summaries (2)

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Chauvet cave / Pech Merle / stage of a spectacle ? / Golden Boy


***

One Holly, in the spring of 2006, asked me about a domino five in the
Brunel chamber of the Chauvet cave - can I associate a Magdalenian word
to that sign on the wall?

She gave me the link to the fine official website of that cave. I looked it up
and easily found the Brunel chamber with a large domino five made of red
ocher palm impressions, plus one more 'dot' in upper position, next to the
right upper 'dot' of the domino five, and thought immediately of PAS CA ...

PAS means everywhere (in a plain), here, south and north of me, east and
west of me, in all five places, Greek pas pan 'all, every' pente penta- 'five'.
CA means heaven. Cave walls often represent the sky, Lascaux, Altamira,
Chauvet itself. PAS CA would then mean: everywhere in the sky.

Who gets everywhere in the sky?

The answer is given in the hindmost hall of the wide cave. On a stalactit
appears a Venus, her lower body with a big black pubic triangle, by her side
a bison, his forelegs going along with her legs, his head before her womb -
the bullman, supreme leader of the Lower Rhône Valley, born again by the
goddess in the region of the Summer Triangle Deneb - Vega - Atair --- may
he roam the heavens in his next life as he roamed the earth in this life,
may he get everywhere PAS in the sky CA ...

Holly was mighty excited: the oldest identifiable writing in the world!

PAS CA has derivatives in Russian Paskha, Italian Pasqua, French Pâques.


***

Once a 'simple' and clear case like the Chauvet PAS CA is resolved, you can
look out for confirmation and a more demanding case.

The Chauvet paintings are 32,000 or even 36,000 years old, the oldest Lascaux
paintings 17,000 years. Pech Merle is in between with 25,000 years.

Pech Merle presents a red ocher hand negative, apparently above eye level,
claiming a second life in a heavenly beyond. Next to the hand, on the right
side, a little below, is a vertical-horizontal cross of five dots, with four
more dots above the cross and three more dots below the cross.

The cross of five dots and the four more dots above it can again be read as
PAS CA, and the cross with the three dots below it as PAS AC - may the supreme
leader roam the heavens in his next life as he roamed the land in this life,
may he get everywhere PAS in the sky CA as he got everywhere PAS on earth AC.

PAS AC may have a derivative in Pesach Passover, hypothetical original meaning
of the Jewish festival: Pharaoh can't hold us up, we get everywhere PAS on
earth AC, we will cross the border between Lower Egypt and the Sinai ...
The same idea is preserved in Hebrew pasak 'to open wide' and English pass
passport, allowing us to get everywhere.


***

The Chauvet cave might have been the stage of a spectacle representing the
PAS CA idea: the bullman, supreme leader of the Lower Rhône Valley, born
again by the goddess in the region of the Summer Triangle Deneb - Vega - Atair,
going on a heavenly journey (imagine shadow plays accompanied by flutes and
drums).

Michael Janda, eminent PIE scholar, concluded from the Rig Veda on a Stone Age
belief in a second life somewhere on the Milky Way, while Michael Rappenglück
identified the birdman, the bull, and the bird on a pole in the pit of Lascaux
as Cygnus with Deneb, Lyra with Vega, and Aquila with Atair respectively -
in my opinion worthy rulers of the Guyenne (birdman, encoding a river system
of the Guyenne), of the Lower Rhòne Valley (bull[man]), and of the Pyrenées
(bird on a pole) in the region of the Summer Triangle.

In the time of Chauvet, fast moving Arcturus, today below Bootes, had been
his head, facing the Big Dipper seen as a bear - ARC TYR, overcomer TYR of
the cave bear ARC. The skull of a cave bear had been placed on a plinth in
a chamber of the Chauvet cave, while the entrance to that cave was blocked
by a rock 23,000 years ago. Skulls of cave bears were placed in many more
caves, carefully deposited as emblem of the cave according to Marie E.P.
König.

ARC TYR lived on as Arthur / Artus. Arthur of Brittany fought for three days
and nights with the dragon of Landevennec - skuls and bones of the long
extinct cave bear, larger than a grizzly, had been misinterpreted as remains
of dragons in medieval times.

My assumption is that Golden Boy of the Indus Valley had been the hero of
a similar story (an oral epic), the young god bringing civilization to the
humans, his adventures projected into the constellations of the night sky,
Golden Boy a star among the stars in a celestial movie on the heavenly screen.


***

For my entertainment I compiled an oral epic from different sources, ARC TYR
of the Chauvet cave, Arthur Artus, Excalibur, Greek mythology, Behemoth in
the Bible, Goebekli Tepe calendar, Pashupati tablets from the Indus Valley,
Lascux midwinter emblem.

Golden Boy stole from the fire of life PIR SAI guarded by the Perseus tiger
of the Algol eye. Then he followed the heavenly CA lake or stream LAC,
together CA LAC overformed by Galaxy, Milky Way, until he saw the Lyra
elephant of the Vega eye on the other side of the wide river. The kind
elephant helped him cross the water, and showed him the way through the
Draco Valley up to the Thuban mountain of the heavenly North Pole. Golden
Boy wandered along the steep valley and reached the top of the Thuban mountain.
As he looked over the land he heard people complain about the thirsty Bootes
rhinoceros that emptied the rivers, and nobody could cope with it. So he went
down from the Thuban mountain, took hold of the Spica lance, pierced the bony
skin of the grotesquely swollen pachiderm, and released the first monsoon ...
Then he tamed the savage Canis Minor buffalo of the Procyon eye, and taught
people many arts, how to plough the fields, form and dry bricks, build houses,
the double Gemini towers, catch fish, bake bread, and many more. Across
the wide celestial river he got a glimpse of the Orion woman, ORE EON, she
on the beautiful ORE bank or shore EON of the heavenly stream. Finally he
returned to the top of the Thuban mountain, climbed the pipal tree growing
there, fixed the stars to air roots, and swirled them around, making the
merry-go-round of the seasons turn: 90 days of the Perseus tiger of the
Algol eye; 90 days of the Lyra elephant of the Vega eye; 3 days of Golden
Boy, midsummer; 90 days of the Bootes rhinoceros of the Arcturus eye; and
finally 2 and occasionally 3 days of the Orion goddess, midwinter, her emblem
a pair of antithetic ibices.

The connecting lines Algol-Arcturus and Vega-Procyon formed an oblique cross
of practically the angles 70-110-70-110 degrees that are very well approximated
by the diagonals of the rectangle 7 by 10 whose center was near Thuban in Draco
some 4,500 years ago.

The society of the Indus Valley imposed taxes in the form of work, for example
in the fabrication of bricks (restauring Mohenjo-daro after the monsoon
required some two million bricks every year), and extraordinary endeavors had
been rewarded with an Indus tablet of high prestige, referring to the work
in question, in the given case fabricating and transporting of bricks in the
90 days of the buffalo, between the fall equinox and midwinter festival.
Maybe we can restore the oral epic of Golden Boy from those tablets, one day?


***

The schoool of Imhotep in Ancient Egypt, more precisely Hemon, presumable
designer of the Great Pyramid, achieved the first systematic calculation
of the circle on the basis of the triangle 3-4-5. Using a linear plus-minus
algorithm they found a sequence of triple that generate a sequence of ever
rounder polygons in a sequence of circles of the radius 5, 25, 125, 625 ...
ever finer units, 3-4-5, 7-24-25, 44-117-125, 336-527-625 ... But they
probably also knew another triple-generating algorithm

4x4 - 3x3 = 7 2x4x3 = 24 4x4 + 3x3 = 25

Applied to the numbers 10 and 7 of the heavenly cross we obtain the triple or
triangle 51-140-149 which provides an angle of practically 70 degrees (twice
the arctan 7/10), an angle of exactly 90 degrees, and an angle of practically
20 degrees (arctan 51/140 or arcsin 51/149 or arccos 140/149, angle 20.0159...
degrees, 18 times that angle being 360.287... degrees, rounded a full circle).
I found this 'magic' triangle when reconstructing a hypothetical solar
sanctuary and complementary lunar sanctuary of the Proto-Finns in the Middle
Ural.

Some scholars make a connection between the Indus Valley culture and the Finns.

According to a hypothesis of mine, the Finns came originally from the Goebekli
Tepe region, wandered eastward, reached the Aral Sea, and settled in the Middle
Ural, region of Perm and Jekaterinburg.

The names Aral and Ural derive from AAR RAA ) or AAR RAA L, he of air AAR
and light RAA has the say ) or L, while another form of his name, AAR RAA CA,
he of air and light in the sky CA, would explain the name of Golden Boy
muruku that was identified by Asko Parpola

AAR RAA CA muR Ru Cu muruku

The same compound may account for Finnish AAR RAA CA aurinko 'sun' and
CA kuu 'moon' - the eyes of the old sky god were sun and moon. And the form
AAR RAA NOS is found in Hungarian arany 'gold' (perhaps also on Finnish
aarre 'treasure', classically buried gold).

