again gW>b and getae

Piotr has showed me succesfully that my examples for gW>b in
thracian ( how ever you want to call them, getae, thracian, or
who_knows) are weak because for everyone of them he showed me
on another contra-example.
So, one can think, indeed gW>b in thracian is a false
statement.
Is this?Piotr forget something very important.
And what?That kW>p and gW>b are inseparable from each other in
a language. There where we have kW>p we have automaticaly and
gW>b. And because of it, it is enough to have the
demonstration thatn just only of two is right ( kW>p or gW>b).
And for kW>p is nothing to say against it.There are too many
hidronims which shows that kW>p in thracian.
Am wrong again Piotr?
If yes, I will be very greatfully if you will show me why.

Regards.