Out FOXed
Sue King
The Hollywood connection, what the ZahiHawass does Hollywood have to do with
ancient Egypt, unless of course you include the... (language of the vomit
eating dogs)
Bill Graham
was the New Years Eve event at Giza, and a couple of months before that
there was the 'opening of the secret chamber of Osiris' media
extravaganza. Gee, I wonder if he'll ever get around to the Gantenbrink
discovery and if so, will it be done on live TV?
Tim Hogard
convince people to visit Egypt. Add in a personal agenda (of getting rid of
the UFO loonies) and put that in an enviroment where you can't even get
a guide book written in the native language the guy has lots of problems
to deal with.
Sure he should hire a good PR firm to help make these kinds of shows look less
ummm FOXlike and achieve the goals he and his goverment want.
Bill Graham (bi...@tonguemonster.com) wrote:
: The man has quite a knack for PR. There's this latest show, and there
: >
: >
cir...@access.ch
sxu...@aol.comnothanks (Sue King) wrote:
> This Zahi special was worse than the first one. Did anyone watch it?
>
> The Hollywood connection, what the ZahiHawass does Hollywood have to
do with
> ancient Egypt, unless of course you include the... (language of the
vomit
> eating dogs)
SUE KING! STOP SENDING SUCH CRAP TO SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY! DON'T YOU
START ANOTHER HATE HAWASS CAAMPAIGN!
The one of Andy was bad enough. Go to another forum. We don't
need your Hankook nonsense in here.
Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eric Stevens
Who doesn't believe in censoring (moderating) sci.archaeology.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Lloyd Bogart
<este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
> Who doesn't believe in censoring (moderating) sci.archaeology.
>
>
> Eric Stevens
No, no, Eric, we *do* (obviously) need censoring, it's *moderation*
we can't abide, don't you remember? I'm troubled that you don't yet
understand that re-hashed mythology and numerology *really is*
archaeology, but soon you'll understand about the necessity of
censorship and personal attacks. (Well, *some* personal attacks.)
It's the new paradigm, old son. We have ways to make you understand.
In order to have *real* progress in a newsgroup, it's necessary to
redefine the subject matter in one's own way, declare ones-self the
*chosen savior* of the newsgroup, and scream (albeit semi-coherently)
at any criticism, imagined or real. This permits one to justify weeding
out the undesirable elements, all the while increasing the daily
propaganda blitz.
(I wonder what you'd call a political system adopting such tactics?)
Give it up, Eric, you just don't understand. ;-)
Lloyd
*****
Harald Henkel
bog...@centurytel.net (Lloyd Bogart) wrote:
> No, no, Eric, we *do* (obviously) need censoring, it's *moderation*
> we can't abide, don't you remember? I'm troubled that you don't yet
> understand that re-hashed mythology and numerology *really is*
> archaeology, but soon you'll understand about the necessity of
> censorship and personal attacks. (Well, *some* personal attacks.)
> It's the new paradigm, old son. We have ways to make you understand.
>
> In order to have *real* progress in a newsgroup, it's necessary to
> redefine the subject matter in one's own way, declare ones-self the
> *chosen savior* of the newsgroup, and scream (albeit semi-coherently)
> at any criticism, imagined or real. This permits one to justify
weeding
> out the undesirable elements, all the while increasing the daily
> propaganda blitz.
>
> (I wonder what you'd call a political system adopting such tactics?)
N**ism ?
;->
Harald Henkel
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <q40qisg1qa0vlvk55...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Who doesn't believe in censoring (moderating) sci.archaeology.
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
>No, no, Eric, we *do* (obviously) need censoring, it's *moderation*
>we can't abide, don't you remember? I'm troubled that you don't yet
>understand that re-hashed mythology and numerology *really is*
>archaeology, but soon you'll understand about the necessity of
>censorship and personal attacks. (Well, *some* personal attacks.)
>It's the new paradigm, old son. We have ways to make you understand.
>
>In order to have *real* progress in a newsgroup, it's necessary to
>redefine the subject matter in one's own way, declare ones-self the
>*chosen savior* of the newsgroup, and scream (albeit semi-coherently)
>at any criticism, imagined or real. This permits one to justify weeding
>out the undesirable elements, all the while increasing the daily
>propaganda blitz.
>
>(I wonder what you'd call a political system adopting such tactics?)
>
>Give it up, Eric, you just don't understand. ;-)
Where do I get my hair shirt?
Sue King
How you been?! Seems like old times, huh? Thanks for the welcome back.
How do you like my new name? (Psion was taken.)
TTYL!
cir...@access.ch
> Who doesn't believe in censoring (moderating) sci.archaeology.
>
> Eric Stevens
Eric Spammer, stop commenting on my posts / messages / articles.
I don't need your replies. Keep away from me. I always pleaded
for a free, open and democratic forum sci.archaeology, however,
as I made very clear: for a forum of _scientific_ archaeology.
You always ignore the scientific part. For you have neither
an idea of science nor an interest in archaeology. You have
nothing to say, and yet you send a dozen posts a day to this
forum, abusing sci.archaeology as your own personal chatroom.
Are you trying to get yourself a reputation? the only fame you
can obtain in this way is the dubious reputation of a spammer.
You told me that I was one of the reasons why you joined this ng.
Unlucky me! it was never my intention to attract and encourage
a spammer of your caliber.
You better consider my advice: keep away from me.
Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
Sue King
I'm so glad to see you still here! (Otherwise it would have been "Alas,
poor Eric, I knew him well...") :)
I was SO unhappy the show was a set up just like before. (Just like this
world!) The objects "placed" just so one would not notice the ongoing
DEFILEMENT. Sheesh, these are only mere poor immitations of the former glory
of a real Egypt... Ptolimaic- ptooey.
Cartoonish drawings on the walls... I was looking for Scooby Do. (Where are
you?)
OK, now I'll go look for Andy's post!
cir...@access.ch
sxu...@aol.comnothanks (Sue King) wrote:
No, I don't welcome you back. On the contrary. I was kind with
you for a long time. You always thanked me for my replies, but
you never considered one single word I wrote, instead you went
on repeating the very same Hankook nonsense all the time. And
then, last year, your messages became more and more abstruse
and bizarre, so I began worrying about your sanity and told you
to stop reading Hankook, for his books are dangerous: they suck
your mind out of your brain. This here is a forum of scientific
archaeology, your idiotic remarks on professor Zahi Hawass from
yesterday show me that you learned nothing in the meantime. Keep
away from this forum of s c i e n t i f i c archaeology, you
better join the forum and mailing list of Philip Gould alias
Zarniwoop alias megadodo: he encourages the Hankook. I don't.
And if you go on writing nonsense in here, I will take it up
with you and say ever more clearly what I think of your idiotic
guru.
cir...@access.ch
> No, no, Eric, we *do* (obviously) need censoring, it's *moderation*
> we can't abide, don't you remember? I'm troubled that you don't yet
> understand that re-hashed mythology and numerology *really is*
> archaeology, but soon you'll understand about the necessity of
> censorship and personal attacks. (Well, *some* personal attacks.)
> It's the new paradigm, old son. We have ways to make you understand.
>
> In order to have *real* progress in a newsgroup, it's necessary to
> redefine the subject matter in one's own way, declare ones-self the
> *chosen savior* of the newsgroup, and scream (albeit semi-coherently)
> at any criticism, imagined or real. This permits one to justify
> weeding out the undesirable elements, all the while increasing the
> daily propaganda blitz.
Mythological re-hash and numerology? All I can see is the typical
arrogance of an edu. Every time you slip out of the discussion,
and then you come back on the personal level. You complained to
me via e-mail that I repeat my definition of archaeology. Why
should I change my definition when it is a good one? Until now
no one was able to come up with a better one. Here I go again:
Task of history: drawing and painting a reliable panorama
of the human past, based mainly on writings
Task of archaeology: drawing and painting a reliable panorama
of the human past, based mainly on artifacts
Task of paleontology: drawing and painting a reliable panorama
of the human and prehuman past, based mainly on organic remains
Don't complain when you can't come up with a better definition
of archaeology. My definition embraces mathematical examinations,
and all non-invasive methods. By taking up the word numerology
you show me that you are just another classical narrow-minder,
unable of leading a scientific discussion, always relying on
the snipers of academe. This here is a free, open and democratic
forum of scientific archaeology. Those who contribute to the
scientific discussions are welcome, whereas those who have no
iodea of scientific reasoning and publish doomsday crap in
here - Graham Hankook and Robert Bauval are both false prohpets
of the last days - and all others who believe that they are in
the possession of the TRUTH a priori, ex cathedra, anyway and
basta, are in the wrong forum. And those like me who contribute
to the scientific discussions on a scientific level are allowed
to tell this to the other people, including them self-appointed
judges or your sort, who never - I repeat myself: n e v e r -
wrote one single line of a scientific content. You now support
Eric Spammer. Know that the same Eric Spammer sent me an e-mail
(although I told him not to molest me with his e-mails) saying
that you are up to become a moderator of this forum. He is against
moderation, as I am, and he warned me of you. Just in case that
you get another thing wrong.
Harald Henkel
cir...@access.ch wrote:
> In article <q40qisg1qa0vlvk55...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Who doesn't believe in censoring (moderating) sci.archaeology.
> >
> > Eric Stevens
>
> Eric Spammer, stop commenting on my posts / messages / articles.
> I don't need your replies. Keep away from me. I always pleaded
You're the only one preventing this.
> You better consider my advice: keep away from me.
What would you do otherwise ?
Put him into a concentration camp ?
Like geologist Prof. Gripp - the main opponent of J. Spanuth in the
50s/60s ?
Who worked for the N**is on a stupid project to gain a lot of land from
the North Sea by building dikes ?
And who threatend another geologist who oppesed to this stupied project,
to bring him into a KZ if he wouldn't shut up ?
And who, after WWII claimed to be a "Witness of N**ism" and became Dekan
of university of Kiel and responsible for de-n**ification ?
And later complained about Spanuth to spread N**i phantasma ?
But no !
How stupid of me.
Mr. Gnaedinger, N**i-hater no 1 and doorkeeper of sci.arch would never
think about such N**i ideas like that.
You would just shoot him between the eyes, right ?
Why don't you just killfile him, instead ?
Would prevent you from dying by heart attack.
Harald Henkel
Neville Lindsay
<cir...@access.ch> wrote in message news:8gl8d3$knl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <q40qisg1qa0vlvk55...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Who doesn't believe in censoring (moderating) sci.archaeology.
> >
> > Eric Stevens
>
>
> Eric Spammer, stop commenting on my posts / messages / articles.
> I don't need your replies. Keep away from me. I always pleaded
> as I made very clear: for a forum of _scientific_ archaeology.
> You always ignore the scientific part. For you have neither
> an idea of science nor an interest in archaeology. You have
> nothing to say, and yet you send a dozen posts a day to this
> forum, abusing sci.archaeology as your own personal chatroom.
> Are you trying to get yourself a reputation? the only fame you
> can obtain in this way is the dubious reputation of a spammer.
> You told me that I was one of the reasons why you joined this ng.
> Unlucky me! it was never my intention to attract and encourage
> a spammer of your caliber.
>
>
>
If you don't like people's comments, why don't you take yourself off to the
blotting paper of sci.archaeology (moderated)? You will be safe there from
him, and have your free, open and democratic forum. Or would you - perhaps
some of your posts might be moderated out.
NL
Lloyd Bogart
others. Period. Nobody gets to complain about HIM. Them's
the RULES. And *nobody else* understands what *science* is, not
even folks who've been teaching the scientific method for 30 years
(poor misguided souls, Alas!) And if mythology lacks artifacts,
it's still archaeology, "just because".
Remember, ERIC:
(1) Accept only HIS definition of archaeology (the one that *includes*
anything HE wants to post about) NOT the ones in the textbooks.
(2) Moderation is bad, because moderators might not accept HIS
definition of archaeology. But excluding Hancock, Bauval,
anything HE doesn't approve of is good. If you see a contra-
diction, that's YOUR problem. (See #1)
(3) People who disagree with HIM are arrogant or worse, and
not to be trusted, especially if EDUcated.
(4) Eric, YOU are not to respond to his posts about other people,
OR ELSE! (But if he responds to MY post to YOU, etc., that's OK.
If you see a contradiction, that's YOUR problem.)
(5) If YOU post several times a day, it's SPAM, but if HE
does the same, its a noble defence of a free and democratic
scientific newsgroup (as purely defined by HIM.)
You paying attention, ERIC? When you hear that knock on your
door in the middle of the night, you'll know its the dread FDSTP:
Free and Democratic Scientific Thought Police.
Sad, ain't it? ;-)
Lloyd
*****
Amargi Hillier
> a guide book written in the native language
There are tons of Arabic guide books in Egypt.
Amargi H.
Project Duat - Cairo, Egypt
http://www.projectduat.com/
Eric Stevens
>In article <q40qisg1qa0vlvk55...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Who doesn't believe in censoring (moderating) sci.archaeology.
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
>
>Eric Spammer, stop commenting on my posts / messages / articles.
>I don't need your replies. Keep away from me. I always pleaded
>for a free, open and democratic forum sci.archaeology, however,
>as I made very clear: for a forum of _scientific_ archaeology.
>You always ignore the scientific part. For you have neither
>an idea of science nor an interest in archaeology. You have
>nothing to say, and yet you send a dozen posts a day to this
>forum, abusing sci.archaeology as your own personal chatroom.
>Are you trying to get yourself a reputation? the only fame you
>can obtain in this way is the dubious reputation of a spammer.
>You told me that I was one of the reasons why you joined this ng.
>Unlucky me! it was never my intention to attract and encourage
>a spammer of your caliber.
Don't worry Franz. Your attraction has long since faded.
>
>You better consider my advice: keep away from me.
Occasionally you do write something sensible.
Sue King
Sue King
Eric, me or anyone. You can go to SAM if you have some problem HERE. ?!
Sue King
that's gone on here!
I want to make "perfectly clear" that I'm not a Zahi-hater. I'm sure he's a
perfectly nice man trapped in the grid of his existance.. or whatever, I just
really HATE what results from the show he did!
I was expecting the lower northern airshaft of the "King's pyramid" as Zahi
promised us last year, and what do I get?
More lame archaeology! IS ANYONE TELLING ME IT WAS HIS JOB SECURITY THAT
CAUSED THE SHOW WE SAW???!!
Well, maybe it's time he step aside, so that a camera can film (LIVE?! is that
too much to ask?) What the shaft has to offer?
Sue King
You don't welcome me back? Are you a freak of nature? you godless fuck!
Now you die you fucking BITCH
cir...@access.ch
Seems that you finally found your place in sci.archaeology:
sticking with Eric Stevens. He and Harald Henkel believe in
the pet phantasma of Heinrich P udor, Hermann G oering and
Juergen S panuth (the so-called Steingrund on the seaground
in front of Helgoland was Basilea, sunken capital of Atlantis,
origin of the Aryan "Lichtmenschen", motherland of racial
select breeding and colonization, origin of the ancient Greeks),
while you believe in the Greek dogma of classical archaeology,
according to which real civilisation including real science,
real mathematics, real geometry, real astronomy, real medicinal
science, real historiography, real phyilosophy, real poetry
and so on was founded by a handful of male Greeks virtually
ex nihilo. Your opinions go together very well. Both the Greek
phantasma of classical archaeology and the Atlantean phantasma
of Adolf Schicklgruber alias H itler, Heinrich H immler and
Hermann G oering etc. reached the climax during the 3rd Reich.
Lloyd Bogart, you showed me several times how you argue:
you just let drop an a apriori, then you sneak out of the
discussion and wait until it's over, then you come back and
let drop the very same apodictical statement again, as if there
was nothing. Is it my fault when you can't define archaeology?
When you can't come up with a better definition than mine?
You never wrote a line of scientific value in here, nor did
Eric Stevens and Harald Henkel.
By the way: why do you need so many *astericks* ? You told
me via e-mail that you are a psychologist. Normally, psychologists
are very good at words and write a versatile and eloquent style.
Sigmund Freud wrote a wonderful German, as good as the one of
Goethe, a real pleasure to read. These people have / had arguments
on their side, a lot to say, and so their language was vivid.
Only those who have nothing to say need an artificial emphasis,
for * example * all * those * asteriks *
How about answering my old questions? how about arguing on the
scientific level instead of the personal one?
What is wrong with my definitions of history, archaeology and
paelontology?
Task of history: drawing or painting a reliable panorama
of the human past, based mainly on writings
task of archaeology: drawing or painting a reliable panorama
of the human past, based mainly on artifacts
task of paleontology: drawing or painting a reliable panorama
of the human and prehuman past, based mainly on organic remains
Why should mathematical examinations - a non-invasive method
par excellence - have no place in archaeology?
Can you explain me how the builders of the Great Pyramid layed
out its base to the amazing accuracy (as reported by Rainer
Stadelmann) without having a very good mathematical knowledge
including the Formula of Imhotep? (the fossils among us remember
it as the Formula of Pythagoras)
Why don't you leave this forum and go to the barren meadow
sci.archaeology.moderated instead? You must like it: a barren
mind, a barren forum, a perfect match.
Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
cir...@access.ch
So you make very clear who you are. You came back to sci.archaeology
and wrote another queer sentence: mentioning Zahi Hawass and dog
vomit. You don't hate him, you just hate his show and all he does.
Do you know his work? He found the cult pyramid of Khufu, He has
great merits in excavating the tombs of the pyramid workers,
and the way he managed doomsday was a "coup de genie": by inviting
Michel Jarre to give a concert on the Giza plateau in the so-called
millenium night he made sure that there will be a lot of people
around so that the 700 surviving members of the Sun Temple Order
from Switzerland and Canada and other loons who might plan another
'journey to Sirius' don't have a chance. Chapeau, professor Hawass.
And thank you, professor Zahi Hawass, for waiting with the opening
of the eventual cavity behind the Gantenbrink block: as long as
no one proposes a really working non-invasive method we better wait.
Homo arrogans arrogans of the Early Concrete Age already destroyed
too many antiquites, above all in Egypt. And those insane followers
of Graham Hankook really are a plague. They should be grateful that
you don't open the Gantenbrink chamber, for their guru GH believes
that a cataclysm is near, it will be triggered by a self-reactivating
device hidden in the Gantenbrink Chamber (see an appendix of KOG),
and by letting this chamber untouched you guarantee that the FLOOD
will happen as predestined by Lion King I who came from Sirius and
founded Atlantis ...
Sue King, if you go on writing silly and crazy messages in here
I will say publicly what I think of you.
Z
<cir...@access.ch> wrote in message news:8gl8ss$m3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000526023337...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
> sxu...@aol.comnothanks (Sue King) wrote:
>
> > Hi Franz!!
> > How you been?! Seems like old times, huh? Thanks for the
> welcome back.
