Re: Silver Nemesis reborn, only with cappier music


<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:55a0b32e-a73c-45c9-aeb2-7f80d3917be8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 10 Jan, 18:10, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:e2baa5e4-5b4b-4718-b123-00906f496625@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 9 Jan, 19:21, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:414597bb-7ca7-4eb7-a49e-641109ac8f92@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 8 Jan, 20:41, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<pbow...@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:

Not true; all he did was hoard his finds and give them to his wife to
wear. But that's beside the point. Clearly you forgot to reply to the

POPPY***!

Schliemann was as much an archaeologist as anyone else that lived in his
time.

Point to one bit of my above comment which is not actually true, or SP
will be forced to add POPPY*** to the list if it's not there already.

Point to one bit of my above comment which is not actually true.


relevant part of my commentary, that archaeology has moved on since
that time. Whatever the archaeological practices of Schliemann and his

Schliemann was as much an archaeologist as anyone else that lived in his
time.

Translation: "La la, I can't hear you..." Neither childish acts of
desperation or continual repetition make your errors correct.

IDIOT!


contemporaries, looking at a site and concluding that everything in a
written (and, in this case, plainly mythologised) account that uses it
as a backdrop is an accurate historical record is unscientific and is
not good historical or archaeological practice.

MORE POPPY***!

Schliemann's objective was to find Troy and thus prove it existed, and
that
is exactly what he did. That proved what was already universally
accepted,
that Homer was correct. The next objective was to identify which remains
belonged to the Troy of Paris and that objective has been accomplished
also.
Thus NOTHING in the archaeological record contradicts Homer so there is
NO
reason to doubt his historical validity and never has been.

I've already explained that Biblical archaeology of the sort that went
around trying to 'prove' the Old Testament was discredited a century
ago. No scientist or historian with any claim to that title would

IMBECILE!

We are not talking about the Old Testament, which in any case has been
historically verified as far as the kingdoms of Israel and Judea are
concerned, and the events before that have been shown to have been
plagiarised from early European history concerning the Greeks, Phrygians and
Italic peoples descended from Jannus/Ogygus as can be seen in the Travels of
Noe into Europe, which history Berosus obtained from the Greeks and which
the Jews obtained from the Romans.

We are talking about European history, which has NEVER been disputed and
which is corroborated by all the archaeology and is not contradicted at all.

treat a secondary source as gospel truth until proven otherwise, or
search for sites simply to corroborate said sacred account. Homer

IDIOT! No scientist would discard the entire body of historical literature
as you and the historical revisionist charlatans have chosen to do. A
scientist, like Isaac Newton would accept the historical validity of the
texts, which he did, and subject them to tests, which he also did, and if
they failed the test then he would amend his theory or understanding of the
texts so that they passed the tests, and continue testing.

talks of a cyclops, gods actively avenging themselves on the
protagonists, Scylla and Charybdis as monsters - by your logic,

IMBECILE!

Polyphemus was a historical person as was Scylla and Charybdis. Their
genealogies are perfectly well known as is their history. If the poets chose
to describe them as monsters then they were doing no different to the film
"300" where the Persian Immortals and the Ephors are also made to look like
monsters, and Xerxes is made into a giant two or three times the size of
Leonidas. This does in no way imply that these people did not exist and that
they never fought the battles ascribed to them.

because "nothing in the archaeological record contradicts
Homer" (which is untrue, but granting it here for the sake of

Which is totally true.

argument), that would imply we have to accept that the cyclops, gods
and monsters really existed and were really a cyclops, gods and
monsters just as depicted in the story.

IMBECILE!

It implies nothing of the kind. What is implies is that Homers works
describe real historical people and events, who lived and which occurred at
the time Greek historians said they occurred since Homer is not the only
source and we know the entire chronology of the period from sources such as
the Parian Marble and Jerome's Chronicon, and who these people really were
from sources such as Diodorus who lists the purely cosmetic changes the
poets made to the description of the original history in order to make a
better story, following the manner of the Phoenicians who did the same
thing, as proven by Philo.


