From: gknysh
Message: 64318
Date: 2009-07-01
>****GK: I said you are totally confused. I meant that you are totally confused. Is that so hard to understand? *****
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > GK: Again: Saxland northern or southern did not include the
> > > steppes of the Tysza basin in Snorri's time. There are sources on
> > > Icelandic medieval geography you could consult.
> > > >
> > Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a
> > millenium. 'Saxland' would have had the territory the predecessors
> > of the inhabitants of Saxland in Snorri's time possessed, whichever
> > way the predecessors were defined.
> >
> >
> > GK: I'm afraid not. You are totally confused (Snorrism will do
> > that to you).
>
> I assume you're you feel you are being lenient and that 'confused' is one of the lower grades of disagreeing-with-George-ness which ends in 'heretic who must be taken care of'?
>****GK: Explain why Hungary is "Saxland" according to "native tradition". Are you suggesting that Icelandic geography in Snorri's time did not reflect that?****
> > Anatolia was "Tyrkland" to him because that's what it was in the
> > 12th/13th c. Ditto "Gardariki" (in Scandinavian terms). Again, I
> > urge you to consult works on medieval Icelandic geography. At least
> > browse through Pritsak's "Origin of Rus": there are many refernces
> > there for further study.
> >
> That still doesn't change the fact that if he is drawing on native traditions those would refer to countries with the extent they had at the time which the events took place.
>****GK: Not to a Snorrist, since Snorri is his Bible. How can anything interfere with that? You are a true believer, and absolutely nothing will ever sway you away from your ideological committment. You've even reached the point of massive geographical redefinitions, and seem oblivious to the wonderful ridiculousness of your claim. And its blatant self-contradictions.*****
> > The basic difference of our views on Snorri as a historian here is
> > that I think he is drawing on native trasditions, and you think he
> > doesn't have a clue and made it all up.
> >
> > GK: Snorri was certainly working on the basis (partly) of
> > relatively recent Viking traditions (Gardariki, Tanakvisl, Vanaland
> > et sim.) But his euhemerizing manipulations thereof are his own
> > (unless some recent predecessor had already done this) We've been
> > here before. Snorri's inventions do not fit the facts of the time
> > he is allegedly describing.
>
> Yes, that is what you have been claiming all the time. That doesn't make it true.
>****GK: Snorri is great and Torsten is his prophet.****
>
> > Wise investigators have seen this for a very long time. It seems
> > you never will.
>
> It seems they weren't so wise after all.
>
>
>
>
>