From: Rick McCallister
Message: 56925
Date: 2008-04-06
>No. I have tenure and I can say whatever I want about
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:45 PM
> Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya
>
>
> > At 2:02:20 PM on Sunday, April 6, 2008, Patrick
> Ryan wrote:
> >
> > > From: "david_russell_watson"
> <liberty@...>
> >
> > >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> > >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >
> > >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rick
> McCallister"
> > >>> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Nostratics has most definitely not been
> proven. There
> > >>>> is not even a uniform definition of what
> composes
> > >>>> Nostratic. There are no universally
> acceptible
> > >>>> proto-languages for most postulated members
> of
> > >>>> Nostratic. [...]
> >
> > >>> Nostratic has been irrefutably demonstrated.
> >
> > >> So you say, and yet refutation sits quoted
> above this
> > >> line, and can be found other places as well.
> >
> > > No disrespect to Rick but he is simply not
> competent to
> > > judge the issue.
> >
> > > The last time I made an informal survey, the
> professional
> > > members of the list semmed willing to entertain
> the idea
> > > of Nostratic but considered it unproven.
> >
> > Which hardly suggests that 'Nostratic has been
> irrefutably
> > demonstrated'.
> >
> > Brian
>
> ***
>
> What members say publicly and what they believe may
> be two different things.
>
> Nostratic is still sort of the third rail in
> linguistics.
>
> Would you not agree?
>
>
> Patrick