Theo Vennemann considers toponyms like Val d'Aran and Arundel a chief witness
of the Vasconic theory of early language. Remember also the Val d'Hérens in
the western Swiss Alps, a valley being a hollow between hills or mountains
filled with air and light.

Magdalenian is a natural expansion of the comparative method: finding
deeper connections between languages and religious beliefs of an early time.


***

Remember the imaginary rectangle 7 by 10 in the night sky, center near Thuban
in Draco, with Algol and Arcturus on one diagonal, Vega and Procyon on the
other diagonal. The slowly turning diagonals could have served as a clock,
with a short hour of 40 minutes and a day of 36 short hours

from Algol to Vega 11 short hours or 440 minutes
from Vega to Arcturus 7 short hours or 280 minutes
from Arcturus to Procyon 11 short hours or 440 minutes
from Procyon to Algol 7 short hours or 280 minutes

The guiding stars of the four seasons played a role in the calendar

-- New Year following the midwinter festival of the goddess, Algol reaching
the apex of its trajectory in the evening at the beginning of a seson of 90 days

-- spring equinox, Vega reaching the apex of its trajectory in the morning at
the beginning of a season of 90 days

-- midsummer festival of the god, 3 days

-- followed by the monsoon of the rhinoceros, Arcturus reaching the apex of
its trajectory in the evening at the beginning of a season of 90 days

-- fall equinox Procyon reaching the apex of its trajectory in the morning
at the beginning of a season of 90 days

-- midwinter festival of the goddess, 2 and occasionally 3 days, end of year.

Rising Bootes reaching the apex of its trajectory in the evening announced
the midsummer festival, and the rising Pleiads reaching the apex of their
trajectory in the evening announced the midwinter festival. Aldebaran in
Taurus and the Pleiads were the Golden Gate of Babylonian astronomy,
traversed by sun and moon and planets.

The above calendar was derived from the most elaborate Pashupati tablet which
might have honored an outstanding astronomer of Mohenjo-daro. Actually it was
derived from a seal impression of this tablet, showing the tiger in the lower
left corner; above him a standing or walking man, Golden Boy marking the
position of the spring equinox; the elephant above him; big in the middle
Pashupati, Lord of the animals, turning his head, indicating the merry-go-round
of the four seasons, wearing buffalo horns, one big (nearly complete) circle
for the day, the other one for the night; next to him, on the right side of
the seal impression, the rhinoceros; under him the buffalo; and under the
tabouret of Pashupati a pair of antithetic ibices, emblem of midwinter
according to Marie E.P. König. Pashupati appearing big and the ibices small
indicate a celebration of midsummer.

Pashupati means Lord of the Animals and may overform PAS PAD, everywhere
(in a plain) PAS activity of feet PAD - he got everywhere in the sky on his
heavenly journey and became Pashupati, Lord of the animals of the four
seasons, tiger of the Algol eye, elephant of the Vega eye, rhinoceros of the
Arcturus eye, buffalo of the Procyon eye.


***

Goebekli Tepe hieroglyphs (1)

Compared to the PAS CA formula of red ocher palm impressions, the hieroglyphs
on Goebekli Tepe pillars are relatively young, 'only' 11,600 years old.

Temple D, in my opinion the sanctuary of creation, has a pair of large central
pillars, the female one in the east, and the male one in the west, on their
necks triple hieroglyphs that make them speak

http://www.seshat.ch/home/gt01.GIF

The upper hieroglyph on the neck of the female pillar shows an oval deepening
between a pair of vertical bars, indicating a talking mouth, the fire giver
PIR GID having the say ) or L, and her priestess in the role of the goddess
between the pair of the central pillars of temple D.

PIR GID calls out to her sister the fur giver BIR GID. This one takes her
cosmic fur and scoops the primeval hill out of the primeval sea. Her hieroglyph
is the the one at the bottom, looking like a bowl, representing a fur bag.

Now PIR GID called out to her sister the fertility giver BRI GID. This one
took the primeval hill and formed a ring, the primeval earth AC, and the
hollow in the ring the primeval sky CA. She also planted the seeds of life
into the primeval earth. Her hieroglyph is the ring in the middle.

A male head appeared in the hollow of the ring, the sky god AAR RAA NOS.
His eyes were moon and sun. PIR GID lit them up with her fire of life PIR SAI.
And the shining sun made the seeds of life germinate ...

Next time: second part of creation, and what became of the names of the
goddesses and gods


***

Goebekli Tepe hieroglyphs (2)

The hieroglyphs on the neck of the female central pillar of temple D
anticipate Genesis 1:1 in the Bible

)OG BIR AC CA or LOG BIR AC CA

Now for the second part of creation, as encoded in the bucranium on the neck
of the male central pillar

http://www.seshat.ch/home/gt01.GIF

The somewhat ring-like head of the bull symbolizes AAR RAA NOS, the sky god
of air AAR and light RAA with a mind NOS of his own. He appeared in the guises
of a bull and a man. His head as a man appears in the big limestone ring

http://www.seshat.ch/home/ouranos.JPG

GIS BAL CA MmOS, gesturing GIS hot(headed) BAL heavenly CA offspring Mmos
broke up the ring, freed the sky god, flattened the earth AC and spread the
sky CA over it. His element of the bucranium is the horizontal bar on top
of the head and pair of horns.

AD DA MAN dug river beds and made the water flow toward AD the sea while
coming from the hills and mountains, and dug them with his right hand MAN.
He was the patron of the early farmers who dug irrigation channels. His
tool had been horns, their tools stag antlers. His element in the bucranium
is the pair of horns pointing downward.

Now for the various names and what became of them.

AAR RAA NOS became Ouranos in Greece and Varuna in the Indus Valley.
His guises were a bull and a man. House 1A of Hallan Cemi (Chemi),
a round building half in the ground, inner diameter maybe six meters,
a gathering house, showed opposite of the entrance the skull and horns
of an aurochs, possible emblem of the old sky god in his guise of a bull

GIS BAL CA MmOS became GISh.BIL.GA.MISh Gilgamesh, and in the short form
of BAL the god Ba'al

AD DA MAN became Adam, patron of early farmers

AC CA personified became the Indo-European earth goddess akka mentioned by
Pokorny, also Hebrew Hawwa 'mother of all life' English Eve, and inverse
CA AC the Greek earth goddess Gaia. AC CA also named the Goebekli Tepe
as the large 'hill with a navel' as the place where earth AC and sky CA
are meeting, or where they had been separated from each other in the
beginning - by BRI GID whose alter ego had been AC CA. A Syrian province
by the name of aqa mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus might have been the
region of the Goebekli Tepe in southeastern Anatolia and southwestern
Syria (the latter just now the place of yet another humanitarian catastrophe)

PIR GID and BIR GID and BRI GID were preceeded by the triple goddess carved
in the Abri Bourdois near Angles-sur-l'Anglin, Dep. Vienne, France, and
became the mighty Celtic triple goddess Brigit

BRI GID was AC CA personified and became the Greek love goddess Aphrodite

BRI GID aBRI GIDe Aphrodite

And the three divine couples were PIR GID and AAR RAA NOS, then BIR GID
and GIS BAL CA MmOS, then BRI GID alias AC CA Hawwa Eve and AD DA MAN Adam.

Next time: exchanges between earth and sky


***

Goebekli Tepe hieroglyphs (3)

The ring hieroglyph denotes the ring of the primeval world, the ring itself
the earth AC and the hollow the sky CA. Whereas the broken up and flattened
ring and the sky spread on it was represented by another hieroglyph: the
lying H whose lower horizontal bar indicates the flat earth AC and the
upper horizontal bar the sky CA, while the vertical bar signifies exchanches
between them, notably prayers for rain and the rising smoke of sacrificial
fires imploring rain, and falling rain rewarding them (for example on pillar
30 in temple D).

Snakes are by far the most frequent symbol in the Goebekli Tepe iconography.
Snakes heading upward symbolize prayers for rain and the smoke of sacrificial
fires imploring rain: snakes heading downward symbolize falling rain; and
snakes undulating horizontally symbolize rivers (Euphrates and Tigris on
pillar 33 of temple D).

Also the snake in the garden of Eden symbolizes water: the huge amounts of
water needed for irrigating plantations of cultivated date palms. A cylinder
seal from Sumer shows a couple evoking Adam and Eve seated under a stylized
date palm, while a large snake forms a stairway from the ground to the sky,
as if the snake is drinking water from a cloud ...

Over-irrigation deposited salt in the soil and made it barren. Which is the
reason why Abraham left Ur for Harran, science found out. And when Adam and
Eve had been driven out of paradise, the snake was condemned to eat dust
(Genesis 1:1).

A stone tablet from Jerf el-Ahmar - area and era of the Goebekli Tepe culture
- shows a grid of lines and a snake undulating horizontally, hence the lines
are irrigation channels.

The first paradise was northern Mesopotamia, and the second one southern
Mesopotamia, water a big issue for both of them.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-11-05 08:02:00 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

>
> Chauvet cave / Pech Merle / stage of a spectacle ? / Golden Boy
>
>
> ***
>
> One Holly, in the spring of 2006,

vague as always

> asked me about a domino five in the
> Brunel chamber of the Chauvet cave - can I associate a Magdalenian word
> to that sign on the wall?
>
> She gave me the link

vague as always: what is the link?