> > How do you like my new name? (Psion was taken.)
> > TTYL!
>
> No, I don't welcome you back. On the contrary. I was kind with
> you for a long time. You always thanked me for my replies, but
> you never considered one single word I wrote, instead you went
> on repeating the very same Hankook nonsense all the time. And
> then, last year, your messages became more and more abstruse
> and bizarre, so I began worrying about your sanity and told you
> to stop reading Hankook, for his books are dangerous: they suck
> your mind out of your brain. This here is a forum of scientific
> archaeology, your idiotic remarks on professor Zahi Hawass from
> yesterday show me that you learned nothing in the meantime. Keep
> away from this forum of s c i e n t i f i c archaeology, you
> better join the forum and mailing list of Philip Gould alias
> Zarniwoop alias megadodo: he encourages the Hankook. I don't.
> And if you go on writing nonsense in here, I will take it up
> with you and say ever more clearly what I think of your idiotic
> guru.
>
>
> Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Keep posting your libellous posts Franz, they are being passed to my lawyers
for consideration, so the more evidence you post the better the result.
--
Philip Gould
Moderator Am...@egroups.com
Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
Bryon Lape
excited, but not much of nothing was done and what was was all staged.
Sue King
cir...@access.ch
"Z" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote:
> Keep posting your libellous posts Franz, they are being passed
> to my lawyers for consideration, so the more evidence you post
> the better the result.
>
> --
> Philip Gould
> Moderator Am...@egroups.com
> Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
> Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
So tell them how you called me: a numerological fart.
And tell them what Sue King told me: die fucking bitch.
And tell them how many times Andy called me a liar and other names.
Eric Stevens
>And tell them how many times Andy called me a liar and other names.
>
Countless times.
What's more he kept saying why and inviting you to prove him wrong.
You never did.
Z
> In article <8go3e3$gm7$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Z" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Keep posting your libellous posts Franz, they are being passed
> > to my lawyers for consideration, so the more evidence you post
> > the better the result.
> >
> > --
> > Philip Gould
> > Moderator Am...@egroups.com
> > Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
> > Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
>
> So tell them how you called me: a numerological fart.
>
> And tell them what Sue King told me: die fucking bitch.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Nothing libellous about calling that but you printing quotes that I did not
make is. I have offered you an "olive branch" and you refused it. No more
communications Franz, the rest is for my lawyers and your ISP.
Andy
news:ilh4jscglq1too54g...@4ax.com...
> >
>
> What's more he kept saying why and inviting you to prove him wrong.
>
> You never did.
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Cheers Eric. And you know what? I'm still waiting!
Andy
Harald Henkel
...
Not to forget the numerous times he called me (and Eric) (a) propagator
(s) of N**i phantasma only because I (we) wanted to discuss some
details of Juergen Spanuths Atlantis theory who might have got his idea
of the place of Atlantis from the racist author H. Pudor who was
a "fan" of the N**is only until they let him fall und forbid one of his
publications because of his extremity.
Not to forget either, that he claimed I had left out a "praeposition"
in a translation of Plato which was obviously a lie which everybody
could see.
Not to forget at last, that he called Spanuth (who cannot protect
himself anymore because he died in 1998) a N**i, while Spanuth only was
a priest/cleargy man in a SS division, like any modern army has its
cleargy men.
Did he ever excuse for any of this ? No !
So why should I (or Eric or anybody) excuse to him ?
His crying "Spanuth is a N**i", "Harald, Eric, ... are propagators of
N**i phantasma" or "... cooks" remind me in the way (not in contents)
very much of N**i demagoges (although I wouldn't call him a N**i, of
course).
He is the only one in this NG preventing interesting discussions.
Yet he seems to believe that he is the only one contributing - no
wonder if he chases everybody out who expresses opinions too different
of his own.
He seems to not have understood what democracy and freedom means.
Freedom is allways also the freedom of people with different opinions.
I admit there are limits.
I DON'T like racist stuff - here and anywhere - too.
But he claimed that I'm a propagator of this but failed to give any
proof for it - of course because there is none. Everybody who knows me
knows that I'm far off of having such ideas.
Again, the only thing I wanted to do is discuss a lot of details of
Spanuths theory to get an idea if they stand up to modern scientific
findings or not, but because of him we stuck to one single detail - and
this wasn't even a real discussion but a dispute or even squabble...
Perhaps he has some good ideas (in his corner) but in my opinion he's a
real asshole and instead of proving me false on this assumption with
every posting (outside of his corner) he really does verything in his
power to prove me right. Thus I wouldn't even bother about reading
his "corner" (I'd really like to know how many people do).
Harald Henkel
Eric Stevens
wrote:
><cir...@access.ch> wrote in message news:8gt5jr$u0q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8go3e3$gm7$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>> "Z" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Keep posting your libellous posts Franz, they are being passed
>> > to my lawyers for consideration, so the more evidence you post
>> > the better the result.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Philip Gould
>> > Moderator Am...@egroups.com
>> > Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
>> > Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
>>
>> So tell them how you called me: a numerological fart.
>>
>> And tell them what Sue King told me: die fucking bitch.
>>
>> And tell them how many times Andy called me a liar and other names.
>>
>> Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>Nothing libellous about calling that but you printing quotes that I did not
>make is. I have offered you an "olive branch" and you refused it. No more
>communications Franz, the rest is for my lawyers and your ISP.
That's a bit over the top isn't it?
I don't take Franz THAT seriously.
cir...@access.ch
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
> What's more he kept saying why and inviting you to prove him wrong.
>
> You never did.
>
> Eric Stevens
Didn't I tell you to keep away from me? didn't I make myself very
clear? do you wish me to say more about you? well, you can have
that.
When you were new in here, you were massively attacked by Alan
M. Dunsmuir. Alan has an idea of science, he reads 'Nature'
and other good scientific journals, however, he read only older
archaeological books and articles and therefore spreaded too
many classical prejudices in here, so I got in clinch with him
several times, and finally he left this forum, perhaps because
he realized that I was right: he has too limited an idea of
present-day archaeology. You must have been relieved when he
left. Then you began writing more and more posts a day, and
made clear what you believe: you are a follower of Juergen
Spanuth. This Juergen Spanuth served as a clergyman in the SS,
and he wihitewashed Heinrich Pudor, a protege of Hermann Goering.
Heinrich Pudor was the author of the thesis Helgoland = Atlantis,
which he proposed in the book
PEOPLES OF GOD'S OWN BREATH, HELGOLAND - ATLANTIS,
MOTHERLAND OF RACIAL SELECT BREEDING AND COLONIZATION
(my translation). Juergen Spanuth took it all from Heinrich
Pudor whitout ever mentioning his source. That says enogh about
Juergen Spanuth. You tried to make me believe that the so-called
"Steingrund" on the sea-ground in front of Helgoland is Basilea,
the sunken capital of Atlantis. First you told me that Juergen
Spanuth discovered the "Steingrund", then it was someone else.
I asked you four questions about this "Steingrund": is there
a recognizable pattern speaking for a sunken settlement? are
there any manmade marks on the flint slabs? how can you exclude
that they are the lost freight of a sunken "Prahm" (flat, very
long and broad Roman freight ship)? how come that Heinrich Pudor,
Hermann Goering and Juergen Spanuth discovered Atlantis and no
one cares? You replied to my four questions in a sloppy manner,
making clear that you can't answer them. And whenever I reminded
you of my unanswered questions you called me a liar. Andy called
me a liar over and over again, you called me a liar over and over
again. Andy called me other names, you called me other names.
And the situation was always the same: you can't answer my
questions, you can't argue on the scientific level, you realize
that and so you escape by shifting onto the personal level and
calling me a liar and other names. The same with Philip Gould:
he can't answer my old question why mathematical examinations
should have no place in archaeology and so he simply calls me
a 'numerological bull' and a 'tired old numerological fart'.
A fine behavior for a moderator of an Egyptological mailing
list who proudly adorns himself with the name of Amun. Now
he menaces me with his lawyers, really a great way of leading
a scientific discussion.
Neither you nor Andy can tell me one single valid idea by your
respective guru, and so you must call me a liar and other names.
A simple mechanism. You send a dozen posts to sci.archaeology
every day. You could send even five dozen messages a day to this
forum - that would never make your phantasma come true nor turn
you into an authority, the only 'fame' you can obtain in this way
is the dubious reputation of a spammer. Go on replying to me,
calling me a liar and falsifyng the history of sci.archaeology
and I will say ever more clearly what I think of you and Juergen
Spanuth, whitewasher of Heinrich Pudor. - My word counts, if not
now then in the long run, for I revolutionize Egyptology and
revive classical archaeology. So you better keep away from me,
as I told you before.
cir...@access.ch
"Z" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote:
> Nothing libellous about calling that but you printing quotes
> that I did not make is. I have offered you an "olive branch"
> and you refused it. No more communications Franz, the rest
> is for my lawyers and your ISP.
>
> --
> Philip Gould
> Moderator Am...@egroups.com
> Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
> Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
So you find it okay to call me a 'tired old numerological fart'?
You find it okay that Andy called me a liar over and over again,
just because he can't tell me one single valid idea by Graham
Hankook? You found it okay that he always shifted from the level
of a scientific discussion to the personal level and called me
names? You found his hate Hawass campaign okay too? You always
supported him. 'Well done, Andy'. You wrote that. And you wrote
many other things too. What are my false quotes? can you just say
that I quote you wrongly without giving me those quotes? I know
very well what I said, contrary to Andy, Eric Stevens and other
people in here. Again: a member of sci.archaeology who has a very
good understanding of ancient Egypt told me that you lack the
qualities which are required for a moderator. I can only confirm
this statement: you lack the knowledge and other qualities which
are required for a moderator. You prove that ever more clearly.
You can't lead a scientific discussion, for example you can't
answer my old question why mathematical excaminations should
have no place in archaeology, and so you simply call me a
'numerological bull' and a 'tired old numerological fart'.
Is that your understanding of a scientific discussion?
Z
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:17:13 +0100, "Z" <z...@megadodopublishing.com>
> wrote:
>
> ><cir...@access.ch> wrote in message news:8gt5jr$u0q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <8go3e3$gm7$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> >> "Z" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Keep posting your libellous posts Franz, they are being passed
> >> > to my lawyers for consideration, so the more evidence you post
> >> > the better the result.
> >> >
> >> > Philip Gould
> >> > Moderator Am...@egroups.com
> >> > Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
> >> > Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
> >>
> >>
> >> And tell them what Sue King told me: die fucking bitch.
> >>
> >>
> >> Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> Before you buy.
> >
not
> >make is. I have offered you an "olive branch" and you refused it. No more
> >communications Franz, the rest is for my lawyers and your ISP.
>
>
> I don't take Franz THAT seriously.
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
>
> There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
> two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
No, not really Eric, Franz is an aggressive person who has IMO (and
hopefully soon my lawyers too) libelled me and I would like his statements
to be revoked publicly. I have offered him numerous times to publicly revoke
or prove the statements in question but on each occasion all he has done is
to rant on. Therefore, he leaves me no alternative but to place it in the
hands of my lawyers.
Z
> > that I did not make is. I have offered you an "olive branch"
> > and you refused it. No more communications Franz, the rest
> > is for my lawyers and your ISP.
> >
> > Philip Gould
> > Moderator Am...@egroups.com
> > Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
> > Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
>
>
> You find it okay that Andy called me a liar over and over again,
> just because he can't tell me one single valid idea by Graham
> Hankook? You found it okay that he always shifted from the level
> of a scientific discussion to the personal level and called me
> names? You found his hate Hawass campaign okay too? You always
> supported him. 'Well done, Andy'. You wrote that. And you wrote
> many other things too. What are my false quotes? can you just say
> that I quote you wrongly without giving me those quotes? I know
> very well what I said, contrary to Andy, Eric Stevens and other
> people in here. Again: a member of sci.archaeology who has a very
> good understanding of ancient Egypt told me that you lack the
> qualities which are required for a moderator. I can only confirm
> this statement: you lack the knowledge and other qualities which
> are required for a moderator. You prove that ever more clearly.
> You can't lead a scientific discussion, for example you can't
> answer my old question why mathematical excaminations should
> have no place in archaeology, and so you simply call me a
> 'numerological bull' and a 'tired old numerological fart'.
> Is that your understanding of a scientific discussion?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
And just how many names have you called me and other I wonder.
Franz, I have given you the actual quotes you have said I have made on
several occasions and asked for proof for which as usual you have not
supplied. I have asked you to publicly withdraw those quotes and apologise
but you haven't done this either and it is clear you will not.
As you IMO have libelled me I have handed all the headers over to my lawyers
who will no doubt be in contact with www.access.ch and yourself soon.
I now will not discuss this matter any further with you except through the
legal channels, you had your chance and didn't take it. I will not however
kill file you as the more evidence I can collect the better.
Nubkhas
>Franz, I have given you the actual quotes you have said I have made on
>several occasions and asked for proof for which as usual you have not
>supplied. I have asked you to publicly withdraw those quotes and apologise
>but you haven't done this either and it is clear you will not.
>
>As you IMO have libelled me I have handed all the headers over to my lawyers
>who will no doubt be in contact with www.access.ch and yourself soon.
>
>I now will not discuss this matter any further with you except through the
>legal channels, you had your chance and didn't take it. I will not however
>kill file you as the more evidence I can collect >the better.
Do you think I should sue you for the names you have called me? They are
certainly more libelous than anything Franz has ever put your way. Where are
you getting your legal advice at the moment? Let me give you some (even though
I am not a lawyer): Only attorneys profit from such lawsuits as you are
contemplating. They can drag on for years. Those that are between persons in
different jurisdictions are especially complex. Also, when you sue someone,
you open yourself up for a countersuit at the get-go, so better make sure your
own slate is clean. According to Franz, it isn't. So why do you assume you
are in a better position than he is just because you are the one threatening
the suit?
cir...@access.ch
"Z" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote:
> And just how many names have you called me and other I wonder.
>
> Franz, I have given you the actual quotes you have said I have made on
> several occasions and asked for proof for which as usual you have not
> supplied. I have asked you to publicly withdraw those quotes and
apologise
> but you haven't done this either and it is clear you will not.
>
> As you IMO have libelled me I have handed all the headers over to my
lawyers
> who will no doubt be in contact with www.access.ch and yourself soon.
>
> I now will not discuss this matter any further with you except
through the
> legal channels, you had your chance and didn't take it. I will not
however
> kill file you as the more evidence I can collect the better.
>
> --
> Philip Gould
> Moderator Am...@egroups.com
> Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
> Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
So I must repeat myself endlessly. Andy showed up in here
and started his hate Hawass campaign. Jim Carrol, Doug Weller
and others told him to stop his nonsense, for it won't do him
no good. But Andy went on, untroubled by any knowledge, and
even compared professor Zahi Hawass with Adolf H itler. That
was tooo much for me, I took up the struggle with Andy and
was called a liar and other names by him countless times.
He could never tell me one single valid idea by his guru,
and so he called me a liar etc pp. All those who call me
a liar, either directly or indirectly, have one feature in
common: they can't argue on the scientific level, and so they
must attack me on the personal level. Whenever I was called
names I said more clearly what I think of the various gurus,
while you alwas supported Andy: 'Well done, Andy'. You never
told him: stop that stupid anti-Hawass campaign, for you really
know nothing of professor Zahi Hawass, you are here in a forum
of scientific archaeology, and so you have to argue on a scientific
level, don't always shift onto a personal level. How could you have
brought Andy to reason? you argue on the personal level yourself.
You can't answer my ages old question why mathematical examinations,
a non-invasive method par excellence, should have no place in
archaeology, and so you simply call me a 'numerological bull'
and a 'tired old numerological fart'. Last summer, when the
millenium hype was boiling over, I said that I will take it up
with the false prophets of the last days, including Graham Hankook
and Robert Bauval. I kept my promise, and of course people threw
shit at me all the time. Freeing the Augias barn of sci.archaeology
from all that bullshit was all but an easy task. So I took it up
with the false prophets, and then you compare me with Daniel J.
Min, a Nostradamus loon. You always wrote from above, in the way
of a moderator, and when I told you so you complained again.
But what else are you up to than moderating sci.archaeology?
You wish to say who can publish in here and who must be excluded.
First you support Andy, who called me names over and over again,
now you try it via your lawyers. You can't argue on the scientific
level, you call me a numerological fart, and you find this behavior
okay. People can offend me all the time, over and over again,
but I must keep quiet, and you try to mob me out of sci.archaeology
by means of your lawyers. Seems that the freedom of speech and
the freedom of science is still in danger, as it was in the times
of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei. What did you contribute to
this forum? I never read anything of interest by you. All you can
do is spreading old prejudices. We are entitled to tell people
when they have nothing to contriibute to a scientific discussion,
and especially when they behave in such a way as Andy, whom you
always supported. I am the one who contributes most to the scien-
tific discussions in here, I am the one who revolutionizes Egypto-
logy and revives classical archaeology, I offer my interpretations
of Egyptian predynastic figurines, palettes and vessels, of the
Narmer palette, of the legend of Isis and Osiris (on the level
of history and on the level of geography and climatology as well),
of the Old Kingdom pyramids, of the life symbol ankh and other
Egyptian symbols, of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, of the Iliad
and Odyssey in combination with Plato's Atlantis legend, I tell
people about my methods, and I help people who ask me for a favour
via e-mail, sending them photocopies and books and giving them
my good advice. I contribute a lot to this forum, but I don't
write for the kooks and narrow-minders, I write for young people
with a serious interest in scientific archaeology, and I have a
natural interest to turn this forum of silly archaeology into
a respectable forum of s c i e n t i f i c archaeology.
Amargi Hillier
>lawyers
>> who will no doubt be in contact with www.access.ch and yourself soon.
HA!
>even compared professor Zahi Hawass with Adolf H itler.
I find it funny that people shoot down Dr. Hawass without even knowing
him. For that matter, without knowing much about archaeology in
Egypt, due process, govt procedures, SCA management priorities and
more.
I can refute ANY conspiracy theory about Giza. Most of this nonsense
revolves around that damn 'door'.
>but I must keep quiet, and you try to mob me out of sci.archaeology
>by means of your lawyers.
If a lawyer contacts you, let me know.
Slander against people is also a problem. Good thing Dr. Hawass has a
good heart and doesn't seek suit on all the farts that slander him.
Amargi Hillier
Photographer,
Digital Egypt Archives
http://www.digitalegypt.net
Andy
>
>And whenever I reminded
> you of my unanswered questions you called me a liar. Andy called
> me a liar over and over again, you called me a liar over and over
> again. Andy called me other names, you called me other names.
> >
> A simple mechanism.
Does anybody else find this amusing in a unique, Franz 'copy and paste'
Gnaedinger way? I called you a liar because you lied - simple really.
