Re: Life Love and the Universe in drwho on usenet


"solar penguin" <solar.penguin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1bdf495e-fbb3-42a4-b567-eb17139c77a4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 5 Sep, 15:47, "Agamemnon" wrote:

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

>> <<<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.

We that know about history.

So, only people who "know about history" are "talking about ancient
HISTORIANS" here...? So I suppose the rest of us are actually talking
about the real issues...?

The rest of you are talking about things you have no comprehension and understanding of.


> 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,

Irrelevant, since other people _are_ disputing it.

You are not qualified to dispute it not are you or anyone else in any position to dispute it. There is NOT ONE historical source texts that disputes Theseus existence there is NO BASIS and NO FOUNDATION on which to make a claim against his 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.

SPOONER'S SUCCESSOR! For a start, they could be liars _with_
knowledge of history but who decided to ignore it and lie anyway. :)

They are still liars.


>> 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.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about historians, ancient or otherwise.
Why do you keep bringing them up?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.


>> 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.

So how do you tell _which_ ancient texts are HISTORICAL texts and
which are the UNHISTORICAL ones?

Read them. Like from the start, like where they say they are histories and like where they name historians who they are citing or using as sources.


>> 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.

Like I said, you'd still call me a LIAR.

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


> 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.

And did they even do any forensic tests to confirm these bones all
even belonged to the same person in the first place?

Well going as how he died after he was pushed off a cliff, it would be obvious that the bones were his from the fractures they sustained.

.