Re: [tied] reply to Mr. Watson

--- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:

> Ok. Mr.Watson let us try. How do we explain this
> anamoly? (GK ***)
>
> Some words are lingustically(GK ***) datable to 1500

BCE and

> yet they
> cleaerly (GK***) describe a river in PRESENT tense

that went

> dry long ago (GK*** petitio principii)
> before these words were supposed to be spoken based
> on the scientifc
> methods of comparitive (GK***) linguistics which

admittedly

> i dont
> understand. I promise to be calm and rational till i
> hear a loser
> cry baby "argument" as was offered before (nothing
> personal Mr.
> Piotr)
>
> "The unambiguous identification of the
> Vedic <sarasvati:> is difficult, but given the
> evidence I've seen so
> far
> I wouldn't bet a penny on a river gone dry 3000 BC."
>
> IF i(also) get banend (GK***) from here we can

continue on

> IC. thanks!
>
> M. Kelkar
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv"
> <liberty@...> wrote:

If we could

> ever just
> > once get across an understanding of how it's done
> to one
> > from your camp, who has a scientific background,
> we might
> > at last be able to break the impasse. How about
> it, do
> > you want to try?
> >
> > David W.

*****GK: David, are you not expecting too much from
someone who can't spell and doesn't seem to know the
basics of logic?****

>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools