From: george knysh
Message: 64702
Date: 2009-08-11
--- On Tue, 8/11/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
--- In cybalist@... s.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@ > wrote:
> > > >(GK) Give me any professional archaeologist who says the same
> > > > thing about your "Sarmatian incursion" fantasy.
> > >
> > > (TP)They don't seem to even consider the possibility, which,
> > > given the inhumation on both sides, seems strange to me.
> > >
> > > GK: That's because you are an opinionatedly ignorant ideologue
> > > who cannot or will not grasp any concept or evidence which
> > > seems dangerous to your prejudices.
> >
> > The usual personal smear. So if I was not an opinionatedly etc I
> > would not find it strange that they don't consider the
> > possibility?
> > If it's so obvious those Germanic inhumation graves are not
> > Sarmatian, surely professional archaeologists could waste five
> > lines on refuting it?
>
> GK: Of course, catering to the whims of peripheral dilettantes
> should be a professional' s first priority.
This is your best shot? Surely, if those professional archaeologists find the hypotheses introduced by outsiders such a nuisance, one course of action they might contemplate would be to refute them. They haven't. Why?
****GK: Sorry to burst your bubble. You're really not a very important "outsider" are you? If some established historian or "humanist" were to make such an objection, they might consider it. I say "might". Normally they expect their non-professional readers to accept their norms of what is and what is not relevant. And your Snorrism won't encourage them either you know. Welcome to the real world...****