> > ****GK: How putative "Sarmatian" influence from the South proves aIt's an old trick to hurl back accusations to its originator on the assumption that since they came from him they must reflect something in himself and let's see how this works now. I use it myself in my not so fine moments.
> > "Germanic" exodus from Przeworsk to Scandinavia remains opaque if
> > not altogether beyond the realm of standard logical analysis.*** *
> You mean the machinations of George's brain? The one scenario I find
> bumps into the fewest factual obstacles is one where the Germanic
> language arrives in Scandinavia as part of the Sarmatian-influenced
> 'unitary foreign conglomerate' .
> ****GK: Of course (:=)). You have no proof for any of your theses,
> and so you substitute your usual ad hominem deflections mixed up
> with vague promises and misunderstandings.
> Where your source states that there might be something to look atWhat you state my source states is what I've stated all the time. The thing I propose is something that should be looked at.
> you advance unfounded conclusions.
> You would make a good politician.****In my country politicians who misrepresent the standpoints of their opponents end up getting no votes.