Re: Mitanni and Matsya

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "David Russell Watson"

<liberty@...> wrote:

>
> What "educated" world is that, in which national, ethnic,
> or racial generalization of the sort you and Arnaud favor
> is acceptable?
>
> Unfortunately for you,

How would it be unfortunate for _me_, even were it
true? You seldom make much sense.

Oh, or were you just trying to insult me?

> generalizations are a fact of efficient thinking.

A generalization forced to fit a preconceived notion
or prejudice is not, and a generalization that isn't
properly recognized as a generalization but mistaken
as an unqualified fact is not.

> You could have just said Hungarian.

Why would I say 'Hungarian' when I am not Hungarian?
I've never been a citizen of Hungary or even visited
the country, and neither has any ancestor of mine in
several generations been a citizen of Hungary, and I
am not a Magyar either.

Moreover Jasz have not only been in Hungary but also
in Romania for several centuries, and there are small
groups scattered about a few other countries as well.

In the next lesson maybe we'll take up the difference
between 'Jew' and 'Israeli', 'Han' and 'Chinese', or
'Arab' and 'Saudi'.

> > Arnaud said nothing about including you in anything.

You may not have read him very carefully then, for he
directed me to a map in the same sentence in which he
supposed Americans better at junk food than geography.

> You defame yourself with your own mouth. You need no help
> from anyone else.

More difficulty maintaining a line of thought, I see,
for I've said nothing with my "own mouth" to let him
think I eat junk or don't know about the mountains in
Central Asia.

Oh, or were you just trying to insult me?

> I am positive the French do not care a sou for what Americans
> think.

And I care even less myself about what you think about
the French.

Although I suspect that it's actually a Canadian we're
talking about here.

> > Bullies typically call it "meddling" when someone drags
> > them off of their victim, and when exactly did you prove
> > that I'm untalented?
>
> I need not prove it when you are doing such an excellent
> job of it yourself.

Of course you've proved nothing, as usual.

> You would not know immorality if it bit you in the bottom.

By most of the normal indices of morality I've shown
myself to be far more moral than you.

> I prefer my teachers to be emotionally stable.

I prefer the same of my students, but we all have to
work with what we're given.

David