From: tgpedersen
Message: 64708
Date: 2009-08-12
>wrote:
>
> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@... s.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@ >
> > > > >(GK) Give me any professional archaeologist who says theWe must be living in different parts of the world. Here we don't divide people into those who matter and those who don't. Anything else you would like me to translate for you, sir?
> > > > > same thing about your "Sarmatian incursion" fantasy.
> > > >
> > > > (TP)They don't seem to even consider the possibility, which,
> > > > given the inhumation on both sides, seems strange to me.
> > > >
> > > > GK: That's because you are an opinionatedly ignorant
> > > > ideologue who cannot or will not grasp any concept or
> > > > evidence which seems dangerous to your prejudices.
> > >
> > > The usual personal smear. So if I was not an opinionatedly etc
> > > I would not find it strange that they don't consider the
> > > possibility?
> > > If it's so obvious those Germanic inhumation graves are not
> > > Sarmatian, surely professional archaeologists could waste five
> > > lines on refuting it?
> >
> > GK: Of course, catering to the whims of peripheral dilettantes
> > should be a professional' s first priority.
>
> This is your best shot? Surely, if those professional
> archaeologists find the hypotheses introduced by outsiders such a
> nuisance, one course of action they might contemplate would be to
> refute them. They haven't. Why?
>
> ****GK: Sorry to burst your bubble. You're really not a very
> important "outsider" are you? If some established historian or
> "humanist" were to make such an objection, they might consider it.
> I say "might". Normally they expect their non-professional readers
> to accept their norms of what is and what is not relevant. And your
> Snorrism won't encourage them either you know. Welcome to the real
> world...****
>