Re: Life Love and the Universe in drwho on usenet


On 4 Sep, 23:58, "Agamemnon" wrote:

"solar penguin" <solar.penguin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8fd13f08-3831-49bb-9805-d0d85e97971c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 4 Sep, 22:44, "Agamemnon" wrote:

There was only one Theseus and his existence is a
historically documented and undisputed FACT.

<<<Since people ARE disputing it, it cannot be an "undisputed" fact.>>>

We are not talking about the ignorant in this newsgroup. We are talking
about ancient HISTORIANS!

What's this "we"? You may be talking about ancient historians, but no-
one else even mentioned them. Personally I'm talking about the
definition of "undisputed," which means "not disputed." It doesn't
mean "disputed by many people who just don't happen to fit your idea
of a historian, let alone an ancient one."

I haven't been keeping the list up to date recently (it's far too long
as it is) but maybe I'll add "undisputed" and "we" to it.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, nearly all of them unqualified.

<<<So far that hasn't prevented them from disputing the fact.>>>

They are not historians let alone ancient ones.


Irrelevant. They have still disputed it.

<<<You're doing that "mixing up past and present tense" thing again. You
do it so often that I'm beginning to wonder if it's not just the
tenses but the actual concepts of past and present that confuse you...>>>

You are a FOOL! All we know about ancient history comes from ancient
historical texts.

There's some truth in that, but you need to be very selective about
which texts you choose to believe and how you choose to interpret
them.

Unless of course you have a time machine and have been
there.

Even if I had, you'd probably still call me a LIAR.

<<<And they did forensic DNA tests to confirm these were the right
bones...?>>>

Did they do forensic DNA tests to confirm William the Conqueror and Richard
I are the right bones and ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II?

No, as I said...


<<<Not a very good example. IIRC there _is_ some dispute about whether
or not William the Conqueror's one surviving bone really is his.
There may even be some dispute about other kings' bones too, but I
don't remember the details.>>>

If there's dispute about Willy's only surviving bone, why can't there
be some dispute about Theseus's bones too? Or do you have different
rules for different bones? Is it only forbidden to dispute Greek
bones but other countries' bones don't matter?

And as for whether Willy really was the ancestor QEII -- I'm sure
there must have been _many_ secret queenly love affairs producing
bastards who became kings over the years. (e.g. Edward IV is believed
to be illegitimate, and he's one of the few we know about.) There's
practically no chance that she's actually descended from him, no
matter what she claims.
.