From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 69764
Date: 2012-06-04
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"It wasn't intended to be; after all, there's no need to
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>>> I'd call this the ostrich approach.
>> Which is one of the reasons that you're not actually
>> doing linguistics: you're the linguistic counterpart of a
>> von Däniken or one of the Pyramidiots and can't tell (or
>> don't care about) the difference between a just-so story
>> and a closely reasoned, well-argued case.
> Your comparison between me and Von Däniken is
> entertaining, although it hardly can be considered "a
> closely reasoned, well-argued case".
>>>>> IMHO these Germanic-Afrasian (especially Semitic)No. I'm pointing out that your quasi-religious faith that
>>>>> isoglosses must reflect the languages spoken in Central
>>>>> Europe Neolithic.
>>>> I can see what your opinion is, but it still looks
>>>> completely unfounded.
>>> Why so?
>> For the obvious reason that no evidence for it is
>> apparent. You've certainly offered none.
> So you're pretending ploughs aren't related to agriculture
> and agriculture wasn't invented in the Neolithic?