[ Outpouring of typical verbal diarrhoea skipped ]

--
athel

[Helmut Richter]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> [ Outpouring of typical verbal diarrhoea skipped ]

The term "logorrhœa" exists.

--
Helmut Richter

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 12:10:12 PM UTC+2, Helmut Richter wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > [ Outpouring of typical verbal diarrhoea skipped ]
>
> The term "logorrhœa" exists.

How common is it to use that ligature in English? Can you write it on a normal English keyboard?

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's an affectation of a regionalism. In American we write -rrhea for
those conditions, in British they write -rrhoea, and the use of the
ligature is archaic.

What's a "normal English keyboard"? MSWord comes with a keyboard shortcut
for typing it (essentially, for all the curiosities in the Unicode range
covering Western Europe, and it's included because it used to be used in
French, but when do you see oeil or coeur with the ligature any more).

Here in MSEdge, it can be inserted using Character Map or an Alt code.
Mac, but not Windows, has system-wide keyboard shortcuts on the standard
US keyboard for those letters.

In both Windows and Mac you can switch to an International keyboard for
typing them directly, or a Dvorak keyboard for hobbyists, etc. Or, of
course, to the standard keyboards inherited from typewriters for every
other modern script.

(There are several input methods for Chinese characters.)

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:05:56 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 9:54:14 AM UTC-5, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 12:10:12 PM UTC+2, Helmut Richter wrote:
> > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > > > [ Outpouring of typical verbal diarrhoea skipped ]
> > > The term "logorrhœa" exists.
> >
> > How common is it to use that ligature in English? Can you write it on a normal English keyboard?
>
> It's an affectation of a regionalism. In American we write -rrhea for
> those conditions, in British they write -rrhoea, and the use of the
> ligature is archaic.

That's what I thought. Neither those ligatures nor the use of trema dots in English were ever taught us at school (and in Finnish schools we had even back then quite high standards of English teaching). I found the trema dots highly disconcerting when I saw them in English-language books, partly because they resembled the Finnish umlaut dots.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:32:33 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> vague as always
>

Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund: I warned Holly from the vultures
in sci.lang, she didn't care but asked me not to reveal her identity.
And, by the way, what do you contribute to sci.lang? what makes you
behave as if you were an authority throning above me?

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:32:33 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>

> [ Outpouring of typical verbal diarrhoea skipped ]
>

Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund who got his wriggling fingers inside you:
the same is disrupting my work, so I adopt my posting style. And, by the way,
what do you have to say? and what makes you behave as if you wre an authority
throning above me?

[Arnaud Fournet]

you're an incompetent stubborn clownish idiot.
Even a goat is an authority when compared to you.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-11-06 07:28:35 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:32:33 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> vague as always
>>
>
> Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund: I warned Holly from the vultures
> in sci.lang, she didn't care but asked me not to reveal her identity.

How do we know that she's not a figment of your imagination, like all
your musings about "Magdalenian".

> And, by the way, what do you contribute to sci.lang? what makes you
> behave as if you were an authority throning above me?

I don't think that asking for evidence constitutes "behaving as an
authority throning over you". However, if I do it may be because I'm a
scientist, albeit not in linguistics, and you are a nutter.


--
athel

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 10:35:51 AM UTC+2, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> you're an incompetent stubborn clownish idiot.
> Even a goat is an authority when compared to you.

If I completely and utterly agree with you on this, does that make me your sock-puppet, or the other way around?

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 9:28:37 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> what do you contribute to sci.lang?

Everybody else contributes more than you.

[Arnaud Fournet]

I need to check what a sock-puppet really is,
but even without knowing, I'm ready to answer no in both ways.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

I guess it is "marionnette" in French.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 9:35:51 AM UTC+1, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> you're an incompetent stubborn clownish idiot.
> Even a goat is an authority when compared to you.

Who does more pour la gloire de la Grande Nation d'autrefois, me interpreting
cave art (here Chauvet and Pech Merle) or you dropping insults, unable of
arguing on the topic level, as many here in psy.lang?

[Arnaud Fournet]

You're a pathetic jerk, a loser, un raté total,
you have no idea what glory and "grande" and "autrefois" are about.
Please note that my words are not "insults", but just descriptors of your predicament.

[António Marques]

I'd say that if he sees them as insults, they're deserved, inasmuch as
they're what's left after he angrily refused to engage any of the
constructive dialogue that's he's been offered over the years.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 7 Nov 2019 04:18:51 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

I side with Franz here. He doesn't deserve this.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I don't. He does. Read António's post to understand why. Can you recall
a single occasion when Franz has tried to answer constructive criticism.


--
athel

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

I definitely agree.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 4:40:53 PM UTC+2, António Marques wrote:
> after he angrily refused to engage any of the
> constructive dialogue that's he's been offered over the years.

I'd say you hit the core of the kernel of the nucleus of the point here.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 4:17:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> I don't. He does. Read António's post to understand why. Can you recall
> a single occasion when Franz has tried to answer constructive criticism.
>

Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund: arguments on the meta-level and verdicts
dropped from above are no constructive criticism. Argue on the topic level,
or keep away from me.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:40:53 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> I'd say that if he sees them as insults, they're deserved, inasmuch as
> they're what's left after he angrily refused to engage any of the
> constructive dialogue that's he's been offered over the years.

You are the one who angrily refused a topic discussion. Recently you found
the mumm to go for a test case of mine, and asked me how to proceed. I told
you to summon all arguments for bear as the brown one, then I shall provide
my arguments for bear as the furry one, and then we shall see whose etymology
is both simpler and more productive (known as Bacon's razor). You quit,
before even taking the fist step, leaving a trail of insults. Business as
usual in psy.lang, not what I understand as constructive criticism - perhaps
in the warped understanding of you guys, but not in mine.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

i Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.

ii The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

iii Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

iv Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.

v You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.

vi On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".

vii Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.

viii On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have
learnt languages unknown to you.

ix To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.

x And your tastes in music still suck.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

one: Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.

two: The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

three: Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

four: Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.

five: You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.

six: On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".

seven: Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.

eight: On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have

learnt languages unknown to you.

nine: To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.

ten: And your tastes in music still suck.

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:40:53 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> I'd say that if he sees them as insults, they're deserved, inasmuch as
>> they're what's left after he angrily refused to engage any of the
>> constructive dialogue that's he's been offered over the years.
>
> You are the one who angrily refused a topic discussion. Recently you found
> the mumm

The what?

> to go for a test case of mine, and asked me how to proceed.

It's a question you've been asked multiple times, not just recently.

> I told
> you to summon all arguments for bear as the brown one, then I shall provide
> my arguments for bear as the furry one,

Correct, that was your reply.

> and then we shall see whose etymology
> is both simpler and more productive (known as Bacon's razor).

No, you just said we'd see whose arguments were 'better'.

> You quit,
> before even taking the fist step, leaving a trail of insults.

I have absolutely no idea where you got that. What I replied was that you
had been presented with arguments many times but have ignored them (and I
don't mean procedural arguments you love to dismiss as 'meta' whatever, but
actual facts about the history of words); and that other people had pointed
out the problems in yours; leaving us in the state of affairs that 1. We
had already 'gone for' your test cases, even unknowingly, and 2. Your
arguments just weren't as good as you thought they were. Possibly this last
bit is what your id interpreted as a trail of insults ('sir, you insult me
by saying my arguments aren't any good').

Remember when you delight in the creativity or whatever of Madgelaniam?
Other folks just don't find it that creative or elegant or rich. They
rather see a commonplace new age self-satisfying ball of words. I
understand it's not nice to hear that about something we like, but that's
the way it is.

And we've reached a point where it's really difficult to even talk to you,
as you apparently misremember every past exchange.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le vendredi 8 novembre 2019 09:22:37 UTC+1, Franz Gnaedinger a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:40:53 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
> >
> > I'd say that if he sees them as insults, they're deserved, inasmuch as
> > they're what's left after he angrily refused to engage any of the
> > constructive dialogue that's he's been offered over the years.
>
> You are the one who angrily refused a topic discussion. Recently you found
> the mumm to go for a test case of mine, and asked me how to proceed. I told
> you to summon all arguments for bear as the brown one, then I shall provide
> my arguments for bear as the furry one, and then we shall see whose etymology
> is both simpler and more productive (known as Bacon's razor).

It's not "Bacon's", you idiotic pighead, but Occam's razor.
Can you please stop making a fool of yourself, you incompetent stubborn clownish idiot.
Try to get something better for morning breakfast.

