Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: "Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:11:53 +0200
Marian Ionescu wrote: 430b3bfb$0$26580$dbd45001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Peter and Inger,
I do not much like the abusive tone of your debate. I do not think that a debate about a historical subject is a game which one side can win or lose. I do not like personal insults.
I agree with you, but ....
Inger has called me confused and a bluff; I have not insulted her once. [...]
.... that's why there are winners and losers in this 'game'.
If you like to discuss further with Inger you better get used to being insulted. Most of us here are (more or less).
And for you the same applies as for Inger: if you have something to say to me, say it to *me*, and not in a post to someone else. And don't answer someone else over my back.
-- º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
.
- References:
- Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Marian Ionescu
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Alan Crozier
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Alan Crozier
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Marian Ionescu
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: ie
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Alaca
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Marian Ionescu
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: ie
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Alaca
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Marian Ionescu
- Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- Prev by Date: Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- Next by Date: Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- Previous by thread: Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- Next by thread: Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|