"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:
snip my post
VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....
Sorry Seppo, but your memory has gone again.
A Google search on 'tkavanag Seppo Basque' produces only the thread from
Dec. 2002 titled "KRS author's ship not at Hudson Bay" in which you
severely mangled eastern Algonquian ethnography. That is what I called
you on, not the existence of Busque words in Micmac. Indeed, as David B.
pointed out, I referenced the Bakker article on Dec. 2, 1998, a little
more than four years before the "KRS author" thread.
Facts remain as I stated them above!
Electronic memories, aka Google, remain as I stated them. You are wrong.
That is another lie - in the face of evidence to the contrary! Not
very honest are you!
Ah yes I do recall that exchange well enough
And so you do recall that nowhere in that discussion did I dispute the
presence of Basque words in Micmac?
LIAR:
3DFE031F.46CD79A9@indiana.edu
"You were the one who posted nonsense in the very first posting in
this thread, first that Kensington had a Micmac name,..."
The specific word that was at issue - the micmac name for a place
called Kensington. You refer to it in this post, though not
accurately! That is one (of many) post where you also resort to
fabrications of the meaning of what I have said.
Not very honest are you!
- it was the thread where you were provided with the definition of "forgery" remember.
Nope, sorry, Google does not find the word "forgery" in the 119 messages
in that thread.
LIAR!
But lets see now..... I bet you'll come back and say "only forge was
there, not forgery", as if that was somehow relevant to anything
(other than your attempt at fabrications), and attempt to claim I had
never said "definition of "forgery".." in fact! So go on, make my
day.... 'ave a go yer mug! Perhaps you are just going to run away
again eh?
Here it is from the quoted post (you claim to have read again - most
likely another lie):
"CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1899
Interpretation Application General Principles
CHAPTER 1 INTERPRETATION
"Definition of offence "
"forge" a document, means make, alter or deal with the document so
that the whole of it or a material part of it
(a) purports to be what, or of an effect that, in fact it is not; or
(b) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by a person who did not
make, alter or deal with it or by or for some person who does not, in
fact exist; or
(c) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by authority of a
person who did not give that authority; or
(d) otherwise purports to be made, altered or dealt with in
circumstances in which it was not made, altered or dealt with."
And that was also the thread in which it was shown that your conclusion
that Kensington, Minnesota had a Micmac name, "Gategageneg," which was
actually the name of a location several hundred miles to the east, on
Prince Edward Island. You were proven wrong then, but refused to admit
it.
Indeed, I made a mistake in the location but that is because of a NAME
CHANGE had occurred that is not included in my map. The fact remains
that it was indeed a "Kensington" as I had stated, only they added the
Micmac name to it and it is called "Gategageneg-Kensington". It was
this that could not be found on my map due to the name change, as I
said at the time. So you see you are not being honest at all in your
claims. You lie!
I also quite readily acknowledged this error at the time. Therefor you
LIE once more when you claim that I "refused to admit it"! You have an
amazing skill at cramming so many fabrications into a small text!
What I said then still applies:
"THAT is feverished panting of pretentious pap by a pathetic pompous
postulating pimple on the posterior of an arriviste."
You didn't learn much from that exchange back then, did you! Let me
remind you of what I said at the time:
3E026687.17177B57@not.ollis.com.au
"YOU were the one who started the fabrication of what I had said about
the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, and your mindless accusations"
That above is a FACT!
You are now regurgitating your fabrications once more. Pull your
bloody head in and go and re-read that message!!
Not only that, I have re-read the entire thread, and have re-read the
sources, and I stand with my position. You mangled Algonquian
ethnography then, and refuse to admit it now.
Considering you being caught lying above, I think it is quite fair to
say, I don't believe you, and have a VERY high probability of being
right (some 99.9%) - not that you would ever admit to it, considering
your track record in this post.
You are relying on a FORGERY you created to make those false claims
(hence the definition of forgery was posted). You ignored the reality
even when it was detailed to you them, and you do so now too! THAT is
the fabrication you continue with here. You really are not very honest
at all!
And where in that thread do I dispute your claim of Basque words in
Micmac?
DO try to read the post! It will NOT go away no matter how often you
play dumb.
Let me remind you again, you wrote:
VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....
And where in that thread did I dispute ("poo-pooed") your claim of
Basque words in Micmac?
Keep pretending people will start believing you are indeed as thick as
you pretend to be. This has already been answered, in the last post I
asked you to at least READ the post, including the material you demand
now.
That being the case, you would still continue the same nonsense,
demanding the same over and over. You pull that stunt often enough on
Inger, Forget it, it doesn't work on me! On the other hand, of course
the reality can also be that you are indeed as thick as you pretend -
in which case the end result will be the same, so there really is no
point in it.