[António Marques]

Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le vendredi 8 novembre 2019 09:22:37 UTC+1, Franz Gnaedinger a écrit :
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:40:53 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd say that if he sees them as insults, they're deserved, inasmuch as
>>> they're what's left after he angrily refused to engage any of the
>>> constructive dialogue that's he's been offered over the years.
>>
>> You are the one who angrily refused a topic discussion. Recently you found
>> the mumm to go for a test case of mine, and asked me how to proceed. I told
>> you to summon all arguments for bear as the brown one, then I shall provide
>> my arguments for bear as the furry one, and then we shall see whose etymology
>> is both simpler and more productive (known as Bacon's razor).
>
> It's not "Bacon's", you idiotic pighead, but Occam's razor.

I thought he was being facetious, but maybe he wasn't. Might bacon slices
be known as blades in Swiss?
He could have written 'the Razor of Bacon' to avoid doubt.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 7:51:32 AM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le vendredi 8 novembre 2019 09:22:37 UTC+1, Franz Gnaedinger a écrit :
> > On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:40:53 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:

> > > I'd say that if he sees them as insults, they're deserved, inasmuch as
> > > they're what's left after he angrily refused to engage any of the
> > > constructive dialogue that's he's been offered over the years.
> > You are the one who angrily refused a topic discussion. Recently you found
> > the mumm

What is "found the mumm"?

> > to go for a test case of mine, and asked me how to proceed. I told
> > you to summon all arguments for bear as the brown one, then I shall provide
> > my arguments for bear as the furry one, and then we shall see whose etymology
> > is both simpler and more productive (known as Bacon's razor).
>
> It's not "Bacon's", you idiotic pighead, but Occam's razor.

Try to pay attention. He's been promoting Francis Bacon for years.
(Not that that explains what "Bacon's razor" is, but it isn't Occam's.)

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:40:26 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> I have absolutely no idea where you got that. What I replied was that you
> had been presented with arguments many times but have ignored them (and I
> don't mean procedural arguments you love to dismiss as 'meta' whatever, but
> actual facts about the history of words); and that other people had pointed
> out the problems in yours; leaving us in the state of affairs that 1. We
> had already 'gone for' your test cases, even unknowingly, and 2. Your
> arguments just weren't as good as you thought they were. Possibly this last
> bit is what your id interpreted as a trail of insults ('sir, you insult me
> by saying my arguments aren't any good').
>
> Remember when you delight in the creativity or whatever of Madgelaniam?
> Other folks just don't find it that creative or elegant or rich. They
> rather see a commonplace new age self-satisfying ball of words. I
> understand it's not nice to hear that about something we like, but that's
> the way it is.
>
> And we've reached a point where it's really difficult to even talk to you,
> as you apparently misremember every past exchange.

You flunked before you took step one, leaving a trail of insults. Apparently
you don't realize your own behaving. And as always you turn a topic discussion
into a meta-discussion - we told you many times, you have been told, your
opinion deviates from what stands in textbooks and therefore is wrong a priori
eo ipso and anyway etcetera pp. I studied Martin Huld's long bear paper
in the Proceedings of the Annual UCLA Indo-European Studies back in 2006.
He compiles all arguments in favor of bear as the brown one, but says (in a
careful but also slightly ironical way, half between the lines, near the end
of his paper) that PIE scholars are prone to go for the next best root.
This is the case in the case of the bear as the brown one, derived from
one of the six homonyms *bher-, namely *bher- 'brown'. Magdalenian offers
BIR meaning fur, a word explaining all six *bher- homonyms (I gave the list
recently, but it was ignored, as always), and since most fur is brown,
the furry one can also be seen as the brown one. But initially it was
the furry one. BIR is also present in boar German Eber, in beaver German
Biber, and in the squirrel *werwer 'furry furry (little animal)'.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:51:32 PM UTC+1, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> It's not "Bacon's", you idiotic pighead, but Occam's razor.
> Can you please stop making a fool of yourself, you incompetent stubborn clownish idiot.
> Try to get something better for morning breakfast.
>

Science = incomprehensible. Over-systematized sound agebra = ununderstandable
ergo scientific. / Shedding light on the past = fiction. Blowing fog on
the past = science. / Asking for a topic discussion = naive. Leading endless
and fruitless meta-discussions = top notch, favorite pastime in psy.lang.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:07:31 AM UTC+1, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski wrote:
>
> i Cave art gives us no clue
>

> ii The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue

Panu Petteri Höglund of the Slavic alias got no clue but has a long
history of aggression. Once he posted ugly messages to soc.men,
attacking women. Then he joined sci.lang in early 2006 and attacked
me out of the blue. May my head burst, he wrote in a stilted German,
the sooner the more betterer. He applied what I call the strategy
of the weak dog: find a weaker dog than yourself, bite him and hope
to climb the social ladder. Only that I am no weak dog. Ever since
he follows me around, commanding a shadow army of braying aliasses.
He attacks also others under different names in the same thread.
One of his pseudonyms had been Der psychopathsiche Entdärmer (sic)
'the psychopathic eviscerator'. Using his real name he wrote that
he has plenty ideas of what he could do to me with a knife, alas,
the law still considers me a human being with rights. He tried and
tries everything to obstruct my work and ruin my threads. About my
brief summary of Homer's Odyssey, work of decades, he bragged that
he could write such a piece within a quarter of an hour - only that
we never see anything like it from him. Once he told me in all earnest
that I can't understand the epic when I read the Greek original,
I must read the Finnish translation! A barren mind paired with
a burning ambition results in craving power. He must govern sci.lang
with a little textbook half-knowledge. He must make the rules.
Unable of arguing on the topic level he operates most of the time
on meta-levels and drops verdicts from above, not even knowing
what meta-level means, claiming that I call my work a meta-level,
proudly parading his exemplary typeryys.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

1 - Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.

2 - The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

3 - Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

4 - Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.

5 - You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.

6 - On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".

7 - Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.

8 - On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have

learnt languages unknown to you.

9 - To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.

10 - And your tastes in music still suck.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

one - Cave art gives us no clue to how the people of Lascaux or Altamira spoke.

two - The pictographic symbols in Göbekli Tepe give us no clue to how the people of Göbekli Tepe spoke.

three - Anyone stating the opposite must make available some evidence that can be scrutinized by other scholars, and the clues this person claims to have found, must be observable and recognizable by other people.

four - Moreover, the discoverer must be able to explain, in commonsense logical terms, how he or she has arrived at his results. His chain of conclusions must be "nachvollziehbar" by other scholars.

five - You have not been able to present us with either evidence or conclusions. Instead, you have repeatedly attacked and poured scorn over people who have demanded such things.

six - On the other hand, PIE is based on solid evidence and its proponents have left us clear instructions, evidence, and reasonings to be "nachvollzogen".

seven - Their conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding and comparison of the languages involved.

eight - On the other hand, you are demonstrably ignorant of several branches of Indo-European. You have admitted that you know not a single Slavic language. You actually pour scorn and disdain over people who have

learnt languages unknown to you.

nine - To sum up, Magdalenian fails miserably already on the level of scientific method, which you disparagingly call "meta-level". Thus, no more discussion is needed.

ten - And your tastes in music still suck.

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:40:26 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea where you got that. What I replied was that you
>> had been presented with arguments many times but have ignored them (and I
>> don't mean procedural arguments you love to dismiss as 'meta' whatever, but
>> actual facts about the history of words); and that other people had pointed
>> out the problems in yours; leaving us in the state of affairs that 1. We
>> had already 'gone for' your test cases, even unknowingly, and 2. Your
>> arguments just weren't as good as you thought they were. Possibly this last
>> bit is what your id interpreted as a trail of insults ('sir, you insult me
>> by saying my arguments aren't any good').
>>
>> Remember when you delight in the creativity or whatever of Madgelaniam?
>> Other folks just don't find it that creative or elegant or rich. They
>> rather see a commonplace new age self-satisfying ball of words. I
>> understand it's not nice to hear that about something we like, but that's
>> the way it is.
>>
>> And we've reached a point where it's really difficult to even talk to you,
>> as you apparently misremember every past exchange.
>
> You flunked before you took step one, leaving a trail of insults.

Now you see why people call you a liar.

>Apparently
> you don't realize your own behaving. And as always you turn a topic discussion
> into a meta-discussion

So saying your arguments are no good and don't convince anyone is a
meta-discussion now?

> - we told you many times, you have been told, your
> opinion deviates from what stands in textbooks and therefore is wrong a priori
> eo ipso and anyway etcetera pp. I studied Martin Huld's long bear paper
> in the Proceedings of the Annual UCLA Indo-European Studies back in 2006.
> He compiles all arguments in favor of bear as the brown one,

Which, to your chagrin, people find better than yours.

> but says (in a
> careful but also slightly ironical way, half between the lines, near the end
> of his paper) that PIE scholars are prone to go for the next best root.

There you go, arguing on 'the meta-level'.

> This is the case in the case of the bear as the brown one, derived from
> one of the six homonyms *bher-, namely *bher- 'brown'. Magdalenian offers
> BIR meaning fur, a word explaining all six *bher- homonyms (I gave the list
> recently, but it was ignored, as always),

Why exactly is having coinciding roots in PIE a sin, but in Madgeliniom
it's a virtue?

