clips into his foot. Might be fun to see how badly he manages to embarrass himself with his nonsense. I'll think about it.... > Hmm.... Hey, everyone, it's Egoblaze! You know, the retard who originally pretended to be a language expert, yet not only could never support a goddamn thing he ever said, but came out with some real whoppers. Like, well, like "We know how ancient Egyptian was pronounced," and worse: "We know it from Coptic." Sure, that's enough to fool someone who wants to be fooled -- like an "imipak" -- but nobody normal. What a twat! >>Hmm.... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Like, well, like "We know how ancient Egyptian was > pronounced," and worse: "We know it from Coptic." And here we have the explicit use of JTEM's strawmen by misquoting Dragonblaze. [snip] > > Like, well, like "We know how ancient Egyptian was > > pronounced," and worse: "We know it from Coptic." > > And here we have the explicit use of JTEM's strawmen by misquoting > Dragonblaze. That is pretty much why I killfiled JTEM, since he appears to have no reading comprehension. I don't know if he ever responded to a long quote from Loprieno on how we know how Egyptian was pronounced I posted. If he did, I'm willing to bet quite a lot that he either misunderstood everything and created another strawman or avoided the issue entirely. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to bet quite a lot that he either misunderstood everything and created > another strawman or avoided the issue entirely. I didn't see that he did, but who knows? I killfiled Giwer for much the same reason you give for killfiling JStupid. The latter however provides no end to entertainment: the more he paints himself into a corner the more venom he spits, and the more he spits, the more he swings in the wind...and the pattern just repeats over and over. Giwer simply crosses his arms and says "alalalalalallalalallalala" over and over. > I didn't see Hey, look, the Mutual Admiration Society is in session! Could you imagine if you ever had the brains or the guts to stray off the talking points? Neither could! Dragonblaze <dragonbl...@apexmail.com> Lied: > That is pretty much why You're a gutless twit who hides behind your own imagined authority in an effort to conceal (from himself) his own lack of both brains & faith. You don't know how ancient Egyptian was pronounced. Nobody does. And the fact that you're not man enough to admit this condemns you more than a thousand flame wars ever could. > And here we have the explicit use of JTEM's strawmen > by misquoting Dragonblaze. I'm not misquoting him, you pathetic little twirp. Maybe I misphrased him -- meaning, I didn't use the Exact. Same. words -- but the meaning is identical. QUOTE: : As regards Egyptian pronounciation, if JTEM had not so : little knowledge that he is a positive menace to mankind, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : heard of it) is the late stage of Egyptian, written in Greek : alphabet with some special characters added. But the last of the true Coptic speakers were about four times as far removed from LATE Egyptian as we are from Shakespearean English... though Shakespeare spoke "Modern English." Oh: Nobody really knows how Akkadian was pronounced, either. >>And here we have the explicit use of JTEM's strawmen >>by misquoting Dragonblaze. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Maybe I misphrased him -- meaning, I didn't use the > Exact. Same. words -- but the meaning is identical. No it isn't, its worlds different. Having a "pretty good idea" and "knowing for certain" are different things and describe different states of knowledge. > QUOTE: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > from Shakespearean English... though Shakespeare spoke > "Modern English." So? Are you saying that ancient Egyptian and its descendants changed at the same rate that English did in the medieval and modern periods? Your evidence for such a claim (since English is well known to have undergone significant change due to a number of factors), and that early Modern English was pronounced very close to what modern English is? And that even if one doesn't know that "love" and "prove" rhymed, that the l, p, v, and all sounded like they do now, one would still understand the meaning. > Oh: Nobody really knows how Akkadian was pronounced, > either. Yes, the expert who knows NOTHING about Akkadian, ancient Egyptian, or Shakespearean English has spoken. ... >> But the last of the true Coptic speakers were about four >> times as far removed from LATE Egyptian as we are >> from Shakespearean English... though Shakespeare spoke >> "Modern English." > So? Are you saying that ancient Egyptian and its descendants changed at > the same rate that English did in the medieval and modern periods? Your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > v, and all sounded like they do now, one would still understand the > meaning. Just what does comparing early and modern English have to do with Egyptian that was not spoken at all when a pronunciation was invented for it? Please be specific in how apples are really oranges and vice versa. As to similarities between the evolution the Egyptian and the language of the Britons they are many. The upper and lower kingdoms representing distinctly different cultures and widely separated "capital" cities were united. It is not reasonable to assume their languages were more than related. The other major parallel is conquests by Rome, Norse and Normans. Egypt began a cycle of conquests and being conquered with the New Kingdom. It continued for some 2400 years ending with the Arab conquest under which Egyptian fell out of use. Note this is about half way back to the start of civilization in Egypt. Considering the real history of Egypt what leads you to assume there was no cause for changes in the language?  SignatureFour hundred years ago no one had the slightest idea of what this world is like. All religious pronouncements then and now are by ignorant idiots. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4169 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 Thu Jul 23 15:48:15 EDT 2009 > No it isn't, its worlds different. Having a Oh. My. God. You're actually pretending that you didn't argue (incessantly) that the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is known? After all you said in the "Reality" thread, amongst others. That's low. That's _seriously_ low. I mean, I'd tell you to snip it off, but let's face it: There isn't enough left at this point. >>No it isn't, its worlds different. Having a > > Oh. My. God. I knew all those protestations were too much noise! You are a believer and loathe yourself for it! How funny! > You're actually pretending that you didn't argue > (incessantly) that the pronunciation of ancient > Egyptian is known? After all you said in the "Reality" > thread, amongst others. You're actually pretending that this whole issue you keep coming back to by distorting what Dragonblaze and I said isn't just a big smoke screen to cover up the fact that you compared a transliteration into English from Egyptian with a transliteration into English from Akkadian and said they were the same and got your hand slapped for it. And you've been giving us all a tantrum ever since. > > You're actually pretending that you didn't argue > > (incessantly) that the pronunciation of ancient > > Egyptian is known? After all you said in the "Reality" > > thread, amongst others. > > You're actually Yup, that's what you're pretending, you worthless little neutered runt. I'm laughing at you. >>>You're actually pretending that you didn't argue >>>(incessantly) that the pronunciation of ancient [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'm laughing at you. Well, if you're laughing at me, that's a sure sign I've done something right! So please do let me know every time you laugh at me....that's encouraging! > Well, if you're laughing at me Not just me. Maybe I'm granting them too much credit, but I like to think that even the likes of an imipak can see your errors, even if they're too pathetic to admit it. Come one, you argued (again & again) that the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is know, NEXT you denied ever doing it. Someone would have to be retarded to NOT laugh at you.... > > Well, if you're laughing at me > > Not just me. Maybe I'm granting them too much credit, > but I like to think that even the likes of an imipak can > see your errors, even if they're too pathetic to admit it. Name me one time I've not pointed out an error in the postings of those I would normally agree with. With cites. You can't? Oh dear. > > Maybe I'm granting them too much credit, > > but I like to think that even the likes of an imipak can > > see your errors, even if they're too pathetic to admit it. > Name me one time I've not pointed out an error in the > postings of those I would normally agree with. So you're actually proud of being a worthless troll? That's sick. > > > Maybe I'm granting them too much credit, > > > but I like to think that even the likes of an imipak can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So you're actually proud of being a worthless troll? What' you're so confused you think trolls are people who point out errors where errors exist? Go back to Rush Limbaugh. He's missing his foot stool. > What' you're so confused you You asked when you didn't point out an error made by a Weland, in reply to a post where I named an example. HINT: When Weland & Egoblaze were pretending that the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is known. If you had any reading comprehension you would have known this, retard. >>Well, if you're laughing at me > > Not just me. Hilarious! JStupid has to make up imaginary friends so he doesn't feel all alone....! > Hilarious! The fact that it's the imipaks who agree with you, yet you *Still* think you've got a point? Yes. Yes it is. Utterly _Hilarious_. >>Hilarious! > > The fact that it's the imipaks who agree with you, yet > you *Still* think you've got a point? > > Yes. Yes it is. Utterly _Hilarious_. So not only making up imaginary friends, but now imaginary points! > > The fact that it's the imipaks who agree with you, yet > > you *Still* think you've got a point? > > > Yes. Yes it is. Utterly _Hilarious_. > > So not only making up imaginary friends Yeah, that'll sell... "He made up the imipak handle." Girl, you have one pathetic little runt of a mind. >>>The fact that it's the imipaks who agree with you, yet >>>you *Still* think you've got a point? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yeah, that'll sell... "He made up the imipak handle." Imipak, imaginary or real, isn't your friend. Wow, you can't even invent imaginary friends right! Your mom was sure right about you, worthless piece of humanity. > >>>The fact that it's the imipaks who agree with you, yet > >>>you *Still* think you've got a point? Our representative from the brain trust said: > Imipak, imaginary or real, isn't your friend. Wow, you can't > even invent imaginary friends right! Your mom was sure > right about you, worthless piece of humanity. So either your total lack of reading comprehension is showing again -- sh.t for brains -- or you're saying that I invented the "imipak" sock puppet.... sh.t for brains. Why do you bother? You really are incapable of saying anyting intelligent. >>>>>The fact that it's the imipaks who agree with you, yet >>>>>you *Still* think you've got a point? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > again -- sh.t for brains -- or you're saying that I invented the > "imipak" sock puppet.... sh.t for brains. LOL!!! The one who doesn't understand the text talks about reading comprehension! HAHAHAHAHA!! Keep it up JStupid! Pure Entertainment! We'll take it slower. First, sh.t for brains Larry/Weland said: > >>Imipak, imaginary or real, isn't your friend. I didn't say he was. I never so much as implied he was. In fact, what I did was point out that it;s the complete jackasses like imipak who keep agreeing with you. Here's the quote: : The fact that it's the imipaks who agree with you, yet : you *Still* think you've got a point? > >> Wow, you can't > >>even invent imaginary friends right! He's not a friend. He's not imaginary. You have absolutely no reading comprehension. Now to prove that he's really mentally ill, it;s not just an act, sh.t fro brains said... > LOL!!! The one who doesn't understand the text talks > about reading comprehension! HAHAHAHAHA!! Imbecile. JSTUPID had someone write for him: "We'll take it slower." Cause he needs to, but it doesn't seem to be helping! > Cause he You have no reading comprehension, sh.t for brains. That should bother you. That should bother you a lot. >>Cause he > > You have no reading comprehension, sh.t for brains. > > That should bother you. That should bother you a > lot. Oh sure you have great reading comprehension skills, which is why you can't seem to get anything right, misreport facts, misconstrue your own citations etc....yeah.....your mom was really right about you. > > You have no reading comprehension, sh.t for brains. > > > That should bother you. That should bother you a > > lot. > > Oh sure you I wasn't trying to insult you. I was merely stating a fact. You have no reading comprehension. I made a statement to the effect that it's the "imipak" types who agree with you (and they do), and you went off about "imaginary friends." Okay, sure, it's entirely plausible that your problem is insanity, and not reading comprehension, but I'm granting you the benefit of a doubt. I'm willing to ignore the likelihood that you're imaging statements that nobody made, unless and until you want to admit it. imaginary friends We know JStupid, that's why we keep encouraging you to stay on those meds. > imaginary friends That is what you said, after I pointed out that it was the "imipaks" who were agreeing with you. Either you imagined a posting that nobody ever wrote, or you lack reading comprehension. I'm willing to accept the insanity defense, if that's what you want to claim, sh.t for brains. >> imaginary friends We know you do, JStupid, that's why we want you on those meds. [---snip---] Here we go, sh.t for brains: : Jul 31, 1:37 am, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote: : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :> So not only making up imaginary friends, but now :> imaginary points! Hint: I didn't make up "imipak," and it's a valid point. "Birds of a feather..." and all that. The biggest waste products to ever burn bandwidth -- the imipak/igor sock puppets -- agree with you. Morons think you make sense. Congratulations, piss whore. > [---snip---] > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Congratulations, piss whore. Yep, still making up imaginary friends, points, and an imaginary life. That's our JTEM > > Hint: I didn't make up "imipak," and it's a valid point. > > "Birds of a feather..." and all that. The biggest waste [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Congratulations, piss whore. > Yep, still making up imaginary friends, At this point you're disgracing yourself, sh.t for brains. >>>Hint: I didn't make up "imipak," and it's a valid point. >>>"Birds of a feather..." and all that. The biggest waste [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > At this point you're disgracing yourself, sh.t for brains. Can't be even close to your level of disgrace. > Can't be even close to your level of disgrace. Wow, did your "imipak" butt buddy helping you, or did you think that one up all by yourself? sh.t for brains... > Imipak, imaginary or real, isn't your friend. I will not be filed, stamped, indexed or taken the negative square root of, particularly by JTEM. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'll think about it.... His latest is to say that we can't know anything about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced...now he's shifted ground once he was proven wrong from his own citations to saying that we only probably know (and saying that his citation was wrong) how it was pronounced, and that "vowels" have nothing to do with pronunciation. > His latest is to say that we can't know anything > about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... I said that we don't know how it was pronounced, and we don't. Sure, there are educated guesses for many words, but it's impossible to know for sure. ...and you're so pathetic, and ruled by your emotions, that you can't admit this obvious truth. You'd rather look like a retard than accept the truth. > > His latest is to say that we can't know anything > > about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for many words, but it's impossible to know for > sure. Define "sure" in this context. You can never know anything 100%. What percentage of certainty do you require before you consider it "known for sure"? Legal analogies are not acceptable, as science is not a jury trial. If you can't/won't give a specific level of acceptable certainty, or if Weland shows that the level of certainty exceeds what you define as acceptable, then you'll just have to concede that you're massively over-exaggerating the problem. I don't think we know how to pronounce ancient Egyptian to any real extent, but you won't catch me turning an opinion based on the certainty level I feel is required into the sort of hyped-up super-condemnation of Egyptology you present. > ...and you're so pathetic, and ruled by your > emotions, that you can't admit this obvious truth. > You'd rather look like a retard than accept the > truth. You wouldn't know the truth if it kicked you to the ground. Until or unless you state a confidence limit for the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, there is nothing "obvious" and no meaningful "truth" in your claims. > Define The question presupposes that the questioner has the capacity to comprehend the answer, which of course is erroneous. > > Define > > The question presupposes that the questioner has the > capacity to comprehend the answer, which of course > is erroneous. In other words, you don't have a definition. You simply don't know what is actually required, and you'd rather wimp out on some lame insult than admit the truth, which is that you know nothing about the subject at all. > > The question presupposes that the questioner has the > > capacity to comprehend the answer, which of course > > is erroneous. > > In other words, Case in point. > > > The question presupposes that the questioner has the > > > capacity to comprehend the answer, which of course [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Case in point. You're claiming you're a mental case? >> His latest is to say that we can't know anything >> about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... > I said that we don't know how it was pronounced, > and we don't. Sure, there are educated guesses > for many words, but it's impossible to know for > sure. > ....and you're so pathetic, and ruled by your > emotions, that you can't admit this obvious truth. > You'd rather look like a retard than accept the > truth. When Americans hear the Brits and Aussies talk about their group marriage partners then think instead of their parasitic insects. Of course neither interpretation means MATES. But if only one or two phrases survive into the future it would be impossible to determine which if any meaning was the correct one. And if shipmates is one of the surviving meanings along with buggering in the Royal Navy then it would be clear there were completely homosexual families on each ship. What makes this a serious observation is the original cuneiform was pictograms of things which sounded like what was being pictured. The one example I remember is the reed (a plant) sounded like law and so the image for reed was used for law. The particular meaning was from context as were all the variations such as lawS lawFUL and so forth. SignatureWhen Israel talks about settlers it it talking about criminal squatters. -- The Iron Webmater, 4162 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8 Sat Jul 11 09:05:19 EDT 2009 >>His latest is to say that we can't know anything >>about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... > > I said that we don't know how it was pronounced, > and we don't. But we know a lot about how it was pronounced. Sure, there are educated guesses > for many words, but it's impossible to know for > sure. Non issue. All discussions of pronunciation of any language at any time are educated guesses. Not only do languages change, but pronunciation by any single individual (much less larger groups) changes diachronically through the individual's life as well as from context to context: home, work, etc. And this doesn't even address the issue of accent and different pronunciation of the same words by different ethnic groups, socio-economic groups, education level, and other measures. Even in this age of being able to record sounds, we can only at best estimate, so whining about not being able to be exact about ancient Egyptian is simply describing phonetics. Further, no one claimed that we were exact, but that we know a lot. > ...and you're so pathetic, and ruled by your > emotions, that you can't admit this obvious truth. > You'd rather look like a retard than accept the > truth. More insight into JTEM's psychosis > But we know a lot about how it was pronounced. No. There's assumptions based on assumptions. Nobody knows how ancient Akkadian or so-called "Hebrew" was pronounced. But, based on the assumption that we've got those pretty right, we can say we know how a lot of ancient Egyptian words were pronounced. Not "Most," but a lot of them. Which brings us full circle. You idiots were arguing that Egyptian pronunciation is NOTHING like we find in other texts. You don't recall (how convenient for you) but you idiots were arguing that the Egyptian Djehuty couldn't be pronounced anything like the Jehuti we find in other texts. ....and Egoblaze was pretending that he knew this because he knows how ancient Egyptian was pronounced. Idiots. >>> His latest is to say that we can't know anything >>> about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... >> I said that we don't know how it was pronounced, >> and we don't. > But we know a lot about how it was pronounced. And yet it is impossible to establish the pronunciation of modern English from modern written English. One is constantly amazed at what people believe when they chose to believe. SignatureThe national mythos of ancient Greece was the Iliad. The national mythos of the United States is WWII. In both cases the truth is far different from the mythos. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4152 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8 Thu Jul 16 14:27:15 EDT 2009 > >>> His latest is to say that we can't know anything > >>> about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > One is constantly amazed at what people believe when they chose to believe. Straw Man I: Modern English is based on a spelling standardization that is anything but modern and anything but phonetic. However, if you knew all of the rules (or had a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary), you could make an excellent guess. And that's with a strongly alphabetic written language, rather than a strongly syllabaric language. Straw Man II: There are plenty of European languages that are written according to how they are sounded. Modern spoken Finnish corresponds perfectly with modern written Finnish. Deriving one from the other is easy. Ancient Egyptian was written using conventions much closer to Finnish than English, in that it was designed to directly correspond with the spoken language. Sure, we won't be able to tell the nuances from that, but then someone speaking BBC English can be perfectly well understood anywhere in England - and even in America, which doesn't really speak English at all. Speaking a "vanilla" Ancient Egyptian may not correspond with an actual regional accent, but it would certainly be understood by any ancient Egyptian (if any were alive) and an ancient Egyptian could be understood by such a speaker. >>>>> His latest is to say that we can't know anything >>>>> about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > be understood by any ancient Egyptian (if any were alive) and an > ancient Egyptian could be understood by such a speaker. Weland does not need a wimp like you to speak for him. Let him defend his own sorry a.s. SignatureFour hundred years ago no one had the slightest idea of what this world is like. All religious pronouncements then and now are by ignorant idiots. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4169 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 Thu Jul 16 20:54:10 EDT 2009 > >>>>> His latest is to say that we can't know anything > >>>>> about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Weland does not need a wimp like you to speak for him. Let him defend his own > sorry a.s. If you think me such a wimp, why hide from the issues? C'mon, let's see how tough your mind is and answer my points above. Running just shows the only tough part of you is your beer gut. >>>>>>> His latest is to say that we can't know anything >>>>>>> about how ancient Egyptian is pronounced... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > see how tough your mind is and answer my points above. Running just > shows the only tough part of you is your beer gut. Weland does NOT need you to speak for him. SignatureZionism is a political cult dedicated to murdering Palestinians and stealing their property. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4165 http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13 Fri Jul 17 23:53:40 EDT 2009 > Weland does NOT need you to speak for him. Two points. First, Larry/Weland does in fact need SOMEONE to speak for him, as he couldn't be a bigger moron if you deprived his brain of oxygen for an entire week. Secondly, this is usenet, an open forum. By virtue of posting here you are inviting every other reader of the group to respond to you. If that's not what you want, take it to private e-mail... >> Weland does NOT need you to speak for him. > Two points. First, Larry/Weland does in fact need > SOMEONE to speak for him, as he couldn't be a > bigger moron if you deprived his brain of oxygen for > an entire week. > Secondly, this is usenet, an open forum. By virtue > of posting here you are inviting every other reader of > the group to respond to you. > If that's not what you want, take it to private e-mail... Don't be silly. The demented f.ck says he has killfiled me. Why should I not get some mileage out of that? SignatureJews make no bones about their desire for all Arabs to die. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4159 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 Sat Jul 18 15:43:57 EDT 2009 > C'mon, let's see how tough your mind is and answer > my points above. You made no points. Unless the fact that you don't know what strawman is was your point. Idiot. > Straw Man I: Modern English is based on a spelling > standardization that is anything but modern The first English dictionary was written in 1604, and standardized spelling followed quite a while after that. Oh, no doubt I need to point out: Compared to the time frames we are speaking of for these ancient texts, standardization in English is quite modern. > Straw Man II: There are plenty of European languages > that are written according to how they are sounded. Perhaps nobody ever explained to you what a "Strawman" argument is, but.... That's quite irrelevant, unless you intend to now argue that every language on earth has to follow this model.... precisely as English does not. > > Straw Man I: Modern English is based on a spelling > > standardization that is anything but modern [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Perhaps nobody ever explained to you what a > "Strawman" argument is, but.... Since a "straw man argument" is one that is based on a false underlying assumption (such as the assumption all written languages are alphabetic rather than phonetic) and I have demonstrated the falseness of this, I would seem to understand it quite well. You clearly do not. Any more than you understand what a sock puppet is. > That's quite irrelevant, unless you intend to now argue > that every language on earth has to follow this > model.... precisely as English does not. My argument is that you cannot base your arguments of the ancient Egyptian language on the peculiarities of modern English. It doesn't wash. There are many types of written language, and of those, many include far more information on the spoken form than modern English. You would need to prove that Egyptian DOES follow the English model in order to prove we do not know how to speak ancient Egyptian. Since ancient languages generally do NOT follow the English model but are often highly phonetic, this would be an extraordinary discovery on your part. So go ahead and be a famous discoverer. Or admit you're full of bullshit. One or the other. > Since a "straw man argument" is one that is based > on a false underlying assumption Wrong, as per your usual. A "Strawman" is when you respond to an argument that nobody else made -- you set up, and then presumably knock down, a "Strawman." But of course Weland has never been able to defend himself. SignatureThe oldest terrorist organization in the United States is the Jewish Defense League. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4167 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 Thu Jul 16 23:20:15 EDT 2009 > But of course Weland has never been able to defend himself. Since JTEM is happy to label all who disagree with him as being just a single person under multiple names, any attack JTEM makes on who someone is is implicitly an attack on ALL who JTEM condemns. That includes you. When JTEM slams Weland, it is as much an attack on you (even if your views are 100% different from Weland). I don't see any reason to allow JTEM to covertly attack anyone. If he wants to attack someone, let him do so openly. >> But of course Weland has never been able to defend himself. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reason to allow JTEM to covertly attack anyone. If he wants to attack > someone, let him do so openly. Weland can defend himself. I do not and will not respond to anyone pretending to be a proxy for that little sh.t. SignatureFour hundred years ago no one had the slightest idea of what this world is like. All religious pronouncements then and now are by ignorant idiots. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4169 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 Fri Jul 17 23:55:41 EDT 2009 > Since JTEM is happy to label all who disagree > with him as being just a single person under > multiple names, As I pointed out, "Weland" really is "Larry Swain." >>Since JTEM is happy to label all who disagree >>with him as being just a single person under >>multiple names, > > As I pointed out, "Weland" really is "Larry Swain." Uh, actually I pointed out that I was Larry Swain....and of course what imipak was talking about is your habit of labeling everyone a sock puppet. Changing names under which one posts while changing providers is a posting name change, not a sock puppet. But then, getting facts right has never been your strong suit. > Uh, actually I pointed out Of course you did, you little wittle woo woo woo. >>Uh, actually I pointed out > > Of course you did, you little wittle woo woo woo. Anyone else notice that JTEM's reduced to baby talk every time he's caught lying? > Anyone else Anyone besides your other personalities? Go on, you drooling imbecile, admit that nobody knows how ancient Egyptian was pronounced. Go on, idiot. >>Anyone else > > Anyone besides your other personalities? More insight into JTEM's warped mind. He's already revealed that his mother was a shrew and screamed at him and his Dad how worthless they are. That sort of domineering shrewish mother has been known to produce a chap with personality disorders, revealed to us in his constant projection onto everyone else of multiple other personalities that can be best explained by the fact that it is he who has multiple other personalities. Perhaps JTEM's new nickname should Norman Bates, we'll just call him Bates for short. > More insight You never had any to begin with. Seriously, you're every bit as retarded as that "imipak" waste. Look at you now, cowering at the thought of admitting your error about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian. You'd rather us all believe bullshit than admit your mistake, and discuss real history. But I've seen you even worse. Like, remember when you went on & on pretending that Camels were common in the middle east & Egypt before the 6th century, when by all accounts -- AND ALL EVIDENCE -- they were barely known at all, and certainly NOT by the masses? Idiot. >>More insight > > You never had any to begin with. Ah poor JStupid must snip to make himself feel like he's made a point! More confirmation of the sick puppy we're dealing with. > Seriously, you're every bit as retarded as that "imipak" > waste. > > Look at you now, cowering at the thought of admitting > your error about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian. Except we weren't wrong, you were shown to be misquoting, creating strawmen argument and using other fallacious tactics, and making claims about languages you don't even know. > But I've seen you even worse. Like, remember when you > went on & on pretending that Camels were common in > the middle east & Egypt before the 6th century, another misrepresentation of what I said...seems the only way you can "discuss real history" is to distort both what people here in sha say as well as what ancient sources and modern secondary sources say. > Ah poor Go on, pretend that your mother gave birth to a real man and admit your errors. Seriously, even the likes of you must recognize how retarded it is to try to re-write all of history, just to avoid admitting his mistakes. >>Ah poor > > Go on, pretend that your mother gave birth to a > real man and admit your errors. More evidence of the nature of JStupid Bates' illness. > Seriously, even the likes of you must recognize how > retarded it is to try to re-write all of history, just to > avoid admitting his mistakes. See how the subject distorts reality to fit his pathological needs...I think there's a paper in JStupid Bates > More evidence Go on, pussy, say it. Say, "Nobody knows how ancient Egyptian was pronounced." I say that you're a pathetic little pussy who can't admit his error. Here's your chance to prove me right. So, go on, pussy, and say it. >> More evidence > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > his error. Here's your chance to prove me right. So, go > on, pussy, and say it. Perhaps it was his association with the Yutani corporation that caused him to drop the y from his name. SignatureHodie decimo Kalendas Augustas MMIX est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 Thu Jul 23 12:51:27 EDT 2009 >>More evidence > > Go on, pussy, say it. Say, "Nobody knows how ancient > Egyptian was pronounced." Why do you keep beating up your straw man? Its quite pathetic. > I say that you're a pathetic little pussy who can't admit > his error. Here's your chance to prove me right. So, go > on, pussy, and say it. Why would I say I erred when you haven't actually accurately presented what I've said much less proven it wrong, other than by fallacious argument? > > Go on, pussy, say it. Say, "Nobody knows how ancient > > Egyptian was pronounced." > Why do you keep beating up your straw man? It's not a strawman, pussy. You really did argue (incessantly) that the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is known, and you really are a pussy who can't admit his error. And I really am laughing at you. Even your fellow retards recognize both your error and your lack of masculinity, though they won't dare admit it. Like you, they don't give a sh.t about reality. But they know it, and somewhere in the back of what passes for their minds they are laughing at you. >>>Go on, pussy, say it. Say, "Nobody knows how ancient >>>Egyptian was pronounced." > >>Why do you keep beating up your straw man? > > It's not a strawman, Yes it is. It isn't what either DB said or what I agreed with, and your promulgation of a view that it isn't known your own citations disproved. Poor JSTupid. Weland <gi...@poetic.com> lied: > > It's not a strawman, > > Yes it is. The "imipak" freak doesn't know what a strawman is, either. Maybe he could get you into MENSA. You both could be serving coffee at their next meeting. Pussy. > Weland <gi...@poetic.com> lied: > >>>It's not a strawman, >> >>Yes it is. Yep, JStupid nonsense aside, your argument and whinging is still a strawman. > Yep, You pretended that the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is known. It's not a strawman. You really held that position, tried numerous times to defend it -- even claimed that you successfully did so. What is sick is the fact that all your fellow nutters look the other way. They see you lying your sorry a.s off in the most blatant fashion, and instead of condemning you they ignore it (at best) if not defend your actions. Congratulations. You're a lying sack of sh.t amongst a group of worthless turds who see nothing wrong with lying. >>Yep, > > You pretended that the pronunciation of ancient > Egyptian is known. A great deal is known. Not everything. On the other hand, you claimed that we know how to pronounce two transliterated words from two different languages and when corrected, switched your argument to saying no one knows how they were pronounced, all to cover your error, which was to cover the fact that you cited a text from a 134 year old book that said nothing at all what you said it did. Then you turn around and accuse others of doing exactly what you did...also a nice cover, but it won't wash here. > > You pretended that the pronunciation of ancient > > Egyptian is known. > > A great deal is known. And some of what is thought to be known is wrong. Heck, all of it may be at least a little wrong. We just don't "Know." > On the other hand, you claimed that we know how to > pronounce two transliterated words from two different > languages We do. We know how to pronounce the transliterations. Exactly. And they were phonetically identical. Exactly identical. But the connections didn't stop there. We have other locations (Ammon Jordan) named for an Egyptian god, not to mention what would have to be the amazing coincidence of the Babylonian-era story of "Abraham" and the city of Ur. Are you claiming that an Egyptian name for land that had been controlled by Egypt for so very long is somehow strange? Is that it? > and when corrected, switched your argument to saying > no one knows how they were pronounced, You've got it a.s backwards, as per our usual. 1) The transliterations ARE phonetically identical. This much is a fact. 2) YOU and Egoblaze claimed that these exactly-matching transliterations couldn't be the same, because the original words were pronounced differently. Two SEPARATE issues here. The first is how the /transliterations/ are pronounced, the second was how the words were actually pronounced by the ancient peoples who spoke the languages in question. The former WE KNOW, the latter NOBODY KNOWS. Idiot. >>>You pretended that the pronunciation of ancient >>>Egyptian is known. >> >>A great deal is known. > > And some of what is thought to be known is wrong. Based on your detailed ignorance of the language and dependence on web pages written by amateurs in ancient Egyptology.....yes, that inspires confidence it does. > Heck, all of it may be at least a little wrong. > > We just don't "Know." Well, *you* don't know. >>On the other hand, you claimed that we know how to >>pronounce two transliterated words from two different >>languages > > We do. We know how to pronounce the transliterations. Except the transliterations are based on our understanding of the phonology of the languages they represent...apparently that didn't occur to you, or that if we don't know how to pronounce the original languages, then any transliteration is false, and one can't then claim that two transliterations from two different languages would sound alike much less that they'd sound alike in their original languages and have anything to do with one another....another fact that didn't occur to JStupid Bates and his fecal mind. > And they were phonetically identical. Exactly identical. No they weren't, and you were corrected on the point. And you've fulminated and thrown up lots of dust ever since to cover your ignorance. > But the connections didn't stop there. We have other > locations (Ammon Jordan) named for an Egyptian god, > not to mention what would have to be the amazing > coincidence of the Babylonian-era story of "Abraham" > and the city of Ur. HA! Pop-folklore and pop-etymology! Hilarious! What's your evidence for this skein of associations? > Are you claiming that an Egyptian name for land that > had been controlled by Egypt for so very long is > somehow strange? What's your evidence that the Egyptians called the area around the site of Amman "Amman?" >>and when corrected, switched your argument to saying >>no one knows how they were pronounced, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The transliterations ARE phonetically identical. This much > is a fact. No, they aren't, as was pointed out to you. > 2) > YOU and Egoblaze claimed that these exactly-matching > transliterations couldn't be the same, because the original > words were pronounced differently. They are. > Two SEPARATE issues here. The first is how the > /transliterations/ are pronounced, ' which can only be based on knowledge of how to pronounce the original, hence the transliteration. > > And some of what is thought to be known is wrong. > > Based on your detailed ignorance of the language and So you're back to arguing that the pronunciation IS know. Like I keep saying, you've got sh.t for brains... > > We do. We know how to pronounce the transliterations. > > Except the transliterations are based on our understanding > of the phonology of the languages they represent... > apparently that didn't occur to you, Wait. You think there's only _One_ way any word can be transliterated? And did you notice? You're now arguing that the words are phonetically equal in both their transliterated AND original ancient forms. What the f.ck is with you nutters, and the way you argue yourselves into holes that you can't see? >>>And some of what is thought to be known is wrong. >> >>Based on your detailed ignorance of the language and > > So you're back to arguing that the pronunciation IS > know. Like I keep saying, you've got sh.t for brains... You just keep getting it wrong....poor sod. >>>We do. We know how to pronounce the transliterations. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wait. You think there's only _One_ way any word can be > transliterated? Of course not, brainless wonder.....but to try and claim that transliteration is divorced from understanding the phonology of the originating language is simply wrong. > > So you're back to arguing that the pronunciation IS > > know. Like I keep saying, you've got sh.t for brains... > > You just keep getting it wrong....poor sod. Pussy. No one with half a brain could believe that if I got it wrong you wouldn't leap at the chance to show me up. But I didn';t get it wrong. > >>Except the transliterations are based on our understanding > >>of the phonology of the languages they represent... > >>apparently that didn't occur to you, But below you say that there isn't just one way to transliterate a word... > > Wait. You think there's only _One_ way any word can be > > transliterated? > > Of course not, brainless wonder..... See? So you're claiming that a variable -- not a set value -- has to be equal to.... to... what? Oh, who cares. The point, sh.t for brains, is that you are now arguing that the reason why "Djehuty" and "Jehuti" are phonetically identical is because the were most likely pronounced identically in ancient times. Or, to put it another way: You're making a case for them being the same word -- the exact same word. >>>So you're back to arguing that the pronunciation IS >>>know. Like I keep saying, you've got sh.t for brains... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No one with half a brain could believe that if I got it wrong > you wouldn't leap at the chance to show me up. Non sequitur. As amusing as it is to watch you spin yourself in circles and get dizzy and fall down and go boom, I don't have time to point out *all* your errors, stupidities, and willful acts of ignorance. > But I didn';t get it wrong. Yep, sure did. It's kinda your middle name. JStupid Wrong Bates III. So do you dress up like her too? >>>>Except the transliterations are based on our understanding >>>>of the phonology of the languages they represent... >>>>apparently that didn't occur to you, > > But below you say that there isn't just one way to transliterate > a word... There isn't. It depends on your target language, i. e. the one you are transliterating into and phonetic values assigned. That's why linguists when they do such things rather than historians use IPA and other tools to describe the phonology. >>>Wait. You think there's only _One_ way any word can be >>>transliterated? >> >>Of course not, brainless wonder..... > > See? Oh yes, everyone sees that you are a brainless wonder. > Oh, who cares. The point, sh.t for brains, is that you are now > arguing that the reason why "Djehuty" and "Jehuti" are > phonetically identical is because the were most likely > pronounced identically in ancient times. No, never made any such argument. In fact, I said that Djehuty and Jehuda aren't phonetically identical at all. > Non sequitur. You don't know what that means. Anyhow, sh.t for brains, amongst the transliterations for what you pretend is "Judah" is "Jahuti," and amongst the transliterations for Thoth we find "Jehuti." You feel your position is so weak, so pathetic, that you're compelled to ignore the facts and pretend that the closest transliteration is "Jehuda." According to you, the transliterations have to match what you believe is the pronunciation, or the transliteration is "False." Also, according to you the transliterations don't match their pronunciation at all. Of course, you don't know the pronunciations -- nobody does -- but that doesn't seem to stop you. You merely pretend that you do. sh.t for brains. [snip] > > Are you claiming that an Egyptian name for land that > > had been controlled by Egypt for so very long is > > somehow strange? > > What's your evidence that the Egyptians called the area around the site > of Amman "Amman?" Let me know if he ever comes up with anything even faintly resembling evidence - which I seriously doubt - as that should be fun. *grin* > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let me know if he ever comes up with anything even faintly resembling > evidence - which I seriously doubt - as that should be fun. *grin* Be happy too! Weland wrote: > JTEM wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> As I pointed out, "Weland" really is "Larry Swain." OOO, JStupid must have received this information via divine revelation! Like it was a secret! > OOO, You're mocking yourself at this point. Seriously, grow some balls and admit your mistake. That, or die a worthless little runt of a pussy. >>OOO, > > You're mocking yourself at this point. Poor JStupid....too dumb to even realize that he still hasn't got it right. > Speaking a "vanilla" Ancient Egyptian may Nobody knows how ancient Egyptian was pronounced. > > Speaking a "vanilla" Ancient Egyptian may > > Nobody knows how ancient Egyptian was > pronounced. You assume, by saying that, that the written language differs from the spoken language. Early written languages tended (as a rule) to be extremely close to the spoken form. As such, your assumption is likely incorrect. Asserting that you're right doesn't make it so, although you seem to have trouble telling the difference. >>> Speaking a "vanilla" Ancient Egyptian may >> Nobody knows how ancient Egyptian was >> pronounced. > You assume, by saying that, that the written language differs from the > spoken language. As that is the case for English, all the spoken Englishes, what problem do you have with the assumption? > Early written languages tended (as a rule) to be > extremely close to the spoken form. Including all the pictographic ones such as chinese and cuneiform of course. > As such, your assumption is likely > incorrect. Asserting that you're right doesn't make it so, although > you seem to have trouble telling the difference. Lets see now. In the good old days there was this guy whom we call Josephus whose name was spelled in Aramaic with only a p not a ph. The ph is pronounced as a fricative as it is today. Which fricative is a separate question. But the p in the Aramaic is a plosive today. It is most common for a person changing their name to a new environment to make is sound like it should in a known alphabet. Both p and ph exist in Greek. He chose the ph not the p. This is one of the few ways to "divine" ancient pronunciations and they are rare and insufficient to establish ancient pronunciation. But stick with me here. In choosing the ph instead of the p it means the Aramaic p sounded like the Greek ph. Fricatives and plosives did not translate from Aramaic to Greek. There is another very common example with the interchangeability of b and v. Another fricative/plosive exchange. There is also a modestly common sibilant s and th exchange. He theth heth Cathtilian. Call it lisping but it is also a regional pronunciation. So tell me what you mean by the same? There is ZERO indication of any of the glottal stops which are in every Semitic language today in any written language before modern times. Yet there is no serious suggestion the vocalized stops are modern inventions. There are three different glottals in Arabic and they control the meanings of words. The supposedly "real" Hebrew of the OT has no glottal marks at all. That means there is no way to know proper pronunciation nor what the meaning was with, without, or with different glottals. Will one of you nerfbrains please explain why you think it is possible to know how ancient languages were pronounced in light of the minimal set of considerations I have presented in this post? SignaturePalestine has been known by that name since at least the 5th c. BC when Herodotus reported that name. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4156 http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10 Fri Jul 17 23:59:42 EDT 2009 > > Nobody knows how ancient Egyptian was > > pronounced. > > You assume, No, you drooling imbecile. Quite the opposite. It requires a boat load of assumptions to conclude that you have any idea how it might have been pronounced. This is pretty basic stuff, which explains your difficulty in grasping it. [snip] > His latest is to say that we can't know anything about how ancient > Egyptian is pronounced...now he's shifted ground once he was proven > wrong from his own citations to saying that we only probably know (and > saying that his citation was wrong) how it was pronounced, and that > "vowels" have nothing to do with pronunciation. It's so funny that the only thing that beats the cocksureness of JTEM is his ignorance. I borrowed Antonio Loprieno's Ancient Egyptian - A Linguistic Introduction from an Egyptologist friend of mine. It's amusing how people who have actually studied Egyptian in depth - and I've never claimed to be an expert in Egyptian - disagree with JTEM. So let's quote from Loprieno: "The full phonological or phonetic shape of an Egyptian word can be reconstructed through a procedure in which three dimensions are checked against each other and mutually verified: the comparative Afroasiatic reconstruction, the information drawn from contemporary sources in other (mostly Semitic) languages with a better investigated phonology, and the laws of phonological evolution leading from earlier Egyptian to Coptic. The study of Egyptian phonotogy has achieved significant progress since its inception in the late nineteenth century both in the assessment of sound values and in the reconstruction of prosodic rules. Scholars mainly rely on four procedures of linguistic reconstruction: Comparative Afroasiatic linguistics. Egyptian is a language of the Afroasiatic phylum, and the presence of established etymological equivalents offers a fundamental source for our reconstruction of phonological values. For example, since Eg. <q3b> corresponds to Sem, qrb meaning "interior part," one can confidently establish that Eg. <q> = /q/ and that <b> = /b/. Contemporary transcriptions in foreign languages. Many Akkadian texts, especially from the archive of el-'Amarna (fifteenth-fourteenth century BCE), contain Egyptian words and phrases in cuneiform transcription. These transcriptions provide a valuable insight into the contemporary pronunciation of Egyptian. For example Eg. <stpnr'> "the-one-whom-(the-god)-Re-has-chosen" (royal name of King Ramses) appears in cuneiform as $a-te-ep-na-ri-a, a form on the basis of which one can both posit the contemporary Egyptian pronunciation as */ satepnaria/ and observe the correspondence Eg. <s> // Akk. <$> , both of which were probably realized as [s] or as a sound very close to it (at least in some dialects). Egyptian renderings of foreign words, especially of Northwest Semitic origin. This criterion, the symmetrical counterpart to the preceding one, provides an insight into the phonology of contemporary Egyptian while at the same time offering the possibility to verify scholarly assumptions on Semitic phonology. For example, Northwest Sem. "so:per "scribe" => Eg. <tu-pa-r>: on the one hand, this piece of evidence raises questions about the phonological status and the phonetic realization of Eg. /c/ , which is the palatal phoneme usually transcribed T by Egyptologists, while on the other, it can also he used to shed some light on the value of the phoneme /s/ (samekh), which originally must have been an affricate in Semitic. The evidence provided by Coptic. The latest stage of Egyptian provides the broadest basis for the study of the phonology of older linguistic periods. For example, the three Eg. words spelled uniformly <w'b>, namely "pure," "to be pure," and "priest," appear in Coptic in the lexemes owaab "holy," owon "to be pure," oweeb "priest." This enables us to reconstruct three different vocalization patterns underlying the same graphic reality of hieroglyphic Egyptian: the stative 'wa'baw "he is pure," the infinitive 'wa'db "to become pure," and the noun *wilab "priest". At the same time, this piece of evidence raises questions of consonantism, i.e. the fate of the phoneme /b/ and the reason for the alternance w vs p in in the Coptic forms as opposed to <b> in both cases in their Egyptian antecedents. In the practice of Egyptian phonological reconstruction, these criteria appear constantly combined: while each of them, if considered individually, proves largely inadequate in order to determine a synchronic stage, together they convey a relatively homogeneous picture of the fundamental laws of Egyptian phonological development." Though, of course, since the all-knowing (even though never studied anything) JTEM is always right, Loprieno who is merely a specialist in Egyptian must be wrong.... /sarcasm off/ ... > I borrowed Antonio Loprieno's Ancient Egyptian - A Linguistic > Introduction from an Egyptologist friend of mine. It's amusing how > people who have actually studied Egyptian in depth - and I've never > claimed to be an expert in Egyptian - disagree with JTEM. So let's > quote from Loprieno: > "The full phonological or phonetic shape of an Egyptian word can be > reconstructed through a procedure in which three dimensions are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > phonology, and the laws of phonological evolution leading from earlier > Egyptian to Coptic. Let me ask you a question which you will likely ignore because you cannot present a cogent answer. If that is true for ancient Egyptian over more than four thousand years why is it not true for English over even one thousand years? SignatureJews make no bones about their desire for all Arabs to die. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4159 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11 Sat Jul 11 09:14:19 EDT 2009 > ... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If that is true for ancient Egyptian over more than four thousand years why > is it not true for English over even one thousand years? Just where did you see the claim that Egypt has not changed? Loprieno talks about 'contemporary sources' in the quote you did not manage to snip and later in the book goes into chronodialects of Egyptian. For once in your life read that yourself from the book itself, I just have no wish to post the whole bloody book for lazy-arses. >> ... >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > once in your life read that yourself from the book itself, I just have > no wish to post the whole bloody book for lazy-arses. I will type very slowly so you can follow it. English pronunciation cannot be known over even one thousand years. Please tell my how you can claim to know Egyptian pronunciation over four thousand years. This is a very simple question. Why do you not have an answer? SignatureThere is no archaeological evidence of biblical Israel to be found any place in Israel. Maybe they are looking in the wrong place. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4157 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 Sat Jul 11 17:59:17 EDT 2009 [snip] > English pronunciation cannot be known over even one thousand years. That's news to anyone who actually studies the English language. Gee, they must all be wrong then.... > Please tell my how you can claim to know Egyptian pronunciation over four > thousand years. > > This is a very simple question. Why do you not have an answer? I have answered that question alread, so _learn to read_ - if you have the mental capacity, that is. > I have answered that question alread, Only problem is, absolutely every cite on the web says that you're wrong, that Coptic doesn't tell us how LATE Egyptian was spoken... never mind any of the ancient dialects. The one cite that your sock puppet, Larry Swain, thought he could pervert into supporting you said that Akkadian was the best evidence as to how ancient Egyptian was pronounced... ignoring the screaming obvious fact that nobody really knows how Akkadian was pronounced. So, every cite says you're wrong... not a single cite could be produced in support of you... you;re a frigging usenet retard, pretending you're a language expert when in fact you're an ignorant twit. Congratulations. > [snip] >> English pronunciation cannot be known over even one thousand years. > That's news to anyone who actually studies the English language. Gee, > they must all be wrong then.... It is not news to anyone that there are several major differences in pronunciation in the UK today. That is without looking into older pronunciations. And I mean so different that at times the BBC has to caption what is being said on their broadcasts in England. >> Please tell my how you can claim to know Egyptian pronunciation over four >> thousand years. >> This is a very simple question. Why do you not have an answer? > I have answered that question alread, so _learn to read_ - if you have > the mental capacity, that is. As you clearly have a delusion that a millennia ago English was spoken the same as it is today and are clearly ignorant of all the different pronunciations of English in use today it is quite clear you lack an elementary grasp of the issue. SignatureZionism is a political cult dedicated to murdering Palestinians and stealing their property. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4165 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 Sun Jul 12 13:48:16 EDT 2009 >>... >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > once in your life read that yourself from the book itself, I just have > no wish to post the whole bloody book for lazy-arses. Well, and just as important, is that this is another fallacy by Giwer. (Why can't these trolls eveer put together at least a VALID argument!) We actually do know quite a bit about Old English pronunciation of 1000 years ago! > Well, and just as important, is that this is another > fallacy by Giwer. Giwer is a Hitler loving, Holocaust denying douchebag, which is why you prefer to make everything about him instead of the facts. I mean, who wouldn't rather fight against a psycho Nazi than facts? Everyone roots for you when you're against the latter, right? So if you haven't a leg to stand on, and you don't, and you not intelligent enough to construct an argument anyone -- and you're not -- you make it all about the stupid Nazi.... exactly like you're forced to do. But here you are, telling Egoblaze that he's right, when even you, after twisting A SINGLE CITE as best as you could, concluded that he's wrong, and that Akkadian (and not Coptic) is the best Evidence for how ancient Egyptian was pronounced. You neglected to mention that nobody really knows how Akkadian was pronounced, but we're saving that little tid bit for your commitment hearing... >> Well, and just as important, is that this is another >> fallacy by Giwer. > > Giwer is a Hitler loving, Holocaust denying douchebag, > which is why you prefer to make everything about him > instead of the facts. I did ask for your evidence in support of malicious lie but you have never produced any. Yet you continue to lie about me. Why? SignatureThe nature of the Old Testament from a history of the Jewish people down to a distorted story of their history has never been more than a religious tradition with no known source, nor age, nor authenticity. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4160 http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6 Sun Jul 12 13:56:16 EDT 2009 > I did ask for I'm not going to play. If you've got the guts, make your way to Boston sometime, and let me interview you on camera. Yes, I'd show the results to WWII veterans, Holocaust survivors and/or anyone else of interest, and give them a chance to respond. The only compensation you'd receive is a copy of the DVD when I'm done. But I doubt you have the guts. >> I did ask for > I'm not going to play. It pleases you to make false allegations. > If you've got the guts, make your way to Boston > sometime, and let me interview you on camera. I don't travel much these days or I'd take you up on it. > Yes, I'd show the results to WWII veterans, Only Russian WWII veterans could have possibly seen gas chambers if there were any. How many Russian vets you got in Boston? > Holocaust survivors and/or anyone else of interest, I am only interested in gas chambers and evidence of mass extermination. I find no credible evidence for either. I have found all the stories about gas chambers I can find, five or six total, and I agree with Yad Vashem, they are unreliable. > and give them a chance to respond. You could certainly find all the Russian gas chamber witnesses without needing me to be there. These days they were all in Poland. Russia liberated Poland. QED > The only > compensation you'd receive is a copy of the DVD > when I'm done. Of course I would have to insist the interview be strictly limited to gas chambers and evidence of mass extermination and insist that anyone else you choose to include address only the physical evidence regarding those two issues and none other. Those are the only issues I am addressing. I have no interest in hearing about camps and discrimination and all the other things which are not in question. I have no interest in addressing nor responding to issues I have not raised nor am I interested in hearing about any other subject from others. Bait and switch is addressing the issue of gas chambers with pictures of emaciated people. Those are not the same. One has no bearing on the other. Clearly you are not willing to talk about the issue I have raised by claiming you can find war veterans. You did not know they would have to be Russian war veterans. In fact I would like to find one autopsy showing death by cyanide. > But I doubt you have the guts. It does not really matter as you would want to talk about everything but gas chambers and would do the bait and switch. SignatureDumb people have one thing going for them. They cannot do stupid things. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4151 http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13 Sun Jul 12 15:57:57 EDT 2009 > Of course I would have to insist the interview be > strictly limited to gas chambers and evidence of > mass extermination and insist that anyone else you > choose to include address only the physical > evidence regarding those two issues and none other. What, the interview you haven't the guts to do? > I have no interest in addressing nor responding > to issues I have not raised nor am I interested in hearing > about any other subject from others. nobody would be stupid enough to put you in the same room as a Holocaust survivor. > Bait and switch is addressing the issue of gas > chambers with pictures of emaciated people. Gas chambers, yes, but not the question of mass murder. You can't feed people fewer calories than is necessary and then claim you never intended that they die. If you don't out-right kill them, it's only a matter of time before the diet (lack there of) does. > Those are not the same. Both deal with the subject of "Mass Murder." > Clearly you are not willing to talk about the issue I > have raised by claiming you can find war veterans. Clearly you are a lying coward, and when you say "Mass Murder" you mean "Mass murder only under one set of circumstances." Underfeeding was nothing less than planned murder. After the war, German prisoners under the U.S. were fed as much as 3 times the number of calories per day as a concentration camp prisoner, yet there's no shortage of people who claim that this was too little, and resulted in many avoidable deaths of German prisoners. > You did not know they would have to be Russian > war veterans. I do know that is not the case. See above. > In fact I would like to find one autopsy showing death by cyanide. Using that exact same argument, we can only conclude that the battle for Kursk never took place. After all, where's the autopsies? Gutless... >> Of course I would have to insist the interview be >> strictly limited to gas chambers and evidence of >> mass extermination and insist that anyone else you >> choose to include address only the physical >> evidence regarding those two issues and none other. > What, the interview you haven't the guts to do? Do you agree to the stipulation of a strict limitation upon the subject matter of physical evidence of gas chambers and mass extermination? >> I have no interest in addressing nor responding >> to issues I have not raised nor am I interested in hearing >> about any other subject from others. > nobody would be stupid enough to put you in the same > room as a Holocaust survivor. As they are all at least 78 years old what would they do? Swing their canes? (2009 - 1945 = 65 plus all those too young to work were immediately gassed they had to be at least 13 to survive which is 65 + 13 = 78.) I am only 64 and can still kick higher than my head. Why would I do more than look at it as another chance to party? But I have no interest at all in survivors of the holy holocaust. The issue is only gas chambers and mass extermination. You got anything on only those two issues? >> Bait and switch is addressing the issue of gas >> chambers with pictures of emaciated people. > Gas chambers, yes, but not the question of mass murder. > You can't feed people fewer calories than is necessary > and then claim you never intended that they die. If you > don't out-right kill them, it's only a matter of time before > the diet (lack there of) does. Are you really claiming that even one surviving member of the division that "liberated" Dachau is still alive and living in Boston? The US stopped taking underage volunteers in late 1942. That means the youngest US soldier in WWII was 18 in 1945 and that was 64 years ago and therefore is at least 82 years old today. Have you double checked your one source for Alzheimer's? Do you even have one source? I strongly doubt it. But one can point out that people die when on a long term starvation diet as the body first