Andy
Andy
> In article <8gu94l$noj$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Z" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote:
>
> > Nothing libellous about calling that but you printing quotes
> > that I did not make is. I have offered you an "olive branch"
> > and you refused it. No more communications Franz, the rest
> > is for my lawyers and your ISP.
> >
> > Philip Gould
> > Moderator Am...@egroups.com
> > Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
> > Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
>
>
The difference here, Franz, is that I called you a liar because you lied.
When I gave you the chance to explain your lie (about 14 times!), you
couldn't.
>You found his hate Hawass campaign okay too?
Bizarre, completely and utterly bizarre!
Andy
Andy
news:3933f868...@news4.usenetserver.com...
> >> As you IMO have libelled me I have handed all the headers over to my
> >lawyers
> >> who will no doubt be in contact with www.access.ch and yourself soon.
>
> HA!
>
> >even compared professor Zahi Hawass with Adolf H itler.
>
> I find it funny that people shoot down Dr. Hawass without even knowing
> him. For that matter, without knowing much about archaeology in
> Egypt, due process, govt procedures, SCA management priorities and
> more.
>
Amargi,
I'm not sure if you read the original post way back when, but your reply is
spot on. YES, I don't know Zahi and YES I never knew Hitler BUT I can still
disagree with their priorities (OBVIOUSLY the priorities are different).
I believe, rightly or wrongly, that more should be done toward opening the
door. Full stop. This is my opinion. Franz takes this to mean that I hate
Zahi and, inexplicably, thinks that I believe he *is* Hitler. Obviously this
is untrue.
Sure, I don't know what the processes involved are but I'm sure you can
imagine the frustration when an important find, IMHO, is just out of reach.
Andy
Harald Henkel
cir...@access.ch wrote:
> how come that Heinrich Pudor,
> Hermann Goering and Juergen Spanuth discovered Atlantis and no
> one cares?
This again is a lie - although it might be simply lack of knowledge.
First of all Pudor didn't find Atlantis, because he puts it to 10000
BC - and although this complies with Platon it is simply stupid,
because at this time neither Egypt/Sais, nor Greece/Athens have not
existed as a big power and thus Atlantis could also not have been
existent then.
2. As I stated several times Puder was not very beloved among the N**zi
for his - even for them - too extreme point of view. They let him fall
and forbid one of his writings.
3. It is really a lie that nobody cared about Spanuths findings.
Because of his great popularity in the 50s he was fough by some German
academics, with Dr. (Prof.) Gripp at top and some others of which many
worked for the N**zi (e.g. Dr. Gripp as geologist in the SA, Prof.
Jankuhn as archaeologist (?) in the SS-Ahnenerbe).
Prof. Gripp was accused in the 20s of plagiarism and was deprived his
Prof. and not allowed to teach at a German university anymore. Thus he
went to the SA. But after the war he claimed to be a victim of the
N**zi and became Prof. again at the university of Kiel and dekan,
responsible for Den**zification.
All these "nice" guys denied their own former works/findings and even
forged some of them but called Spanuth the forger of those.
This all was so stupid and transparent that a german court urged them
to retract their booklet against Spanuth.
An absolutly unique case in german science history.
Unfortunatley the public realized and remembered only this "fight" of a
dozzen "respectable" scholars against the "cleargy man" but not his
victory in the court.
Since then there seems to be a TABU on any theory claiming people
living in the north of Germany and Skandinavia being more
than "cavemen".
But to say "nobody cares/cared about Spanuth is simply not true.
Harald Henkel
Eric Stevens
>In article <ilh4jscglq1too54g...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> What's more he kept saying why and inviting you to prove him wrong.
>>
>> You never did.
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
>
>Didn't I tell you to keep away from me? didn't I make myself very
>clear? do you wish me to say more about you? well, you can have
>that.
I don't know what kind of world you live in when you think you can
enter this news group and poke them with sticks and then expect no
retaliation. I've put up with a great deal of abuse from you and
reserve the right to help other people when you similarly abuse them.
>
>When you were new in here, you were massively attacked by Alan
>M. Dunsmuir. Alan has an idea of science, he reads 'Nature'
>and other good scientific journals, ...
So too do I.
> ... however, he read only older
>archaeological books and articles and therefore spreaded too
>many classical prejudices in here, so I got in clinch with him
>several times, and finally he left this forum, perhaps because
>he realized that I was right: he has too limited an idea of
>present-day archaeology.
More likely he got sick of you.
>You must have been relieved when he
>left. Then you began writing more and more posts a day, and
>made clear what you believe: you are a follower of Juergen
>Spanuth.
Anyone (correction - 'almost anyone') who read my posts would know I
spent my time enquiring as to the reliability of Spanuth's sources.
The mere mention of his name seemed to send you into a foam-spitting
frenzy and you have never let up on me since. You repeatedly link me
with Pudor (of whom I had never heard until you mentioned him),
Hancock (who I had already rubbished) and many others. You keep making
accusations which you will not confirm, never admit an error and seem
to want to police the whole news group. Never mind ...
>This Juergen Spanuth served as a clergyman in the SS,
>and he wihitewashed Heinrich Pudor, a protege of Hermann Goering.
>Heinrich Pudor was the author of the thesis Helgoland = Atlantis,
>which he proposed in the book
>
> PEOPLES OF GOD'S OWN BREATH, HELGOLAND - ATLANTIS,
> MOTHERLAND OF RACIAL SELECT BREEDING AND COLONIZATION
>
>(my translation). Juergen Spanuth took it all from Heinrich
>Pudor whitout ever mentioning his source. That says enogh about
>Juergen Spanuth.
Spanuth quotes a wide range of sources, none of which are Pudor. Also,
you once made a slip. You let it be known that you know of an 18th or
19th century clergyman who had much the same idea as Spanuth - well
before either he or Pudor was born. I don't know who did the original
research or the extent to which Spanuth borrowed it from others. What
I did want to know was how reliable these various sources were but
thanks to your screaming interbention any hope of an intelligent
discussion was destroyed.
>You tried to make me believe that the so-called
>"Steingrund" on the sea-ground in front of Helgoland is Basilea,
>the sunken capital of Atlantis.
I suppose I could ask you for a quote of where I said that but, on the
basis of your past performance, I don't expect to get one. Don't you
realise that all of this current frenzy of writing has been provoked
by me (once again) pointing out that you have never backed up your
claims about Andy? You have never backed up your claims about me
either.
>First you told me that Juergen
>Spanuth discovered the "Steingrund",
See above ...
>.... then it was someone else.
>I asked you four questions about this "Steingrund": is there
>a recognizable pattern speaking for a sunken settlement? are
>there any manmade marks on the flint slabs? how can you exclude
>that they are the lost freight of a sunken "Prahm" (flat, very
>long and broad Roman freight ship)?
I answered those questions.
> ... how come that Heinrich Pudor,
>Hermann Goering and Juergen Spanuth discovered Atlantis and no
>one cares?
I don't know. Did they? Are you actually confirming that?
>You replied to my four questions in a sloppy manner,
>making clear that you can't answer them.
You didn't ask that last question of me. What's more, when I said I
didn't know I was telling you what I knew. Don't you remember? I even
told you of the underwater photograph taken by Spanuth the existence
of which you initially denied until you let slip that you alread knew
about it. You must remember that. I certainly do.
>And whenever I reminded
>you of my unanswered questions you called me a liar.
I do again, for the simple reason that the questions were answered.
It's merely that you didn't like the answers.
>Andy called
>me a liar over and over again,
As I said, he kept inviting you to show him to be wrong - and you
never did - you couldn't.
>.. you called me a liar over and over again.
See above ...
------ more abuse snipped -----
Eric Stevens
Hillier) wrote:
>>> As you IMO have libelled me I have handed all the headers over to my
>>lawyers
>>> who will no doubt be in contact with www.access.ch and yourself soon.
>
>HA!
>
>>even compared professor Zahi Hawass with Adolf H itler.
>
>I find it funny that people shoot down Dr. Hawass without even knowing
>him. For that matter, without knowing much about archaeology in
>Egypt, due process, govt procedures, SCA management priorities and
>more.
I hope that you don't believe that Andy "compared professor Zahi
Hawass with Adolf H itler" on the basis of Franz's ravings. As is
always the case with Franz in this mood, the truth is slightly
different.
>
>I can refute ANY conspiracy theory about Giza. Most of this nonsense
>revolves around that damn 'door'.
>
>>but I must keep quiet, and you try to mob me out of sci.archaeology
>>by means of your lawyers.
>
>If a lawyer contacts you, let me know.
>
>Slander against people is also a problem. Good thing Dr. Hawass has a
>good heart and doesn't seek suit on all the farts that slander him.
>
>
>Amargi Hillier
>
>
>
>Photographer,
>Digital Egypt Archives
>http://www.digitalegypt.net
Eric Stevens
Chris Camfield
>How about answering my old questions? how about arguing on the
>scientific level instead of the personal one?
What an ironic comment. What about arguing from the evidence, as
opposed to wild flights of fancy?
>What is wrong with my definitions of history, archaeology and
>paelontology?
Can you explain why anyone should use your definitions over those in,
say, a dictionary, let alone a textbook?
As to what's wrong with them - they're too loose.
Chris
cir...@access.ch
ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> What an ironic comment. What about arguing from the evidence,
> as opposed to wild flights of fancy?
You say it:arguing from the evidence. Evidence shows us that the
base of the Great Pyramid was laid out to an almost inbelievable
accuracy. So please answer my 2 years old question: how was the
base of the GP layed out without having a mathematical knowledge?
I proposed the only method that works, but it requires a mathe-
mathical knowledge, and this knowledge is denied against all
evidence by academe. Academe came up with the hateful term
PYRAMIDIOT. So I must say that there are 2 types of pyramidiots:
- those who say that building a pyramid was nothing much;
required no mathematical knowledge; we can't explain how
the base of the Great Pyramid was layed out to that really
amazing accuracy, but we are damn sure that the Egyptians
had no mathematical knowledge; before the Greeks, no one
was able of a theoretical insight; real civilersation
including real science, real geometry, real madermadics,
real astronomy, real philosophy, real historiography,
real medicinal science and so on was created virtually
ex nihilo by a handful of male Greeks, while the outer-
European peoples didn't contribute anything really note-
worthy, let alone women
- those who believe that the Egyptians were primitives,
unable of building their pyramids by themselves, or
without the plans and technological devices of aliens
and/or Atlanteans, and of coarse these aliens and/or
Atlanteans were male heroes: Osiris and Thoth, while
Seshat, who came long before Thoth and was called
THE ONE WHO WROTE FIRST is plain simply ignored
90 percent of the predynastic figurines and anthropomorphe
vessels are female, but the role of women in the formation
of Egypt is simply ignored, even by such a great Egyptologist
as Erik Hornung, who always thanked for my books and encouraged
me very kindly, however, when I dedicated the second part of my
book DIE CHEOPS-PYRAMIDE ALS IKONE DER SCHOEPFUNG (GP as the
icon of creation) to the female contributions, he was 'not amused'.
And almost all the many many female figurines of Old Europe are
buried in museum cellars. Marija Gimbutas is of course hardly
ever mentioned in here. These figurines are evidence for the
contributions of women to the rise of civilisation, and therefore
they are almost completely ignored. And Anatolia is ignored in
this forum of silly archaeology too.
All my work is based on evidence. Why did you sneak out of
the discussion regarding Perseus? if you find my fable nonsense,
just quote the most silliestly sentence and I will tell you my
sources and ideas. Why did you sneak away? And, besides, telling
a story, presenting a historical thesis in the form of a fable,
is an effective method of proposing and developing a historical
thesis - a method which I developed and share in here; however,
I don't write for classical narrwo-minders and kooks, I write
for the few people who have a serious interest in archaeology
and who may consider my work later on, say, in the year 2012.
> Can you explain why anyone should use your definitions over
> those in, say, a dictionary, let alone a textbook?
My defernitions of history, archaeology and paleontology cover
all aspects and all the new methods. If you know better definitions
let me know, quote them, participate in the discussion, don't sneak
away in the way of Lloyd Bogart. An example regarding paleontology:
a German paleontologist working in Africa develops a new method,
mini-helicopters flying over the landscape, emitting ultraviolet
flashes and filming all. Bones on the surface reflect the UV rays
and appear brightly on the film. All data are sent to the Uni-
versity of Frankfurt in Germany, were they are processed and
screened for the most promising sites. Now tell me: are only
those who dig paleontologists? what about those who process
the data and never move a shovel? The old definitions are
too narrow, so new ones are required. If you don't like mine,
tell me yours, but don't simply dismiss mine a priori, ex
cathedra, anyway and basta - in that highbrow and camel nose
way of so many edus.
> As to what's wrong with them - they're too loose.
>
> Chris
Tell me a better one. Tell me your definition and we can
discuss them.
Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
cir...@access.ch
am...@digitalegypt.net wrote:
> I find it funny that people shoot down Dr. Hawass without
> even knowing him. For that matter, without knowing much about
> archaeology in Egypt, due process, govt procedures, SCA management
> priorities and more.
>
> I can refute ANY conspiracy theory about Giza. Most of this
> nonsense revolves around that damn 'door'.
Thank you very much for your reasonable statement! A great relief
for me to read such lines once a while, and much too rarely.
Yes, the 'door'. Rudolf Gantenbrink discovered it in 1993, and
shortly after the leaders of the Sun Temple Order ordered all
their members on a journey to Giza. On the Giza plateau they
spoke about a near 'journey to Sirius'. Back in Switzerland and
Canada, they murdrered over 50 people, including children and
a baby, and themselves. Other massacres followed, over 80 people
died in Switzerland, Canada and France. Some 700 members of that
order survived, and there was a real danger that an eventual leader
might plan another 'journey to Sirius' in the so-called millenium
night. Professor Hawass did the only right thing: inviting Michel
Jarre to give an concert on the Giza plateau, so that the doomsday
loons have no chance.
The mostt grotesque league is the one of Graham Hankook, Robert
Bauval and their many followers: they believe that the cataclysm
is near, a flood will be triggered by a self-reactivating device
hidden in the pyramid, whereupon 6 billion people shall be swept
away and drowned, only the Atlanteans will survive and found
a new and much better humanity. That mysterious device mentioned
in an appendix of KOG (Keeper of Genesis) is hidden somewhere
in the Great Pyramid, probably in the 'Gantenbrink chamber'.
So the hankookers should be very glad about professor Zahi
Hawass who decided to wait with opening the eventual cavity,
as there is no really working non-invasive method at hand,
for the time being. The Atlantean plan of destroying the old
world and founding a new and better humanity requires that
the Great Pyramid is left untouched, but the same loons who
believe in that plan are the ones who cry the loudest for
opening the 'chamber' ...
> If a lawyer contacts you, let me know.
Thank you very much for your help.
> Slander against people is also a problem. Good thing Dr. Hawass
> has a good heart and doesn't seek suit on all the farts that
> slander him.
>
> Amargi Hillier
>
> Photographer,
> Digital Egypt Archives
> http://www.digitalegypt.net
Yes, and he seems to have humour too. I once saw him on television,
speaking with Rainer Stadelmann, Mark Lehner and probably Guenter
Dreyer. Professor Hawass said that we know much, and there is
so much more we don't yet know. He said it in such a amiable way
that I could feel the 7,000 yers of Egyptian civilisation behind
his words. I was really pleased. He is a reasonable, sensible man,
he does a very good work, and I can only encourage him to go on
in his way and not falling on the knees in front of the hankookers
who would tear all the pyramids down in search of Atlantean evidence
and when all and everything is destroyed and nothing came to light
they would just say oops, not even sorry, and leave Giza and go to
Angkor Wat and plead for the destruction of those temples in search
of the Atlanteans again ... A never ending story, sad and silly.
Regards Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
Jiri Mruzek
Very well spoken. I propose that there are ALL kinds of
pyramidiots around.
> - those who believe that the Egyptians were primitives,
That group is getting ever smaller. I believe that your
objection is often misused to describe people, who believe
that Egyptians were above all human.. The Great Pyramid is
a great task one way or another, requiring extraordinary
efforts. Did sophisticated humans do the job by primitive
means, tools, and unprecedented amount of labor? Or did
sophisticated humans do the job by sophisticated methods?
IMO, knowledge implies 'gizmos', and application. There is
no 'idle knowledge'. In turn, gizmos invite improvement,
resulting in more knowledge. Why should not the early
generations of Cromagnons progress rapidly, somewhere?
Maybe as many as four-thousand Cromagnon generations have
preceded ours. Science has never come to grips with findings
from the Magdalenian site of La Marche, France. The imagery
of La Marche broke all the conventions. It shows humans, and
portrays faces, many cleanly shaven males, smart moustaches,
and trimmed beards. One image, shows a young woman, in a smart
hat, jacket with pockets, pants, and apparently boots (soled,
and heeled). Throw in the art these people had made, and you
get a sizable paradox - too much knowledge, and technology.
I happen to connect these Magdalenians with the mysterious
'lost science' of a forgotten civilisation, as you already
know. It seems to me a thread of science is trailing from
La Marche to the pyramids. Is it not my duty to follow it?
Whether or not that makes me a pyramidiot?
> unable of building their pyramids by themselves, or
> without the plans and technological devices of aliens
> and/or Atlanteans, and of coarse these aliens and/or
> Atlanteans were male heroes: Osiris and Thoth, while
> Seshat, who came long before Thoth and was called
> THE ONE WHO WROTE FIRST is plain simply ignored
Science fiction! People prefer playing, to doing science.
The pyramids and Atlantis are a big draw. Being a high
priest in Atlantis must have been a common profession,
judging by the large numbers of people claiming Atlantean
priesthood in previous incarnations:)
> 90 percent of the predynastic figurines and anthropomorphe
> vessels are female, but the role of women in the formation
> of Egypt is simply ignored, even by such a great Egyptologist
> as Erik Hornung, who always thanked for my books and encouraged
> me very kindly, however, when I dedicated the second part of my
> book DIE CHEOPS-PYRAMIDE ALS IKONE DER SCHOEPFUNG (GP as the
> icon of creation) to the female contributions, he was 'not amused'.
> And almost all the many many female figurines of Old Europe are
> buried in museum cellars. Marija Gimbutas is of course hardly
> ever mentioned in here. These figurines are evidence for the
> contributions of women to the rise of civilisation, and therefore
> they are almost completely ignored.
What is our concept of Matriarchate?
> And Anatolia is ignored in
> this forum of silly archaeology too.
Silly foolum of archaeology, yes - forum of silly
archaeology, no, that's way too strong.
Jiri Mruzek
Martin Stower
> Science fiction! People prefer playing, to doing science.
