Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: "ie" <I_e,johansson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:21:28 GMT
Marian,
I have been abused namecalled and such by Alaca from day one he entered this
group. I have the right to defend myself. If you don't intend to stand side
by side of him, I am revealed to hear that and I am sorry if I misunderstood
you. As for Alaca, I will continue to defend myself against his false
assumptions about me and my work.
Inger E
"Marian Ionescu" <stud3583o@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:430b3bfb$0$26580$dbd45001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Alaca wrote:
> > ie wrote:
> >> "Marian Ionescu" skrev
> >>> Alaca wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> You bluffed and you have lost the game Inger.
> >>>> Marian has no problems with her hypothesis.
> >>>> You are the one with a problem, because you,
> >>>> as the 'Great Swedish Scholar', are no match
> >>>> for a Romanian student. A student Inger!
> >
> >
> >>> I am a not a "her"! Have you never heard of the famous
> >>> Marian Oprea and his medal of bronze in Helsinki ?
> >>> He is not a woman !
> >>>
> >>> Marian Oprea
> >>> http://www.ziarulcn.com/article/aid/21611/
> >>>
> >>> Marian I
> >
> >
> >
> >> Alaca and Marian,
> >> I haven't bluffed nor lost the game,
> >> only you two who definitely seems to know how to bluff have lost the
> >> game. Neither of you knows enough about the thing we discuss in older
> >> ages nor in Alaca's case in later.
> >> It's incredible that you Marian tries to join the abusive forces of
> >> Alaca's. Unfortunatly for you that doesn't give you any scholarly
> >> credibility. That's your problem.
> >> [...]
> >
> >
> > Hey, Inger, leave Marian out of this!
> > He only corrected me because I thought he was a woman.
> > Preserving the relevant quote in his reaction makes him
> > no accomplice and no abuser!
> > You preserved the quote as well. Does that mean that you
> > are now abusing yourself?
> >
> > And if you have something to say to me, say it to *me*,
> > and not in a post to someone else.
> >
>
>
> 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. Inger
> has called me confused and a bluff; I have not insulted her
> once. I am sorry that I laughed when she said that the Gothic
> language was spoken in Romania before the Goths came. I
> have really thought that it was a joke and not an serious
> argument. I excuse myself.
>
> I have cited much evidence and specific sources references.
> I do not bluff when I defend the standard opinion. I have
> asked Inger for same sort of exact references but she has
> presented no good evidence yet. I understand that she want
> time to put together her argument. I do not think that Inger is
> bluffing, but it would be a re-assurance if she - while I am
> waiting - could give just one of the following:
>
> 1. The NAME of one scholar who supports her opinions.
> 2. The TITLE of one published book or periodical article who
> supports her opinions.
> 3. ONE peace of evidence from that which she compiles.
> 4. An answer YES or NO to my question: Does Inger belief
> that the Getae who fought Darios in 513 B.C. were Germanic
> speaking Goths from Sweden?
>
> Let me remind Inger that I not doubt that there were Goths in
> Romania in the III century A.D. You do not need to send me
> evidence about that. I only wish to see evidence of the claim
> that the Goths came B.C. This exclude therefore Arabic
> sources and stones with runic inscriptions.
>
>
> Marian I
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Marian Ionescu
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- From: Alaca
- Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- 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: DO you know what is the project name for this?
- Previous by thread: Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- Next by thread: Re: Getae were not Goths: linguistic evidence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|