digests first fat and then muscle and the heart is a muscle which is not exempt from digestion. Thus finding people towards the end of the war in an emaciated condition means that happened after the previous winter as they could not have survived it with weakened hearts. This is not a secret. It is well known. It is easy to research. But if you want to start an entirely new holocaust industry of extermination by starvation that is your business. When it gets popular I will consider dealing with it. In doing so I will point out FDR and Eisenhower were bragging that ALL transportation of every kind had been stopped including food. If there were no starvation in the camps I would say FDR and Eisenhower were both lying about their accomplishments. At the moment the ONLY issues I have raised are gas chambers and mass extermination. >> Those are not the same. > > Both deal with the subject of "Mass Murder." Save there is no evidence of deliberate starvation. Even if there were the issue is jewish specific although we do not find gypsies, Adventist, Mennonites and so forth whining about it. Even if that were the case it is not specific to Jews so it is not holocaustic. >> Clearly you are not willing to talk about the issue I >> have raised by claiming you can find war veterans. > Clearly you are a lying coward, and when you say > "Mass Murder" you mean "Mass murder only under > one set of circumstances." If you are conceding there were no gas chambers then in fact we have come to a meeting of the minds in the matter of gas chambers. I take small victories where I can get them. So if you want to start the interview with a joint statement that there were no gas chambers but ... I am willing to consider it. > Underfeeding was nothing less than planned murder. Save that physiology does not permit it to be long term under stressful conditions such as winter. But if you would like I can dig up the Dachau liberation pictures of well fed and even fat inmates. I might even be able to find the holohugger nonsense about them being one year reunion photos. Gee, it was just like a high school. There were reunions. Of course Dachau was a DP camp after liberation and not disbanded until 1954 or so. It was also known as the nexus of organized crime in the region and that the criminal organizations was under the protection of the occupation armies. Whether by choice or by bribery is not known. > After the war, German prisoners under the U.S. were > fed as much as 3 times the number of calories per > day as a concentration camp prisoner, yet there's no > shortage of people who claim that this was too little, > and resulted in many avoidable deaths of German > prisoners. In addition to conceding there were no gas chambers you are now trying to make physically impossible claims about starvation. The heart is digested by the body because it is a muscle. You can research this yourself. I did and this is what I learned. I have brought this up to a very jewish doctor and he did look into it and agreed. Perhaps you can find something we both missed. Please make the effort. >> You did not know they would have to be Russian >> war veterans. > I do know that is not the case. See above. No gas chambers in any place liberated by the US, UK or France but food deliveries, even planting (farmers on tractors were strafed -- I have read quotes from during the war) was brought to a halt by them. >> In fact I would like to find one autopsy showing death by cyanide. > Using that exact same argument, we can only conclude that > the battle for Kursk never took place. You mean it is impossible to find any physical evidence of it where it occurred? Who do you suggest cleaned up all the tank parts and shell fragments? Why did they do that? > After all, where's the autopsies? An autopsy is conducted to determine the cause of death when it is not bvious by inspection. In fact the proper term is a forensic pathology. Forensic means to debate the cause of death because it is not obvious. As to obvious, I might settle for a single report of the appearance of a body which had obvious signs of cyanide poisoning. The US has executed thousands of people with cyanide. Unfortunately for the holohuggers there are dozens of descriptions of the manner of death by cyanide execution and not one of them matches the handful of claims about death in the fanciful gas chambers. How can this be? > Gutless... I am still educating you on the subject. I can certainly do a phone interview at any time under the conditions I stated. If all you want to talk about is the calories then we must start with the stipulation there were no gas chambers and that starvation is not specific to Jews. Without it being Jewish specific we do not have a jewish holocaust so there is no point to the interview. QED I am free most evenings for a phone interview. Are you game? SignatureThe nature of the Old Testament from a history of the Jewish people down to a distorted story of their history has never been more than a religious tradition with no known source, nor age, nor authenticity. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4160 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14 Sun Jul 12 21:07:24 EDT 2009 > Do you agree to the stipulation of a strict limitation > upon the subject matter of physical evidence of gas > chambers and mass extermination? Agree? Yes. Not that I see a point. Nobody could force you to answer a question you didn't want to address. I would do with gas chambers, but I wouldn't ignore a prime example of mass murder (intentional malnutrition) even as I pretended to deal with the topic of mass murder. > As they are all at least 78 years old what would > they do? There are more guns in America than there are people in the U.K. and France, combined. > Swing their canes? (2009 - 1945 = 65 plus all those too > young to work were immediately gassed Not all, but their death rate was quite high. You're also forgetting the definition of "Survivor," which includes those hidden and/or living under an assumed identity. > But I have no interest at all in survivors of the > holy holocaust. I.e. "Witnesses." > The issue is only gas chambers and mass extermination. Eye witnesses might come in handy there... > You got anything on only those two issues? As I pointed out, even U.S,. liberators can testify on that topic. The Germans certainly weren't stupid enough to think they could place prisoners on a sub-standard diet and not have them die. > Are you really claiming that even one surviving member > of the division that "liberated" Dachau is still alive and living > in Boston? The division was stationed in the Boston area: : On September 16, 1940, the 45th Infantry Division was : activated and trained in amphibious assault techniques : at Fort Devens, Massachusetts in preparation for the : invasion of Italy. http://www.examiner.com/x-10832-Billings-Sightseeing-Examiner~y2009m6d26-The-45t h-Infantry-Division-Thunderbirds-Part-1 You place a division of young men somewhere, they start dating the local girls. Pretty soon, they start marrying. > Thus finding people towards the end of the war in an > emaciated condition means that happened after the > previous winter as they could not have survived it with > weakened hearts. This is unsupported nonsense. Spend a little time on Google. Even amongst children and the elderly, malnutrition is usually a major contributor of death, but not the sole cause. > But if you want to start an entirely new holocaust > industry of extermination by starvation : According to different estimates, a prisoner had an : intake of 800 to 1,500 calories per day, with the : figure at the top of the range coming from the : “manager” of I.G. Auschwitz, Otto Ambros. http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/ernaehrung_en Oh, maybe I should say that men need about 2,500 calories a day, more if they're very active. The point, of course, is that this has always been known, always been reported and was even dealt with at Nuremberg. Here's the commandant of Auschwitz on the subject: : “It says here that I personally arranged the gassing : of three million persons between June 1941 and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : of other causes.” “Other causes?” “You know, the : usual thing, malnutrition, dysentery, typhoid. http://www.adl.org/education/dimensions_19/section1/translations.asp > When it gets popular I will consider dealing with it. It's a fact, it contributed to many deaths, and it could only lead to planned death. It is an example of mass murder. > In doing so I will point out FDR and Eisenhower were > bragging that ALL transportation of every kind had been > stopped including food. So it was not a good idea to lower productivity during chronic manpower shortages, just so you could make people who never did you any harm suffer? Boy, those Nazis were evil sh.ts.... > If there were no starvation in the camps I would say FDR > and Eisenhower were both lying about their accomplishments. That would be a great argument, if Poland wasn't self sufficient immediately prior to the war. What evidence do you have to support this claim? > At the moment the ONLY issues I have raised are gas > chambers and mass extermination. And intentional malnutrition certainly falls under the heading of "mass extermination." Period. It is an example there of. > > Both deal with the subject of "Mass Murder." > > Save there is no evidence of deliberate starvation. Here's some pretty strong evidence. I mean, besides Nuremberg: http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2008/09/08/0_24.jpg http://grapeinvestor.com/BoerWar/images/800px-LizzieVanZyl.jpg > Even if there were the issue is jewish specific although > we do not find gypsies, Adventist, Mennonites and so > forth whining about it. Even if that were the case it is not > specific to Jews so it is not holocaustic. Huh? You're arguing that you're right no matter what the facts. Stop that. The issue of the intentional malnutrition inflicted on prisoners was raised at Nuremberg, so it's not like you can weasel out of it by pretending that it's somehow "new" or "Different" from the charge of mass murder. Malnutrition can kill you directly -- and in the examples you gave (which has more to do with the lack of any fat in the diet) -- but it far more commonly is a contributor to death. There are other things, but I'm not bringing them up here. > > Clearly you are a lying coward, and when you say > > "Mass Murder" you mean "Mass murder only under > > one set of circumstances." > > If you are conceding there were no gas chambers I'm not. I'm simply stating that I would never stop at gas chambers, especially with you pretending that you're dealing with the issue of "mass murder" when you are overtly dodging a prime example of same. I would deal with gas chambers, yes, but not only gas chambers. There's also the shootings and, yes, the malnutrition. > > Underfeeding was nothing less than planned murder. > > Save that physiology does not permit it to be long > term under stressful conditions such as winter. You can make that claim, but it won't help you. > But if you would like I can dig up the Dachau > liberation pictures of well fed and even fat inmates. Cool. If that's your best defense, go for it. I mean, if you have the guts. > > After the war, German prisoners under the U.S. were > > fed as much as 3 times the number of calories per > > day as a concentration camp prisoner, yet there's no > > shortage of people who claim that this was too little, > > and resulted in many avoidable deaths of German > > prisoners. > In addition to conceding there were no gas > chambers you are now trying to make physically > impossible claims about starvation. Whatever you want to argue. Fine. Do you have the guts? > No gas chambers in any place liberated by the US, UK > or France There was a gas chamber at Dachua, actually, though there is very little evidence that it was ever used, and it seem to have been limited to experimentation. > An autopsy is conducted to determine the cause of > death when it is not bvious by inspection. Concentration camps... gas chambers... piles of ashes that used to be Jews... yeah, "Obvious." > As to obvious, I might settle for a single report of the appearance of a > body which had obvious signs of cyanide poisoning. The US has executed > thousands of people with cyanide. As you keep pointing out, you're talking about the Russians, not the U.S. You're claiming that it's somehow.... strange? Unusual? Out of character for the Russians to not stop and perform autopsies on dead concentration camp prisoners, when the cause of death -- by all accounts -- was screaming obvious? Again, if that's your best argument... The only REAL question here is if you' ve got the guts to do it. > I am still educating you on the subject. I can certainly do a > phone interview at any time under the conditions I stated. A phone interview? I dunno. The audio quality sucks so much, and it would be so easy for you to feign a bad connection. Besides, I couldn't use it without a signed waiver. Not that I would make any money off it (my agreement would say that much), but I'd still want to do something with it.... Yoiu get to argue what you want. You get to not talk about any subject you want to avoid. But, you can't claim to be dealing with "Mass Murder' even as you avoid one of the ways it was carried out. > I am free most evenings for a phone interview. Are you game? Do you have recent photographs? I'd need a signed waiver, so you can't sue me, or even stop me later. Any restrictions in final content/editing must be expressly stated within that waiver. You would have to acknowledge the fact that my intention would be to grant Holocaust survivors and/or veterans and/or persons of interest an opportunity for rebuttal, and that these people may not be nice to you (whether directly or as part of a class) in their responses. Restrictions on topics do not have to be expressly stated, as you can't be forced to talk about anything you don't want to talk about. Person to person interviews are better, as edits are far more obvious. In case you are one of those who answers as they go along instead of after reading everything I would like you to keep in mind I am asking for nothing more than in this matter than I ask in the matter of Septuagint. It is phrased differently as the discussion is different but there is no material difference in the the standard in either matter. >> Do you agree to the stipulation of a strict limitation >> upon the subject matter of physical evidence of gas >> chambers and mass extermination? > Agree? Yes. Not that I see a point. Nobody could force > you to answer a question you didn't want to address. It is not a matter of what I want to address. It is the only thing I have been talking about. > I would do with gas chambers, but I wouldn't ignore a prime > example of mass murder (intentional malnutrition) even as > I pretended to deal with the topic of mass murder. That will require you to find some actual plan from Nazis archives showing starvation was a plan. I know of none. Argumentation to a conclusion does not work here any more than on bible stories. I know of no such documented plan. What do you know of? >> As they are all at least 78 years old what would >> they do? > There are more guns in America than there are people > in the U.K. and France, combined. I have several myself. Is your point that you can only find the homicidal to tell stories? That indicates your favorite storytellers are sociopaths. They do not make the most credible witnesses. But as finding people near starvation can be as easily explained by end of war conditions as by an imaginary plan and as imaginary plans cannot be used as evidence I don't see where you are going with this. In the Pacific POWs were liberated in the same condition as is seen in some Dachau photos. No one alleges planned starvation there. No plan. No extermination. You have lots of things including callous disregard for human life and depraved indiffernce but no planned extermination. Imaginary plans or a professed inability to explain "it" without a plan have no meaning. Extermination cannot be established based upon prewar and postwar world population numbers and postwar means from 1946 down to the present day. >> Swing their canes? (2009 - 1945 = 65 plus all those too >> young to work were immediately gassed > Not all, Excuse me. I have it from all the literature that that was the case. You have just become a holocaust denier. You are required to believe ALL the literature. You are not permitted to pick and choose. > but their death rate was quite high. You're also > forgetting the definition of "Survivor," which includes those > hidden and/or living under an assumed identity. Sorry but there is no credible definition of survivor. What you recite is NOT the official Israeli definition which is the only one which has been publicly stated. That bullshit, incredible definition is Jews and only Jews who lived at any time in any country any part of which was ruled at any time by the Nazis. The Nazis ruled part of the Soviet Union for a while so all Jews (and only Jews) who lived in the Soviet Union are counted as survivors. An infant carried out of Germany in 1933 by her parents even if the reason for leaving was to take a long-planned better job is counted as a survivor. Most Americans survived the POW camps. Calling them survivors is quire reasonable. Calling everyone who was in uniform during WWII a survivor is not reasonable. Most people in uniform never saw combat. Yet the Israeli definition is more akin to anyone in uniform rather than in the camps. Clearly a grandiose definition of holocaust survivors which obviously exists only to inflate the number of survivors in negotiations for money is not acceptable. For example my brother tells me of a man in his shop who said he was one. When questioned it turned out he born in the US. Irving tells of a holocaust survivor at one of his lectures who insisted his parents were murdered at Auschwitz and also volunteered that he was born in 1947. While you may have met many people claiming to be survivors of the jews-only holocaust it pays to ask "insensitive" questions to do at least a cursory check of the claim. >> But I have no interest at all in survivors of the >> holy holocaust. > I.e. "Witnesses." In the real world no one is a witness unless under oath and subjected to vigorous cross-examination. And in this case, as you are stipulating there were no witnesses to gas chambers you can only be talking about people who claim to have actually read a plan for extermination by starvation. Where did you find that person? When was he under oath? What were his answers to the cross-examination? Why is it the document of this plan does not exist? Yes, I know you are going to get all upset over the requirements I put upon any person claiming to be a witness. But for a fact I know of many witnesses to alien spaceships and even the aliens themselves. They call themselves witnesses. When questioning reveals they only saw a light in the sky it negates their claim. As you appear to love religion as much as I do I doubt you accept the stories of witnesses to miracles. Why does your natural critical nature disappear when talking about something for which there were never more than a small fraction of the witnesses to alien spaceships and miracles? I remind you, you know nothing about the evidence unless you have examined the evidence yourself from a totally skeptical point of view. Repeating what others have told you about the evidence is hearsay. Reading only what others tell you to "confirm" what you were told is finding semiticisms to confirm a pre-existing OT in Hebrew. I have critically examined what is presented as evidence. I doubt I have missed anything significant. I also doubt you have found something significant that I have not. When you were skeptical of all the extermination claims what evidence convinced you? What could possibly have convinced you of the existence of a plan for extermination by starvation? >> The issue is only gas chambers and mass extermination. > Eye witnesses might come in handy there... As only six people have reported seeing gas chambers and none of them ever did so under oath much less were cross-examined you might as well believe in miracles and aliens. >> You got anything on only those two issues? > As I pointed out, even U.S,. liberators can testify on that > topic. The Germans certainly weren't stupid enough to > think they could place prisoners on a sub-standard diet > and not have them die. Finding people starving is not finding planned extermination by starvation. If you like official sources for the number of camp deaths there is only one official source. These are the records of the Red Cross at Arolsen, Germany. Here is their summary. <img src="http://www.giwersworld.org/images/icrc-camp-death.jpg"> Unsurprisingly it does not support what you choose to believe. Believers can sh.t on the Red Cross until the cows come home. As with creationists, even if evolution were completely and totally discredited tomorrow it would not mean creationists are right. So it is a waste of time attacking the Red Cross. Spend your time finding a credible authority for different numbers. It is not so much important that the Auschwitz museum reduced its official death toll from 6 million to 1 million. What is important is that it has rejected Hoess' "confession" to 2.5 million. >> Are you really claiming that even one surviving member >> of the division that "liberated" Dachau is still alive and living >> in Boston? > The division was stationed in the Boston area: What does that have to do with them still being alive and in Boston today? BTW: several different divisions were credited with the liberation which did not. It was apparently some kind of local morale effort. Are you sure it was the one that really did it? You can research it as well as I can. > : On September 16, 1940, the 45th Infantry Division was > : activated and trained in amphibious assault techniques > : at Fort Devens, Massachusetts in preparation for the > : invasion of Italy. > http://www.examiner.com/x-10832-Billings-Sightseeing-Examiner~y2009m6d26-The-45t h-Infantry-Division-Thunderbirds-Part-1 One has to ask why they were training to invade Italy fourteen months before the US was involved in WWII. Prior to the real planning for the landing on Sicily in 1943 only the Marines were involved in amphibious operations and then only since 1936 when they adopted that role because of the talk of disbanding the marines as redundant to the army. The first combat amphibious landing in the sense we think of it from WWII was in 1942 on Guadalcanal. Also at the time FDR was campaigning to keep us out of war in Europe. If this were true it would be easy to show he was lying. In any event I am confident the quote is BS. Never trust journalism majors. > You place a division