> The pyramids and Atlantis are a big draw. Being a high
> priest in Atlantis must have been a common profession,
> judging by the large numbers of people claiming Atlantean
> priesthood in previous incarnations:)
Judging by the reincarnates, the Atlantean priesthood was a
care-in-the-community scheme for Atlantean wackos.
Martin Stower
Andy
> The mostt grotesque league is the one of Graham Hankook, Robert
> Bauval and their many followers: they believe that the cataclysm
> is near, a flood will be triggered by a self-reactivating device
> hidden in the pyramid, whereupon 6 billion people shall be swept
> away and drowned, only the Atlanteans will survive and found
> a new and much better humanity. That mysterious device mentioned
> in an appendix of KOG (Keeper of Genesis) is hidden somewhere
> in the Great Pyramid, probably in the 'Gantenbrink chamber'.
How many times?!? Do you EVER read replies Franz? Or is this just another
copy 'n' paste job?
Chris Camfield
>In article <39345ae0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
> ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
>
>> What an ironic comment. What about arguing from the evidence,
>> as opposed to wild flights of fancy?
>
>You say it:arguing from the evidence. Evidence shows us that the
>base of the Great Pyramid was laid out to an almost inbelievable
>accuracy. So please answer my 2 years old question: how was the
>base of the GP layed out without having a mathematical knowledge?
I don't know. I'm not an expert on the pyramids. That doesn't mean
you're necessarily right...
[blah blah blah]
>And almost all the many many female figurines of Old Europe are
>buried in museum cellars. Marija Gimbutas is of course hardly
>ever mentioned in here. These figurines are evidence for the
>contributions of women to the rise of civilisation, and therefore
>they are almost completely ignored.
Huh? As opposed to being symbols of religious worship?
Gimbutas, I understand, is not exactly held in high esteem any more,
primarily for going too far out on a limb.
>All my work is based on evidence. Why did you sneak out of
>the discussion regarding Perseus?
I didn't sneak out. I got bored. As far as I can figure out from
DejaNews, I posted something on May 15th, you posted a reply to
Neville on the same day in which you said you would reply to me
'tomorrow', and then there was nothing for more than a week (till the
25th). So I stopped looking for posts.
> if you find my fable nonsense,
>just quote the most silliestly sentence and I will tell you my
>sources and ideas. Why did you sneak away? And, besides, telling
>a story, presenting a historical thesis in the form of a fable,
>is an effective method of proposing and developing a historical
>thesis
Sez you. I think it makes whatever points you are trying to make
rather unclear. In other words, INeffective.
Having reviewed the discussion via dejanews, you seem to have theories
about the rest of Greek mythology that I consider equally implausible
to your interpretation of Homer.
Mythology and interpretation of mythology have been used in the past
to attempt to reconstruct what archaeology cannot. While mythology
has lead to important discoveries (e.g. Troy), arguing for historical
details based on mythology alone is highly problematic and the results
can only be considered tentative without corroborating evidence.
For instance, I was reading Nilsson's old book _The Mycenean Origin of
Greek Mythology_ on my trip, and some of the book was simply made out
of date by the discovery and interpretation of the Linear B tablets.
So the book made for sometimes ridiculous reading.
As to what I consider implausible, for instance: the idea that the
myth of Perseus and Andromeda stores the record of an invasion of
anything.
"The kernel of his myth is the slaying of the monster Gorgo, and is
perhaps the best instance of a folk-tale received into Greek heroic
Greek... The myth of Perseus is unusually crowded with folk-tale
motifs" (Nilsson, 40)
That is something which is neither irrelevant nor out-of-date.
Perseus' gifts from the gods, the monster to slay, the maiden to
rescue, are all folk tale motifs. And folk tales are told for
amusement purposes. So the idea that there is a valuable historical
kernel here is unlikely.
"Edu" or not, here's the way you appear to me: you're either unaware
of previous work done on the subjects you're posting about (Nilsson's
book was written in the 1930s, and he refers to a book written in the
1890s about Perseus!), or you're going so fast that you can't be
bothered to explain what's wrong with those theories. Consequently,
you look foolish.
>> Can you explain why anyone should use your definitions over
>> those in, say, a dictionary, let alone a textbook?
>
>My defernitions of history, archaeology and paleontology cover
>all aspects and all the new methods. If you know better definitions
>let me know, quote them, participate in the discussion, don't sneak
>away in the way of Lloyd Bogart.
Ah, you've made an assertion, and if no one contradicts you, we HAVE
to follow your lead?
You're making an assertion. You back it up. Which definitions of
these terms aren't sufficient and in what ways?
>An example regarding paleontology:
>a German paleontologist working in Africa develops a new method,
>mini-helicopters flying over the landscape, emitting ultraviolet
>flashes and filming all. Bones on the surface reflect the UV rays
>and appear brightly on the film. All data are sent to the Uni-
>versity of Frankfurt in Germany, were they are processed and
>screened for the most promising sites. Now tell me: are only
>those who dig paleontologists? what about those who process
>the data and never move a shovel?
A form of surveying, in other words. Surveying is an accepted part of
archaeology, and I presume, from this example, paleontology. So what?
Chris
Amargi Hillier
>shortly after the leaders of the Sun Temple Order ordered all
>their members on a journey to Giza.
If this was a real secret order, then they would know what is behind
the door without anybody discovering the door first.
>order survived, and there was a real danger that an eventual leader
>might plan another 'journey to Sirius' in the so-called millenium
>night. Professor Hawass did the only right thing: inviting Michel
>Jarre to give an concert on the Giza plateau, so that the doomsday
>loons have no chance.
Oh god... what a joke. The millennium event was a party... aka a show
aka a cultural event organized by many promoters. Its not even the
real millennium, which starts in 2001. You are trying to convince
me that a massive million dollar performance was set in place to stop
some loons on the plateau? Give me three men and I can keep anyone
out of the pyramid.... don't need to wave lights and blast music half
way across the plateau.
Shows and events are going on all the time on the plateau. Many of
them right at the paws of the Sphinx. But these realities don't reach
across the world. The "millennium show" gets all the press and
chatter by the alternative buffs. But the Arabic shows and local
Egyptian festivals at the Sphinx are unknown. Put a foreign show
there at the Sphinx, and all the alternative authors link it to some
stellar symbology or something.
Put the words "millennium", "capstone", "Egypt", and "Giza" together
and the alternative theorists fly off to cloud nine with their
imaginations.
>world and founding a new and better humanity requires that
>the Great Pyramid is left untouched, but the same loons who
>believe in that plan are the ones who cry the loudest for
>opening the 'chamber' ...
The Great Pyramid is over-rated; just a famous monument which
everybody is obsessed about.
>he does a very good work, and I can only encourage him to go on
>in his way and not falling on the knees in front of the hankookers
>who would tear all the pyramids down in search of Atlantean evidence
Nobody really knows what Zahi Hawass does or takes care of here. The
publicity by the famed alternative authors and their demands to search
for this and that really takes over people's minds too much. In the
'outside world' the "door" and "hall of records" are large in people's
minds. Here its just another tenth thousand alternative theory added
to the heap; theories that change with the times (like pyramid power,
and startgates).
The 'atlantean' paradigm will fizzle out in time.
Amargi H.
cir...@access.ch
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
ignored my repeated advice to keep away from me
Andy and Philip Gould can't discern between a thesis and
a theory, they speak of a theory when they mean a thesis
(Andy: Orion theory, Philipg Gould: my theory of the pyramid
shafts), while you, Eric Stevens, can't discern between a reply
and an answer: you did _by no means_ answer my four questions
regarding the "Steingrund", you only replied, and in a sloppy
manner that made clear that you know nothing on those flint
slabs on the sea-ground in front of Helgoland, alleged Basilea,
sunken capital of Atlantis:
- you still can't tell me if there is a recognizable pattern
speaking for a settlement
- you still can't tell me if there are any manmade marks on
the slabs
- you still can't exclude that they are simply the lost freight
of a Roman "Prahm" (a Czechian word meaning a flat, very long
and braod Roman freight ship, as there are many found in
Germany)
- you still can't explain why Heinrich Pudor, Hermann G oering
and Juergen Spanuth discovered Atlantis and no one cares
Whenever I remember you of my unanswered questions you call me
a liar or worse. But you will never make your N azi phantasma
come true by offending me nor by eeling around the facts with
your sloppy remarks and quick lies. Nor will you ever make it
come true by sending a dozen messages a day to sci.archaeology.
I never said that you rely on Heinrich Pudor. What I said and
what I go on saying is that Juergen Spanuth took it all from
Heinrich Pudor and concealed his source. You asked if Juergen
Spanuth was a scholar, and so I told you that he was no scholar:
he served as a clergyman in the SS, his books are brimfull of
poppycock, and he concealed his main source, namely Heinrich
Pudor, protege of Hermann G oering and author of the thesis
Atlantis = Helgoland, which he proposed in the book
PEOPLES OF GOD'S OWN BREATH, HELGOLAND - ATLANTIS,
MOTHERLAND OF RACIAL SELECT BREEDING AND COLONIZATION
(my translation). You don't like these facts, and so you must
offend me. You can't answer my four questions regarding the
"Steingrund", and so you must call me a liar. You still can't
tell me one single discovery or valid idea by Juergen Spanuth,
and so you must call me names. You have nothing to say, and
so you must send a dozen posts a day to sci.archaeology,
trying to score by the number of messages, as if saying:
I believe in Juergen Spanuth, whoever he was, wherever
he took his ideas from, and I will keep his memory alive.
I can't answer the questions on the "Steingrund" but I can
always call Franz a liar and entangle him in a never ending
quarrel on the personal level, thus avoiding a scientific
discussion. I have a poor idea of modern archaeology, but
I score by the number of daily posts. It must be a dozen
messages every day. Eric Stevens, Eric Stevens, Eric Stevens,
Eric Stevens, Eric Stevens, Eric Stevens, Eric Stevens, Eric
Stevens, Eric Stevens, Eric Stevens, Eric Stevens, Eric Stevens
- my name multiplies and multiplies and multiplies. I am the
most prominent member of sci.archaeology, and so my opinion
has a weight, although I have nothing to say. I am for a free
and open, unmoderated forum, but now I think I support Philip
Gould who tries to moderate sci.archaeology via his lawyers.
Clever idea. Must ask Philip, if his lawyers can also turn
Juergen Spanuth into a scholar and the "Steingrund" into
Basilea, sunken capital of Atlantis ... How many messages
did I send this morning? already a dozen? or perhaps only
ten? it m u s t be a dozen posts every day. A tiresome
job when you have nothing to say, but I make it simple
most of the time, a sloppy remark here a quick lie there ...
You better stop replying to me. You better stop abusing my articles
for your quickies. You better keep away from me for good.
cir...@access.ch
ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2000 08:00:06 GMT, cir...@access.ch wrote:
>
> I don't know. I'm not an expert on the pyramids. That doesn't
> mean you're necessarily right...
But I have a thesis. My method works. And I have quite some
experience with survey, for I jobbed 3 years measuring out sport
fields, had to be very exact. I know what it means to measure
out a large rectangular figure outdoors, not just only on paper.
How come that I can't publoish my method while every nonsense
and prejudice can be published? may it be that academe does
not live up to its ideals, and does not even try?
> [blah blah blah]
> Huh? As opposed to being symbols of religious worship?
The symbols of religious worship tell a lot on the respective
society. When the supreme deity is a male warrior god this
says a lot on the tribe or people that worships this god.
> Gimbutas, I understand, is not exactly held in high esteem
> any more, primarily for going too far out on a limb.
She has great merits in publishing the many figurines of Old
Europe and in trying to explain the symbols and protowritings.
I esteem her highly, and when you are working in the sciences,
you are always in danger to go astray in one way or another.
Going astray is not a shame, on the contrary, everyone who
goes astray tells his or her successors that this way leads
to nowhere, so please try another one. Marija Gimbutas may
have erred in one way or another, but the body of her work
is great and wonderful. During the 2 years I publish in
sci.archaeology I saw about a dozen posts with her name
yet 20,000 posts with the name of Graham Hankook. Ain't
this grotesque?
> >All my work is based on evidence. Why did you sneak out of
> >the discussion regarding Perseus?
>
> I didn't sneak out. I got bored. As far as I can figure out from
> DejaNews, I posted something on May 15th, you posted a reply to
> Neville on the same day in which you said you would reply to me
> 'tomorrow', and then there was nothing for more than a week (till
> the 25th). So I stopped looking for posts.
Sometimes I need a little time to write a message. Nevertheless,
you could read again my fable of Perseus and qwuote the most silly
sentence, then I will tell you my sources and ideas. Or you can
tell me your idea and definition of archaeology. Here are mine
again. I don't say that you have to use my defernitions, I only
say that I use them for myself:
task of history: drawing or painting a reliable panorama
the human past, based mainly on writings
task of archaeology: drawing or painting a reliable panorama
of the human past, based mainly on artifacts
task of paleontology: drawing or painting a reliable panorama
of the human and prehuman past, based mainly on organic remains
If my definitions are too loose, what do they cover that has
no place in archaeology? Why don't you simply tell me your
definitions, or quote your favourite definition from a textbook?
Funny, this forum of scientific archaeology has allegedly 23,000
members (what I can't believe, but still), and no one can tell
me a definition of archaeology.
> > if you find my fable nonsense,
> >just quote the most silliestly sentence and I will tell you my
> >sources and ideas. Why did you sneak away? And, besides, telling
> >a story, presenting a historical thesis in the form of a fable,
> >is an effective method of proposing and developing a historical
> >thesis
>
> Sez you. I think it makes whatever points you are trying to make
> rather unclear. In other words, INeffective.
No, telling a story is an effective way of proposing and evolving
a historical thesis. In my fable of Perseus I combine the Greek
myths (oldest layers of those myths) both with geography and
modern archaeology, for example the 11,500 years old megalithic
temple at Goebekli Tepe on the upper course of the river Euphratus
in northeastern Anatolia (excavation Klaus Schmidt, financed by
the German Archaeoligal Institute Istanbul) tells me that Atlas
must have lived in this region, the more so as Prometheus was
chained to the Caucasus. Perseus used a sikley sword (Sichel-
schwert), hence a round sword, as they are still used in that
region. And so on. My fable allows me to get an idea of it all,
I use it as a working thesis (not as the truth!), and I still
got further considerably. However, I will need about a year
till I cvan publish a new and better version. If you find my
fable nonsense, just quote the most silly sentence and I will
tell you my sources and ideas. That one-single-point method
ois very effective too, I use it in many ways. You can use
it too, also against me. You can always challenge me on the
level of a scientific discussion.
> Having reviewed the discussion via dejanews, you seem to have
> theories about the rest of Greek mythology that I consider equally
> implausible to your interpretation of Homer.
Pick out the most silliestly nonsense and we can speak about it.
A general statement as the one above is just an a priori, sounds
dame close to the old saying Roma locuta causa finita.
> Mythology and interpretation of mythology have been used in the
> past to attempt to reconstruct what archaeology cannot. While
> mythology has lead to important discoveries (e.g. Troy), arguing
> for historical details based on mythology alone is highly
> problematic and the results can only be considered tentative
> without corroborating evidence.
No, not based on mythology alone, I explicitely base my work
on new archaeological evidence, for example the excavations
in the Troas (Manfred Korfmann and his international teams)
and in Anatolia (Klaus Schmidt et al) and in Egypt of course.
> For instance, I was reading Nilsson's old book _The Mycenean Origin
> of Greek Mythology_ on my trip, and some of the book was simply made
> out of date by the discovery and interpretation of the Linear B
> tablets. So the book made for sometimes ridiculous reading.
We are always in danger to go astray. On the other hand we know
much more nowadays, for example Walther Hinz succeeded in trans-
lating Linear A tablet no 95 from Hagia Triada (see my series
of messages in the thread my corner, around 80-85).
> As to what I consider implausible, for instance: the idea that the
> myth of Perseus and Andromeda stores the record of an invasion of
> anything.
I have to send my reply now. Will answer this question regarding
Perseus tomorrow.
cir...@access.ch
ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote: ...
Had to send my first reply hastily, without correcting my typos,
for my time was over. Now I spent another 8 francs, and so I can
go on for another hour:
> As to what I consider implausible, for instance: the idea that the
> myth of Perseus and Andromeda stores the record of an invasion of
> anything.
Not really an invasion, but a migration with several conflicts.
The Indo-Europeans did not invade Greece, for example, they simply
took it over by and by. Where did those Indo-Europeans come from?
From the steppes of Eurasia? or probably from the Iranian highland,
my new and until now only half-baked thesis? Assume that there
lived a matriarchal society on the shores of the Aral Sea, Caspian
Sea and Black Sea, and a patriarchal tribe on the Iranian highland
forced to leave the mountains out of one or another reason and
settled on the shores of the 3 seas. The conflict of Perseus with
Gorgo might well have been a conflict between that patriarchal tribe
and a former matriarchal tribe living on the shore of the Aral Sea.
Archaeological evidence from the Ucraine and Crimea shows a curious
mixture of a ruling female goddess and patriarchal rites. Most of
the ancient authors derived the name Perseus from "pertho", so
Perseus = destroyer, and may mean that this hypothetical tribe from
the Iranien highland could have destroyed a matriarchal settlement
on the shore of the Aral Sea - there is a village Gorgan and a river
Gorgan on the southeastern shore of the Aral Sea ... A few ancient
authors related the name Perseus to Persephone, wife of Hades -
again two pieces of the puzzle falling into place. Really, telling
a story is a great way to make oneself a picture of the past,
allowing to go further. But of course I am always in danger to go
astray. So challenge me and pick out the most stupid sentence in
your opinion, then we can discuss that single point.
> "The kernel of his myth is the slaying of the monster Gorgo, and is
> perhaps the best instance of a folk-tale received into Greek heroic
> Greek... The myth of Perseus is unusually crowded with folk-tale
> motifs" (Nilsson, 40)
I just replied to this above.
> That is something which is neither irrelevant nor out-of-date.
> Perseus' gifts from the gods, the monster to slay, the maiden to
> rescue, are all folk tale motifs. And folk tales are told for
> amusement purposes. So the idea that there is a valuable historical
> kernel here is unlikely.
Folk tales rooting in the human past, I believe.
> "Edu" or not, here's the way you appear to me: you're either
> unaware of previous work done on the subjects you're posting about
> (Nilsson's book was written in the 1930s, and he refers to a book
> written in the 1890s about Perseus!), or you're going so fast that
> you can't be bothered to explain what's wrong with those theories.
> Consequently, you look foolish.
The self-regulating mechanism of this forum goes like this: when
people tell nonsense in here, others can show up and refute the
nonsense. However, it is difficult if not impossible to cope
with a whole wagonload of nonsense, and therefore you may use
my one-single-point method: if my fable is nonsense, it will
contain several or at least one silly sentence. Pick this one
out, and we can discuss it. No, I don't know the work you mention,
but you can use it for arguments against me.
