From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61433
Date: 2008-11-06
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > This is how I see it: the assumption that a word belongs
> > to some substrate Trümmersprache should not be made unless
> > all other options have been exhausted,
>
> It's a pity that you don't operate on that principle.
> You're substrate-happy and routinely prefer that
> explanation to others.
No. I stick to Schrijver (I think it was)'s principles for identifying
substrate words.
=======
What are they ?
A.
=========
> > Just calling such an assumption a fantasy is a cop-out, as
> > I see it;
>
> I know. You don't understand science or the evaluation of
> evidence.
for i in N {
Torsten gets an idea.
Brian calls him names
}
> > the facts are still there and won't go away.
>
> You're confusing facts with your arrangement and
> interpretation of them. You're considerably more
> sophisticated, but it's still the von Däniken technique.
And the one you are using is called mudslinging. Yawn.
Torsten
===========
Torsten
Let me explain you a couple of additional rules to Cybalist,
1. when Doctor Mac Rumsfeld says lies, it's a non sequitur,
2. when Doctor Mac Rumsfeld writes idiocies, you have not understood his
words,
3. when Doctor Mac Rumsfeld is wrong, you are un-scientific.
4. in the worst case, the thread is declared closed.
That's the way things are over here.
A.