of young men somewhere, they start > dating the local girls. Pretty soon, they start marrying. So in fact you do not know that in fact anyone is actually still living in the Boston area. Don't you think you should check? The local VFW might be able to tell you. Also consider in those days the wives followed the men back to their home town. The man had to get a job. A woman could be a housewife any place. >> Thus finding people towards the end of the war in an >> emaciated condition means that happened after the >> previous winter as they could not have survived it with >> weakened hearts. > This is unsupported nonsense. It is trivial to confirm that when people are not getting food first the fat and then the muscle is consumed sustain life. It is also equally trivial to confirm the heart is a muscle. > Spend a little time on Google. Even amongst children > and the elderly, malnutrition is usually a major > contributor of death, but not the sole cause. What does that have to do with it? Even if you do not like the idea then one assumes you are familiar with the idea that the colder the weather the more calories a person needs to maintain body temperature. How do people who appear to be skin and bones survive a winter? >> But if you want to start an entirely new holocaust >> industry of extermination by starvation > : According to different estimates, a prisoner had an > : intake of 800 to 1,500 calories per day, with the > : figure at the top of the range coming from the > : “manager” of I.G. Auschwitz, Otto Ambros. > http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/ernaehrung_en > Oh, maybe I should say that men need about 2,500 > calories a day, more if they're very active. While the number varies for a sedentary life style for a 5'8" average height man the number is maybe 2000 and for a 5'4" average woman about 1700. http://dietforum.com/calories-per-day.htm Those heights are probably a bit high for eastern Europeans in the 1940s. Or from http://www.thedietchannel.com/what-are-your-calorie-needs How many calories do I need? If you do not have access to a metabolic measurement, you can use an equation to estimate your basic calories. The most accurate one is the Mifflin-St. Joer equation. Weight in pounds must be converted to kilograms by dividing weight in pounds by 2.2. Height must be changed to centimeters by multiplying inches by 2.54. Plug your height and weight into the basic equation: 9.99 x weight + 6.25 x height - 4.92 x age. Men then add 5; women subtract 161. In any event the estimated calories per person Israel permits to enter Gaza are on the order of 1300 per person per day and no one is calling it extermination. So it is not today considered extermination. > The point, of course, is that this has always been > known, always been reported and was even dealt > with at Nuremberg. Here's the commandant of > Auschwitz on the subject: As above even the Auschwitz museum no longer accepts his stories. > : “It says here that I personally arranged the gassing > : of three million persons between June 1941 and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > : usual thing, malnutrition, dysentery, typhoid. > http://www.adl.org/education/dimensions_19/section1/translations.asp As to other causes, so what? Where is the official extermination plan which must exist? Why would you not cut right to the chase with the real evidence instead of trying to create an imaginary case based upon tertiary sources which in fact have no direct bearing? I presume we can both read this as the complete statement from the URL. "You know, the usual thing, malnutrition, dysentery, typhoid. We had an awful lot of typhoid cases.” Your conspiracy by implication can be support extermination by typhoid better than for malnutrition. It is the only one he highlighted but then you have no official plan for extermination by typhoid either. "THE USUAL THING" does not read as an extermination plan no matter how you look at it. >> When it gets popular I will consider dealing with it. > > It's a fact, it contributed to many deaths, and it could only > lead to planned death. It is an example of mass murder. But your evidence is stronger for planned death by typhoid. But in the matter of extermination, only deliberate, planned extermination is alleged but again you have no evidence of the existence of any plan. You even use the word plan but you present no plan. I don't see where you are going with this. Again you might be able to show callous disregard for life but that is a far cry from murder. >> In doing so I will point out FDR and Eisenhower were >> bragging that ALL transportation of every kind had been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > never did you any harm suffer? Boy, those Nazis were evil > sh.ts.... That is here nor there. No one said they were nice people. Nor did anyone every say the Allies were nice people. If all you are alleging is they were not nice people that is not in question. That the Allies were the ones preventing food production in Germany is what they bragged about. You would have hoped they would have thought about the people in these camps when they did it. >> If there were no starvation in the camps I would say FDR >> and Eisenhower were both lying about their accomplishments. > > That would be a great argument, if Poland wasn't self > sufficient immediately prior to the war. What evidence do > you have to support this claim? What argument? I present merely what they said they were doing in support of your position that they were not lying about it. I am supporting your assertion of starvation. >> At the moment the ONLY issues I have raised are gas >> chambers and mass extermination. > > And intentional malnutrition certainly falls under the > heading of "mass extermination." Period. It is an > example there of. You have used both intentional and planned to describe it. You have not presented any plan. As for intentional, I have merely pointed out, intentional or not, the production and transportation of food was interdicted by the Allies. What the intention may or may not have been is moot in light of it not being possible to get the food in the first place. Again you might as well have said typhoid was planned and intentional. I grant no matter what once people are deprived of the ability to provide for themselves in this case incarcerated the people who did it assume responsibility for their well-being. That is a principle I consider primary. However today when people are imprisoned the government is not held responsible for the gang violence to which people are exposed. The basic principle does not govern. Other factors must be considered. >>> Both deal with the subject of "Mass Murder." >> Save there is no evidence of deliberate starvation. > Here's some pretty strong evidence. I mean, besides > Nuremberg: > http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2008/09/08/0_24.jpg > http://grapeinvestor.com/BoerWar/images/800px-LizzieVanZyl.jpg Strong? Please. If you cannot produce a plan or orders or some form of directive which does in fact state that then there is nothing. Those pictures do not come with captions and not particularly different from the last stages of some diseases including cancer. Assuming a Boer War on one of them I do recall there were orders from the Brit in charge to make the conditions for the families as bad as possible to encourage the Boers to surrender. >> Even if there were the issue is jewish specific although >> we do not find gypsies, Adventist, Mennonites and so >> forth whining about it. Even if that were the case it is not >> specific to Jews so it is not holocaustic. > Huh? You're arguing that you're right no matter what the > facts. > Stop that. I am pointing out that only Jews appear to "remember" and to have "witnessed" these things. I find that telling. Norman Finkelstein takes the opposite view and ascribes the jewish fixation on it to The Holocaust Industry, a title which is carried by Amazon. There is clearly more than one way to look at it. His is more in line with inventing a definition that results in the greatest number of survivors which Israel has done. > The issue of the intentional malnutrition inflicted on prisoners > was raised at Nuremberg, You clearly did not post the entire statement where typhoid is the one worthy of special note. > so it's not like you can weasel > out of it by pretending that it's somehow "new" or "Different" > from the charge of mass murder. Malnutrition can kill you > directly So does dysentery and typhoid. In fact both result in emaciation. > -- and in the examples you gave (which has more > to do with the lack of any fat in the diet) -- but it far more > commonly is a contributor to death. > There are other things, but I'm not bringing them up here. You need to learn to read what I wrote. The body digests its OWN fat and then its OWN muscle. Why do you think people diet to lose weight? >>> Clearly you are a lying coward, and when you say >>> "Mass Murder" you mean "Mass murder only under >>> one set of circumstances." >> If you are conceding there were no gas chambers > I'm not. I'm simply stating that I would never stop at gas > chambers, especially with you pretending that you're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > chambers. There's also the shootings and, yes, the > malnutrition. When you have a plan for this planned extermination by starvation you get back to me. I also hope imipak will only get back to me when he discovers something of interest in Hebrew which predates the Septuagint. >>> Underfeeding was nothing less than planned murder. >> Save that physiology does not permit it to be long >> term under stressful conditions such as winter. > > You can make that claim, but it won't help you. It is in the literature and quite easy to find. Must I do the googling for you? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274154 Fasting: The History, Pathophysiology and Complications Peter R. Kerndt, MD, James L. Naughton, MD, Charles E. Driscoll, MD, and David A. Loxterkamp, MD Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco Department of Family Practice, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City Abstract An appreciation of the physiology of fasting is essential to the understanding of therapeutic dietary interventions and the effect of food deprivation in various diseases. The practice of prolonged fasting for political or religious purposes is increasing, and a physician is likely to encounter such circumstances. Early in fasting weight loss is rapid, averaging 0.9 kg per day during the first week and slowing to 0.3 kg per day by the third week; early rapid weight loss is primarily due to negative sodium balance. Metabolically, early fasting is characterized by a high rate of gluconeogenesis with amino acids as the primary substrates. As fasting continues, progressive ketosis develops due to the mobilization and oxidation of fatty acids. As ketone levels rise they replace glucose as the primary energy source in the central nervous system, thereby decreasing the need for gluconeogenesis and sparing protein catabolism. Several hormonal changes occur during fasting, including a fall in insulin and T3 levels and a rise in glucagon and reverse T3 levels. Most studies of fasting have used obese persons and results may not always apply to lean persons. Medical complications seen in fasting include gout and urate nephrolithiasis, postural hypotension and cardiac arrhythmias. Notice the progression from fatty acids to protein catabolism. >> But if you would like I can dig up the Dachau >> liberation pictures of well fed and even fat inmates. > Cool. If that's your best defense, go for it. I mean, if > you have the guts. This is typical. http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/gallery/13067.htm Crowded yes but no emaciation. Another http://www.ernstvanderlaan.nl/afb/foto/1170869551.jpg no emaciation. http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/gallery/07974.htm Here is passing out food. I know it is beyond your desired belief but the absolute worst thing you can do to a person who is really starving it to feed him real food. It is likely lethal. One starts with the equivalent of Gatorade. The pictures shows them passing out real food. http://isurvived.org/Pictures_Isurvived/dachau-liberated_2.GIF does not show any signs at all of even being underfed. There are many more Image results for dachau liberation photos on google. What kind of ineffective "plan" is this? >>> After the war, German prisoners under the U.S. were >>> fed as much as 3 times the number of calories per [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> chambers you are now trying to make physically >> impossible claims about starvation. > Whatever you want to argue. Fine. Do you have the guts? For a phone interview? Or to come face to face with the homicidal old fart you think you have found? I would like his name up front so I can verify his WWII service with the Army. I grew up among war vets. They were the ones who started the "what did you do in the war" jokes. There are a limited number of vets who could have won the war singlehanded. >> No gas chambers in any place liberated by the US, UK >> or France > There was a gas chamber at Dachua, actually, though there > is very little evidence that it was ever used, and it seem to > have been limited to experimentation. There were none at Dachau, period, nor anywhere else. Stories are stories. The US has extensive experience is executing people with cyanide. Finding pictures and the technical requirements for them on the web is also trivial. You can also find the "gas chamber" at Dachau shown after liberation to the press, the one shown to visiting congresscritters and the one shown to gullible tourists today and see they are all different. Surprise, surprise none of them are like US gas chambers. >> An autopsy is conducted to determine the cause of >> death when it is not bvious by inspection. > Concentration camps... gas chambers... piles of ashes that > used to be Jews... yeah, "Obvious." Cremation remains are not ashes. They are bone fragments. More correctly they are pieces of bone which are then ground into small pieces. No one likes to find identifiable pieces of skull. I have never seen any pictures of piles of either ashes or cremation remains. It is a trivial calculation starting with 1.2 million cremations at Auschwitz 5200 cubic yards weighing some 3000 tons. You say you saw a picture of pile of ashes not bone fragments? >> As to obvious, I might settle for a single report of the appearance of a >> body which had obvious signs of cyanide poisoning. The US has executed >> thousands of people with cyanide. > As you keep pointing out, you're talking about the Russians, not > the U.S. You're claiming that it's somehow.... strange? Unusual? > Out of character for the Russians to not stop and perform > autopsies on dead concentration camp prisoners, when the cause > of death -- by all accounts -- was screaming obvious? > Again, if that's your best argument... I listed a few acceptable things only. I point out you have nothing but a maximum of five stories none of which describe death by cyanide. So you have nothing at all. I thought that was clear. > The only REAL question here is if you' ve got the guts to do it. You have someone who found this plan you claim existed? You want an interview when you have just outlined you have nothing at all to talk about. >> I am still educating you on the subject. I can certainly do a >> phone interview at any time under the conditions I stated. > A phone interview? I dunno. The audio quality sucks so much, > and it would be so easy for you to feign a bad connection. There are always problems with talk radio but the industry appears to survive quite nicely despite them. > Besides, I couldn't use it without a signed waiver. Not that I > would make any money off it (my agreement would say that > much), but I'd still want to do something with it.... Being familiar with creative editing I could only sign a waiver on the original unedited material and a prohibition against editing in any form in any release including excerpts for promotional purposes. > Yoiu get to argue what you want. You get to not talk about > any subject you want to avoid. But, you can't claim to be > dealing with "Mass Murder' even as you avoid one of the > ways it was carried out. At the moment I have not heard you bring up anything you want to discuss that is other than your opinion. I will state what I said originally, there is no evidence of gas chambers or mass extermination. The only place you could go from there is to present properly sourced evidence. >> I am free most evenings for a phone interview. Are you game? > Do you have recent photographs? No. I'm not very photogenic in any event. As you are threatening a confrontation with homicidal maniacs I prefer my face not be known. Given your threat you should be pleased I am willing to go this far. Besides if I were there and such violence as you threaten did occur you would be an accomplice in the felony with a good chance of a conspiracy charge on top of it instead of just a little boy trying to play head games with someone who has been there, done that and who is experienced in head games both personally and professionally. > I'd need a signed waiver, so you can't sue me, or even stop me > later. Any restrictions in final content/editing must be expressly > stated within that waiver. No editing at all of course. > You would have to acknowledge the > fact that my intention would be to grant Holocaust survivors > and/or veterans and/or persons of interest an opportunity for > rebuttal, and that these people may not be nice to you (whether > directly or as part of a class) in their responses. How are you going to get them under oath? Or do you have people who have in the past testified under oath and you will have them read their testimony? More generally how do you intend to raise the discussion beyond UFOs and faith healing? Again, all I did was observe the absence of evidence. Testimony is not evidence. That is why it is called testimony. In court testimony is only permitted to address facts in evidence. Without evidence you have no facts for them to address. And the rest of the usual rules of evidence and testimony such as no hearsay. Thus if someone wants to recite what they were told that is inadmissible. These are exactly the same rules I developed decades ago evaluating UFO claims as a personal not professional interest. > Restrictions on topics do not have to be expressly stated, as > you can't be forced to talk about anything you don't want to > talk about. > Person to person interviews are better, as edits are far more > obvious. Let me get this straight. You say I should pay for a round trip from Tampa to Boston to do what can be done with a 40-50 minute phone call. Is that what you are saying? Such an idea adds to the certainty of a conspiracy charge. Let me take away your only possible defense to conspiracy, that you were just hoping to rattle me. I have been on the air before albeit on other subjects. I don't rattle and I use my diaphragm baritone voice. I have also called in and rattled hosts. I have also briefed hostile, flag rank officers without losing it. There is no reason you should expect to accomplish any useful objective in person. SignatureWhen Israel talks about the city of Jerusalem it is talking about occupied Jerusalem. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4163 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 Wed Jul 15 14:39:32 EDT 2009 > In case you are one of those who answers as > they go along instead of after reading everything I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is different but there is no material difference in the > the standard in either matter. Look, I'm not going to quibble with you. It's pretty obvious that you don't have the guts to discuss -- let alone "debate" -- the issues here, and nothing highlights this fact more than your constantly sliding standards. You claim you want to talk about "mas murder," for example, but then you try to weasel your way out of acknowledging the malnutrition which, under the circumstances (and certainly known to the German officials) could only ever result in death. But it doesn't stop there. You counter by pretending that I need to "Prove" there was some sort of government directive to underfeed the prisoners, and if I don't then mass murder by way of malnutrition isn't an example of mass murder by way of malnutrition. Clearly you're being rather inventive in your personal (and unique) definition for "mass murder." And, just as clearly, you're being overly critical when it comes to the bleeding obvious, like the definition of "Holocaust Survivor." You expel a great many words in disputing me and my working definition, yet YOU YOURSELF ACCEPT THIS SAME DEFINITION. How do we all know this for a fact? Why, golly, it is THE EXACT SAME definition used to compile YOUR OFTEN QUOTED 1-million figure, for survivors living as of half a decade ago (or more). In case you missed it: You went on for FIVE PARAGRAPHS disputing my use of/definition for "Holocaust Survivor," when you yourself accept my definition, and have FREQUENTLY quoted figures based on this precise definition. So when you think you can make a point RELYING ON THE DEFINITION you accept it, when you know you can't make a point you reject THE EXACT SAME DEFINITION. If it weren't for double standards you'd have no standards. So let's make this short & sweet: If you've got balls, submit yourself to an interview. You would have to sign a waiver. That waiver would have to spell out any conditions you seek, and it would also have to acknowledge the fact that my intent would be to offer an opportunity for rebuttal to interested parties, and that these parties may attempt to hold you (and/or the class "Historical Revisionists") to ridicule. You wouldn't get paid, I wouldn't get paid. > If you like official sources for the number of camp deaths > there is only one official source. These are the records of the > Red Cross at Arolsen, Germany. > Here is their summary. > <img src="http://www.giwersworld.org/images/icrc-camp-death.jpg"> > Unsurprisingly it does not support what you choose to believe. "No such file here" It's pointless. Why are you wasting your time? If you've got the guts, submit yourself to an interview. Make your best case. You're not doing that. > >> Are you really claiming that even one surviving member > >> of the division that "liberated" Dachau is still alive and living > >> in Boston? What do you care? It's not your problem. It would be up to you to show up and do the interview, it would be up to me to find someone interested in offering a rebuttal. It's not an issue. You're tilting at windmills here. > So in fact you do not know that in fact anyone is > actually still living in the Boston area. Again, you're tilting at windmills. It's not your problem. It isn't even an issue for you. >> In case you are one of those who answers as >> they go along instead of after reading everything I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "debate" -- the issues here, and nothing highlights this > fact more than your constantly sliding standards. You started another thread rather than continue the negotiation here. It now stands that you imply you made an honest and fair offer. I have offered to reverse the terms such that I interview you and I can bring in prominent revisionists to respond to you. I would prefer you keep your responses to this to the new thread you started. Fair is only fair if the terms can be reversed. SignatureThere is no known connection between Qumran and the Essenes. There is no known connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls and either the Essenes or Qumran. People believe the strangest things. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4158 http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10 Thu Jul 16 22:33:45 EDT 2009 >>> ... >>>> I borrowed Antonio Loprieno's Ancient Egyptian - A Linguistic [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> once in your life read that yourself from the book itself, I just have >> no wish to post the whole bloody book for lazy-arses. > Well, and just as important, is that this is another fallacy by Giwer. > (Why can't these trolls eveer put together at least a VALID argument!) > We actually do know quite a bit about Old English pronunciation of 1000 > years ago! WHICH English pronunciation a 1000 years ago are you talking about? SignaturePalestine has been known by that name since at least the 5th c. BC when Herodotus reported that name. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4156 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 Sun Jul 12 13:54:16 EDT 2009 > It's so funny By the time Coptic came to an end, it was already four times as far removed from the last ancient Egyptian language as we presently are from Shakespeare. There were four times as many opportunities for changes. What's more, they had no "Mass Media," no radio and television. Regional developments remained regional. Fact is, nobody knows for sure how Akkadian, Assyrian or Hebrew was pronounced, let alone ancient Egyptian. > This is why its so fun to deal with you JTEM: I talk to you the way way your mother did, when you were growing up? Well, she must've seen what a worthless, sniveling little sh.t you were, too. Take after your Dad, huh? >>This is why its so fun to deal with you JTEM: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Take after your Dad, huh? We have here a real insight into JTEM's past and psychological makeup. Ever notice how often he refers to his mother, how much of a shrew she comes off in his descriptions, and always denigrates the father? It really illustrates why JTEM is as he is, too small of a being to rise above it in any way. Pitiable. > We have here a real insight How many people are you, and what idiot told you that you have insight? > > We have here a real insight > > How many people are you, and what idiot told > you that you have insight? You're the one who keeps insisting Weland is other people as well, so you tell us how many people he is. > > > We have here a real insight > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're the one who keeps insisting Weland is other > people as well, Huh? "Weland" _IS_ "Larry Swain." As far as I know, he's never made any attempt to deny it. ...though it would be fun if he did. >>>>We have here a real insight >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Huh? "Weland" _IS_ "Larry Swain." As far as I > know, he's never made any attempt to deny it. Not only have I never denied it, I announced it when the change occurred to several news groups, kept the same contact email address and the same profile. Other than the name change, I did everything I could to demonstrate continuity. Only JStupid here things he's uncovered some conspiracy..... > > Huh? "Weland" _IS_ "Larry Swain." As far as I > > know, he's never made any attempt to deny it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > profile. Other than the name change, I did > everything I could to demonstrate continuity. Okay, so you're either suffering from a major lack of reading comprehension, or you agree that the "imipak" sock puppet is a retard... > Only JStupid here things he's uncovered some > conspiracy..... Damn, you are one seriously stupid person. >>>Huh? "Weland" _IS_ "Larry Swain." As far as I >>>know, he's never made any attempt to deny it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of reading comprehension, or you agree that the > "imipak" sock puppet is a retard... False dichotomy. I'm not two people, nor am I a sock puppet nor do I use sock puppets. >>Only JStupid here things he's uncovered some >>conspiracy..... > > Damn, you are one seriously stupid person. > False dichotomy. Like hell. I gave you the benefit of a doubt. You attributed to me the position of "imipak," and held that position to ridicule. Clearly, you are a retard who lacks reading comprehension. Oh, maybe I should explain: It's clear because if you had reading comprehension you wouldn't have attributed "imipak's" position to me. No, do go on. You were desperately trying to bolster your self image by pretending that your retarded error reveals a flaw in me.... >>False dichotomy. > > Like hell. I gave you the benefit of a doubt. I'm afraid it was a false dichotomy. > You attributed to me the position of "imipak," > and held that position to ridicule. Funny thing how I quoted you actually saying it. ANd it was funny and self-contradictory and read your own citations all wrong...par for the course of every discussion you get into. And speaking of attributions, you seem to have forgotten that you attributed imipak's view to me, Dragonblaze's to me, Tom's to me.....and then accused us all of being sock puppets because you couldn't keep things straight. > I'm afraid Of course you are. Those nagging doubts concerning your sanity... exposing your mental retardation to the world... you're terrified! Anyhow, you were busily trying to convince yourself that your error said something about me. By all means, please continue... > it was a false dichotomy. "It" is repeating itself: Argumentum ad nauseum As I pointed out, what it actually was, sackless, was me granting you the benefit of a doubt. You were given the opportunity to say, "I was talking about imipak. Jstupid is my nick name for imipak, and I'm not really a retard who lacks any reading comprehension." But, instead, you chose to pretend that your serious lack of reading comprehension reflected badly on me. I guess it's yet another example of your inability to admit error, pussy. >>I'm afraid > > Of course you are. Those nagging doubts concerning > your sanity... exposing your mental retardation to the > world... you're terrified! LOL!! No, just nagging doubts that you'll ever follow your own advice and admit your errors...but no...and it was still a false dichotomy. > Anyhow, you were busily trying to convince yourself > that your error said something about me. By all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > As I pointed out, what it actually was, sackless, > was me granting you the benefit of a doubt. A fallacy by any other name, JStupid, is still a fallacy. > LOL!! Very good, mental case. Amongst your more well thought out comments.... Anyhow, you attributed imipak's position to me. I offered you the benefit of a doubt, gave you the opportunity to retract what you said about me and apply it to imipak, and you instead chose to stick with your initial lack of reading comprehension... Oh, and then you decided to pretend that your grave error was my fault. Pathetic. Come on, pretend that you're make, and an adult, and admit your mistake. >>LOL!! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Pathetic. Come on, pretend that you're make, and > an adult, and admit your mistake. (about imipak calling JTEM to account for the sock puppet comments) Dude: you accused me of being a sock puppet. Imipak complained about how you always accuse people of being 2 people. You replied by pointing out that Weland and Larry Swain are the same poster, me. Which of course disproves your point: Weland and Larry Swain are not 2 people, but one, me. When I changed providers, I announced publicly the name change. I kept the same contact email and profiles. Neither sock puppet nor 2 people, but one. You keep accusing people of being 2 or more people. That was imipak's point. You're point is false, as usual, since I've never used a sock puppet and am but one and made known that I was the same person. Now let's see you follow your own demand and admit your mistake. Go on, man up....oh wait, you can't, you're a gormless git. > (about imipak calling JTEM to account for the > sock puppet comments) Only the word wasn't "sock puppet," it was "Larry." Oh, sure, I had used the term "sock puppet" many times, but not in this case. See why reading comprehension is so important? No? I didn't think so.... And don;t worry, sh.t for brains. I realize that you're every bit as bad mannered as you are stupid, so I don't expect an apology from you. Besides, you're not man enough to admit a mistake... >>(about imipak calling JTEM to account for the >>sock puppet comments) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > See why reading comprehension is so important? No? Oh, I do, and you can't seem to get any text right. You accused me of being more than one person, imipak replied and said you should tell us how many people Weland is, and you replied that Weland is Larry Swain. I've never been more than one people. When I changed Usenet providers last fall I changed posting names; I announced it publicly throughout Usenet. I kept the same profiles and contact emails. One person, posting as one person. See why reading comprehension is so important? Well, consider whom I'm talking to...of course you don't. > >>(about imipak calling JTEM to account for the > >>sock puppet comments) > > Only the word wasn't "sock puppet," it was "Larry." > > Oh, sure, I had used the term "sock puppet" many > > times, but not in this case. > > > See why reading comprehension is so important? No? > Oh, I do, Liar. You'd be embarrassed at your appalling lack of reading comprehension, if that disgusting little runt of brain of your's could comprehend it's importance. f.ck you for lying, sh.t for brains. >>>>(about imipak calling JTEM to account for the >>>>sock puppet comments) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > f.ck you for lying, sh.t for brains. Oh, hit the mark! Here, let's restore the statement JStupid snipped cause he can't handle the truth: Oh, I do, and you can't seem to get any text right. You accused me of being more than one person, imipak replied and said you should tell us how many people Weland is, and you replied that Weland is Larry Swain. I've never been more than one people. When I changed Usenet providers last fall I changed posting names; I announced it publicly throughout Usenet. I kept the same profiles and contact emails. One person, posting as one person. See why reading comprehension is so important? Well, consider whom I'm talking to...of course you don't. Poor JStupid, every time he posts he digs himself in deeper. > Ah poor JTEM, who himself says nothing original > confuses original with factual. So.... you're arguing that I keep making factual statements. >>Ah poor JTEM, who himself says nothing original >>confuses original with factual. > > So.... you're arguing that I keep making factual statements. Ah, there's that hilarious lack of reading comprehension that keeps us in stitches! > >>Ah poor JTEM, who himself says nothing original > >>confuses original with factual. > > > So.... you're arguing that I keep making factual statements. > > Ah, there's that hilarious lack of reading comprehension Man, talk about irony! Now all we need is the self-appointed "MENSA" crowd to chime in here, for a total vaporization of irony meters.... >>>>Ah poor JTEM, who himself says nothing original >>>>confuses original with factual. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "MENSA" crowd to chime in here, for a total vaporization of > irony meters.... I know! How ironic that you take a statement about your idiocy and turn it into a statement that says the opposite, and then want to claim that you got it right!! And you do this time and again! Its hilarious to watch you spin in the breeze and struggle so each day! > I know! No, Larry, no you don't. Not even as a sick joke. You are & will remain completely clueless. JTEM spewed: Oh, nothing at all, typical. Weland <gi...@poetic.com> Trolled: > Oh, On the "old" pronunciation of Coptic... : I wonder if Arian G. Moftah realized that he was : teaching Coptic with Arabic phonology and : thought that even a Modern Greek equivalent, : although anachronistic, would be preferable. : Anyone promoting the "Old Bohairic" : pronunciation might pause to consider that. Nope, no "Secret of how ancient Egyptian was pronounced" here... http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm > Weland <gi...@poetic.com> Trolled: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm Read the entire page instead of just the foot note and you might learn a thing or two. > Read the entire page instead of just the foot note > and you might learn a thing or two. Great advice: http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm Now let's see if anyone isn't like you, and they actually read it all... >>Read the entire page instead of just the foot note >>and you might learn a thing or two. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now let's see if anyone isn't like you, and they > actually read it all... If you read it all, how is it you missed that the author says exactly the same thing as Dragonblaze, yet you claim that they don't. Interesting. > >http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm > > If you read it all, how is it you missed that the > author says exactly the same thing as > Dragonblaze, He doesn't say the same thing as Egoblaze, or you, you worthless retard. And no matter how many times you pretend he does, the best you're ever going to accomplish is to "win" the agreement of the people who were going to agree with you anyway. People who aren't idiots, who investigate things themselves, will read the page AND OTHERS LIKE IT, and walk away knowing for a fact that you're a worthless spazz. And you are. >>>http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > He doesn't say the same thing as Egoblaze, Yes he does, I quoted both in a previous message. > Yes he does, The only thing worse than a Multiple Personality Disorder is a Multiple Personality Disorder with too much free time on it's hands... as you prove every time your mental health provider fails to stop you from posting. >>Yes he does, > > The only thing worse than a Multiple Personality > Disorder is a Multiple Personality Disorder with > too much free time on it's hands... So true, JTEM, and we all wish you well in your latest drug therapy to address these problems. > > The only thing worse than a Multiple Personality > > Disorder is a Multiple Personality Disorder with > > too much free time on it's hands... > > So true, Yes, now how about those cites? You know, an attempt -- no matter how sad -- on your part to support what you spew? Because the entire frigging world is in agreement that we don't know how to pronounce ancient Egyptian words. We're even at something of a loss with, say, Akkadian, but it isn't as obvious... >>>The only thing worse than a Multiple Personality >>>Disorder is a Multiple Personality Disorder with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > attempt -- no matter how sad -- on your part to > support what you spew? But you haven't yet understood what I spew. And if you can't get that, you'll never get what I actually say. Show that you can accurately report what I say, then we'll see about citations for the slow among us. > Because the entire frigging world is in agreement > that we don't know how to pronounce ancient > Egyptian words. Which is why all those cites you give us tell us what phonetic values to assign to hieroglyphs...huh, interesting. > We're even at something of a loss with, Well, yes, you are. > > Anyhow, you STILL refuse to tell us how you pull > > the exact same bible names out of the ancient > > text that the bible thumpers (using the bible as > > their "source") found. > > I've already explained it to you, several times. You're just like your dad... a pussy. >>>Anyhow, you STILL refuse to tell us how you pull >>>the exact same bible names out of the ancient >>>text that the bible thumpers (using the bible as >>>their "source") found. >> >>I've already explained it to you, several times. And JTEM's response to this simply proves that he knows its been explained, but he can't offer anything against the facts, because he doesn't know the languages, linguistics, or the process. But the ignoranti will shout loud, won't they? Shout again, JTEM.. > And The first time, the very first time you pretended to address the challenge you lost all rights to civility, you worthless son of a whore. >>And > > The first time, the very first time you pretended to address > the challenge you lost all rights to civility, you worthless > son of a whore. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! JTEM pretends he's ever been civil to anyone!! He can't even be civil to himself, much less anyone else!!! Oh, funny JTEM!! > HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! What is it about insane people and their maniacal laughter? > > HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! > > What is it about insane people and their maniacal > laughter? I dunno. You're the expert on insanity. > > > HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! > > > What is it about insane people and their maniacal > > laughter? > > I dunno. That's true, but it never stopped you from going on and on and on and on about things, anyway. > You're the expert on insanity. So, how many people at "Mensa" helped you with that one? > > > > HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So, how many people at "Mensa" helped you with that > one? You tell me, you're the one who imagines you know who I am, where I go, or even what I think. Why ask me questions when your delusion tells you you can already see the answers? > > So, how many people at "Mensa" helped you with that > > one? > > You tell me You're still having problems with counting, I see. >>> So, how many people at "Mensa" helped you with that >>> one? >> You tell me > You're still having problems with counting, I see. The people who are not thumping that-book-they-don't-support have managed to engage you in an endless bickering exchange. May I suggest instead of the bickering simply repeating the issue or issues you consider important and not waste time on the "yes I did" and "no you didn't"? And continue to repeat your issues regardless of their response. The I did/you didn't can go on forever which appears to be their only objective. Repeating the issues as the only response takes away their inner glee. Also may I suggest that as people Weland claim they filter out posts by me that you reply by simply producing a quote with no response so he cannot claim ignorance. Should anyone begin claiming that of you I will do the same. SignatureThe discipline of steel is not to want to be led by a powerful leader. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4150 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 Sun Jul 5 10:46:53 EDT 2009 >>HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! > > What is it about insane people like me who inspire maniacal > laughter? > I may be retarded, and a danger to children and > small animals, but at least Jebus loves me! Thanks for sharing, imbecile. I amretarded, and a danger to children and small animals, not even Jebus loves me! > And JTEM's response Yeah, the way I supported what I said with a cite, and then demanded the same from you... only you have nothing to back your claims up... Sheesh! >>And JTEM's response > > Yeah, the way I supported what I said with a cite, ...that was twisted out of context to say something it didn't say, and so is proof that you're a deliberate, immoral liar. > ...that was It seems you're every bit as full of bullshit as you are bereft of supporting arguments/cites. Are you really so retarded that you don't know this, or are you so insulated against the real world that you don't care? >>...that was > > It seems you're every bit as full of bullshit as you > are bereft of supporting arguments/cites. Proving my point: here's what I wrote that JTEM twisted out of context proving my words true. "...that was twisted out of context to say something it didn't say, and so is proof that you're a deliberate, immoral liar." > Proving my point REFUSING to post *Anything* in support of your empty claims -- like cites -- is now "Proving" your point? >>Proving my point > > REFUSING to post *Anything* in support of your > empty claims -- like cites -- is now "Proving" your > point? HA! At least I don't post cites that prove the opposite of my point every single time! > > REFUSING to post *Anything* in support of your > > empty claims -- like cites -- is now "Proving" your > > point? > > HA! At least I don't post cites that prove the opposite of my point > every single time! Here's one that proves you can't use Coptic to figure out how to pronounce ancient Egypt, like Egoblaze claimed and you agreed with: : Most classical Coptic literature was written in the Sahidic dialect, : and when that is taught today (e.g. Thomas O. Lambdin, : Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, Mercer University Press, 1983, : 1988), a sort of compromise "academic" pronunciation, partially : based on the academic pronunciation of Greek, is used. http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm >>>REFUSING to post *Anything* in support of your >>>empty claims -- like cites -- is now "Proving" your [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > : based on the academic pronunciation of Greek, is used. > http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm Really? Hey, got a suggestion for you. Do a word search on that site for "Coptic" and count how many times the author of the site uses Coptic to describe how to pronounce ancient Egypt. I'll give you a clue, its more than one...can you count high? He even describes the "snake" glyph in part using Coptic..... > > Here's one that proves you can't use Coptic to figure out how > > to pronounce ancient Egypt, like Egoblaze claimed and you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Really? Yes, really. But you have to read the whole thing, instead of cherry picking like you did... jackass. So what's it like not having a leg to stand on, and being forced to quote-mine in a sad attempt to fool the other morons? If you were a man, and could deal with the mistakes, you wouldn't have to do that. >>>Here's one that proves you can't use Coptic to figure out how >>>to pronounce ancient Egypt, like Egoblaze claimed and you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, really. But you have to read the whole thing, instead of > cherry picking like you did... jackass. You mean like not like you who takes a quote out of context and for weeks claims it says something it doesn't say? Yeah, we wouldn't want to do anything like that, or take only a few sentences from a footnote of a webpage and jump to conclusions...oh no, we couldn't have that.... > So what's it like not having a leg to stand on, and being > forced to quote-mine in a sad attempt to fool the other > morons? You should tell us, champion of quote mining and supporter of theories without foundation or evidence or reason. But I doubt you will. You can't play nicely with others. > If you were a man, and could deal with the mistakes, you > wouldn't have to do that. Compared to you, a mouse turd is a better man. After all the lowly mouse turd needn't write things in subject lines like "obey JTEM" and "I love JTEM" about itself to feel alive. > You mean like not like you who takes a quote out > of context and for weeks claims it says something > it doesn't say? No, I mean stop doing it for real. You pretended that a little further on in the paragraph I first quoted the cite refuted me... but it didn't. In fact, five paragraphs later and the author was still gushing all the ambiguity that I picked up on. You "Quote mined." >>You mean like not like you who takes a quote out >>of context and for weeks claims it says something >>it doesn't say? > > No, I mean stop doing it for real. Yes, you should stop taking quotes out of context and claiming they say what they don't say....but I doubt you have the mental capacity to do so. > You pretended that a little further on in the paragraph I > first quoted the cite refuted me... but it didn't. Yeah, it does. > You "Quote mined." JTEM, the "you" is a second person pronoun, I think you meant to refer to yourself there. Like you did with the Akkadian issue, you know citing a quote talking about sources to address a historical question as if it applied to decipherment. As a recent example.... > >>You mean like not like you who takes a quote out > >>of context and for weeks claims it says something [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, you should stop taking quotes out of context and claiming they say > what they don't say....but I doubt you have the mental capacity to do so. You're being hopeful there. I deliberately took quotes from JTEM out- of-context (but still entirely in sequence and unaltered) to show him that doing so did indeed change utterly what was said. His response? To edit my quote directly to be highly offensive. In other words, he simply didn't have the capacity to comprehend even what the illustration was. (It was obvious he was trying to copy what I'd done, unoriginal as he is, but hadn't the braincells to actually know what it was he was trying to copy.) > > You pretended that a little further on in the paragraph I > > first quoted the cite refuted me... but it didn't. > > Yeah, it does. Hell, the group charter refutes JTEM. What more do you need? > > You "Quote mined." > > JTEM, the "you" is a second person pronoun, I think you meant to refer > to yourself there. Like you did with the Akkadian issue, you know > citing a quote talking about sources to address a historical question as > if it applied to decipherment. As a recent example.... Don't confuse JTEM with such long words as "a" and "is". They're quite beyond his reading age. > Yes, If the bible were the least bit accurate you wouldn't be so desperate that you'd keep stooping this low. Congratulations. >>Yes, JTEM should stop taking quotes out of context and claiming they say what they don't say....but I doubt JTEM has the mental capacity to do so. > JTEM should Ignore worthless mental cases who can't find a single cite to back up his claims? Oh, believe me, I do ignore your worthless claims. >>JTEM should > > admit he's worthless mental case who can't > find a single cite to back up his claims and so twists them out of all recognition. [---Larry/Weland droppings---] No, sick f.ck, you still haven't produced a single citation in support of your claims... and everyone outside of a wing nut knows why. How's that feel, tinker bell? > [---Larry/Weland droppings---] > > No, sick f.ck, you still haven't produced a single > citation in support of your claims. Oh, have it your way, this once. Let's start, one by one, looking at your cites and then we'll look at some others. Let's begin with your favorite and most oft cited web page: http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm titled "The Pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian". Now according to our ignorant JTEM, we don't know anything about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian. He has declared it so very often, while also screaming that we don't know anything about Coptic and so therefore can't know anything about ancient Egyptian. So let's take a look at JTEM's favorite source on the topic. The first paragraph tells us that the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is misconstrued by recent movies and such. The author can't possibly know that unless he knows something about how ancient Egyptian was pronounced. Gee, first paragraph shows ol' JTEM wrong...why are we not surprised? In both the first and second paragraphs, the author lays out the issues about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian: since hieroglyphics does not include vowels, we don't always know what the vowels were. Ok, so far, we've established that the problem of pronunciation involves vowels, not consonants. The reason why that is important for this discussion will become apparent later, if you don't know the reason already. But the author says in the second paragraph: "Indeed, although the Egyptians did not write vowels in Egyptian words, there is evidence about what the vowels were in many words. But the evidence is for different stages of the Egyptian language." What's this? We're not totally in the dark about ancient vowels! BAM! JTEM proven wrong in the second paragraph! We do know something about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian! In the third paragraph, the author states: "The best evidence of the pronunciation of Late Egyptian, however, is from the documents found in the diplomatic archives of Amenhotep III and Akhenaton at Amarna, for these documents were kept in Akkadian, not in Egyptian. Akkadian was the diplomatic language of the day, essentially the same language as its two daughter languages, Babylonian and Assyrian; and its system of writing, cuneiform, represented vowels." OH MY OH MY!!! Not only does this tell us that we know how Late Egyptian was pronounced, even the vowels, but that the source for that knowledge isn't Coptic! So, JTEM's claims that we don't know about Late Egyptian pronunciation is proven false from his own cited source, but that his further claim that since we don't know about Coptic therefore we can't know about Egyptian is also false: and again is proven by his own cited source!!! And that's just the first 3 paragraphs! Never mind that the author talks about numerous hieroglyphic signs and tells the reader what they sounded like! And what's more, offers AUDIO FILES SO THAT ONE CAN HEAR WHAT ANCIENT EGYPTIAN SOUNDED LIKE!!! And let's not stop there: but in his discussion of the 25 hieroglyphs discussed, he utilizes Coptic to talk about the sound 9 times, more than 1/3! In short, what need does anyone have to disprove anything JTEM says except to go to JTEM's own sources which will always prove him wrong! So let's look back a little bit: ol' ignorant JTEM (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/browse_thread/thread/9ea25f5e d38aebf4/db19fac8f08c18b0?q=djehuty&lnk=ol&) claimed that Persian Yehuda was a "*PHONETIC* dead ringer" for Egyptian Djehuty (it isn't, but oh well, and there's a whole discussion about his method here, yet somehow Gomri and Gumri can't be the same, but djehuty and Yehuda can be): note that JTEM is saying that he knows something about ancient Egyptian pronunciation and compared it to Persian (all in transliteration of course). So you might be asking, well, when and where did JTEM start whining about not being able to know anything about pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian. Well, after Dragonblaze corrected him about the PERSIAN YEHUDI that ol' JTEM got all up in arms, even declaring on June 27, and I quote: "I for one have never claimed to know how the ancient Egyptians pronounced their words." True, he didn't claim to know this, he just explicitly said that "djehuty" was a PHONETIC DEAD RINGER for a word in a different language. "djehuty" by the way, is the Egyptian god Thoth. Logic was never a strong point for JTEM: he can't possibly say anything about djehuty being a phonetic anything for any other thing unless he knows something about how djehuty was pronounced. So, if ol' JTEMette is going to maintain this line of thought, he either has to admit his original statement was wrong or he has to admit that we actually do know something about how ancient Egyptian was pronounced (otherwise, we wouldn't know it was a Phonetic dead ringer). He's either wrong on the one side, or wrong on the other (he's actually wrong on both, but he'll never admit that!) HOW FUNNY! JTEM once again spinning in the wind with his trousers over his head. And let's not forget that the current discussion that JTEM has been carrying out about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is a huge smoke screen to cover the fact that a) he misattribued the discussion to me and b) that he was caught out misappropriating a quote from a book about the decipherment of Akkadian that had nothing to do with the decipherment of Akkadian and c) that the source he was citing actually made statements about the decipherers of Akkadian contrary to JTEM's claims....and to this we can add other recent gaffs like JTEM claiming Aramaic was the official language of the early Assyrian empire in the 9th century, or my favorite from the Dura Europos question, that a image showing a figure walking on water extending hands to a man in the water with a boat of men in the background (Jesus, Peter, walking on water) might refer to some other story....not that he provided any such story...not cites on that one, eh JTEM? Well, read it here and now, folks. Just another example of what I've come to call JTEMery. But you know that JTEM won't make it this far, he'll snip it all and hurl invective...its the only way he can save his face in the mirror...its already shamed before the rest of us. Keep in mind, this is by no means the only cite available, it is the cite that comes the closest to supporting Larry-turned-Weland's position. No, it doesn't support his position, but it comes the closest to supporting it. There are countless other cites out there, none as forgiving towards Larry/Weland as this one. > The first paragraph tells us that the pronunciation of > ancient Egyptian is misconstrued by recent movies > and such. The author can't possibly know that unless > he knows something about how ancient Egyptian was > pronounced. Or, he knows that NOBODY KNOWS how it was pronounced. Gee, first paragraph shows that Larry-Turned-Weland is as dumb as dirt. > In both the first and second paragraphs, the author > lays out the issues about the pronunciation of ancient > Egyptian: since hieroglyphics does not include > vowels, we don't always know what the vowels were. > Ok, so far, we've established that the problem of > pronunciation involves vowels, not consonants. You misspelled "Starts out." What you're pretending (or maybe you're so frigging stupid you think you're actually right) that the author lays out THE ISSUE, instead of an important issue. He BEGINS with the lack of vowels and expends on the issues as he progresses. > But the author says in the second paragraph: "Indeed, > although the Egyptians did not write vowels in Egyptian > words, there is evidence about what the vowels were in > many words. But the evidence is for different stages of > the Egyptian language." "Evidence" isn't proof, "Stages" is plural not singular and he's speaking about what the vowels are, not pronunciation. So much for reading comprehension... > What's this? Your stupidity, again. > We're not totally in the dark about ancient vowels! For some words. But, again, at this stage he's still speaking of vowels, not pronunciation. > BAM! JTEM proven wrong in the second paragraph! Oh, I see, you're an idiot. I made no claim concerning the vowels, while you clearly reach beyond what the cite says, let alone supports. > In the third paragraph, the author states: "The best > evidence of the pronunciation of Late Egyptian, > however, is from the documents found in the > diplomatic archives of Amenhotep III and Akhenaton > at Amarna, for these documents were kept in > Akkadian, not in Egyptian. Kind of sinks the "Coptic is ancient Egyptian" ship, don't it? It also skips right past more than 1,200 years of spoken Egyptian. You know, the Egyptian language BEFORE the "Late Egyptian" mentioned above. > Akkadian was the diplomatic language of the day, > essentially the same language as its two daughter > languages, Babylonian and Assyrian; and its system > of writing, cuneiform, represented vowels." So Akkadian is the "Best Evidence," and you're going to mistaken this as "Proof," aren't you? I mean, even though nobody even knows for sure how Akkadian was pronounced? > OH MY OH MY!!! Not only does this tell us that we > know how Late Egyptian was pronounced, It doesn't say that at all. It says that Akkadian is the best evidence for how it was pronounced. "Best Evidence" doesn't mean, nor imply, "Good evidence," while you in your idiocy seem to think it means "Proof." > And that's just the first 3 paragraphs! In other words, where you pretend that the author is done (he explained that we can pronounce ancient Egyptian, and how), he's actually not even half-way through... > Never mind that the author talks about numerous > hieroglyphic signs and tells the reader what they > sounded like! No, you retarded jackass, the author gives his best guess as to what they sounded like, based on modern pronunciations of Arabic, Hebrew & Coptic, as well as what can be gleemed from Akkadian. EVERYONE agrees that languages change over time, that Coptic isn't ancient Egyptian and even that nobody is sure how any ancient language (including Akkadian) was pronounced. > In short, what need does anyone have to disprove > anything JTEM says except to go to JTEM's own > sources which will always prove him wrong! Wait. You misrepresent one cite -- a single cite -- and you pretend that this proves anything other than your own lack of brains? Please. Here's another cite I offered: : The transliteration gives the reader some idea of : how the words may have been pronounced, but : nobody knows how ancient Egyptian, in any of : its historical versions, sounded. http://reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/transliteration.htm > So let's look back a little bit: Okay.... > ol' ignorant JTEM claimed that Persian Yehuda was a > "*PHONETIC* dead ringer" for Egyptian Djehuty Jehuty/Jehudi for Djehuty, actually. But I can see your need to lie... > (it isn't, As based on... on... well... nothing. You're simply declaring that it's so. > yet somehow Gomri and Gumri can't be the same, As was pointed out to you numerous times, saying "I found a specific person's name" in a text requires that you be able to tie that text to the person. And you couldn't. > but djehuty and Yehuda can be): It's Djehuty verses Jehuty/Jehudi, actually, but, again, I understand your need to lie. Also, the similarities don't end with the name. Ur was the seat of a Moon god, Djehuty was the god of the Moon. It would make perfect sense for the Babylonians to associate their Moon god of Ur with the land of Djehuty/Djeuti/Djahudi... exactly as the later Greeks did with their gods in Egypt. > note that JTEM is saying that he knows something > about ancient Egyptian pronunciation and compared > it to Persian Actually, I;m simply noting that the two words -- both rendered as they are in English -- are pronounced identically. I'm not claiming that this is 800 BC, or that I'm a fluent speaker in any ancient tongue. I am noting words rendered in English, and that those English renderings are pronounced the same. You are pretending that they are not. Idiot. > Keep in mind, this is by no means the only > cite available, it is the cite that comes the > closest to supporting Larry-turned-Weland's > position. Keep in mind that I said: "Oh, have it your way, this once. Let's start, one by one, looking at your cites and then we'll look at some others. Let's begin with your favorite and most oft cited web page:..." IN short, all your "cites" will be dealt with. Keep it in mind, well, in whatever it is that passes for mental capacity among your kind. > No, it doesn't support his position, but it > comes the closest to supporting it. Oh I'm afraid it does. It doesn't seem so to you because you've not understood my position and so have constructed a straw man that you constantly attack, meanwhile shifting your own position. Good sleight of hand when you know you've been caught out. But it won't wash here. >>The first paragraph tells us that the pronunciation of >>ancient Egyptian is misconstrued by recent movies [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or, he knows that NOBODY KNOWS how it was > pronounced. Nope. That's special pleading on your part. First, in order "misconstrue" one has to have something to misconstrue...if one doesn't know the pronunciation, then it hasn't been misconstrued. Second, the author praises the pronunciation and reconstruction of ancient Egyptian in the Stargate movies/television show...which he can't do if he's claiming no one knows anything about how it was pronounced. And so once again, we see that the very citations JTEM offers prove him to be dumber than dirt. But like dirt, JTEM blows. >>In both the first and second paragraphs, the author >>lays out the issues about the pronunciation of ancient [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > actually right) that the author lays out THE ISSUE, instead > of an important issue. You misread....again! > He BEGINS with the lack of vowels and expends on the > issues as he progresses. Don't blame me if you don't understand the article, JStupid. In the first two paragraphs he talks about the lack of vowels and how that affects pronunciation, precisely what I said. Do try to read your own cites once in awhile JStupid! >>But the author says in the second paragraph: "Indeed, >>although the Egyptians did not write vowels in Egyptian [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "Evidence" isn't proof, Yes it is. According to the Random House Dictionary of 2009: " that which tends to prove or disprove something" According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, "something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof" and the OED for "proof" states "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything". Evidence is proof. Whether the evidence presented by *YOUR* citation proves beyond any uncertainty how ancient Egyptian was pronounced is a question only someone not familiar with language and the study of language could ask: even in the 21st century with high definition recording instruments no one working in phonology of modern spoken languages would claim that we know with certainty how a modern spoken language is pronounced: get 10 speakers together and you'll have 20 different pronunciations...ok, some of those will have so slight a difference as to make no difference, but a difference nonetheless. So when we're working "Stages" is plural not singular and > he's speaking about what the vowels are, not pronunciation. You think these aren't related? You are really going to claim that your problems about pronunciation of ancient languages esp ancient Egyptian isn't in some way related to vowels. That's stupidity...oh, it is also what is expected of JStupd. "Stages" is plural, good for JStupid for noting the obvious. Every language has stages, no surprise there and certainly neither Dragonblaze nor I nor any intelligent being would say otherwise. > So much for reading comprehension... Oh we know JTEM, we know all too well that you don't understand the simplest of phrases in these books. >> What's this? > > Your stupidity, again. OOOO, a quip! Though I have to say that the truly stupid thing to do would be to comment on languages and scripts once doesn't know at all and pretend to make authoritative points based on readings JTEM doesn't understand. >>We're not totally in the dark about ancient vowels! > > For some words. But, again, at this stage he's still > speaking of vowels, not pronunciation. As noted, that's the issue, they are related. Further, you seem to think that when he titles the page "Pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian" and begins the page with "The pronunciation of ancient Egyptian..." And when he in that second paragraph starts talking about the *pronunciation* of ancient Egyptian in certain modern movies and immediately moves into discussion of vowels, that he's really talking about something unrelated to pronunciation....please, learn to read soon. >> BAM! JTEM proven wrong in the second paragraph! > > I made no claim concerning> the vowels, Quite right, illustrating that you don't understand the issues much less the citation you misconstrue. while you clearly reach beyond what the > cite says, let alone supports. Yes, somehow I happen to think that a paragraph that includes discussion about pronunciation and vowels is talking about pronunciation and vowels. Damn, reaching beyond what it says by pointing out that it talks about pronunciation and vowels. >>In the third paragraph, the author states: "The best >>evidence of the pronunciation of Late Egyptian, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Kind of sinks the "Coptic is ancient Egyptian" ship, The only "Coptic is ancient Egyptian" ship ever built was built by you, no one else here has made such a stupid claim. > It also skips right past more than 1,200 years of > spoken Egyptian. You know, the Egyptian language > BEFORE the "Late Egyptian" mentioned above. It's your citation, if you don't agree with it, it isn't my problem. It doesn't say that there is no evidence for Old or Middle Egyptian...what's wrong