> Ah, you've made an assertion, and if no one contradicts you,
> we HAVE to follow your lead?
You don't have to use my defernitions, you can use your own,
but please t e l l me your idea of archaeology. Lloyd Bogart
complained that some of my posts have nothing to do with archaeo-
logy, and so I took my time to formulate my idea of archaeology.
What is wrong with my defernitions? If they are too loose, as you
say, then please tell me what they embrace what does not belong
in archaeology. Or simply tell me your prefered definition of
archaeology. Discussing without ever telling something makes
most of the posts in sci.archaeology so very dry and this forum
so unappealing.
> You're making an assertion. You back it up. Which definitions of
> these terms aren't sufficient and in what ways?
I discussed this at the utmost length with Marc Line. He finally
agreed on my defernitions, only that he would have liked the term
panorama exchanged for the term panoply. However, panoply means
the parade of the Greek warriors in their full armour, and it ain't
my wish to revive my schooldays when history meant battles and dates,
battles and dates, battles and dates. I prefer the term panorama.
> A form of surveying, in other words. Surveying is an accepted part of
> archaeology, and I presume, from this example, paleontology. So what?
>
> Chris
If processing data - doing informatics - belongs to paleontology,
why do mathematical examinations - a non-invasive method par
excellence - should have no place in archaeology? No one could
ever tell me a valid definition of archaeology that would exclude
mathematical examinations, say, of the Egyptian pyramids. And yet
Sir Galahad and Lady Barsch of sci.archaeology.moderated told me
that mathematical examinations have no place in archaeology, and
that all other moderators agree. Doug Weller is a moderator of
sci.a.m., and so he must share their opinion, but neither they
nor he ever answered my question, nor did they ever try. Roma
locuta, causa finita. And no one tells me a valid definition of
archaeology, fearing that with my intelligence I could easily
demonstrate that every good definition of archaeology would allow
mathematical examinations. The cardinals of the Unholy Chruch of
Rome did not look through the telescope of Galileo Galilei, and
the bishops and cardinals of the humanities will never consider
any evidence regarding Egyptian mathematics - all those who
seriously work on Egyptian mathematics make the same silly
and sad experiences and could tell you stories all day long.
Aristotle in metaphysics, book 1, chapter 1:
peri Aigypton hai mathaematikai proton technai synestaesan
Tell this to professor John Horton Conway, holder of the Von
Neumann Chair at Princeton, a leader of the anti-evolution
league in the rise of civilization, and he and his kamarilla
will tell you that Aristotle had no idea what he was writing
about. So the self-appointed philhellens are obliged to
moronize their own heroes in order to hold up their phantasma
or dogma of the Greek origin of civilersation, and this against
all evidence. Finally, even the pope accepted the idea of
evolution in biology. How long will academe need for befriending
with the idea of evolution in the rise of civilization?
Chris Camfield
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 07:57:45 GMT, cir...@access.ch wrote:
>In article <3935e24f...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
> ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2000 08:00:06 GMT, cir...@access.ch wrote:
>>
>> >In article <39345ae0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
>> > ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
>
>
>> I don't know. I'm not an expert on the pyramids. That doesn't
>> mean you're necessarily right...
>
>But I have a thesis. My method works. And I have quite some
>experience with survey, for I jobbed 3 years measuring out sport
>fields, had to be very exact. I know what it means to measure
>out a large rectangular figure outdoors, not just only on paper.
>How come that I can't publoish my method while every nonsense
>and prejudice can be published? may it be that academe does
>not live up to its ideals, and does not even try?
*rolls eyes* Keep grinding that axe...
If you can't publish because of lack of credentials, have you tried
interesting a co-author?
[Gimbutas-related-stuff snipped]
>> >All my work is based on evidence. Why did you sneak out of
>> >the discussion regarding Perseus?
>>
>> I didn't sneak out. I got bored. As far as I can figure out from
>> DejaNews, I posted something on May 15th, you posted a reply to
>> Neville on the same day in which you said you would reply to me
>> 'tomorrow', and then there was nothing for more than a week (till
>> the 25th). So I stopped looking for posts.
>
>Sometimes I need a little time to write a message. Nevertheless,
>you could read again my fable of Perseus and qwuote the most silly
>sentence, then I will tell you my sources and ideas.
It's not the individual sentences that are the problem. It's the
methodology.
> Or you can
>tell me your idea and definition of archaeology.
Go to dictionary.com and look up the definitions. Those seemed to
work for me.
>If my definitions are too loose, what do they cover that has
>no place in archaeology?
Mythological fables?
Why don't you simply tell me your
>definitions, or quote your favourite definition from a textbook?
>Funny, this forum of scientific archaeology has allegedly 23,000
>members (what I can't believe, but still), and no one can tell
>me a definition of archaeology.
No one can be BOTHERED to. If you want an answer, DO THE WORK
YOURSELF.
>> > if you find my fable nonsense,
>> >just quote the most silliestly sentence and I will tell you my
>> >sources and ideas. Why did you sneak away? And, besides, telling
>> >a story, presenting a historical thesis in the form of a fable,
>> >is an effective method of proposing and developing a historical
>> >thesis
>>
>> Sez you. I think it makes whatever points you are trying to make
>> rather unclear. In other words, INeffective.
>
>No, telling a story is an effective way of proposing and evolving
>a historical thesis.
Hello? Anyone in there?
If someone doesn't understand what you're conveying in a story, then
you are failing to communicate. That makes it ineffective.
In my fable of Perseus I combine the Greek
>myths (oldest layers of those myths) both with geography and
>modern archaeology, for example the 11,500 years old megalithic
>temple at Goebekli Tepe on the upper course of the river Euphratus
>in northeastern Anatolia (excavation Klaus Schmidt, financed by
>the German Archaeoligal Institute Istanbul) tells me that Atlas
>must have lived in this region,
What's the evidence to support the idea that the Titans existed as
people? Euhemerism?
>> Mythology and interpretation of mythology have been used in the
>> past to attempt to reconstruct what archaeology cannot. While
>> mythology has lead to important discoveries (e.g. Troy), arguing
>> for historical details based on mythology alone is highly
>> problematic and the results can only be considered tentative
>> without corroborating evidence.
>
>No, not based on mythology alone, I explicitely base my work
>on new archaeological evidence
Then you have to refer to it.
[snip]
>> As to what I consider implausible, for instance: the idea that the
>> myth of Perseus and Andromeda stores the record of an invasion of
>> anything.
>
>I have to send my reply now. Will answer this question regarding
>Perseus tomorrow.
I'll look forward to that.
CC
JJS
Why don't you put Eric Stevens in your kill flie? That
would solve your problem by making sure he stays
away from you?
Joe
Eric Stevens
>In article <q7a8jsc6f0up09r2e...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
>ignored my repeated advice to keep away from me
>
>
>Andy and Philip Gould can't discern between a thesis and
>a theory, they speak of a theory when they mean a thesis
>(Andy: Orion theory, Philipg Gould: my theory of the pyramid
>shafts), while you, Eric Stevens, can't discern between a reply
>and an answer: you did _by no means_ answer my four questions
>regarding the "Steingrund", you only replied, and in a sloppy
>manner that made clear that you know nothing on those flint
>slabs on the sea-ground in front of Helgoland, alleged Basilea,
>sunken capital of Atlantis:
>
>- you still can't tell me if there is a recognizable pattern
> speaking for a settlement
>
>- you still can't tell me if there are any manmade marks on
> the slabs
All I have is a book with one photograph. You eventually acknowledged
that you have seen the same photograph in a German edition of
Spanuth's book so I know that you know exactly how much I know about
it. You will remember that this business of the four questions started
when I asked about these stones and the 'steingrund' in general in
this news group so you will know I was not making claims but
attempting to weigh up Spanuth's.
>
>- you still can't exclude that they are simply the lost freight
> of a Roman "Prahm" (a Czechian word meaning a flat, very long
> and braod Roman freight ship, as there are many found in
> Germany)
Of course I can't. It could have been lost freight from anything but,
if Spanuth was correct in his attributions, then, and I quote in full:
In the year 1943, the prehistorian Peter Wiepert, honorary
member of Kiel University and holder of the rarely awarded Kiel
University Medal, together with divers belonging to the then German
Navy, discovered on the Steingrund 'the remains of a Germanic royal
fortress', and sent me a detailed report on it.
In the course of five subsequent diving expeditions that have
been made on the Steingrund since 1953, under the author's
direction, remains of' settlement have also been discovered. These
include the outlines of walls, hewn stones, and flat pieces of
flint. The latter, according to investigations made by
archaeologists, mineralogists and geologists, are of human
workmanship. The divers report that they'had been knocked out of
place', and lay with the smooth side up and the rough side down,
flat on the Steingrund. Mineralogical tests (Professor H. Rose,
test report, 10 july.1953) have shown that these flints come from a
quarry on a hill near Alborg, which was in use in the Neolithic
period but went out of operation at the end of the Bronze Age. The
Danish archaeologist johannes Brbndsted wrote of these flint mines:
'In this hill were discovered five deep shafts, with galleries and
floors where the flint was worked. They provide conclusive
evidence that there was a flint-mining industry in this area, a
centre of trade and export' in the copper-dagger period (according
to Br6ndsted about 1800-1500 BC) (1 960, v. 1, p. 334).
... it follows that the flints were some 1500 years old at the time of
the Romans and it does seem unlikely that they should be shipping such
ancient stones around, unless of course they had found them elsewhere
and were using them for ballast. But then, the photograph shows no
sign of the remains of a Roman ship structure.
>
>- you still can't explain why Heinrich Pudor, Hermann G oering
> and Juergen Spanuth discovered Atlantis and no one cares
Quite right, but that question is not relevant to anything much.
>
>Whenever I remember you of my unanswered questions you call me
>a liar or worse.
But you are a gross and deliberate distorter of what people say and
that in my mind makes you a liar. See below.
>But you will never make your N azi phantasma
>come true by offending me nor by eeling around the facts with
>your sloppy remarks and quick lies. Nor will you ever make it
>come true by sending a dozen messages a day to sci.archaeology.
>
>I never said that you rely on Heinrich Pudor. What I said and
>what I go on saying is that Juergen Spanuth took it all from
>Heinrich Pudor and concealed his source. You asked if Juergen
>Spanuth was a scholar, and so I told you that he was no scholar:
I actually asked about his scholarship. My very first post posed three
questions about the Medinet Habu inscriptions, each question
commencing with "Is Spanuth correct ... ?"
>he served as a clergyman in the SS, his books are brimfull of
>poppycock, and he concealed his main source, namely Heinrich
>Pudor, protege of Hermann G oering and author of the thesis
>Atlantis = Helgoland, which he proposed in the book
And on 24 Mar 1999 you wrote in response to 'Robert':
No, I won't read Juergen Spanuth's Atlantis book. Authors like
Heinrich Pudor (an admirer of Hitler), Herman Wirth (a protege of
Himmler), Juergen Spanuth and Graham Hancock rob the ancient ones
of their achievements and attainements. PudorWirthSpanuthHancock
will never get any support from me.
Subsequently anyone, who like me dared to ask about Spanuth was
subject to the poisonous diatribe with which we are no so familiar.
--------- snip -----------
I am now resigned to your invective and I certainly try to stay away
from you. The only times where I come in is in defence of people such
as Andy when you subject them to the same treatment. I don't agree
with Andy on a number of points but I will attempt protect him, or any
one else for that matter, from the insane attacks which you repeatedly
launch on him. There are always new people in any news group and they
need to be warned not to believe you.
cir...@access.ch
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
finally promised to stay away from me.
cir...@access.ch
ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> *rolls eyes* Keep grinding that axe...
>
> If you can't publish because of lack of credentials, have you
> tried interesting a co-author?
Yesterday I saw an interview with the director of the German
Library at Frankfurt am Main (on the French/German TV channel
"arte"). He said what I say since a long time: the amount of
scientific publications is exploding, the human knowledge
doubles every couple of years, the scientific journals
can't cope anymore with the flood of articles, and the only
way to go on are electronical publications in the web. I for
one publish in the archive of Deja, hoping that they will go
on with their fine work (I guess that some people of this
company have a feeling of despair when they must archive so
much spam, on the other hand, there are also a lot of new
ideas published in the Usenet, and the Martians of the year
7129 may be happy to rediscover the archives of Deja ...)
My Egyptian method for the systematic calculation of the circle,
which I rediscovered in February 1994, was proved by Dr. Christoph
Poeppe and published in the May 1997 issue of Spektrum der Wissen-
schaft (German edition of the Scientific American) and also by
Joerg Arndt and Christoph Haenel in their pi-book (Springer
Verlag 2000). But most of my work from 26 years I can't publish,
so I photocopy my books and give them to some libraries and
friends and professors, who keep them for me. For the time being,
Switzerland, Germany too, probably the whole of continental Europe,
is caught in a phase of magical thinking: people believe that we
are the number 1 of the world again, and they prove this by means
of statistical tricks, ignoring that America is innovative while
Europe is more and more bureaucratic - the forms count, what you
have to say is not important. I hope very much that some people
will wake up from their megalomanic dream and realize that we
have to help the young innovative people here in Europe instead
of making big words and the young people leave Europe for America.
I say all this in more details in my Kafkasia-series (my corner)..
> It's not the individual sentences that are the problem.
> It's the methodology.
You mean telling a story? That's a new method of mine, which won
me a prize of the University of Zurich (dies academicus 1994).
Arranging the well-known facts, the clear and vague ideas along
the arrow of time, hence telling a story, and filling the gaps
by means of your intuition, is a fine way of proposing and
developing a historical thesis - at least in my experience.
New physiological experiments confirm that the brain works
more easily along the path of time than if you go backwards.
We also know that the scenic memory has a much higher capacity
than the lexical memory. And so on. I say to myself: the myths
arn't simply a funny invention, they tell us much about history,
and so I may look out for a historical core. It seems to me
that the collective mind processes the historical events in
a similar way as an individual person dreams. My thesis: if we
try to understand the myths as collective dreams we may learn
more about the human past. And by telling stories myself I
explore the possibilities of story-telling, which is an
effective way to combine a lot of facts within a few lines.
Also my fable of Perseus combines a lot of facts. You will
see that only if you discuss one single sentence with me.
So I can only ask you again: quote one single sentence of
my fable, and I can tell you more. Another big advantage
of story-telling: the form of a story works as an overall
conjunctive, you can let go dry formulations such as: let
me assume that, we may eventually consider a possibility
that, etc pp. You also can make jokes. Furthermore, I plead
for a cooperation of the informatitions with the literary
faculties: the computer cracks should learn how many levels
a story can have, this will lead informatics further, will
help to store the ever increasing amount of dates in a
reasonable manner (more about this in my article SINN UND
AUFGABE DER GEISTESWISSENSCHAFTEN, published in the thread
'my corner').
> Go to dictionary.com and look up the definitions.
> Those seemed to work for me.
Tell me one yourself. You should be able to reproduce a good
definition by yourself, in your own words. Or then quote one
you found on that web-page.
> Mythological fables?
Only if you tell fables yourself, you are able to understand
mythology. The same in art-history: only those who have some
experience with drawing and painting can understand how much
you can say with some strokes and colors on a paper or a canvas.
> No one can be BOTHERED to. If you want an answer, DO THE WORK
> YOURSELF.
So you can't tell me your own personal definition of archaeology?
Instead you shout at me?
> If someone doesn't understand what you're conveying in a story,
> then you are failing to communicate. That makes it ineffective.
Hence I don't write for you. I write for open-minded people with
a serious intrerest in archaeology and who overcame the Greek
dogma of classical archaeology.
> What's the evidence to support the idea that the Titans existed
> as people? Euhemerism?
I believe that the myths tell a historical truth in a dreamlike
manner. You believe that myths are just entertainement. Can you
prove your assumption? In the realm of science, everything you
say is a thesis, nothing else than a thesis, which is supported
more or less by what we call facts. Your ideas are theses too,
no self-evident truths.
> Then you have to refer to it.
I always tell you the same, but you ignore everything I say on
ancient Anatolia, for Anatolia has no place in classical archaeo-
logy, let alone in silly.archaeology. Jan Hodder's work at Chatal
Hoeyuek is famed as the excavation of the century - did you ever
read a line on that site in silly.archaeology? Did you ever show
any interest in the 11,500 years old meaglithic temple at Goebekli
Tepe on the upper course of the River Euphrates? (excavation Klaus
Schmidt, financed by the German Archaelogical Institue Istanbul)
I gave you the German and American addresses of the friends of
Troy - did you ever contact them?
Eric Stevens
>In article <95kgjs4jpjsbm9r72...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
>
>finally promised to stay away from me.
>
For the record, I actually said:
"I am now resigned to your invective and I certainly try to stay
away from you. The only times where I come in is in defence of
people such as Andy when you subject them to the same treatment".
I will never stay away from you if you are going to unfairly launch
another of your streams of invective at others.
Nubkhas
Franz, in a public forum like Usenet newsgroups, you cannot demand that people
stay away from you. By posting here, everyone makes himself open to rebuttal.
If you don't like someone's style, put them in your killfile or just ignore
them. If they flame you, flame them back and see how they like it--should that
be your preference. However, saying "stay away from me" is probably not going
to work.
Bill Bellamy
cir...@access.ch wrote:
> In article <3937be2...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
> ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
>
> > *rolls eyes* Keep grinding that axe...
> >
> > If you can't publish because of lack of credentials, have you
> > tried interesting a co-author?
>
> Yesterday I saw an interview with the director of the German
> Library at Frankfurt am Main (on the French/German TV channel
> "arte"). He said what I say since a long time: the amount of
> scientific publications is exploding, the human knowledge
> doubles every couple of years, the scientific journals
> can't cope anymore with the flood of articles, and the only
> way to go on are electronical publications in the web. I for
> one publish in the archive of Deja, hoping that they will go
> on with their fine work (I guess that some people of this
> company have a feeling of despair when they must archive so
> much spam, on the other hand, there are also a lot of new
> ideas published in the Usenet, and the Martians of the year
> 7129 may be happy to rediscover the archives of Deja ...)
The problem is, Franz, that Deja will someday clear their archives. The
revelations that you are so painstakingly storing will become vaporware
long before the Martians of 7129 or even the people of 2013 have the
opportunity to be enlightened. Deja will, of course, apologize
profusely but they will explain that forever doesn't really mean
'without end' in an electronic environment. Your insights and all that
Spam will be purged for disk space. Pity.
Your genius is wasted in this forum anyway. In your quest to enlighten
everyone in an open, democratic forum you are plagued by the riff-raff
who ask questions or even disagree. Your precious time is wasted by
Andy, and Sue, and Harold, and Lloyd, and Eric, and et al. Often they
even have to be reminded that they are rabid supporters of Heinrich
Pudor; some even claim that they never heard of him until you mentioned
the name. Rumor has it that many don't even bother to read 'My
Corner'. Something about a credibility problem.
