Re: Life Love and the Universe in drwho on usenet


"solar penguin" <solar.penguin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:a65f46d5-98e0-47a2-bc2a-5ecea2ac1ff4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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-

We that know about history.

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."

Twaddle. Not one ancient historian disputed Theseus existence, therefore it is impossible to draw the conclusion for any historical texts anywhere or by anybody that Theseus did not exist, since all history concerning the period in question is derived from what the ancient historians passed on to us. Anything else is simply something that someone has just made up which has no basis in historical science whatsoever. If someone denies Theseus existence, then they are simply liars who have no knowledge of history.


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.

You don't obviously don't understand "undisputed" then.


> 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.

No they have not. They are not historians if they dispute it, and no historian is in any position to dispute it unless they have a time machine.


<<<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.

WRONG! That is a load of unfounded BULL***! All HISTORICAL texts are equally valid.


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

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


You don't have one otherwise you would know the truth.

<<<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...

Well then.



<<<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

Well for a start they were his BONES not just one bone.

rules for different bones? Is it only forbidden to dispute Greek
bones but other countries' bones don't matter?

You mean bone.

Theseus bones were all accounted for. If you dispute them then you dispute all the bones of all the kings and queens of Europe. The ancient Greeks were just as capable of looking after their kings bones as anyone was in the middle ages, if not better, since they worshiped their kings as Gods and Heroes.


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.

Given that she's an inbreed there's every chance.

.

Quantcast