There were many Troys including
the Troy destroyed by Herakles 50 years before the Trojan War whose
walls
were build by Poseidon and Apollo, the suburb of Ilum founded 50 years
before that, and the original Troy which from which the name came from
founded by Tros 50 years earlier still, and the first Troy called
Dardania
founded by Dardanus another 50 years earlier and before that the city
of
Teucer the son of Scamander who ruled before Dardanus. All of these
Troys
were found by Schliemann and therefore not only confirm the Iliad but
confirm all Greek history prior to it.

Uh, what? Because Homer got it wrong, showing that he was wrong
confirms that he was right?

Homer said there was more than one Troy including the Troy destroyed by
Herakles 50 years before the Trojan War whose walls were build by
Poseidon
and Apollo, the suburb of Ilum founded 50 years before that, and the
original Troy which from which the name came from founded by Tros 50
years
earlier still, and the first Troy called Dardania founded by Dardanus
another 50 years earlier and before that the city of Teucer the son of
Scamander who ruled before Dardanus. All of these Troys were found by
Schliemann and therefore not only confirm the Iliad but confirm all Greek
history prior to it.

Nonsense. London has been burned and rebuilt. Jericho has been
rebuilt. San Francisco. New Orleans. Pick a random dead city, and you
can find the remains of older ones beneath it. Sedentary populations
consistently rebuild in the same places. The fact that a site has
multiple layers (in the case of Troy, more layers than these accounts
suggest - there are, what, nine Troys presently known at the site?)
says nothing profound and is not conclusive about a site's identity,
let alone an account of that site's history.

IGNORANT IMBECILE!

The archaeological dates when Troy was destroyed and rebuilt correspond
precisely with the dates given in Jerome and other sources, and this also
applies to other Greek historical sites. The archaeology is in total
agreement with the ancient Greek historians.



YOU ARE COMPLETELY INSANE. There is no parallel between the
discoveries
of
Schliemann and your farcical incoherent rantings.

The point I'm making has to do with the structure of your argument;
you can't pick and choose and decide that the argument you like is
right while one with an identical construction is incoherent. If one
isn't logically defensible, neither is the other.

IDIOT! There is no parallel between the discoveries of Schliemann and
your
farcical incoherent rantings.

Once again, repeating yourself does not make things true, except
possibly in your fairy tale world where calling for the Sandman three
times makes him appear.

IDIOT!




The Loch Ness monster is first recorded in a written account from 565

MORE INSANITY which I have no interest in reading.

Translation: "Further cogent objections to which I have no answer".

IDIOT!


When Odysseus makes himself known to King Alcinoos on the island of
Scherie
(thought to be Corfu) he introduces his homeland with a description
that
scholars have pondered over for many centuries:

I am Odysseus, Laertes' son,

Laertes didn't have a son. He was killed by Hamlet as a young man,
remember.

IDIOT!

Same name - has to be the same person, right?

IDIOT!


http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=nEssFK5cEnY

Archaeology has shown that the original Ithaca which corresponds to
Homers
description was Paliki which lies of the western coast of Kephalonia but
is
now attached to Kephalonia because the narrow channel between them silted
up.

No it hasn't. Modelling has shown that an earthquake could have sealed
the channel. As of a two-year-old BBC news item on the idea (http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4293786.stm), no finds have been made at
the site that can corroborate it. So far, it's a hypothesis, no
different from the association with Thiakis.

BULL***. The original sea bed has been found at the site which proves that
Paliki was original an island in its own right, and along with remains found
at the site which corresponded to the description and locations given by
Homer this proves that Paliki was Ithaca.


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.

<<<No, he was definitely a cyclops named Polyphemus. The one eye is a
dead giveaway. He didn't do much raiding, either.>>>

IDIOT! 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.

Ah, I see. I made the mistake of thinking you might be presenting some
evidence that Polyphemus was a historical figure rather than a
complete fabrication. Seemingly not.