JStupid, can't understand your own "cite"? >>Akkadian was the diplomatic language of the day, >>essentially the same language as its two daughter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > though nobody even knows for sure how Akkadian was > pronounced? This is your argument, to misunderstand what "evidence" and "proof" are? Not much of response, but goes to illustrate a basic lack of comprehension on the procedure. >>OH MY OH MY!!! Not only does this tell us that we >>know how Late Egyptian was pronounced, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Best Evidence" doesn't mean, nor imply, "Good evidence," > while you in your idiocy seem to think it means "Proof." If you knew the issues, the languages and the linguistics involved you'd know that actually Akkadian is called "best evidence" because it is pretty good evidence--if you wish to argue otherwise, I suggest you learn the languages first, but we know you'll declare it unfit evidence and not learn the languages. That's your usual method. >>And that's just the first 3 paragraphs! > > In other words, where you pretend that the author is done I said nothing about the author being done. I just illustrated that you've misread your own citation AGAIN and rather than support you, it says something entirely different. > (he explained that we can pronounce ancient Egyptian, > and how), he's actually not even half-way through... Indeed, he goes on to talk a great deal about sound values for cuneiform signs... >> Never mind that the author talks about numerous >>hieroglyphic signs and tells the reader what they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > modern pronunciations of Arabic, Hebrew & Coptic, > as well as what can be gleemed from Akkadian. TSK TSK TSK, chunder face, you misread again. First, he certainly says nothing about "gleaning" from Akkadian, but says its the best evidence for Late Egyptian, he also mentions Demotic, ancient Coptic, word borrowings into Greek, foreign words from other languages borrowed into Egyptian, and he doesn't base any pronunciation on modern Arabic, though he may make explanatory analogies to modern Arabic. Do try to get your sources right, old boy. > EVERYONE agrees that languages change over > time, that Coptic isn't ancient Egyptian and even > that nobody is sure how any ancient language > (including Akkadian) was pronounced. Hells bells boy, we're not even sure how a modern language is pronounced! Any 10 speakers will pronounce the same words of their native language slightly differently. No one claimed that Coptic was ancient Egyptian, no one claimed that we had certainty. The statement that you've misconstrued all this time by Dragonblaze said that we *know a lot*, and we do. You've created a strawman and pursued it hither and yon to our great amusement. >>In short, what need does anyone have to disprove >>anything JTEM says except to go to JTEM's own [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you pretend that this proves anything other than your > own lack of brains? Please. Aw, poor JStupid trying to side step that he's been caught misrepresenting citations.....and moving the goalposts! Let's remember that JTEM claimed: "nobody knows how the ancients pronounced their> words, and that goes double for the ancient Egyptians" And yet we find all his citations telling us how ancient Egyptian probably sounded! HILARIOUS! This site at least rather disagrees with ol' JStupid and so now he runs away from his original claim to talk about "best guesses"! > Here's another cite I offered: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > : its historical versions, sounded. > http://reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/transliteration.htm Let me introduce you to the author of that site: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/thumbnails.htm In short, not an expert on ancient Egyptian language, just an interested party. So hardly evidence. >>So let's look back a little bit: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Jehuty/Jehudi for Djehuty, actually. But I can see your > need to lie... Oh indeed, but a difference that is no difference, since the cognoscenti as opposed to the ignoranti know that "Jehuda" is a GERMAN transliteration and that in GERMAN the *J* is pronounced as an English *Y* and so in English we transliterate "YEHUDA". Thanks for drawing attention to your ignorance, again. > Also, the similarities don't end with the name. Ur was > the seat of a Moon god, Djehuty was the god of the > Moon. And "Yehuda" had nothing to do with Ur. And the name of the "Moon God" in Ur wasn't "Djehuty", so no connection there other than your ignorance about language and culture in the ANE. It would make perfect sense for the Babylonians > to associate their Moon god of Ur with the land of > Djehuty/Djeuti/Djahudi... Except that the land of "Yehuda" isn't the land of Djehuty...huh, interesting that. > exactly as the later Greeks > did with their gods in Egypt. Except that they didn't call Egypt or Egyptians after the names of their gods. >>note that JTEM is saying that he knows something >>about ancient Egyptian pronunciation and compared [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rendered as they are in English -- are pronounced > identically. But they aren't. > I'm not claiming that this is 800 BC, or that I'm a fluent > speaker in any ancient tongue. We know! It is fascinating how you know you don't the languages and yet can tell us all manner of thing about them! So let's review again just so everyone can have a good laugh at ol' JStupid swinging in the wind again: JStupid posited that the transliterations from Egyptian and Persian were pronounced the same, not knowing that the "J" of "Jehuda" is pronounced as a "y". When Dragonblaze corrected that, JTEM went off on how one is ignorant of how ancient Egyptian was pronounced---an utter straw man. Further, when Dragonblaze mentioned that we actually know a lot about how ancient Egyptian was pronounced (know a lot does not mean know absolutely) using Demotic, Coptic, borrowings into Greek and other factors, JStupid ceased on Coptic and constructed another straw man claiming that Coptic can't be used to reconstruct ancient Egyptian pronunciation. He provided "cites". Since DB didn't claim that Coptic was the sole source, as JStupid has claimed, this too is a strawman. We've seen that his main source actually talks a great deal about how ancient Egyptian was pronounced, and uses Coptic in part to do so. We've seen that his other cite mentioned in this message is another fallacy, the appeal to authority. So let's recap: 1) JStupid has created 2 strawmen that he has beaten up in order to avoid having everyone know he is ignorant of how "jehuda" would be pronounced. Strawmen arguments are fallacious. 2) Worse still, JStupid's strawmen are based on errors in fact, making them doubly fallacious. 3) And then he turns around and uses the fallacious appeal to authority pointing to a "cite" that isn't an authority. 4) And misunderstands his one quasi-authoritative "cite" and swallows a footnote as if it represented the whole! Another fallacy 5) Finally, getting back to the beginning, he contradicts himself. One must know something of ancient Egyptian pronunciation in order to make any claim about how Djehuty etc. would be pronounced in transliteration, making his categorical statements that one can't know anything about ancient Egyptian pronunciation a direct contradiction to his own statement about how it would be pronounced! All of that fallacy just to avoid admitting he doesn't know how to pronounce "jeduda". > Keep in mind that I said: You have this knack... this "Gift," if you will, for misunderstanding the finer points even as the larger picture escapes you. The web is full of cites on the subject, and none of them "Prove" what you claim. In fact, each and every last one contradictions you. There was the one you managed to cherry pick from (quote mine) and misrepresent, but that's only one in an ocean of cites. You do not know how ancient Egyptian was pronounced. Nobody does. Nobody even knows for sure how Akkadian -- or your "Hebrew" -- was pronounced. And, yes, as one cite (you ignored) pointed out, going from the Coptic speakers closest to us all the way back to the last of the late Egyptian speakers is like us going back to old Anglo-Saxon. >>Keep in mind that I said: > > You have this knack... this "Gift," if you will, for > misunderstanding the finer points even as the > larger picture escapes you. Projecting again? Since you're ignorant of the languages and basic linguistics and refuse to learn anything, the best you can do is take quotes out of context and say they support you. That is to say, you miss the larger picture and the fine details and just throw dust to try and conver your ignorance. But no one is fooled, we know you're an ignorant sod content only to toss sand in the air. > The web is full of cites on the subject, and none > of them "Prove" what you claim. In fact, each and > every last one contradictions you. There was the > one you managed to cherry pick from (quote > mine) and misrepresent, but that's only one in > an ocean of cites. Give us more falsehoods and fallacies, JStupid! They amuse us! > You do not know how ancient Egyptian was > pronounced. Nobody does. Nobody even knows [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > last of the late Egyptian speakers is like us > going back to old Anglo-Saxon. Yep, and guess what? We know a great deal how Old English, as the language of the Anglo-Saxons is called, was pronounced. > Projecting again? As a matter of fact, no I am not. You're a moron, a pathetic little imbecile. You weren't even man enough to admit your rather obvious mistake -- your idiotic claim that anyone knows how ancient Egyptian was pronounced. Moron. >>Projecting again? > > As a matter of fact, no I am not. Now, now, don't lie, JStupid. Plainly obvious you are, and usually the projector isn't aware of the projection, in fact can not be otherwise the projection doesn't fulfill the emotional need that created the projection in the first place. > Now, now, Given your usual accuracy, that would be better stated "Last century, last century,...." So, retard, can you pull your panties out of their wedge and admit your error, yet? >>Now, now, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, retard, can you pull your panties out of their wedge > and admit your error, yet? LOL!!! Well, I have to say you are persistent....tell you what. Why don't you follow your own advice and admit that you miscited that 1875 book about the deciphering of Akkadian that didn't actually talk about the deciphering of Akkadian at all...let's see if you can man up and do that *BEFORE* calling on anyone else to admit faults and errors, real or imaginary. I doubt you will. > LOL!!! Somebody's helping you. I can tell. >>LOL!!! > > Somebody's helping you. I can tell. Let's restate: LOL!!! Well, I have to say you are persistent....tell you what. Why don't you follow your own advice and admit that you miscited that 1875 book about the deciphering of Akkadian that didn't actually talk about the deciphering of Akkadian at all...let's see if you can man up and do that *BEFORE* calling on anyone else to admit faults and errors, real or imaginary. I doubt you will. And of course, JStupid snips and avoids the issue. No "manning up" from JStupid...if he ever does, he knows that the thin veil of deception he has over his eyes will come apart and he'll see the worthless fecal pile he really is...his shrew of a mother was right! > Let's restate: Why? You're not on any topic. All you're doing is trying to "Get" me with some lame a.s flaming. In fact, all you ever do here is either spew bible nonsense of try some lame a.s attempt at flaming. If you had any maturity at all you'd probably ask yourself why you're here, why you bother, as you're no different than an Aggie, posting without regard to appropriateness or sanity. Congratulations. Before deleting the exchange, let me point out that ol' JStupid is once again engaging in his favorite rhetorical tool: blame the other person for doing exactly what it is he is doing and present himself as altruistic, following the higher path. No one, not even Giwer and Cinnabon, would buy it: but its vital to JStupid to maintain the illusion. >>Let's restate: > > Why? You're not on any topic. All you're doing is trying > to "Get" me with some lame a.s flaming. There's nothing to get. Just a noise box spewing poison and then whining like a petulant child when his own medicine is given back to him. In fact, all you > ever do here is either spew bible nonsense of try some > lame a.s attempt at flaming. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than an Aggie, posting without regard to appropriateness > or sanity. Yes, your post here is so on topic, isn't it? Care to man up and admit you post off topic and insult everyone? Of course not....it'd mean that thin veil would come crashing down and you'd have to admit mummy was right about you, you worthless piece of bullshit. Moronic hypocrite. > Before deleting the exchange, Again, not a damn word on topic, but with the added twist of pretending I've been twisting his arm -- forcing him to flee like a little girl from his errors. So, if he really wants to get back on topic: Larry here claimed that the pronunciation of the ancient Egyptian language is known today. He's never retracted. Oh, he has tried to re-write his personal history (much the same way as he tries to re-write ancient history) and pretend that he never made the argument, but he did. And there's nothing he can say to undo it, either. So, go on, I dare you to pretend that you're masculine and face you mistake. Do it. Go on, prove me wrong, prove that you do have a sliver of maturity in you. Well, okay, fat chance of THAT ever happening... And how does one "Discuss" with a worthless little pussy who is incapable of admitting error, even when the error is as huge as your claim that the pronunciation of the ancient Egyptian language is known? You're a pathetic little runt, a worthless wannabe (f)Lamer, automatically jumping to the opposite of whatever I say. Grow up, you snot eating pussy. >>Before deleting the exchange, I guess we have to deal with JStupid's lies again: > Larry here claimed that the pronunciation of the ancient > Egyptian language is known today. He's never retracted. Why retract what I didn't say? I said I agreed with Dragonblaze that we know quite a lot about it, and somethings we know certainly. You responded by citing web sites, not one of them written by an authority on the subject---a fallacious argument. Typical of JTEM, creates a strawman and then has to use a fallacy to knock it down! He can't even think enough to come up with a valid argument to knock down his own strawman!!!! HILARIOUS! > Oh, he has tried to re-write his personal history (much > the same way as he tries to re-write ancient history) and > pretend that he never made the argument, but he did. That's your game, like how you claimed a word in ancient Egyptian would sound like a word from ancient Akkadian and then when you were corrected, turned around and claimed that no could know how the words were pronounced based on your very extensive knowledge of the languages and then claimed that I disagreed with Dragonblaze! > And there's nothing he can say to undo it, either. > > So, go on, I dare you to pretend that you're masculine > and face you mistake. Do it. Go on, prove me wrong, False dichotomy again. > prove that you do have a sliver of maturity in you. Says the most immature poster ever in Usenet! LOL! > Well, okay, fat chance of THAT ever happening... > > And how does one "Discuss" You've never discussed anything. You rant, rail, make false claims, use fallacious argumentation, get your facts consistently wrong, and offer a whole series of insults, invectives, and curses, but you never discuss. [snip] > Yes, your post here is so on topic, isn't it? Care to man up and admit > you post off topic and insult everyone? Of course not....it'd mean that > thin veil would come crashing down and you'd have to admit mummy was > right about you, you worthless piece of bullshit. Moronic hypocrite. Like the recent exchange between those two idiots about the Holocaust and some bs about an interview? That sure was on-topic for soc.history.ancient... /sarcasm off/ > Like the recent exchange between those two idiots Speaking of which, your leg-humping buddy there now acknowledges that you're full of sh.t with your claim that the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is known. He's even been denying that he ever made such an argument himself, he's so ashamed. On the bright side, as the loser is nothing more than an auto-dispute bot, there's a good chance that we can get him to flip-flop BACK to claiming you were right. So, idiot, are you ever going to admit your mistake, or are you as big a pussy as Larry Swain? ... > Really? Hey, got a suggestion for you. Do a word search on that site > for "Coptic" and count how many times the author of the site uses Coptic > to describe how to pronounce ancient Egypt. I'll give you a clue, its > more than one...can you count high? He even describes the "snake" glyph > in part using Coptic..... I'll give you a better hint. Watch the BBC to determine how to pronounce English. Why would anyone assume what does not work for English would work for ancient languages known to be different? SignatureIf there is a Jewish culture independent of religion then the Palestinians are Jews. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4153 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 Mon Jul 6 01:21:33 EDT 2009 > The problem was, and still is, your deliberate, dishonest misuse of that > poor text to make it say something it doesn't say at all. Such > dishonest citation is pretty clear that your idea of truth is whatever > you happen to need it to be at that particular moment.... I couldn't have said it better myself in a hundred years. Let me borrow your words against you. In my version, the "Poor Text" is the OT iy >>The problem was, and still is, your deliberate, dishonest misuse of that >>poor text to make it say something it doesn't say at all. Such >>dishonest citation is pretty clear that your idea of truth is whatever >>you happen to need it to be at that particular moment.... > > I couldn't have said it better myself in a hundred years. Glad you agree Cinnabon! Now one would wish you'd wise up and provide proof for your claims...doubt it will happen though, doing history scares nutters like you. > Glad you agree Cinnabon! Responding to people out of context is the best you can manage for an "argument".... Congratulations. >>Glad you agree Cinnabon! > > Responding to people out of context is the best > you can manage for an "argument".... > > Congratulations. You should know, it is what you do every post. And it is what Cinnabon did. No criticism for your buddy there though, interestingly enough. > >>Glad you agree Cinnabon! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You should know, Because I just watched you do it, and even commented on it, you mean. Still, for you I guess that passes for "observant." >>>>Glad you agree Cinnabon! >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because I just did it, and even commented > on it. Had to correct your bad grammar. > I Had to lick my dog's a.s. Yum. So what else is new... JTEM confessed: >I Had to lick my dog's a.s. Yum. Dude, some things you shouldn't share.... > Hi I used to post as Larry Swain, but I ruined > my reputation spewing unsupportable nonsense, > and never being man enough to admit I was > wrong. I'd even end every thread with forging > quotes because, in my diseased mind, that's what > passes for an "argument." I know, Larry. I know. >Hi I ruined my reputation spewing unsupportable nonsense, >and never being man enough to admit I was >wrong. I'd even end every thread with forging >quotes because, in my diseased mind, that's what >passes for an "argument." That's a pretty good description of you JTEM, but you left out that all your cites never support a word you say, but usually the opposite. And if you can keep your lacey foundation garments from bunching, I'll show again today just exactly that. > That's a Great, Larry, that's so interesting. Anyhow, you misrepresented a single cite, pretending that it proves anyone knows how to pronounce ancient Egypt. Funny, how do you think anyone knows how to pronounce ancient Akkadian? Seriously. You think you've heard it spoken by any ancients? Is that it? Go on, explain to us how you managed to figure out how to pronounce Akkadian.... when nobody on the planet ever heard it spoken... or ancient Hebrew for that matter. It's a no-brainer: Nobody knows how ancient Akkadian, ancient Hebrew or even ancient Egyptian was pronounced. There's a lot of guess work out there, and no doubt some of it is right, but there's no way of ever knowing which parts. Jackass. >>That's a > Funny, how do you think anyone knows how to > pronounce ancient Akkadian? Seriously. You > think you've heard it spoken by any ancients? Is > that it? There you have it folks! JStupid now says that his own citation is wrong!! Remember, JStupid's citation says that the best evidence for pronunciation of Late Egyptian (because Egyptian was written with no vowels) is Akkadian, and JTEM now questions whether anyone really knows anything about the pronunciation of Akkadian...making his own citation wrong for using Akkadian pronunciation to aid in determining the pronunciation of Late Egyptian! Hilarious! And the basis for JStupid's claim? His lack of any knowledge whatsoever of either language! > > Funny, how do you think anyone knows how to > > pronounce ancient Akkadian? Seriously. You > > think you've heard it spoken by any ancients? Is > > that it? > > There you have it folks! So you failed to respond to yet another point. For you that's like never offering cites: Par for the course. I guess that's why you only ever impress sock puppets and brown nosers. >> Let's see what Larry-turned-Weland was saying >> about my cite, my "century old text" only a few [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that the problem isn't with the text, it is with your use of it as if it > said something about the state of Assyriology in 2009. If what you are implying it true then you will have no problem citing modern Assyriologists confirming that old translation. Please do so. SignatureThere is no known connection between Qumran and the Essenes. There is no known connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls and either the Essenes or Qumran, People believe the strangest things. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4158 http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7 Thu Jul 2 07:48:33 EDT 2009 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.