> and since most fur is brown,
> the furry one can also be seen as the brown one. But initially it was
> the furry one. BIR is also present in boar German Eber, in beaver German
> Biber, and in the squirrel *werwer 'furry furry (little animal)'.

Because squirrels, alone among all small mammals, are furry?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 4:08:29 AM UTC-5, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

> BIR meaning fur, a word explaining all six *bher- homonyms (I gave the list
> recently, but it was ignored, as always), and since most fur is brown,
> the furry one can also be seen as the brown one. But initially it was
> the furry one.

Every mammal known to prehistoric Europe was furry. Why would such a
description be limited to bears?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:45:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

They were all brown, too.

[DKleinecke]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 5:09:36 AM UTC-8, António Marques wrote:
>
> Because squirrels, alone among all small mammals, are furry?

I thought the quintessential small furry animal was the chinchilla.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Ri-i-i-i-ight ... arctic foxes, ermines, POLAR BEARS ...

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 3:09:36 PM UTC+2, António Marques wrote:

> Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
>
> >Apparently
> > you don't realize your own behaving. And as always you turn a topic discussion
> > into a meta-discussion
>
> So saying your arguments are no good and don't convince anyone is a
> meta-discussion now?

I guess this is the very heart of Franzitude.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 2:09:36 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> Now you see why people call you a liar.
>

Calling me a liar is the ultimate trick of the sci.chos in psy.lang
who can't argue on the topic level. You say nothing about the bear,
instead you are talking about me talking about the bear, which is
arguing on a meta-level. Endless and fruitless meta-blabla is the
malaise of this forum.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 3:45:35 PM UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> Every mammal known to prehistoric Europe was furry. Why would such a
> description be limited to bears?

Also the boar German Eber was a furry one, also the beaver German Biber was
a furry one, also the squirrel *werewer was a furry one, furry furry little
animal. Consider the divine bear mother and bear nurse of the Vinca (Vincha)
culture, and the Hellenistic custom of placing a newborn on a bear fur
that survived until the 20th century in parts of the Slavic world, in
medieval times replaced by a bearing cloth wherein a child ws carried to
the church for being baptized. And then there is the bier German Bahre,
presumably a bear fur whereon a dead body was buried (bur-y) in the hope
that the goddess might give him or her a next life in the beyond. Bear
teeth were used as necklace, also boar teeth had magic power, enforcing
a hunter. We might assume that furs of bear and boar had a similar magic
property, and the fur or tail of a squirrel made a hunter quick and agile.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 2:09:36 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> Now you see why people call you a liar.
>>
>
> Calling me a liar is

Calling you a liar is the natural consequence of seeing you write brazen
lies about what others did or did not do.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 11:19:21 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> Calling you a liar is the natural consequence of seeing you write brazen
> lies about what others did or did not do.

Logic of meta-babble in psy.lang

We are right
while his opinion deviates
ergo he is not right
more ergo he is wrong
and most ergo he must be insulted
any false accusation welcome
allowed and permitted
no topic arguments needed
verdicts dropped from aboff
are enaff

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

If you feel you are being bullied here, why don't you go somewhere else?

[António Marques]

Whatever the above is supposed to mean, it bears no relation to the fact
that you've taken to lying about what others do, which can even easily be
confirmed by consulting the archives.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:03:57 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:

False accusation. You believe that you can endlessly offend me, and then
falsely accuse me of lying when I remid you of some of your insults.
No, you can't.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

If you feel that you are being bullied and insulted here, why don't you leave the place altogether? We don't want you here, you don't like it here, so it's a win-win situation.

[António Marques]

If only there were a public archive of our exchanges from which you could
quote...
Oh, but there is one. And you don't quote from it because you have nothing
to show. Because you are lying. Because you are a liar.

> No, you can't.
>

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 1:41:17 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> If only there were a public archive of our exchanges from which you could
> quote...
> Oh, but there is one. And you don't quote from it because you have nothing
> to show. Because you are lying. Because you are a liar.
>

False accusation. You can't cope with me on the topic level, having little
to say about language anyway, so you must offend me year in year out. Just
recently you wrote that I deserve insults. Should I begin to mention some
of your top insults? I don't write for you arrogant lot, I write for young
people who might one day stumble across my work in an archive, and sometimes
I address them: Young reader ... When I did so a few months ago you suggested
a dark secret (me a paedo---). What a vile insinuation!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-11-14 07:17:31 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 1:41:17 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> If only there were a public archive of our exchanges from which you could
>> quote...
>> Oh, but there is one. And you don't quote from it because you have nothing
>> to show. Because you are lying. Because you are a liar.
>>
>
> False accusation. You can't cope with me on the topic level, having little
> to say about language anyway, so you must offend me year in year out. Just
> recently you wrote that I deserve insults. Should I begin to mention some
> of your top insults?

Don't just mention them, quote them. Otherwise one can assume they
exist only in the fevered imagination that produces "Magdalenian".

> I don't write for you arrogant lot, I write for young
> people who might one day stumble across my work in an archive, and sometimes
> I address them: Young reader ... When I did so a few months ago you suggested
> a dark secret (me a paedo---). What a vile insinuation!

--
athel

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 8:58:49 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> Don't just mention them, quote them. Otherwise one can assume they
> exist only in the fevered imagination that produces "Magdalenian".
>

Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless: do you think I will spend
the rest of my life searching through the Google archive? Back in 2004 one
could retrieve each and every Usenet message, but that is long over. And
can you write anything on the topic level, without invectives? No, considering
what you are.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-11-14 08:03:28 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 8:58:49 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> Don't just mention them, quote them. Otherwise one can assume they>
>> exist only in the fevered imagination that produces "Magdalenian".
>>
>
> Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless: do you think I will spend
> the rest of my life searching through the Google archive?

Well, it might be a more profitable way to spend the rest of your life
than spewing out endless and repetitive drivel about "Magdalenian". If
you really want to be regarded as a scholar the first thing you need to
learn is that you have to give references for your assertions.

In the review that we have currently in press we have 437 literature
citations. They didn't come from our heads but from reading the
literature. If we had attributed lots of statements to people without
any evidence the referees would have rightly objected.

> Back in 2004 one
> could retrieve each and every Usenet message, but that is long over. And
> can you write anything on the topic level, without invectives? No, considering
> what you are.

--
athel

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le jeudi 14 novembre 2019 08:17:33 UTC+1, Franz Gnaedinger a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 1:41:17 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
> >
> > If only there were a public archive of our exchanges from which you could
> > quote...
> > Oh, but there is one. And you don't quote from it because you have nothing
> > to show. Because you are lying. Because you are a liar.
> >
>
> False accusation. You can't cope with me on the topic level,

Any time, your claims are proved wrong on the topic level, you shout "sock-puppet" or "meta-babble".
You're the one who can't cope with the topic level.

having little
> to say about language anyway, so you must offend me year in year out. Just
> recently you wrote that I deserve insults. Should I begin to mention some
> of your top insults? I don't write for you arrogant lot, I write for young
> people who might one day stumble across my work in an archive, and sometimes
> I address them: Young reader ... When I did so a few months ago you suggested
> a dark secret (me a paedo---). What a vile insinuation!

I'm afraid you're not a prophet. Why should young (or older) people listen to you?

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le jeudi 14 novembre 2019 08:17:33 UTC+1, Franz Gnaedinger a écrit :

I see you rather as an alcooholic piss-smelling no-lifer in a disorderly smallish flat in Zurich. I agree you're probably not a paedophile, because you're impotent from alcooholism.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:03:30 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 8:58:49 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> > Don't just mention them, quote them. Otherwise one can assume they
> > exist only in the fevered imagination that produces "Magdalenian".
> >
>
> Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless: do you think I will spend
> the rest of my life searching through the Google archive?

Real scholars, as opposed to you, spend their lives searching for valuable evidence in archives, corpuses of language, and the like. The fact that you are not willing to engage in real scholarly activity shows - again - that you are a pathetic fraud.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:26:05 AM UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2019-11-14 08:03:28 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:
>
> > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 8:58:49 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't just mention them, quote them. Otherwise one can assume they>
> >> exist only in the fevered imagination that produces "Magdalenian".
> >>
> >
> > Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless: do you think I will spend
> > the rest of my life searching through the Google archive?
>
> Well, it might be a more profitable way to spend the rest of your life
> than spewing out endless and repetitive drivel about "Magdalenian". If
> you really want to be regarded as a scholar the first thing you need to
> learn is that you have to give references for your assertions.
>
> In the review that we have currently in press we have 437 literature
> citations. They didn't come from our heads but from reading the
> literature. If we had attributed lots of statements to people without
> any evidence the referees would have rightly objected.

In my fledgling history of modern Russian prose, I have at this moment 444 footnotes, and the book is nowhere near finished. All footnotes are references to mostly Russian-language books. Do I think this has been a useless exercise? Not at all. I love to read literature in Russian, and I love to write about it in Swedish. This kind of love - love for scholarly work for its own sake - is something Franz will never understand. He will never be able to read Russian literature. Poor soul.