IDIOT! Polyphemus was a historical person and Odysseus has been proven to
have existed since he is named in Hittite inscriptions in the reign of
Suppiluliama II son of Arnuvanda II as an Achaean Greek called
Attarsiya(s)

Ah, I SEE. Polyphemus was a historical person because he's named as a
fictional monster in a book in which the character who meets him has a
name that bears no relation to the name on the Hittite inscription.

IDIOT!



who raided the cites of Asia Minor from about 1200 to 1190 BC which is
that
date given by Homer for the start of the Trojan War and when Odysseus and
the Achaeans raided all the cast of Asia Minor.

Where is Odysseus depicted as raiding the coast of Asia Minor? And are

In the Cypria.

you seriously so dim that you imagine only one Greek leader might raid
Asia Minor in any given period? This is a repeat of your "Christopho

IMBECILE! How many Greek leaders from 1200 BC were called Odysseus or
Attarsiya(s)? NONE except the original.


Moro must be Othello because they both fought the Turks" - when you're
in Cyprus and in charge of the Greek part, fighting Turks is what you

IMBECILE! All of Cyprus is Greek and the Greeks have always made up the
majority of the population of every part of the island. The tower of Othello
is located in occupied Famagusta which was ethnically cleansed of its Greek
inhabitants who made up 90% of the population of the north of the island in
1974.

In the time of Othello there were no Turks whatsoever on the island. The
Turks attempted to invade Famagusta when it was under Venetian rule in the
time of Othello and in 1570 they invaded Cyprus again and genocided 20,000
Greeks who lived in Nicosia and then a year later they genocided the entire
population of Famagusta after a seven month siege, and occupied the island
until it was ceded to the British in 1878, when the Turks made up only 5% of
the population and were scattered across the whole island, and renounced all
claim to in 1923.

*do*. More than one person has done it.

IDIOT! It is clear that you don't know the sligest thing about history.


Okay, does anyone else want to explain in Aggy in the simplest
possible terms how even primitive stone carving is more durable than
paper or skins in the British climate, as well as pointing to the
distinct shortage of papyrus swamps in Britain?

IDIOT! Rain and wind and dust erosion will erase or make unreadable any
inscription carved with a copper chisel in only about 100 years.

There are stone inscriptions in Britain dating from 400 BC. At Cheddar
Gorge, Tintagel and other sites, Neolithic rock carving has survived -
older rock carving is known from areas like South Africa's
Drakensbergs. In any case, this is straying from the point. I noted
that there is no hard evidence for the existence of characters like
Brutus the Trojan and King Lear - hard evidence doesn't mean 'rock

There is overwhelming historical evidence for the existence of Brutus and
king Lear. There is NOT ONE dissenting voice among Greek, Roman, European,
Middle Ages and Renaissance historians. The existence of Brutus and king
Lear was accepted without challenge and without doubt.

carving', it means sites and artifacts that can be associated with
those characters. Interestingly, the most compelling evidence for a
'King Arthur' is, you guessed it, a stone inscription of his name on
one of the bricks of Tintagel.

As I have alread pointed out, Lear and Brutus were just two among hundreds
of kings and their families listed by ancient historians and the remains of
such kings have been discovered by archaeologists dating back throughout the
years all the way to the time that Stonehenge was built. Therefore it is
universally accepted that Britain was ruled by kings at the time that Brutus
lived and therefore the historical texts naming Brutus and king Lear cannot
be challenged in their accuracy and authenticity, unless you are going to
suggest the existence grand conspiracy theory thought Europe that lasted for
over 2,000 years were almost every king prior to 1066 was made up, which is
totally ludicrous and unbelievable.


Why don't
you write down your words on a lime stone tablet and let me piss on them
like they deserve, and lets see how long they last when the acid gets at
then and the water freezes and the ice expands and shatters the rock.

Now try doing the same with a piece of paper.

After I've copied it and distributed it to every city in the country and
ensured that they will continue making copies of it if its condition
deteriorates, so that the information it contains will not be lost. Now try
doing that with a thousand giant pieces of stone and see which is easier and
most likely to survive thousands of years and still be readable and
uncorrupted.


Phil


.

Loading