There is only one way to insure that your work is preserved for
posterity. You should open your own web page. You could update the
page at you leisure. You could include an open, democratic 'response
page' and only publish the thoughts of those who admire your genius and
agree with your logic. Responses which refer to Hancock or Spanuth
would, of course, be purged as to not contaminate the young, energetic
minds which would flock to your url for enlightenment. There would be
no danger of infiltration by New Agers or Edus, or the ominous and
inevitable disk purge from Deja.
Certainly one who has shared the stage with a guy who was almost
nominated for a Nobel prize, one who was awarded a prize for turning
history into 'My Fairy Tale', one who has measured sport fields, would
have no problem mastering html and hypertext. If you continue to waste
your talents in this forum you will always be in danger that 'My Corner'
will disappear into the ether, never to be recovered.
<snip>
Chris Camfield
>In article <3937be2...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
> ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
[snip]
>> It's not the individual sentences that are the problem.
>> It's the methodology.
>
>You mean telling a story? That's a new method of mine, which won
>me a prize of the University of Zurich (dies academicus 1994).
>Arranging the well-known facts, the clear and vague ideas along
>the arrow of time, hence telling a story, and filling the gaps
>by means of your intuition, is a fine way of proposing and
>developing a historical thesis - at least in my experience.
Well, I guess it works for you.
> I say to myself: the myths
>arn't simply a funny invention,
I agree with this...
> they tell us much about history,
>and so I may look out for a historical core.
And have a great many reservations about this.
[moving a bit of text around]
> And by telling stories myself I
>explore the possibilities of story-telling, which is an
>effective way to combine a lot of facts within a few lines.
>Also my fable of Perseus combines a lot of facts. You will
>see that only if you discuss one single sentence with me.
I don't think I have the patience. Call me lazy, but if you want to
put forward a thesis, I want to be able to read that thesis and
understand what you're proposing, not to enter a prolonged discussion.
>My thesis: if we
>try to understand the myths as collective dreams we may learn
>more about the human past.
[later... I'm moving text up to bring it all into one place]
>I believe that the myths tell a historical truth in a dreamlike
>manner. You believe that myths are just entertainement.
Don't assume what I think. I don't think that myths are just
entertainment. I do think that folk tales are primarily
entertainment. There is a difference between "myth" and "folk tale".
My main interests are history and mythology. (My archaeological
background is not all that strong. So when I looked at the Friends of
Troy pages, I didn't see anything that would be at my level.)
I have to say that my opinions on myth are pretty much like G. S.
Kirk's. (Author of the book, The Nature of Greek Myths.)
Essentially... myths considered as a whole are complicated and come in
many different forms and have different functions. Some of them, like
sagas, probably do have historical kernels. (e.g. the Trojan War).
Others, like to use our example, the myth of Perseus, can be more
plausibly explained with other criteria. Some are of great antiquity
and some of them aren't. e.g. in the 5th century when Athens was in
its ascendancy, all sorts of new myths about Theseus were told.
So I think you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. There
have been all sorts of theories that have tried to encompass
mythology. Many of them have provided great insight into some myths,
but as universal theories, none of them have stood the test of time.
Even the myths which do seem to have kernels - like the Trojan War -
well, at least up until recently there wasn't archaeological evidence
to support an actual sacking of one of the city levels at Hissarlik,
so that it's hard to say how large the actual conflict was. Maybe
you can tell me that that has changed.
>Can you
>prove your assumption? In the realm of science, everything you
>say is a thesis, nothing else than a thesis, which is supported
>more or less by what we call facts. Your ideas are theses too,
>no self-evident truths.
Well, here's the thing. Scholars have done lots and lots of work on
myths and on folk-tales They've identified common elements of
folk-tales. Some of these elements can be identified in the myth of
Perseus. It follows that some of the things observed about folk-tales
probably apply to that myth.
In comparison, you propose that the myth "might well have been a
conflict between that patriarchal tribe and a former matriarchal tribe
living on the shore of the Aral Sea."
Your idea requires several suppositions. That makes things less
plausible already. Then you link the myth to the location with a
place-name. That's really weak evidence. Is that a modern place-name
or an ancient place-name? If it's modern, then it's almost certainly
not the original name. Even if it's ancient, there are other possible
explanations. For instance, if there WAS a place there named Gorgan
by the Greeks... mightn't they have named it after the myth, as where
they imagined Perseus killed Gorgo?
So on the one hand there's a theory that research gives a strong
grounding in the myth, and another that is pretty weak. Which do you
expect me to accept?
>> Mythological fables?
>
>Only if you tell fables yourself, you are able to understand
>mythology.
I'm sure it can help but I can't agree with that blanket statement.
I was at a sort of workshop today about Homer given by a local group
of oral storytellers. In the morning, a prof from the local
university gave a talk. The storytellers had some things to say about
the use of epithets giving the reciter and listeners a sort of
necessary pause, that the professor hadn't thought about because of
being used to only dealing with the text as written, rather than
spoken.
But to then say that only people who are story-tellers can understand
myths... closes doors on whole realms of comparative and textual
study.
>The same in art-history: only those who have some
>experience with drawing and painting can understand how much
>you can say with some strokes and colors on a paper or a canvas.
I think there are a lot of art historians who are far better
historians than they are artists, if they are artists at all.
>> No one can be BOTHERED to. If you want an answer, DO THE WORK
>> YOURSELF.
>
>So you can't tell me your own personal definition of archaeology?
>Instead you shout at me?
I've only got so much time, and the rest of our discussion is more
interesting...
>I always tell you the same, but you ignore everything I say on
>ancient Anatolia, for Anatolia has no place in classical archaeo-
>logy, let alone in silly.archaeology.
Can you give me references to anything that's accessible?
> Jan Hodder's work at Chatal
>Hoeyuek is famed as the excavation of the century - did you ever
>read a line on that site in silly.archaeology?
I've certainly heard about it. If no one mentions it here, it's
because the people interested in it aren't posting here. What's the
big deal?
>Did you ever show
>any interest in the 11,500 years old meaglithic temple at Goebekli
>Tepe on the upper course of the River Euphrates? (excavation Klaus
>Schmidt, financed by the German Archaelogical Institue Istanbul)
I fail to see how this is relevant, but it's the first time I've heard
of it, so it would be difficult to "ever show any interest".
Chris
Sue King
everyone who posted all 65 posts ignored my original intent like i was a
BASTARD poster and THEN everyone is full of logic and has treasures to share
ooohhh how i love this newsgrope. It is so enlightenig i will stay here forever
waiting for these very moments.
love you all and keep up the GOODWORK.
marci...@my-deja.com
Hi Sue,
I am sorry not commenting your initial post and my failure to welcome
your coming back to sci.archaeology. You know how I praise your
interventions with something new and different.
We need that kind of something crazy or unexpected.
May be the reason was that it brought a comment on a very good research
and a man that we all deserve gratitude for his exceptional work in the
field of Archaeology, doing more than our simple work of research but
who is in charge with the direction of one of the treasures of humanity.
For me, personal opinions are personal opinions that I respect and
approve or not approve explicitly but reserve the right to express my
own opinion.
As usual, your comments started a storm in this corner.
That is all.
Thanks for sharing with us your quest for the truth in the realm of
archaeology.
Regards,
Marcio.
cir...@access.ch
ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
(Me:)
> > I say to myself: the myths
> > arn't simply a funny invention,
(Chris:)
> I agree with this...
(Me:)
> > they tell us much about history,
> > and so I may look out for a historical core.
(Chris:)
> And have a great many reservations about this.
As I said before: the assumption of academe that myths contain no
historical core, is nothing but a thesis. Where is your evidence?
> I don't think I have the patience. Call me lazy, but if you want
> to put forward a thesis, I want to be able to read that thesis
> and understand what you're proposing, not to enter a prolonged
> discussion.
My fable is the proper textual form for lazy readers: instead
of writing a book, I just write a few pages. And I am ready
to help you reading, say, my fable of Perseus: tell me what
you find most foolish, read it again and quote the most silly
sentence in your opinion, and I will tell you my sources and
ideas. I can't do more for you.
Furthermore, all new ideas require a minimum of sympathy.
The famous saying by Rene Descartes
cogito ergo sum
will never do, I prefer this one:
amo ergo sum
Only those who have a sympathy for a new idea can take it up
and develop it any further.
> I have to say that my opinions on myth are pretty much like
> G. S. Kirk's. (Author of the book, The Nature of Greek Myths.)
> Essentially... myths considered as a whole are complicated and
> come in many different forms and have different functions.
> Some of them, like sagas, probably do have historical kernels.
> (e.g. the Trojan War). Others, like to use our example, the myth
> of Perseus, can be more plausibly explained with other criteria.
> Some are of great antiquity and some of them aren't. e.g. in
> the 5th century when Athens was in its ascendancy, all sorts
> of new myths about Theseus were told.
I like the word complex much better than the word complicated.
Myths convey the past on may levels, comparable with the
overdetermined dreams (? ueberdeterminiert - a term by Sigmund
Freud). Every great civilization and every tribe formulated
its own foundation story, and had to do with a few words only.
So they combined all they had to say in complex symbols. We
may either try to understand them, risking to go astray once
a while, or almost all the time, or we can simply deny all
historical components in the way of many not so very bright
professors of our days.
> Even the myths which do seem to have kernels - like the Trojan
> War - well, at least up until recently there wasn't archaeological
> evidence to support an actual sacking of one of the city levels
> at Hissarlik, so that it's hard to say how large the actual conflict
> was. Maybe you can tell me that that has changed.
We know much more. Troy VI was destroyed by an earthquake around
1250 BC while Troy VIIa burnt in 1183 BC. Homer, in the Iliad,
describes a ditch with palisades along the Danaan wall, in some
distance of the wall - parts of such a ditch and palisades, meant
for holding up horses and charioteers, were found along the wall
of downtown Troy, exactly as described by Homer. Donald Easton
found a bronze disk of a scribe and his wife from Troy VIIb with
non-Greek inscriptions - a sensation according to Manfred Korfmann,
further evidence that Troy was Wilusa, a vasall of Hattusas. Also
the oil cavities in the portals, the stelae and a "Quellengott"
(sorry for not remembering the English word for Quelle) speaks
for the equation Troy = Wilusa, vasall of Hattusas. There are
61 still unexplored ancient sites in the immediate vicinity
of the Hisarlik. And so on. I told it all many times.
> Your idea requires several suppositions. That makes things less
> plausible already. Then you link the myth to the location with
> a place-name. That's really weak evidence. Is that a modern
> place-name or an ancient place-name? If it's modern, then it's
> almost certainly not the original name. Even if it's ancient,
> there are other possible explanations. For instance, if there
> WAS a place there named Gorgan by the Greeks... mightn't they
> have named it after the myth, as where they imagined Perseus
> killed Gorgo?
I told you quite clearly that I have to do researches for a year
before I can write a new version of my fable. First I write a
fable or a story or a fairy tale or whatever, rendering my vague
ideas in a seizable form, then I look out if my intuitions have
a base in reality, and collect possible hints. One hint is the
town Gorgan / Gurgan and the River Gorgan / Gurgan below the
Iranian highland, on the southeastern shore of the Caspian Sea.
Now I will need plenty oftime for chekcing the names. Hard to
find reliable maps from those regions, even here, in the very
fine libraries at Zurich. A lot of work, not the truth, not even
a real thesis, just a speculation. However, as Cael de Guichaen
has it: Archaeology is not an exaxt science, but a speculative
one - a science of imagination. Not simply speculation and
imagination, but a _science_ of speculation and imagination,
requiring that 'exact sensual phantasy' described by Goethe.
I was also stunned by the name Georgia, which reminds of Georg,
a dragonslayer whose legend is a remarkable parallel to the
one of Perseus. These are only hints, as I made very clear.
But surprising ones. Meanwhile I found a book on the geology
of the region around the Elbrus, a volcanic mountain - the
rows of volcanic pillars (andasit-dazit) in the old glacial
vallies below the Mountain Elbrus could well symbolize the
enemies of Jason which grew out of dragon teeths ... So it
could well have been that Jason and the Argonauts (Greek
sailors of around 1270 BC) got in conflict with the mountain
tribes in the Cholcis.
> I was at a sort of workshop today about Homer given by a local
> group of oral storytellers. In the morning, a prof from the
> local university gave a talk. The storytellers had some things
> to say about the use of epithets giving the reciter and listeners
> a sort of necessary pause, that the professor hadn't thought about
> because of being used to only dealing with the text as written,
> rather than spoken.
An excellent example. You have to try yourself. I am a confessing
admirer of experimental archaeology, and telling stories by myself
is my way of exploring the concept of a myth - I may succeed or
not.
> But to then say that only people who are story-tellers can
> understand myths... closes doors on whole realms of comparative
> and textual study.
Richard Feynman said: it is of no use when 1000 people examine
the very same phenomena by meaqns of the very same set of tools,
ideas and methods - at least one person has to try in a different
way. So let me be this one. And you should know by now that I never
plead for one single method, I am for a broad palette of methods,
everyone having its own merits.
> I've only got so much time, and the rest of our discussion is
> more interesting...
So you find it interesting? thank you.
> Can you give me references to anything that's accessible?
Brian Fagan, in a recension of a book on the publication practice
of archaeologists, wrote that publishing is far from being glamorous
for many or most archaeologists, a well-known fact which is called
archaeology's dirty secret
Finding publications on present-day archaeology in Anatolia is
very hard (apart from publications on Troy and Chatal Hoeyuek).
In the Anatolian section of the Oriental seminary and library
at the University of Zuerich are only found some old books which
in a few years will fall apart completely and return to dust.
> I've certainly heard about it. If no one mentions it here, it's
> because the people interested in it aren't posting here. What's
> the big deal?
Ignoring a very important root of ancient Greece, and of the rise
of civilization in general. That's the big deal.
> >Did you ever show
> >any interest in the 11,500 years old meaglithic temple at Goebekli
> >Tepe on the upper course of the River Euphrates? (excavation Klaus
> >Schmidt, financed by the German Archaelogical Institue Istanbul)
>
> I fail to see how this is relevant, but it's the first time I've
> heard of it, so it would be difficult to "ever show any interest".
>
> Chris
I mention this temple many times, you notice it for the first
time. This temple is the proof for the Anatolian origin of the
megalithic era, and shows the necessity for speaking of two neo-
lithical periods, one beginning around 12,000 BP (neolithicum I)
and the other one beginning around 7,500 BC (neolithicum II).
Ito
In my historical atlas it says that the Gorgan region by the
Persians was called "Vardana", then, in the time of Alexander the
name was changed in "Hyrcania".
The Hyrcanians are mentioned in ;
Herodotus: 3.117 & 7.62
Tacitus: Ann., 2.47
At the time of the Abassidian Arab conquests, the region was
named "Giorgian" and the Caspian sea was then sometimes called
"bahr al Giorgian"(Giorgian sea) .
I doubt there is an etymological relation with the "Gorgons",
however, the Persian "Vardana" is also an derivative.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chris Camfield
>In article <3939c8d...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
> ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
>
[snip... Franz wrote]
>As I said before: the assumption of academe that myths contain no
>historical core, is nothing but a thesis. Where is your evidence?
Given that you've basically ignored the main part of my last post,
which explained all this, I will have to say "go back and re-read it".
I have never said that ALL myths contain no historical core.
I have explained that I was talking about folk-tales and that the myth
of Perseus contains elements of folk-tales. You might think that
"folk-tales" and "myths" mean the same thing in English. Let me
assure you that in the study of mythology, they do not. "Folk-tales"
refers to a specific sort of story. I believe the German word is
'marchen', does that help?
>> I have to say that my opinions on myth are pretty much like
>> G. S. Kirk's. (Author of the book, The Nature of Greek Myths.)
>> Essentially... myths considered as a whole are complicated and
>> come in many different forms and have different functions.
>> Some of them, like sagas, probably do have historical kernels.
>> (e.g. the Trojan War). Others, like to use our example, the myth
>> of Perseus, can be more plausibly explained with other criteria.
>> Some are of great antiquity and some of them aren't. e.g. in
>> the 5th century when Athens was in its ascendancy, all sorts
>> of new myths about Theseus were told.
>
>I like the word complex much better than the word complicated.
>Myths convey the past on may levels, comparable with the
>overdetermined dreams (? ueberdeterminiert - a term by Sigmund
>Freud). Every great civilization and every tribe formulated
>its own foundation story, and had to do with a few words only.
>So they combined all they had to say in complex symbols. We
>may either try to understand them, risking to go astray once
>a while, or almost all the time, or we can simply deny all
>historical components in the way of many not so very bright
>professors of our days.
Here you ignore the text of my post. I am not, have not, and never
have denied that SOME myths have historical components.
But, in my opinion the SCIENTIFIC way to approach a myth when
comparing different theses is to apply them to the myth and see which
one works the best.
In my last post I compared the plausibility, to me, of your theory as
applied to the Perseus myth, versus the folk-tale theory. I found
that the folk-tale theory was much more plausible.
You may continue to believe your symbolical theory if you desire. But
I don't think the myths support it.
>> Even the myths which do seem to have kernels - like the Trojan
>> War - well, at least up until recently there wasn't archaeological
>> evidence to support an actual sacking of one of the city levels
>> at Hissarlik, so that it's hard to say how large the actual conflict
>> was. Maybe you can tell me that that has changed.
>
>We know much more. Troy VI was destroyed by an earthquake around
>1250 BC while Troy VIIa burnt in 1183 BC. Homer, in the Iliad,
>describes a ditch with palisades along the Danaan wall, in some
>distance of the wall - parts of such a ditch and palisades, meant
>for holding up horses and charioteers, were found along the wall
>of downtown Troy, exactly as described by Homer.
The way you express this seems to imply that the palisade and ditch
were INside the walls of Troy, rather than on the beach. Is that the
case?
>Donald Easton
>found a bronze disk of a scribe and his wife from Troy VIIb with
>non-Greek inscriptions - a sensation according to Manfred Korfmann,
>further evidence that Troy was Wilusa, a vasall of Hattusas. Also
>the oil cavities in the portals, the stelae and a "Quellengott"
>(sorry for not remembering the English word for Quelle) speaks
>for the equation Troy = Wilusa, vasall of Hattusas.
None of this seems particularly strong evidence. Not that I'm denying
that the Trojan War occurred, just that these bits of information
don't seem to help. Does Homer mention special 'oil cavities in the
portals'?
>There are
>61 still unexplored ancient sites in the immediate vicinity
>of the Hisarlik. And so on. I told it all many times.
Don't assume that I've read all of your posts.