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 1:41:17 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> If only there were a public archive of our exchanges from which you could
>> quote...
>> Oh, but there is one. And you don't quote from it because you have nothing
>> to show. Because you are lying. Because you are a liar.
>>
>
> False accusation. You can't cope with me on the topic level, having little
> to say about language anyway, so you must offend me year in year out. Just
> recently you wrote that I deserve insults.

I wrote that you ignore anything else other than insults. If someone wants
to have a conversation with you, the only options are to give you praise
(as long as not saying anything about your work, because even
'contributing' to it is met with hostility) or the opposite.

> Should I begin to mention some
> of your top insults?

By all means.

> I don't write for you arrogant lot, I write for young
> people who might one day stumble across my work in an archive, and sometimes
> I address them: Young reader ... When I did so a few months ago you suggested
> a dark secret (me a paedo---). What a vile insinuation!

No, I said your fixation on your 'young readers' revealed a very ugly side
of you. I had no idea you would take it to the sexual camp, which wasn't my
idea, not did I say anything about any secret, dark or otherwise.

I have on occasion said things about you that you may not like, but neither
was that in the context of discussing whatever you call language, nor was
it other than merely factual.

And I may even be the only one ever -or at least here- who's tried to make
sense of your stuff, without any hint of criticism, (which is different
from validating it), in order to explain it in words other than your own,
something you profess to have such esteem for, and what was the result? You
said you didn't have the time to read it -the handful of lines-, you, who
have no qualms about composing endlessly repetitive walls of text.

That was about the time you moved from just writing outlandish things to
actually turning on everyone with lies about what they did or do.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:05:16 PM UTC+2, António Marques wrote:
> Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 1:41:17 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
> >>
> >> If only there were a public archive of our exchanges from which you could
> >> quote...
> >> Oh, but there is one. And you don't quote from it because you have nothing
> >> to show. Because you are lying. Because you are a liar.
> >>
> >
> > False accusation. You can't cope with me on the topic level, having little
> > to say about language anyway, so you must offend me year in year out. Just
> > recently you wrote that I deserve insults.
>
> I wrote that you ignore anything else other than insults. If someone wants
> to have a conversation with you, the only options are to give you praise
> (as long as not saying anything about your work, because even
> 'contributing' to it is met with hostility) or the opposite.
>
>
> > Should I begin to mention some
> > of your top insults?
>
> By all means.
>
>
> > I don't write for you arrogant lot, I write for young
> > people who might one day stumble across my work in an archive, and sometimes
> > I address them: Young reader ... When I did so a few months ago you suggested
> > a dark secret (me a paedo---). What a vile insinuation!
>
> No, I said your fixation on your 'young readers' revealed a very ugly side
> of you. I had no idea you would take it to the sexual camp, which wasn't my
> idea, not did I say anything about any secret, dark or otherwise.

It has been clear for years that Franz has no sexual interests or passions at all - his only passion is fancying himself a scholar.

I don't remember the interaction here hinted at - what was the actual very ugly side you mentioned?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-11-15 03:53:33 +0000, Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski said:

>
> [ … ]

>
> It has been clear for years that Franz has no sexual interests or
> passions at all - his only passion is fancying himself a scholar.

Quite possibly you are right, but in what sense has this been "clear"?
What can you deduce about my sexual interests, for example, from my
posts here?


--
athel

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 9:05:16 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> No, I said your fixation on your 'young readers' revealed a very ugly side
> of you. I had no idea you would take it to the sexual camp, which wasn't my
> idea, not did I say anything about any secret, dark or otherwise.
>
> I have on occasion said things about you that you may not like, but neither
> was that in the context of discussing whatever you call language, nor was
> it other than merely factual.
>
> And I may even be the only one ever -or at least here- who's tried to make
> sense of your stuff, without any hint of criticism, (which is different
> from validating it), in order to explain it in words other than your own,
> something you profess to have such esteem for, and what was the result? You
> said you didn't have the time to read it -the handful of lines-, you, who
> have no qualms about composing endlessly repetitive walls of text.
>
> That was about the time you moved from just writing outlandish things to
> actually turning on everyone with lies about what they did or do.

False accusation. So here comes another example of your behaving. You tried
to make peace between me and Panu Petteri Höglund, always chiding me,
never saying a word about his aggression right from the beginning. When he
joined sci.lang in early 2006 he attacked me out of the blue, and follows
me around ever since. When he used the pseudony Der psychopathische
Entdärmer (sic), 'the psychopathic eviscerator' in stalking me, you
found it quite of cute. 'Cute' was your exact word. And then you wonder
why I dub you hypochrist.

Do something good for my salker of nearly fourteen years and tell him to
finally keep away from me. Do a favour for yourselve and keep away from Me.

By the way, the level of sci.lang reached an all-time low here in this thread,
but ironically I must thank A. Fou. for declaring forfait by the way he behaves.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-11-15 07:43:18 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:

> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 9:05:16 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> No, I said your fixation on your 'young readers' revealed a very ugly side
>> of you. I had no idea you would take it to the sexual camp, which wasn't my
>> idea, not did I say anything about any secret, dark or otherwise.
>>
>> I have on occasion said things about you that you may not like, but neither
>> was that in the context of discussing whatever you call language, nor was
>> it other than merely factual.
>>
>> And I may even be the only one ever -or at least here- who's tried to make
>> sense of your stuff, without any hint of criticism, (which is different
>> from validating it), in order to explain it in words other than your own,
>> something you profess to have such esteem for, and what was the result? You
>> said you didn't have the time to read it -the handful of lines-, you, who
>> have no qualms about composing endlessly repetitive walls of text.
>>
>> That was about the time you moved from just writing outlandish things to
>> actually turning on everyone with lies about what they did or do.
>
> False accusation. So here comes another example of your behaving. You tried
> to make peace between me and Panu Petteri Höglund, always chiding me,
> never saying a word about his aggression right from the beginning. When he
> joined sci.lang in early 2006 he attacked me out of the blue, and follows
> me around ever since. When he used the pseudony Der psychopathische
> Entdärmer (sic), 'the psychopathic eviscerator' in stalking me, you
> found it quite of cute. 'Cute' was your exact word. And then you wonder
> why I dub you hypochrist.

No evidence, as usual.

>
> Do something good for my salker of nearly fourteen years and tell him to
> finally keep away from me. Do a favour for yourselve and keep away from Me.
>
> By the way, the level of sci.lang reached an all-time low here in this thread,
> but ironically I must thank A. Fou. for declaring forfait by the way he
> behaves.

--
athel

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Sorry, Franz, but nobody here is "stalking" you. You are the one who is stalking us.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Not yours, Franz's.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 8:43:20 AM UTC+1, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
> False accusation. So here comes another example of your behaving. You tried
> to make peace between me and Panu Petteri Höglund, always chiding me,
> never saying a word about his aggression right from the beginning. When he
> joined sci.lang in early 2006 he attacked me out of the blue, and follows
> me around ever since. When he used the pseudony Der psychopathische
> Entdärmer (sic), 'the psychopathic eviscerator' in stalking me, you
> found it quite of cute. 'Cute' was your exact word. And then you wonder
> why I dub you hypochrist.
>
> Do something good for my salker of nearly fourteen years and tell him to
> finally keep away from me. Do a favour for yourselve and keep away from Me.
>
> By the way, the level of sci.lang reached an all-time low here in this thread,
> but ironically I must thank A. Fou. for declaring forfait by the way he behaves.

Sorry for the typo. You found his aggressive pseudonym _kind_ of cute
or _sort_ of cute, anyway, you found it cute.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:25:00 AM UTC+1, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
> Any time, your claims are proved wrong on the topic level, you shout "sock-puppet" or "meta-babble".

Science is about repeatability. If there was a disproof on the topic level
you could repeat it, and would do so every week. And if you had successfully
deciphered and translated a Linear A tablet, you would post it to sci.lang,
and repeat it averey week. Same for the Phaistos Disc, and would explain
each and every détail with great enthusiasm. Instead ...

[Arnaud Fournet]

Contrary to you, I'm not monomaniac.
Besides, deciphering is not my main activity, more a kind of relaxing hobby.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

It's been clear for years that Franz doesn't have a clue what a stalker
is. If you did a search and found that he was a frequent contributor to
a group that discussed public library facilities in Zurich, then
followed him there and contributed attacks on him, that would be
stalking. Discussing his ignorance of linguistics in a linguistics
group is not stalking.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

We know that you have either sired or adopted at least one daughter
with a wife from Chile. Is that what you mean? (No, not that the
daughter is married to a Chiléenne.)

Franz hasn't mentioned any such details about himself.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 2:43:20 AM UTC-5, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 9:05:16 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:

[a message]

> You tried
> to make peace between me and Panu Petteri Höglund, always chiding me,
> never saying a word about his aggression right from the beginning. When he
> joined sci.lang in early 2006 he attacked me out of the blue,

It's unlikely that he attacked you "out of the blue." What did you write
that he reacted to?

There is no doubt that his multiple daily spamming of the last few months
is highly inappropriate.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That is the point. You can deduce nothing at all about anyone's "sexual
interests" unless they reveal them.

