Re: Silver Nemesis reborn, only with cappier music


<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bf145139-2f00-4cc4-befb-ca4137e2bcbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 8 Jan, 02:36, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"solar penguin" <solar.peng...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:e7afafa2-fa3e-4f5d-ba28-b291aafc5651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 4 Jan, 00:07, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have not got anything wrong. You are just totally ignorant of the
historical facts because you have not read a single ancient or medieval
historical text, but rely on the work of dissembling revisionists

Aggie, you often use the word "revisionists" as though its
automatically A Bad Thing. What is wrong with revising ideas when new
facts come to light through archaeology or anthropological research?

No new facts have come to light through archaeology or anthropological
research that contradict the ancient historians. In fact they reinforced
the
validity of their accounts.

The school of revisionism is NOT based on either archaeology or
anthropological research or historical texts. It is based on a tissue of
LIES invented from 1800 onwards when archaeology was not understood and
completely unscientific

<<<You don't think that it's a bit rich to accuse everyone else of being
"conspiracy theorists" when you concoct this bizarre notion that
everyone living in the past two centuries has been in thrall to this
sinister force of IGNORANT REVISIONISM.>>>

Not everyone. Only FOOLS like you.

and which paid NO HEED WHATSOEVER to the
archaeological discoveries which followed such as Schliemann's discovery
of
Troy

<<<What are you babbling about? Troy is an active area of research, but
it's like "Othello's Tower" or 10 Downing Street - a real place can be
part of the scenery for entirely fictional stories. What no credible>>>

BULL***!

<<<archaeologist or historian would consider doing is saying "Ah, Troy
exists. Therefore everything Homer wrote must be true, including the>>>

MORE BULL***. Schliemann already went on record saying just that. The fact
that Troy exists corroborates the accounts of Homer.

<<<Cyclops and Ithaca being in several places at once". Troy itself is a>>>

IMBECILE. The location of Ithaca has always been fixed in the historical
texts. The job of Archaeologist is to find it. Which is what they have done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEssFK5cEnY

The Cyclops was a man named Polyphemus who was encountered by Odysseus (who
is named in Hittite inscriptions as a Greek who raided the cites of Asia
Minor) on a Greek island.

<<<very different place from the one described by Homer, not least for>>>

WRONG!

<<<being considerably smaller - and its famous association with horses is
nonexistent. It's exactly by paying close attention to discoveries
made at the site that such things come to light.>>>

BULL***. Ilium was the suburb of Troy founded by Ilus in about 1300 BC and
is exactly the size Homer described it according to archaeologists who
recently discovered it in the past decade. Troy was the inner citidel which
is also the size describe by Homer. All the discoveries made at the site
corroborate Homer including the remains of horses which are scattered all
over the site.

It is clear from your IGNORANT statements that you are a SYSTEMATIC LIAR and
are making everything up as you are going along.

unscientific and historically unfounded claims of its original
founders, which sought to write out of existence all the recorded history
which was only written on paper, and which completely disregards all
evidence which contradicts it (which is the complete body of historical
literature and modern archaeology) no matter how overwhelming it is.

<<<How are you defining "overwhelming"? I sense another for the list.
Overwhelming evidence does not mean "lots of people saying the same
thing hundreds or thousands of years after the event". If one author
wrote something and made a mistake, and his account was the only
source later writers had access to, then all their accounts will
contain the exact same mistake (for instance, the fictional
association between Brutus the Trojan and Britain is known from only
two sources, one a 9th Century Welsh text, and the other the work of
Geoffrey of Monmouth three hundred years later which took its account
directly from that source). Written accounts are not "completely
disregarded" - people look hard for (and frequently find) hard
evidence to support them. But they do frequently turn out to contain
errors, either through being directly inconsistent with primary>>>

IDIOT! The so-called "errors" that you are attempting to imply existed
amount to the complete total and utter fabrication of the entire text from
start to finish. That is not what people regard as errors. An error is
something like the wrong spelling of a name or the omission of a "0" in the
number people that fought in a battle and would be completly trivial. As it
stands we know that the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth is based on historical
fact since the people name in it such as king Arthur (Riothamus) are
corroborated by Roman and Byzantine communiqués with these people and by
Greek and Roman historians such as Diodorus and Pliny who make mention of
these people a millennia earlier.

<<<sources or by being inconsistent with everything else known about the
region under study from more reliable sources and evidence. For
example, we know there was no line of kings of Britain until the post-
Roman period, and certainly no unified nation in the region over three
thousand years ago.>>>

BULL***! You know NOTHING OF THE KIND and you are MAKING IT ALL UP AS YOU
GO ALONG.

EVERY SINGLE HISTORICAL SOURCE that mentions Britain, including Diodorus and
Pliny states perfectly clearly and without challenge or dispute that there
were kings of Britain before the Romans and that these kings go all the way
back to the time of the Trojan War and this FACT is accepted by EVERY
historian up until 1800.

Archaeology confirms the existence of British kings and the location of
their burial sites which date all the way back to the foundation of
Stonehenge. Therefore the HISTORICAL FACT that there were British kings from
the time of the Trojan War has NEVER been in dispute.

These
REVISIONIST CHARLATANS are NOT historians. They are BIGOTS who deride
written history so much that they prefer to rely on unwritten accounts and
claim they are more reliable. And the reason for this is simple. If it's
not
written down then they can basically MAKE UP anything they want to suit
whatever purpose they are after.

<<<Ookkay. So, you're saying that something that's written down can't be
made up? It's an awful lot harder to alter things that are literally>>>

IMBECILE. What I am saying is that something that's written down, which is
accepted by the entire body of ancient historians as historical fact, and
which is corroborated by a tradition of state officiated ancestor worship
known to the Greeks and Romans is INDISPUTABLE.

<<<set in stone - and it's precisely that reason which prompts people to
look for hard evidence, because it *is* more reliable as a guide to
what actually happened.>>>

IDIOT! Why would the ancient British make stone inscriptions which would not
last even 100 years before being destroyed by the weather. The ancient
British used Papyrus or Animal skins to write on.

Historical revisionists are the same and no
better than Pol Pot, and have exactly the same aim., to make up the
history
they want for the world they want to create.

<<<Guess what? Pol Pot wrote his fictional history in a book.>>>

And everyone of his contemporaries said it was fiction. Not so for the work
of Geoffrey of Monmouth or Diodorus or Pliny.


.