>> Your idea requires several suppositions. That makes things less
>> plausible already. Then you link the myth to the location with
>> a place-name. That's really weak evidence. Is that a modern
>> place-name or an ancient place-name? If it's modern, then it's
>> almost certainly not the original name. Even if it's ancient,
>> there are other possible explanations. For instance, if there
>> WAS a place there named Gorgan by the Greeks... mightn't they
>> have named it after the myth, as where they imagined Perseus
>> killed Gorgo?
>
>I told you quite clearly that I have to do researches for a year
>before I can write a new version of my fable.
I must have missed that. Fine. Go and do your research, then; I
don't see why you bothered to post your fable at this point if you
don't have the evidence to back it up.
>First I write a
>fable or a story or a fairy tale or whatever, rendering my vague
>ideas in a seizable form, then I look out if my intuitions have
>a base in reality, and collect possible hints. One hint is the
>town Gorgan / Gurgan and the River Gorgan / Gurgan below the
>Iranian highland, on the southeastern shore of the Caspian Sea.
>Now I will need plenty oftime for chekcing the names.
You're peddling an old and unreliable form of research here.
Place-names are unreliable.
[snip]
>I was also stunned by the name Georgia, which reminds of Georg,
>a dragonslayer whose legend is a remarkable parallel to the
>one of Perseus.
Sorry, I don't know it. You do know that both names could just come
from the Greek word for "farmer", don't you?
>> Can you give me references to anything that's accessible?
>
>Brian Fagan, in a recension of a book on the publication practice
>of archaeologists, wrote that publishing is far from being glamorous
>for many or most archaeologists, a well-known fact which is called
>
> archaeology's dirty secret
>
>Finding publications on present-day archaeology in Anatolia is
>very hard (apart from publications on Troy and Chatal Hoeyuek).
Actually, I was talking about Troy...
y heard about it. If no one mentions it here, it's
>> because the people interested in it aren't posting here. What's
>> the big deal?
>
>Ignoring a very important root of ancient Greece, and of the rise
>of civilization in general. That's the big deal.
Just because people aren't posting about something doesn't mean
there's a conspiracy to ignore it.
>> >Did you ever show
>> >any interest in the 11,500 years old meaglithic temple at Goebekli
>> >Tepe on the upper course of the River Euphrates? (excavation Klaus
>> >Schmidt, financed by the German Archaelogical Institue Istanbul)
>>
>> I fail to see how this is relevant, but it's the first time I've
>> heard of it, so it would be difficult to "ever show any interest".
>
>I mention this temple many times, you notice it for the first
>time.
Don't assume that I've read all your posts.
>This temple is the proof for the Anatolian origin of the
>megalithic era, and shows the necessity for speaking of two neo-
>lithical periods, one beginning around 12,000 BP (neolithicum I)
>and the other one beginning around 7,500 BC (neolithicum II).
Frankly, so what? This is 6000+ years before the Myceneans, and 7000+
years before the classical Greeks. Lots of things change in that
period of time.
Besides, the idea that, say, the Greeks didn't owe a great deal to the
eastern civilizations is ridiculous, notwithstanding the backward
German archaeologists you mention.
Chris
Harald Henkel
ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> I have explained that I was talking about folk-tales and that the myth
> of Perseus contains elements of folk-tales. You might think that
> "folk-tales" and "myths" mean the same thing in English. Let me
> assure you that in the study of mythology, they do not. "Folk-tales"
> refers to a specific sort of story. I believe the German word is
> 'marchen', does that help?
I didn't find "folk-tale" in my dictionary. Of course it might be
incomplete. For me it sounds more like "folk-music" which surely isn't
comparable to "Maerchen".
"Maerchen" on the other hand is in English "fairy tale".
I don't want to know how many misunderstandings in this and similar NGs
arise because of the misinterpretation/misuse/lack of understanding of
words in a different language.
> >I told you quite clearly that I have to do researches for a year
> >before I can write a new version of my fable.
>
> I must have missed that. Fine. Go and do your research, then; I
> don't see why you bothered to post your fable at this point if you
> don't have the evidence to back it up.
Perhaps to stimulate a discussoin on the theory/thesis by which the
autor might get some new insights and facts by other people who might
konow some details - helping to prove or disprove the theory/thesis ?
Harald Henkel
Chris Camfield
<Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
>In article <393ba4a...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
> ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
>
>> I have explained that I was talking about folk-tales and that the myth
>> of Perseus contains elements of folk-tales. You might think that
>> "folk-tales" and "myths" mean the same thing in English. Let me
>> assure you that in the study of mythology, they do not. "Folk-tales"
>> refers to a specific sort of story. I believe the German word is
>> 'marchen', does that help?
>
>I didn't find "folk-tale" in my dictionary. Of course it might be
>incomplete. For me it sounds more like "folk-music" which surely isn't
>comparable to "Maerchen".
>
>"Maerchen" on the other hand is in English "fairy tale".
Ok. They're close, then. I wouldn't say that "folk tale" and "fairy
tale" are exactly the same thing.
>I don't want to know how many misunderstandings in this and similar NGs
>arise because of the misinterpretation/misuse/lack of understanding of
>words in a different language.
Neither do I...
I did a bit of hunting around to find a good definition to explain
what mythology scholars mean when they refer (in English) to
'folk-tale'. This is taken from a web site
(http://www.pibburns.com/myth.htm) which refers to one author's
definitions of legend, myth, and folktale:
"The terms legend and folktale are sometimes used interchangeably with
myth. Technically, however, these are not the same. How should we
distinguish them? Donna Rosenberg, in her book Folklore, Myth, and
Legends: A World Perspective, offers some useful guidelines:
A myth is a sacred story from the past. It may explain the origin of
the universe and of life, or it may express its culture's moral values
in human terms. Myths concern the powers who control the human world
and the relationship between those powers and human beings. Although
myths are religious in their origin and function, they may also be the
earliest form of history, science, or philosophy...
A folktale is a story that, in its plot, is pure fiction and that has
no particular location in either time or space. However, despite its
elements of fantasy, a folktale is actually a symbolic way of
presenting the different means by which human beings cope with the
world in which they live. Folktales concern people -- either royalty
or common folk -- or animals who speak and act like people...
A legend is a story from the past about a subject that was, or is
believed to have been, historical. Legends concern people, places, and
events. Usually, the subject is a saint, a king, a hero, a famous
person, or a war. A legend is always associated with a particular
place and a particular time in history."
Morford and Lenardon discuss the myth and its folktale elements in
their _Classical Mythology_:
"One interesting feature of the saga is the predominance of folktale
elements, more so than in any other Greek saga. These include the
magic conception of the hero by the princess his mother; the discovery
of the hero as a child by the noise of his playing; the villainous
king and his good and humble brother; the rash promise of the hero,
which he performs with the aid of supernatural helpers and magic
objects; the three old women from whom advice must be sought; the
Gorgons, imaginary monsters of ferocious ugliness; and finally the
vindication of the hero and the punishment of the villain." They give
a footnote which refers to the same book Nilsson mentioned: "The
foltale ramifications of the legend of Perseus may be explored in the
massive work by E. S. Hartland, The Legend of Perseus, 3 vols (London:
Nutt, 1984-1896)"
>> I don't see why you bothered to post your fable at this point if you
>> don't have the evidence to back it up.
>
>
>Perhaps to stimulate a discussoin on the theory/thesis by which the
>autor might get some new insights and facts by other people who might
>konow some details - helping to prove or disprove the theory/thesis ?
Well, I've given what insight I have.
Chris
Joe Jefferson
>
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 08:11:49 GMT, cir...@access.ch wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >I was also stunned by the name Georgia, which reminds of Georg,
> >a dragonslayer whose legend is a remarkable parallel to the
> >one of Perseus.
>
> Sorry, I don't know it. You do know that both names could just come
> from the Greek word for "farmer", don't you?
I believe the reference is to St. George, an early Christian martyr
(died AD 303 according to my dictionary) who is supposed to have slain a
dragon. He later became the patron saint of England.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
cir...@access.ch
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz>
alreadey broke his promise to stay away from me. He has nothing
to say - apart from making proganda for a N azi phantasma -
and so he cockroaches his way along the messages of others.
I publish a good part of my scientific work in here, proposing
new ideas and methods, and so he must always reply to me,
making people believe that he stays above me, thus earning
himself kind of a title. Yet in the 2 longs discussion I had
with him he outed himself as a mere kook and spammer. The
only titles he can earn himself in this way are the ones of
the chief kook and main spammer of sci.archaeology.
Eric Stevens, you should have been glad that I did not comment
on your stupid reply from the last time. You can't keep your
promise, and so I comment on your reply now.
You believe in the N azi phantasma according to Juergen Spanuth,
who served as a clergyman in the SS and took it all from Heinrich
Pudor, a protege of Hermann G oering and author of the thesis
Helgoland = Atlantis, which he proposed in the book
PEOPLES OF GOD'S OWN BREATH, HELGOLAND - ATLANTIS,
MOTHERLAND OF RACIAL SELECT BREEDING AND COLONIZATION
(my translation). However, Juergen Spanuth concealed his main
source, namely Heinrich Pudor, what says all about his integrity
as a 'scholar'. Juergen Spanuth believed that the so-called
Steingrund, flint slabs on the seaground in front of Helgoland,
was Basilea, the sunken capital of Atlantis. In his books
he shows a blurred photograph of this Steingrund. You, Eric,
believe that the Steingrund is the sunken capital of Atlantis.
At the begin of our first long discussion I asked you if you
really hope that a blurred photograph can make me believe in
the phantasma according to Heinrich Pudor & Hermann G oering
& Juergen Spanuth? how come that they discovered Atlantis and
no one cares? how come that this Steingrund is shown in no
other book of archaeology? Hereupon you told me that perhaps
I read the wrong books. Now in your stupid reply from the last
time you conceded that you know only this blurred photograph,
and no ohter books wherein the Steingrund is mentioned, shown
or discussed. So your insinuation that I read the wrong books
is one of many examples of how you eel around the facts with
a sloppy remark or a quick lie.
You still can't answer my questions regarding the Steingrund,
alleged capital of Atlantis:
- Is there a pattern speaking for a settlement?
No answer.
- Are there any manmade marks on the slabs?
Eventual traces left by tools are not the same as marks.
- Can you exclude that the slabs are simply the lost freight
of a Roman "Prahm"? (flat, very long and broad freight ship)
In your reply you excluded this possibility because you say
that there was no ship found onsite. You obviously don't
know what a "Prahm" is, although I explained it several times:
a flat, very long and broad freight ship used on rivers and
along shores. If a "Prahm" got in a heavy storm, it could turn
upside down and loose its freight, but not sink. So the flint
slabs could still be the lost freight of a Roman "Prahm".
Juergen Spanuth dived from a fisherboat or ship ("Fischkutter"),
a relatively small ship, so I assume that the Steingrund lies
near the shore, where "Prahms" were used for transporting heavy
freights. The flint slabs are believed to have come from a mine
which was already in use during the neolithicum, what doesn't
say anything about the age of the Steingrund - the Romans could
have mined flint there, or they could have plundered a former
sanctuary and lost the slabs during a storm. There are several
'sunken ciities' on the seaground which are nothing else than
the lost freight of a ship: blocks and pillars from a plundered
temple.
- How come that Heinrich Pudor & Hermann G oering & Juergen
Spanuth discovered Atlantis and no one cares?
No answer.
You still can't answer my four questions, and so you must
offend me. In the way of every kook and spammer in the Usenet.
Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
cir...@access.ch
ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> But, in my opinion the SCIENTIFIC way to approach a myth when
> comparing different theses is to apply them to the myth and see
> which one works the best.
>
> In my last post I compared the plausibility, to me, of your theory
> as applied to the Perseus myth, versus the folk-tale theory. I
> found that the folk-tale theory was much more plausible.
>
> You may continue to believe your symbolical theory if you desire.
> But I don't think the myths support it.
Please don't make the mistake of every kook in sci.archaeology:
confounding a thesis with a theory. I n e v e r called my
fable of Perseus a theory, it's only a conglomerate of working
theses. A thesis resembles a piece of wood while a theory resembles
for example a table: you need several pieces of good wood for
making a table, and you need several reliable theses for making
a theory.
> The way you express this seems to imply that the palisade and ditch
> were INside the walls of Troy, rather than on the beach. Is that the
> case?
Sorry for my poor English, the ditch if of course o u t s i d e
of the wall, in some distance from it. An ASCII drawing:
wall
wall
wall ........P .......
wall ........ ditch .......
wall ..........
............
Riders and charioteers approaching the wall of Wilusa were seen
from far, the horses halted in front of the ditch, the soldiers
on the wall could shoot at the charioteers, and if the horses
were forced to jump over the ditch they got hurt by the palisade
of sharp "Pfaehle" (sorry for not remembering several English
words, I stayed away from home for some weeks and have no
dictionary at hand).
> None of this seems particularly strong evidence. Not that I'm
> denying that the Trojan War occurred, just that these bits of
> information don't seem to help. Does Homer mention special 'oil
> cavities in the portals'?
No, I speak of the links between Wilusa - (W)ilios - Ilion
and Hattusas. There is more and more archaeological evidence
for the connections between Troy and Hattusas; for Troy being
Wilusa, vasall of Hattusas.
> I must have missed that. Fine. Go and do your research, then;
> I don't see why you bothered to post your fable at this point
> if you don't have the evidence to back it up.
I show people how my method works: I formulate my story when it
is 'ripe', when it comes naturally, forming itself in my head,
I write it down, and then I look out for the consequences. One
reader already helped me by mentioning that the sword of Perseus
was a siekel (? Sichelschwert), hence a round sword, as they are
still in use in the region of the Caucasus (at least at the begin
of the 20th century). The same reader told me about Jafeth who
is mentioned in the Bible as the founder of the Hittite empire.
In my fable I placed Cronos on the Ararat and Japetus on the
near Ala Dag - not so far from Hattusas. The same reader also
mentioned Jason's enemies which grew out of dragon teeths,
and looking up a book on the geology of the Mount Elbrus
I found two pictures of rows of volcanic pillars (andasit-
dazit) which could well have been a symbol of the enemies
of Jason and his Argonauts who were looking out for the
Golden Fleece in the Cholcis and most probably were involved
in several fights with local tribes living in the old glacial
valleys below the Elbrus. Ito (if I remember his name correctly),
did me a great favour by commenting on my fable of Perseus.
Why don't you comment on my fable directly, by quoting a few
sentences? If you find my fable foolish, you may quote the
most foolish sentence in your opinion, and I will tell you
my sources and ideas.
> You're peddling an old and unreliable form of research here.
> Place-names are unreliable.
On the contrary, the names of landscapes often keep a memory
of the past, for example Celtic names in Switzerland.
> [snip]
> >I was also stunned by the name Georgia, which reminds of Georg,
> >a dragonslayer whose legend is a remarkable parallel to the
> >one of Perseus.
>
> Sorry, I don't know it. You do know that both names could just
> come from the Greek word for "farmer", don't you?
Most ancient authors agreed that Perseus comes from "pertho"
and means Destroyer, while a few ancient authors linked the name
of Perseus with Persephone, wife of Hades. The parallels between
Perseus and Georg the Dragonslayer are obvious. I don't know what
Georg means and will have to check it, as I will check many other
hints --- work for a year, as I told you.
> Actually, I was talking about Troy...
I gave you the addresses of the Friends of Troy both in Germany
and in America. If you are interested in Troy, you can read
the 'Studi Troica' with publications in English too (for example
by Donald Easton, who found the bronze disk from Troy VIIb with
non-Greek inscriptions, a sensation according to Manfred Korfmann).
> Just because people aren't posting about something doesn't mean
> there's a conspiracy to ignore it.
Did I ever speak of a conspiration? I say that you ignore all
evidence coming from Anatolia.
> Besides, the idea that, say, the Greeks didn't owe a great deal
> to the eastern civilizations is ridiculous, notwithstanding the
> backward German archaeologists you mention.
>
> Chris
Thank you for your clear words. But I am confronted with that
ridiculous believe all the time.
Harald Henkel
cir...@access.ch wrote:
You have an extremely big misunderstanding between "discussing a
theory" and "believing in a theory".
Up to now you didn't come up with **any** proof that - besides the claim
"Helgoland was Atlantis" - Spanuth copied ALL AND EVERYTHING from H. P
udor.
Mayby he heard of P udors theory and became interested in searching for
additional proof. But this doesn't prove, he read Pudors book, copied
all of it (which is anyway totally stupid to claim) and supports any of
Pudors rassistic rubbish.
"Helgoland was Atlantis" is just a theory which doesn't have anything to
do with N**zi phantasma in itself.
And it's surely not more stupid than E.Zangger's theory "Troy was
Atlantis".
If it stands up to new archaeological or other sciences' results Spanuth
didn't know at his time is a completely different question.
This and nothing else was and is what Eric and I wanted to discuss here
but which was impossible because of Mr. Franz asshole Gnaedinger who is
spreading fuds and lies about Spanuth, Eric and me.
> - Can you exclude that the slabs are simply the lost freight
> of a Roman "Prahm"? (flat, very long and broad freight ship)
Do you think nobody reads Eric's replies but only your rubbish ?
The flint stones are examined and proven
1. to be manmade,
2. to come form a location which was abandoned long before any romans
prhams existed.
There is absolutely NO underwater arachaeology (since Spanuths
excavations in the North Sea area) besides some searches for Rungold
which drowned in the "Grosse Mandraenke" arround 1362 (?) - the same
catastrophy where the last bigger parts of Helgoland were destroyed,
too.
This is mainly because in the North Sea diving is extremely difficult
and dangerous and because of the suspended matter in the water not much
can be seen - even in the little depths of about 10 to 20 m around
Helgoland etc.
Also because the rough sea doesn't leave very much undamaged to be
rediscovered.
BTW, one of the Rungold researchers found some very old coins recently
in the mud flats.
This was the first such find in the North Sea and was little sensation.
Harald Henkel
Ito
>
>I show people how my method works: I formulate my story when it
>is 'ripe', when it comes naturally, forming itself in my head,
>I write it down, and then I look out for the consequences. One
>reader already helped me by mentioning that the sword of Perseus
>was a siekel (? Sichelschwert), hence a round sword, as they are
>still in use in the region of the Caucasus (at least at the
begin
>of the 20th century).
Why in the story did Perseus a sickle?
First of all, I think that when a storyteller wants to let his
audience visualize the story, he has to refer to something they
all know how to use : a sickle , for example, when he tells that
Perseus pulls Medusa by her hair when he is about to cut the head
off, the listener thinks of the last time that he harvested the
corn in his field, for he has to hold the corn-stalks with one
hand while he cuts with the other.
The second explanation why they portrayed him using the sickle
could be that this is a symbol for a total destruction and
annihilation of the people that the Medusa represents.