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 9:05:16 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> No, I said your fixation on your 'young readers' revealed a very ugly side
>> of you. I had no idea you would take it to the sexual camp, which wasn't my
>> idea, not did I say anything about any secret, dark or otherwise.

For the inquiring minds, Franz's references to age systematically portray
the following:

- 'old' is an insult, people above a certain age are obsolete, redundant,
unable to think, evil. If they're an old 'man', they're especially vile and
objectionable, since they don't have the nurturing instinct, softness and
comfort-providing features of a woman.

- 'young' are folks he can influence, not necessarily because of age, but
on account of their minds having not been polluted by an education , as
only people who know nothing about the subjects at hand would be amenable
to take him for someone knowledgeable. Preferably a 'young couple', so as
to at once keep the soothing feminine element and enhance it with some not
yet too hairy yang. What's most worrying is that he claims to have on
occasion 'tutored' students, which, if true, is abuse on the part of
whoever let him.

>> I have on occasion said things about you that you may not like, but neither
>> was that in the context of discussing whatever you call language, nor was
>> it other than merely factual.
>>
>> And I may even be the only one ever -or at least here- who's tried to make
>> sense of your stuff, without any hint of criticism, (which is different
>> from validating it), in order to explain it in words other than your own,
>> something you profess to have such esteem for, and what was the result? You
>> said you didn't have the time to read it -the handful of lines-, you, who
>> have no qualms about composing endlessly repetitive walls of text.
>>
>> That was about the time you moved from just writing outlandish things to
>> actually turning on everyone with lies about what they did or do.
>
> False accusation. So here comes another example of your behaving. You tried
> to make peace between me and Panu Petteri Höglund, always chiding me,
> never saying a word about his aggression right from the beginning. When he
> joined sci.lang in early 2006 he attacked me out of the blue, and follows
> me around ever since. When he used the pseudony Der psychopathische
> Entdärmer (sic), 'the psychopathic eviscerator' in stalking me, you
> found it quite of cute. 'Cute' was your exact word.

So, having just exposed your previous lie with no response from you, you
bring us another one.
Having seen you lie so many times about this, and having first known of the
'eviscerator' thing a good while after it reportedly happened, I went to
search the archives in hope of seeing if someone might have said something
like that, that Franz would naturally mix up with me (it seems to happen a
lot, see just recently
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.lang/aRMXjoGPDbU/JOCsYW1wFgAJ in which
he actually pretended to apologise, while in fact taking a jab at Athel).
And guess what, the only results that appear, using a wide array of search
variants and keywords, are of Franz making this same complain (and only
recently, whereas it's supposed to have happened quite a few years back),
or talking about different things. So the provisional conclusion is that
neither me, nor anyone else, did any such thing, which means that again
Franz is either lying or delusional.

> And then you wonder
> why I dub you hypochrist.

And looking for all possible variants of the 'hypochrist' word he seems to
think I'm unhappy about (golly, to think that possibly the only creative
thing Franz has ever devised was propitiated by me!), the earliest
appearance seems to be
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.lang/zRvcAozlLk8/O-RLPerzXMAJ. As
everyone can see, no mention of any 'eviscerator' there, nor near. In fact,
if memory serves, what made him so angry, and to start with these specific
lies, was the time when he complained that I didn't 'side with' him against
his 'stalker', and I replied I wasn't the police.

At this point I wouldn't trust him to report correctly what his favourite
dish is. On the other hand, given how these lies and anger seem to be
correlated with episodes in which the flaws in his 'work' have been
explained in terms even he can understand, I wouldn't discount the
possibility that it's just a tactic.

>
> Do something good for my salker of nearly fourteen years and tell him to
> finally keep away from me. Do a favour for yourselve and keep away from Me.

(First the General of the Slavic mentions God in relation to DD and now
this. Has PO succeeded in mind control?)

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 10:41:20 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:25:00 AM UTC+1, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> >
> > Any time, your claims are proved wrong on the topic level, you shout "sock-puppet" or "meta-babble".
>
> Science is about repeatability. If there was a disproof on the topic level
> you could repeat it, and would do so every week.

You have at least one thing right here: science is indeed about repeatability. And the fact that nobody cannot repeat or reproduce your work independently shows that what you are doing is not science.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 2:02:55 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> So, having just exposed your previous lie

False accusation, hypochrist that you are. Vade retro, heave thee away
from me. Or else I go on with your anti-palmares next week. Know that
my word will count in the long run, because I provide content, new
original ideas of mine that work and allow a wide range of hermeneutic
interpretations you can't ignore away, not with all the ignorance and
incredible arrogance your lot can muster.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

You can rest assured anyone can ignore your "content" and "interpretations", which aren't worth a shit. The only reason why we pay any attention is, that you are destroying the whole group with your crap.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Has anyone created a Franzbot (along the lines of the Chomskybot that
generates meaningless sentences in the style of Chomsky)? This sounds
like what such a program might produce for Franz. Hardly an
intelligible idea there.

Maybe Franz himself has descended so far into irrationality in the
mental institution that houses him that all of his recent posts are
generated by a program that someone wrote to keep him apparently still
active. But who would bother to do such a thing?

For comparison, here is a paragraph about modern linguistics from the
Chomskybot:

> Clearly, most of the methodological work in modern linguistics does not
> readily tolerate the traditional practice of grammarians. It may be,
> then, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is necessary to
> impose an interpretation on the strong generative capacity of the
> theory. So far, relational information is, apparently, determined by
> problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. On the other hand, the
> natural general principle that will subsume this case raises serious
> doubts about the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
> Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96)
> and (97), we see that an important property of these three types of EC
> may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a general convention
> regarding the forms of the grammar.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:41:20 AM UTC-5, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:25:00 AM UTC+1, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

> > Any time, your claims are proved wrong on the topic level, you shout "sock-puppet" or "meta-babble".
>
> Science is about repeatability. If there was a disproof on the topic level
> you could repeat it, and would do so every week.

Don't be an ass. Once something has been refuted, it is refuted. The
refutation does not need to be repeated ad infinitum.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 3:49:59 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> For comparison, here is a paragraph about modern linguistics from the
> Chomskybot:
>
> > Clearly, most of the methodological work in modern linguistics does not
> > readily tolerate the traditional practice of grammarians. It may be,
> > then, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is necessary to
> > impose an interpretation on the strong generative capacity of the
> > theory. So far, relational information is, apparently, determined by
> > problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. On the other hand, the
> > natural general principle that will subsume this case raises serious
> > doubts about the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).
> > Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96)
> > and (97), we see that an important property of these three types of EC
> > may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a general convention
> > regarding the forms of the grammar.

You probably ought to get an example that isn't at least 30 years old.
Such terminology hasn't been used in decades.

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 2:02:55 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> So, having just exposed your previous lie
>
> False accusation, hypochrist that you are. Vade retro, heave thee away
> from me. Or else I go on with your anti-palmares next week.

You'd better, since the two lies you offered so far have been all too
easily debunked.

> Know that
> my word will count in the long run, because I provide content, new
> original ideas of mine

There is no question that lying requires more originality than telling the
truth.

> that work and allow a wide range of hermeneutic
> interpretations

Which is precisely what we don't find in science, which boringly describes
what exists rather than what you'd like to exist.

Your mishmash of goddesses and shamans and holy trinkets does not, however,
display a shred of creativity. When people here tell you that you'd have
success writing Ice Age Fantasy, they're just being nice.

> you can't ignore away, not with all the ignorance and
> incredible arrogance your lot can muster.

So we're 'ignorant' because we are full of 'textbook knowledge' rather than
of your hummings
(do you really assume no one but you leads a life of 'rich experiences'?),
and we're 'arrogant' because we follow the teachings of those who came
before rather than embracing a new 'science' created out of one's own
hummings and 'rich experiences'?
It's quite ironic that you would accuse anyone of the two things in which
you excel. Franz, the man who doesn't know the literature (and despises
it), professing esteem for a certain M&A only inasmuch as he had to have
something to 'work' on, thinks he can accuse anyone of ignorance. Franz,
the man who dismisses the science he doesn't know anyway in favour of his
very own hummings and rich experiences, dares calling anyone arrogant!

In one thing you're right: it's not christian of me to point this all out.
I'm aware of that and not happy about it.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Moreover, Franz's "theories" don't need to be refuted, it's he who should refute mainstream theories.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 9:48:00 PM UTC+2, António Marques wrote:
> Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 2:02:55 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
> >>
> >> So, having just exposed your previous lie
> >
> > False accusation, hypochrist that you are. Vade retro, heave thee away
> > from me. Or else I go on with your anti-palmares next week.
>
> You'd better, since the two lies you offered so far have been all too
> easily debunked.
>
>
> > Know that
> > my word will count in the long run, because I provide content, new
> > original ideas of mine
>
> There is no question that lying requires more originality than telling the
> truth.
>
>
> > that work and allow a wide range of hermeneutic
> > interpretations
>
> Which is precisely what we don't find in science, which boringly describes
> what exists rather than what you'd like to exist.
>
> Your mishmash of goddesses and shamans and holy trinkets does not, however,
> display a shred of creativity. When people here tell you that you'd have
> success writing Ice Age Fantasy, they're just being nice.

