Re: Morimarusa

> > ****GK: How putative "Sarmatian" influence from the South proves a
> > "Germanic" exodus from Przeworsk to Scandinavia remains opaque if
> > not altogether beyond the realm of standard logical analysis.*** *
>
> You mean the machinations of George's brain? The one scenario I find
> bumps into the fewest factual obstacles is one where the Germanic
> language arrives in Scandinavia as part of the Sarmatian-influenced
> 'unitary foreign conglomerate' .
>
>
> ****GK: Of course (:=)). You have no proof for any of your theses,
> and so you substitute your usual ad hominem deflections mixed up
> with vague promises and misunderstandings.

It's an old trick to hurl back accusations to its originator on the assumption that since they came from him they must reflect something in himself and let's see how this works now. I use it myself in my not so fine moments.
As I have tried to get across to you on several occasions I never try to prove a hypothesis, since there's no way you can do that. What I do is I propose theses and then try to disprove the other, existing theses. This is a formal description of what people actually do, they don't 'prove' things in one unitary process. To lean back and demand 'proof' and then reject everything the proponent comes up with the subjective reason that is hasn't convinced me is of course a fool-proof method of stopping any new theory. So, here's the deal: if in the future you try to bait me with 'You haven't proved...' I won't respond. If you try 'This is wrong because...' I will. Clear enough?

> Where your source states that there might be something to look at
> you advance unfounded conclusions.

What you state my source states is what I've stated all the time. The thing I propose is something that should be looked at.

> You would make a good politician.****

In my country politicians who misrepresent the standpoints of their opponents end up getting no votes.


Torsten