Somewhat similar as the harvest of a densely grown cornfield that
is harvested till there is no straw left standing, the
corns-stalks represent the people in this case.
>The same reader told me about Jafeth who
>is mentioned in the Bible as the founder of the Hittite empire.
>In my fable I placed Cronos on the Ararat and Japetus on the
>near Ala Dag - not so far from Hattusas. The same reader also
>mentioned Jason's enemies which grew out of dragon teeths,
>and looking up a book on the geology of the Mount Elbrus
>I found two pictures of rows of volcanic pillars (andasit-dazit)
Actually I referred to the possible presence of dolmen that could
have resembled armies of petrified men, this in relation to the
Medusa.
But now you mention these pillar rocks, I remember seeing foto's
of landscapes in Armenia once, that fits your description, and is
-i think- a good explanation for the dragons teeth that are
mentioned in relation to the story of Jason, as you say.
What I don't understand is why you try to place the myth of
Perseus in the same eastern-Anatolia/Georgia region.
Is this just based upon an supposed etymological similarity
between the placenames and 'Gorgon'?
There are more places that have G'R'G'.. in the name, all at
-very- different locations.
Anyway, in an earlier posting i said that Diodorus mentioned
Tartessos as 'the capital of Atlantians and Amazons', in
Diod.III,54+, I got this citation from an interesting book,
'Die verhuellten Goetter' by Hans Muehlestein, -from Zuerich- ,
1957, reprint 1981 verlag Daniel Andres.
But when i checked with the original of Diod. today, there was no
mentioning of Tartessos in this text, the 'citation was merely an
'interpretation' of the author (muehlestein).
Never-the-less, re-reading it, Diodorus clearly places the
location of Medusa and the Gorgons in Libya, and he is very
specific, -lake Triton-.
(When I checked a historical map of the Triton region, it shows
that the four settlements that excisted in Roman time around the
-at that time already swamped- lake where named :
Thurris-Timezegeri, Thurris-Tamalleni, Thusurus and Thasarte..,
in these whe can recognize the name of Tartessos.)
I couldn't find a complete text of Diodorus on the net, here is a
some piece :
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/papers/snideramazons/di
odorus.html
Besides Diod., Ovidius also is quite clear in the
'Libyan'(Tunisia/Algeria nowadays) location.
Both Diodorus and Ovidius are by some labeled 'irrelieable'
because of the late (roman-period) time of writing down.
You state that -if I understand correctly- the western
mediterranean locations in the myths are nothing but an
projection of eastern-med. locations at later time, extrapolated
to the west in time of a broadening horizon/knowledge later on.
What makes you think this?
Of course there are many contradictions in the story's, pillars
of Heracles in the west, or at the hellespont?, Iberia in the
west and Iberia in the east, even Herodotus starts to wonder,
when the Greeks in the Crimea-Chersonesos tell him that Heracles,
on the way back with the cattle of Geryon (who was-by-the-way
grandson of Medusa) passed through Scythian territory!,
en-passant founding the royal dynasty over there..
The city of Tarsus in the east, Tartessus in the west, etc.,etc.
Each of these contradictions have their own logical explanation.
Another point of you is that the myth ofPerseus served as
background/second layer -of the Argonaut myth..
I don't see this.
If you want to see paralelles between stories, one can better
look at the similarities in the story of the Argonauts and the
Odyssee, they both go for war in the eastern mediterranean, after
that they both 'visit' Circe -the witch-, they go to Libya, they
passed the land of the Cyclopes (Sicily- before the arrival of
the Sicanians), they both visit Scheria, etc. .
Also some of the Argonauts are the fathers of Aechaean leaders
against Troy.
See also :
http://www.hsa.brown.edu/~maicar//mapARGONAUTS.html
>....which could well have been a symbol of the enemies
Diodorus also tells us that Pythagoras learned his theory of
numbers from the Egyptians.
http://homer.reed.edu/Diodorus1.96-98.html
,at the bottom of the text.
regards, Ito C.
cir...@access.ch
Ito <cucaroN...@home.nl.invalid> wrote:
> Why in the story did Perseus a sickle?
> First of all, I think that when a storyteller wants to let his
> audience visualize the story, he has to refer to something they
> all know how to use : a sickle , for example, when he tells that
> Perseus pulls Medusa by her hair when he is about to cut the head
> off, the listener thinks of the last time that he harvested the
> corn in his field, for he has to hold the corn-stalks with one
> hand while he cuts with the other.
According to Pauly's encyclopedy of antiquity (69 volumes)
Perseus used a sickle sword ("Sichelschwert"), hence a round
sword as they are still in use in the region of the Caucasus
(or were still in use there at the begin of the 20th century).
However, you are quite right with your above remarks: there
is an ambiguity between the sickle and the sword: you can use
the same instrument for cutting grass - or for killing someone.
That was the serios problem posed by then technology: casting
bronze allowed new instruments that were useful for humanity,
but also new weapons that brought disaster. And I think the
story of Prometheus and the box of Pandora have to do with
the very same ambiguity we experience in our days too, just
think of nuclear power and gen-technology.
> The second explanation why they portrayed him using the sickle
> could be that this is a symbol for a total destruction and
> annihilation of the people that the Medusa represents.
> Somewhat similar as the harvest of a densely grown cornfield that
> is harvested till there is no straw left standing, the
> corns-stalks represent the people in this case.
Most ancient authors agreed that the name Perseus comes from
"pertho" and means Destroyer (while a few linked his name with
Persephone, wife of Hades). As killer of Medusa he should have
been called Killer, and so his name Destroyer must refer to
the destruction of a village or a culture, as you say above:
and this may have been a more or less matriarchal civilization
on the southeastern shore of the Caspian Sea (village Gorgan,
by the river Gorgan?) which might have been destroyed by a
hypothetical warrior tribe / patriarchal tribe from the Iranian
highland just above the river and today village Gorgan (one of
my working theses).
> Actually I referred to the possible presence of dolmen that could
> have resembled armies of petrified men, this in relation to the
> Medusa.
> But now you mention these pillar rocks, I remember seeing foto's
> of landscapes in Armenia once, that fits your description, and is
> -i think- a good explanation for the dragons teeth that are
> mentioned in relation to the story of Jason, as you say.
Imagine that you meet these rows of pillars in the dark, when
a fog lies in the valley - could really be a freightening sight.
> What I don't understand is why you try to place the myth of
> Perseus in the same eastern-Anatolia/Georgia region.
> Is this just based upon an supposed etymological similarity
> between the placenames and 'Gorgon'?
> There are more places that have G'R'G'.. in the name, all at
> -very- different locations.
I started with the constellations mentioned in the Iliad:
the Pleiads, Hyads, the great Orion, and the Bear or Wain,
which adorned the shield of Achilles. My interpretations:
Bear or Wain Pleiads-Hattusas
Eurasia Hyads-Wilusa(Troy)
Orion-Achilles
Then I looked out, if more constellations may go along with that
starry map. First I found Castor and Pollux in Gemini, who were
Argonauts and patrons of sea-faring - also Laertes, the father
of Odysseus, was an Argonaut -, and then I associated Perseus,
Andromeda and Pegasus (born of Medusa's blood) to my map: Black
Sea (Gorgo I, Perseus), Caspian Sea (Gorgo II) and Caspian Sea
(Gorgo III, Medusa). As long as it makes sense, I feel free to
go on.
> Anyway, in an earlier posting i said that Diodorus mentioned
> Tartessos as 'the capital of Atlantians and Amazons', in
> Diod.III,54+, I got this citation from an interesting book,
> 'Die verhuellten Goetter' by Hans Muehlestein, -from Zuerich- ,
> 1957, reprint 1981 verlag Daniel Andres.
>
> But when i checked with the original of Diod. today, there was no
> mentioning of Tartessos in this text, the 'citation was merely an
> 'interpretation' of the author (muehlestein).
> Never-the-less, re-reading it, Diodorus clearly places the
> location of Medusa and the Gorgons in Libya, and he is very
> specific, -lake Triton-.
> (When I checked a historical map of the Triton region, it shows
> that the four settlements that excisted in Roman time around the
> -at that time already swamped- lake where named :
> Thurris-Timezegeri, Thurris-Tamalleni, Thusurus and Thasarte..,
> in these whe can recognize the name of Tartessos.)
I don't agree with that. In my opinion, the names of places were
shifted from the east to the west, as for example a new York
was founded in America and is now called New York.
> I couldn't find a complete text of Diodorus on the net, here is a
> some piece :
>
> http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/papers/snideramazons/di
> odorus.html
>
> Besides Diod., Ovidius also is quite clear in the
> 'Libyan'(Tunisia/Algeria nowadays) location.
>
> Both Diodorus and Ovidius are by some labeled 'irrelieable'
> because of the late (roman-period) time of writing down.
>
> You state that -if I understand correctly- the western
> mediterranean locations in the myths are nothing but an
> projection of eastern-med. locations at later time, extrapolated
> to the west in time of a broadening horizon/knowledge later on.
> What makes you think this?
We know that the Myceneans reached only Sardinia in the west,
while they already sailed across the Black Sea: Russian archaeo-
logists believe this since quite some time but were ignored,
while by now new archaeological evidence is showing that they
are right, also Manfred Korfmann, leader of the excavations in
the Troas, is sure that the Greeks of the Bronze Age sailed
across the Black Sea or at least along its shores.
> Of course there are many contradictions in the story's, pillars
> of Heracles in the west, or at the hellespont?, Iberia in the
> west and Iberia in the east, even Herodotus starts to wonder,
> when the Greeks in the Crimea-Chersonesos tell him that Heracles,
> on the way back with the cattle of Geryon (who was-by-the-way
> grandson of Medusa) passed through Scythian territory!,
> en-passant founding the royal dynasty over there..
> The city of Tarsus in the east, Tartessus in the west, etc.,etc.
> Each of these contradictions have their own logical explanation.
>
> Another point of you is that the myth ofPerseus served as
> background/second layer -of the Argonaut myth..
> I don't see this.
According to my working thesis, the fable of Perseus goes back
to an earlier time, referring to the Indo-European migrations
of, say, around 3,500 BC, while the Argonauts may be dated,
say, in around 1270 BC - the first ones came from Eurasia,
the second ones went back to Eurasia ...
> If you want to see paralelles between stories, one can better
> look at the similarities in the story of the Argonauts and the
> Odyssee, they both go for war in the eastern mediterranean, after
> that they both 'visit' Circe -the witch-, they go to Libya, they
> passed the land of the Cyclopes (Sicily- before the arrival of
> the Sicanians), they both visit Scheria, etc. .
> Also some of the Argonauts are the fathers of Aechaean leaders
> against Troy.
> See also :
> http://www.hsa.brown.edu/~maicar//mapARGONAUTS.html
In my opinion, the strange places mentioned in the Odyssey can
be understood on more than one level and mean different places:
places in the west, anticipating the expansion of Greece; or
dreamlike combinations of Troy and its former allies (as explained
before).
> Diodorus also tells us that Pythagoras learned his theory of
> numbers from the Egyptians.
> http://homer.reed.edu/Diodorus1.96-98.html
> ,at the bottom of the text.
>
> regards, Ito C.
The Greeks were honest scholars, who told us where they got
their knowledge from, what does by no means belittle their own
contributions.
Regards, and thank you for your reply
Sue King
It's always good to hear from you!! Is "a very good man" Zahi Hawass? Well,
he may very well be a very good man, but after considering Franz' comments, I
feel I may be on the edge of what he calls 'hate.' Were you able to see the
Fox show? If not, you didn't miss anything.
Anyway, I'd still like to see the Queen's northern air shaft examined by
Gantenbrink's robot, but the more I suffer, the more it shows I really care!
(Yeah, yeah, yeah!!)
Also I'd like to add here, that I have a lovely wave file about the F word, if
anyone would like to have it just write me at sxu...@aol.com and I'll forward
it! ;)
Your a real pal Marcio!
Sue.
cir...@access.ch
marci...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi Sue,
>
> I am sorry not commenting your initial post and my failure to welcome
> your coming back to sci.archaeology. You know how I praise your
> interventions with something new and different.
> We need that kind of something crazy or unexpected.
> May be the reason was that it brought a comment on a very good
research
> and a man that we all deserve gratitude for his exceptional work in
the
> field of Archaeology, doing more than our simple work of research but
> who is in charge with the direction of one of the treasures of
humanity.
>
> For me, personal opinions are personal opinions that I respect and
> approve or not approve explicitly but reserve the right to express my
> own opinion.
>
> As usual, your comments started a storm in this corner.
>
> That is all.
>
> Thanks for sharing with us your quest for the truth in the realm of
> archaeology.
>
> Regards,
> Marcio.
Marcio, you support Sue King, who started another hate Hawass
campaign here in sci.archaeology. The one by Andy was bad enough,
we surely don't need another stupid campaign. I gave you my
permission to quote my statements on your web-page, but now, that
you support Sue King, who is writing ever more bizarre statements
- she told me recently: 'Now you die fucking BITCH' (she, a woman,
to me, a man), I can't allow that you quote me on your homepage,
please delete all my statements on your web-page.
Andy
Aarrgghh!! How many times?! READ the many replies to your posts Franz or
forever live in ignorance.
Andy
--
'There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is
contempt prior to investigation.'
marci...@my-deja.com
cir...@access.ch wrote:
>
> Marcio, you support Sue King, who started another hate Hawass
> campaign here in sci.archaeology. The one by Andy was bad enough,
> we surely don't need another stupid campaign. I gave you my
> permission to quote my statements on your web-page, but now, that
> you support Sue King,
( ...... )
I can't allow that you quote me on your homepage,
> please delete all my statements on your web-page.
>
> Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
Hi Franz,
I understand your position and ask you to reconsider that decision.
Your participation in our web page
http://homestead.deja.com/user.marcio6067/Math.html
is very important and gives the right approach to our scientific
research since you are present in the initial discussion that
resulted in our work.
In case you maintain that decision we will attend your request in the
next revision of the URL.
Regars,
Marcio.
cir...@access.ch
marci...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi Franz,
>
> I understand your position and ask you to reconsider that decision.
>
> Your participation in our web page
>
> http://homestead.deja.com/user.marcio6067/Math.html
>
> is very important and gives the right approach to our scientific
> research since you are present in the initial discussion that
> resulted in our work.
>
> In case you maintain that decision we will attend your request in the
> next revision of the URL.
>
> Regars,
>
> Marcio.
No, please delete my statements on your web-page immediately.
Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
Sue King
> cir...@access.ch wrote:
>
>>
>> Marcio, you support Sue King, who started another hate Hawass
>> campaign here in sci.archaeology. The one by Andy was bad enough,
>> we surely don't need another stupid campaign. I gave you my
>> permission to quote my statements on your web-page, but now, that
>> you support Sue King,
>( ...... )
>I can't allow that you quote me on your homepage,
>> please delete all my statements on your web-page.
>>
>> Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
>
>
>I understand your position and ask you to reconsider that decision.
>
>Your participation in our web page
>
>http://homestead.deja.com/user.marcio6067/Math.html
>
>is very important and gives the right approach to our scientific
>research since you are present in the initial discussion that
>resulted in our work.
>
>In case you maintain that decision we will attend your request in the
>next revision of the URL.
>
>Regars,
>
>Marcio.
>
>
Marcio, thank you for that website! :)
Since I already killfiled Franz, I didn't realize he was threatening you.
(Franz is dead, long live Franz!)
Do not lose anything on account of any associations! Maybe Franz was just
trying to find out if I really killfiled him or not? (Was he really dead? He
felt himself, and thought he was still alive? Is he or not?)
[Only his hairdresser knows for sure.]
Creamate or mummify, that is the question. (Reincarnation or Ressurection,
that should be something we all ask ourselves!.)
Even Franz can serve at least as a good bad example. Sorry, j/k ;)
Anyway, back to the topic...
You didn't say if you saw the Fox show? I'm still curious. I was really let
down by a show about people unearthing burrials on TV, supposedly, which were
obviously staged. If anything like this had happened in the US involving
indigenous people's graves, it would have been illegal!
Sorry, "there I go again on my own, walking down the only road I've ever
known"... o/~.
Andy
> >
> > I understand your position and ask you to reconsider that decision.
> >
> > Your participation in our web page
> >
> > http://homestead.deja.com/user.marcio6067/Math.html
> >
> > is very important and gives the right approach to our scientific
> > research since you are present in the initial discussion that
> > resulted in our work.
> >
> > In case you maintain that decision we will attend your request in the
> > next revision of the URL.
> >
> > Regars,
> >
> > Marcio.
>
>
>
> Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
>
And return his teddy as soon as possible! You CANNOT disagree with or
question Franz - end of story. Eric knows this as well as I do (see this
thread for more). On the other hand, it's a shame your site will suffer. I
wonder why Franz was quiet when the recent (now ended?) 'ceasefire' between
Hawass/Bauval/Hancock et al was promoted. Hawass fraternising with the
enemy? Marcio fraternising with Sue? Grow up Franz.
Andy
David A Sparrow
> >
> > I understand your position and ask you to reconsider that decision.
> >
> > Your participation in our web page
> > http://homestead.deja.com/user.marcio6067/Math.html
> > is very important and gives the right approach to our scientific
> > research since you are present in the initial discussion that
> > resulted in our work.
> > In case you maintain that decision we will attend your request in the
> > next revision of the URL.
> > Regars,
> > Marcio.
> No, please delete my statements on your web-page immediately.
> Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
Politeness might decree that one should honour such
a request, but I doubt if there is any legal requirement
... not unless the statements have come from some
copyright type source.
Ah well. 8-)
regarDS
marci...@my-deja.com
cir...@access.ch wrote:
>
> No, please delete my statements on your web-page immediately.
>
> Franz Gnaedinger Zurich cir...@access.ch
>
Hi Franz
We are deleting your statements in our web page .
In good faith we think that these statements are yours and are in these
phrases:
"Why did the fifth planet explode? May be the answer is in the
considerations of the scholar Franz Gnaedinger in our newsgroup of
sci.archaeology, that I quote : " When the former nebula of dust around
the sun began to condense, several proto-planets have been formed, yet
only those on the good orbits persisted while the other ones brake und
burst whereupon the pieces had been attracted by the ever-growing
planets on the good orbits."
"And is going to our arithmetical analysis, of my brother and mine,
that
we discovered that all those numbers are represented together in a same
number, result of one simple, simple yet clever - as would say Franz
Gnaedinger - arithmetical operation, operation that is given in the
Gospel of Mark."
We are revising these texts and no reference to your name and no quote
of
your work in Deja.com will appear in the revised text.
Please make we know if there is any other point that you think remain
to be attended.
Be sure that the present misunderstanding in no way will obscure the
respect and admiration we have by your scientific work in this
scientific forum.
Very truly yours