Actually, one of the financially most successful fantasy writers - David Gemmell - was not very original: his novels are cluttered with cultures obviously based on Romans and Celts. His secret was that he had the energy to write the stories he wanted to write. If Franz had written real fantasy stories with all the energy he has used up pestering us with his spam, he would be a rich man by now.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 8:48:00 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> lies

For the second time you told me that a clay tablet can't convey a complex
message. I prove you wrong with Linear A tablet Hagia Triada 95. Makes
a BIG difference who looks at an early inscription. Whether someone can
recognize context or not. Grates you that you are a case of 'or not'.
Vade retro, hypochrist, and take the höglhound with you.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I've been wondering what Franz thinks "hypochrist" means. Is it a
misspelling of "hyprocrite"? Does it mean he thinks António regards
himself as Jesus Christ? So far as the second meaning is concerned the
person in this group who comes closest to that is not António.

> and take the höglhound with you.

--
athel

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 10:25:16 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> I've been wondering what Franz thinks "hypochrist" means. Is it a
> misspelling of "hyprocrite"? Does it mean he thinks António regards
> himself as Jesus Christ? So far as the second meaning is concerned the
> person in this group who comes closest to that is not António.
>

Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless: if the latter were
the case I would call him hyperchrist. It's obviously the former.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le lundi 18 novembre 2019 10:25:16 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2019-11-18 09:13:17 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:
>
> > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 8:48:00 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
> >>
> >> lies
> > For the second time you told me that a clay tablet can't convey a complex
> > message. I prove you wrong with Linear A tablet Hagia Triada 95. Makes
> > a BIG difference who looks at an early inscription. Whether someone can
> > recognize context or not. Grates you that you are a case of 'or not'.
> > Vade retro, hypochrist,
>
> I've been wondering what Franz thinks "hypochrist" means. Is it a
> misspelling of "hyprocrite"?

hyprocrite [sic] !! ;)

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 8:48:00 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> lies
>
> For the second time you told me that a clay tablet can't convey a complex
> message.

Yet another lie? Are you physically unable to speak the truth?
What I said was that
- the tablets we do know how to decipher almost always bear mundane,
bookkeeping content
- small artefacts almost always bear non-informative incantations or
curses, rather than the mythological stories you'd like
- small inscriptions can't be reliably deciphered if there is no larger
corpus to compare them to, since any number of competing decipherments
becomes possible

I have no idea which of the above you twisted into your lie, nor why do you
believe either them or your lie to be 'insults'.


> I prove

Do please point out one - 1 - one - single person convinced by your
'proofs'.

Even when something is true, factual, you show yourself unable to prove it!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2019-11-18 10:14:40 +0000, Arnaud Fournet said:

> Le lundi 18 novembre 2019 10:25:16 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2019-11-18 09:13:17 +0000, Franz Gnaedinger said:
>>
>>> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 8:48:00 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>>>
>>>> lies
>>> For the second time you told me that a clay tablet can't convey a complex
>>> message. I prove you wrong with Linear A tablet Hagia Triada 95. Makes
>>> a BIG difference who looks at an early inscription. Whether someone can
>>> recognize context or not. Grates you that you are a case of 'or not'.
>>> Vade retro, hypochrist,
>>
>> I've been wondering what Franz thinks "hypochrist" means. Is it a>
>> misspelling of "hyprocrite"?
> hyprocrite [sic] !! ;)

OK. But I can recognize the error. I'm not sure that Franz can.

>
>
> Does it mean he thinks António regards> himself as Jesus Christ? So far
> as the second meaning is concerned the> person in this group who comes
> closest to that is not António.
>>
>>> and take the höglhound with you.
>>
>>
>> --
>> athel

--
athel

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:24:35 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> your lie
> your lie
>

Mocking me for years ain't enough, meanwhile you need a higher dose of
dopamine or whatever and get it by falsely accusing me of lying.

Another episode in your anti-palmares. When I wondered why more than two
centuries passed before the idea of Indo-European took on, and suspected
some influential professors who objected, you just went wild. White
supremacy does have a long record in academe, and is far from being
over. Real mathematics was invented by the Greeks, before the Greeks
nobody was able of a theoretical insight - delivered with the full
momentum of highbrow authority.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:51 PM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:24:35 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
> >
> > your lie
> > your lie
> >
>
> Mocking me for years ain't enough

Telling that you are an incompetent and a liar isn't mocking you, it is stating the obvious truth.

[Arnaud Fournet]

yes, unfortunately so ...

[António Marques]

Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:24:35 AM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>>
>> your lie
>> your lie
>>
>
> Mocking me for years ain't enough, meanwhile you need a higher dose of
> dopamine or whatever and get it by falsely accusing me of lying.

I've _documented_ how your claims about what others -and in this case me-
did or do are false. Saying false things that you know are false, to whose
untruth your attention has been called more than once, constitutes lying.
That's why you've been called a liar rather than merely a confused person.

> Another episode in your anti-palmares.

Is it a lie like the previous 3?
The previous 3 for which I've provided proof that you were lying?

> When I wondered why more than two
> centuries passed before the idea of Indo-European took on, and suspected
> some influential professors who objected, you just went wild.

Eh?

First, what you _demanded_ to know was why it took 250 years from the
arrival of the Portuguese in India to the postulation of IE.

Second, what I replied was simply that no reason was needed. Why don't you
wonder that it took 2000 years from the first meetings of Greeks, Persians,
Romans and Celts to the postulation of IE?

Where exactly are the 'going wild' and 'trail of insults' in there?! I
enjoin everyone to go look up the archive.

Do you have more things to lie about?
But please make it more difficult. It's very hard to believe that I never
lost my patience with you over all these years. Do try to find some
truthful example!

> White
> supremacy does have a long record in academe, and is far from being
> over. Real mathematics was invented by the Greeks, before the Greeks
> nobody was able of a theoretical insight - delivered with the full
> momentum of highbrow authority.

It's true that about that time some of your racist characterisations of
people from outside Europe were denounced. Maybe that's what you're
thinking of?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I've sometimes wondered if it would be better if all the sane people
simply ignored Franz completely. However, that might make matters
worse, as it would leave himmore time for his "work" of filling up the
archive with een more repetitive claptrap than he does now.

>
>> White
>> supremacy does have a long record in academe, and is far from being
>> over. Real mathematics was invented by the Greeks, before the Greeks
>> nobody was able of a theoretical insight - delivered with the full
>> momentum of highbrow authority.
>
> It's true that about that time some of your racist characterisations of
> people from outside Europe were denounced. Maybe that's what you're
> thinking of?

--
athel

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

That is the big dilemma. One of the reasons why I persisted spamming Franz with my standard message so long was the fact that it seemed at first to have some effect.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 9:01:19 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> I've sometimes wondered if it would be better if all the sane people
> simply ignored Franz completely. However, that might make matters
> worse, as it would leave himmore time for his "work" of filling up the
> archive with een more repetitive claptrap than he does now.
>

Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless: you just can't argue on
the topic level, you just can't. You consider all I write BS but you can't
focus on one single alleged blunder of mine and show me that you know better.
And my new way of posting is own to the current strategy of the höglhound
(proabyl yourself).

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 8:45:37 PM UTC+1, António Marques wrote:
>
> lying
> liar
> lie
> lying

Falsely accusing me of lying is the final stage of impocompetence in sci.lang.
Luckily all is kept in the Google archive.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:01:55 +0100: Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> scribeva:

>I've sometimes wondered if it would be better if all the sane people
>simply ignored Franz completely.

That means the end of the group. Because there is nothing else.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 9:52:23 AM UTC+2, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 9:01:19 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> > I've sometimes wondered if it would be better if all the sane people
> > simply ignored Franz completely. However, that might make matters
> > worse, as it would leave himmore time for his "work" of filling up the
> > archive with een more repetitive claptrap than he does now.
> >
>
> Sock-puppet of Panu Petteri Höglund the Clueless: you just can't argue on
> the topic level, you just can't. You consider all I write BS but you can't
> focus on one single alleged blunder of mine and show me that you know better.

If we consider all you write the purest bullshit there ever has been, passed through the metabolism of the most prized pedigree bull, why should we single out only one of your turds?

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

You are wrong. For instance, Peter's personal insults of me would keep the group going even with no Franz around.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:32:55 -0800 (PST): M?cis?aw Wojna-Bojewski
<craoi...@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 11:08:20 AM UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:01:55 +0100: Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> scribeva:
>> >I've sometimes wondered if it would be better if all the sane people
>> >simply ignored Franz completely.
>>
>> That means the end of the group. Because there is nothing else.
>> --
>> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Why do you not follow the convention that dash-dash-space introduces a
signature, which should be skipped? Because you use the utterly sick
and non conforming Google Groups dreck.

>You are wrong. For instance, Peter's personal insults of me would keep
> the group going even with no Franz around.

You are a fampire, you thrive on conflict and bloodshed.