Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

You are unable to see that Lat. sorbeo is derived from the same basis
as acerbo (to make bitter, to aggravate) and Serb. crpeti (draw,
deplete, exhaust) and that basis was Xur-Bel-Gon;
In the same sense that he is unable to see that 2 + 2 = 5. Once again,
you rely not on proving anything but on imploring people to share your
imagination

Are you able to say anything concrete instead of repeating the same
"mantra" constantly?

As long as you keep operating the same way, the response will be the
same. Do you expect the answer to "What is 2 + 2?" to change to
something other than 4 just for the sake of variety?

I see... you understood nothing of what I was saying.

I understood it fine. I understood that it to be one more of your
entreaties to believe a bunch of your claims, not through evidence and
sound reasoning but through entreaty and insult. I understood that it
was the same muddleheaded approach you've been taking all along.

As blind as you
are, you should be a preacher.
Simply, your IQ is too low

"Do you believe everything Du¹an says just because he begs you to
believe it?" is not a question found on an IQ test. And if it were, the
answer "No" would be the correct one.

 > for a such complex linguistic matter.

Yes, it is complex--so complex that "because I say so" and "you're blind
if you don't agree with me" are hopelessly inappropriate approaches to
it, yet those are the only ones you know.

On Apr 5, 1:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

You are unable to see that Lat. sorbeo is derived from the same basis
as acerbo (to make bitter, to aggravate) and Serb. crpeti (draw,
deplete, exhaust) and that basis was Xur-Bel-Gon;
In the same sense that he is unable to see that 2 + 2 = 5. Once again,
you rely not on proving anything but on imploring people to share your
imagination

Are you able to say anything concrete instead of repeating the same
"mantra" constantly?

I see... you understood nothing of what I was saying.

As blind as you
are, you should be a preacher.
Simply, your IQ is too low
"Do you believe everything Dušan says just because he begs you to

for a such complex linguistic matter.

Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:

The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?

No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
statements are correct.

"Everything I say is true unless someone proves
otherwise" is not the way the world works.

The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?

On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:

The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
statements are correct.

Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.

You can not falsify my theory without reading it at all. Your
prejudice is your problem and your "superiority complex" is making a
complete idiot of you.

Just on these thread you have enough material
to prove me wrong;

only what you need is the following: find the weak
point in my "structure", fill it with your "dynamite" evidences and
ignite the "fuse". As you can see, it is a piece of cake! What are you
waiting for?

"Everything I say is true unless someone proves
otherwise" is not the way the world works.

Just like that... unless someone refutes my statements with a well-
grounded counter-arguments, my statements shall stand here as valid.

Duðan Vukotiã wrote:
On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukoti¿ wrote:

The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
statements are correct.

Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.

No. I don't. If you haven't provided any reason to believe they are true
besides, "because I say so", then they remain unproven, and if nobody
believed them before you claimed them, why in the world do you suppose
that anyone would believe them after you do?

Just on these thread you have enough material
to prove me wrong;

If you're right, why are you completely, hopelessly, definitively unable
to prove it? You keep speaking of your discoveries, yet you have
"discovered" *nothing*, only hypothesized, accompanied by the inability
or lack of desire to show that your hypotheses are facts rather than
imagination

only what you need is the following: find the weak
point in my "structure",  fill it with your "dynamite" evidences and
ignite the "fuse". As you can see, it is a piece of cake! What are you
waiting for?

"Everything I say is true unless someone proves
otherwise" is not the way the world works.

Just like that... unless someone refutes my statements with a well-
grounded counter-arguments, my statements shall stand here as valid.

Assuming you mean *true* rather than "valid" (which applies to
reasoning, not statements): wow. If that's what you think, then you are
genuinely delusional. (I *know* your reasoning leans heavily toward the
invalid side. Time and time again, when you *have* tried to exercise
something resembling reasoning, it's been packed with flaws and fallacies.)

You don't even try to read what I have
written,

Yes, I do, and every time it turns out to be yet another unproven
assertion.

Are you expecting to keep doing the same stupid thing,
despite having been criticized for it hundreds of times, and suddenly,
one day, have a different outcome?

On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger

hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukoti¿ wrote:

The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?

No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
statements are correct.

Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.

On Apr 6, 2:40 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duðan Vukotiã wrote:
On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukoti¿ wrote:
The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?
No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
statements are correct.
Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.
No. I don't. If you haven't provided any reason to believe they are true
besides, "because I say so", then they remain unproven, and if nobody
believed them before you claimed them, why in the world do you suppose
that anyone would believe them after you do?

Every intelligent person can see that you are using the "broken
record" method. Simply, you are reapeating, time after time, the same
string of denying words.

You don't even try to read what I have
written,

On 6 huhti, 02:11, Duðan Vukotiã <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger

hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukoti¿ wrote:

The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?

No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
statements are correct.

Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.

Nope, he does not need to do anything like that. In science, the one
who is proposing a new theory is the one who shall prove his theory.
Not the other way round.

On Apr 7, 4:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

You don't even try to read what I have
written,

Yes, I do, and every time it turns out to be yet another unproven
assertion.

My statements are always proven, but you have to learn to read my
words exactly as it is written. I can not use the standard linguistic
methods, especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.

How do you expect me to prove the relation among the words like Slavic
zemlja, Greek Σεμέλη, Latin globus and humus, Serbian h(l)um-ka; Russ.
holm (mound, a small hill). If you started from the "standard"
*dg'hem- root you wouldn't be able to explain words like Serbian
gomila, Latin cumulus, Serb. klobuk (clod, cap), oblak (cloud), kalpak
(cap), oklop (armor), glava (head), which are close cognates to Slavic
zemlja and Greek χώμα...

On Apr 7, 9:10 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:



On 6 huhti, 02:11, Duðan Vukotiã <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 5, 10:33 pm, Harlan Messinger

hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Du¹an Vukoti¿ wrote:

The essential question is, have you any concrete objections?

No, the essential question is whether you can demonstrate that your
statements are correct.

Of course, as well as you have to show that my statements are wrong.

Nope, he does not need to do anything like that. In science, the one
who is proposing a new theory is the one who shall prove his theory.
Not the other way round.

Let's ask Giordano Bruno: "Time is the father of truth!"

On Apr 7, 4:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net

You don't even try to read what I have
written,
Yes, I do, and every time it turns out to be yet another unproven
assertion.

My statements are always proven,

but you have to learn to read my
words exactly as it is written. I can not use the standard linguistic
methods,

especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.

How do you expect me to prove the relation among the words like Slavic
zemlja, Greek Σεμέλη, Latin globus and humus, Serbian h(l)um-ka; Russ.
holm (mound, a small hill).

Harlan Messinger wrote:
 Duðan Vukotiã wrote:

[...]
You don't even try to read what I have
written,

Yes, I do, [...]

I, for one, keep wondering why.

It doesn't occur to you that if you stop making unsupported assertions,
then you'll stop getting criticized for making unsupported assertions.

And what would happen if people quit wasting their time criticizing?

I guess it's all in fun.

Bart Mathias

especially not the "reconstructed" PIE roots and the so-
called Laryngeal Theory, in order to prove the exactness of my
findings; simply because those methods are obsolete and worthless for
a serious scientific work in the field of historical linguistics.

When did they become obsolete? Is it, just like everything else, because
you say so?