 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » A word about evidence... |
|
Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Whiskers... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-28, Tiglath <temp6 at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 11:40 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
I count more than a dozen 'signs' in the part of the
inscription that is usually identified as referring to
Israel.
The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
(they're not though), count as one...
JTEM gives new meaning to "poaching out of field."
crapsnip
[/quote]
Anyone would think that he doesn't know that the articles he butchers in
his replies are still there in their original form for anyone to read.
It's difficult to imagine any other explanation for his conduct.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]I'm going to take a moment here to explain one of
my issues with the bible crowd, and I will try my
best to do it with a little maturity and not a lot of
insults.
Anyhow, this recent example typifies the issue with
evidence, and how many (if not "most") of the people
here don't even know what is or is not relevant to a
question...
First, Larry Swain aka "Weland" said:
:It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
To which I responded by point out...
: :Speaking of counting issues: There are seven (7) signs
: :which make up the word, plus a literal mark and
: :determinatives, not your six (6).
Now here's the problem:
[/quote]
Regrettably the problem has not been accurately identified. I'll
respond to what is mistakenly called the problem below.
The problem is that the 7 signs JTEM identifies must include the initial
flowering reeds twice. The flowering reed represents a palatal glide
and is usually transliterated as "i" or "ii" in some contexts; the
double flowering reed is taken as a "y" and so transliterated (unless
transliterating into German in which case "j") with a "y". Thus, the
problem here is that the objection to the proffered transliteration
"ysra3l" is based on not knowing about what phoneme the double flowering
reed symbol signifies. Of course, if our correspondent wishes to insist
that each symbol stand for one phoneme then we have to transliterate:
"yisra3l".
[quote]
:> So transliterate it for us young JStupid.
Why? Because if I don't then one of the signs will vanish,
leaving only your six?
[/quote]
To show that you actually know what the issues are. But since you
insist, as shown above, your objection is based on not knowing the
phonemic values of the signs.
[quote]Why not challenge me to balance a glass a water on my
head, or eat a banana in one bite? Either one would be
just as relevant to the point under discussion, just as
telling.
[/quote]
Because since we're discussing the meaning of a word written in Ancient
Egyptian on an ancient stele, demonstrating that you know the language
and the script under discussion is germane and important whereas the
other examples you give are not....an example of another fallacy.
[quote]
Show us what image you are transliterating from and
what exactly you are transliterating.
Now this makes slightly more sense, so long as you're
going to claim that there's more than one version of the
hieroglyphs.
[/quote]
Nope. I just figured that it'd be best if you were really going to give
us a transliteration of the line or even the word based on your work
that we should all be working off the same image so as to avoid
misunderstandings. Regrettably, you side-step the issue and do not give
us a transliteration, image, or anything particularly related to the
discussion.
[quote]
Only, if there was more than one version of the text,
wouldn't that be evidence for forgery?
[/quote]
Note the segue away from the topic: what the stele says, to inferring
something else entirely based on a fallacious non sequitur.
[quote]
Oddly, there are two. One is so fragmentary that you
could barely squeeze out a couple of door stops from
the pieces (even more fragmentary then the "Mesha
Stele"), and the other is some poor quality scratches
on the back of an older stele.
[/quote]
Yes, they made copies.
[quote]
Is that what Larry means? He wants to know which of
the two steles I'm referring to?
Well, the "intact" one.
[/quote]
Note again the avoidance of simply answering the challenge: transcribe
and provide a reference to what is being transcribed. Instead, we have
this series of statements unrelated to the topic, questions that I
certainly never asked, and then answers to those questions. It would
have been simpler and shorter to answer the challenge...unless of course
there is an inability to answer the challenge, in which case such a
response as this would be necessary as a cover.
[quote]
But in case that's not what he means, take your pick:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=%22victory%20stele%22%20merneptah&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
I just randomly clicked on a number of them, and not
one depicted less than 7 signs plus a literal mark and
determinatives.
[/quote]
Lack of addressing the challenge noted.
[quote]
Does Larry Swain aka Weland not have internet access?
Is that it? He was not capable of performing a rudimentary
Google search on his own?
[/quote]
Non sequitur and straw man in one go.
[quote]Even stranger: What if I was like Larry and couldn't
perform rudimentary searches either? Would that be
"Proof" that one of the signs vanished, leaving only his
six?
[/quote]
As above.
[quote]Sorry, but even what at it's face might be mistaken for
a reasonable challenge is itself another irrelevant
demand.
[/quote]
I'm afraid that asking you to demonstrate any expertise in the tools
needed to adequately discuss the issue is relevant, in fact, central to
your claims. Your inability to do so does rather demonstrate that your
claims are without foundation.
It is interesting that in a discussion of "evidence", the OP offers
instead a series of logical fallacies as a demonstration of the right
kind of evidence. Interesting. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
I count more than a dozen 'signs' in the part of the
inscription that is usually identified as referring to
Israel.
The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
(they're not though), count as one...
[/quote]
Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols in the name 6....and
let's remember that you were whinging not long ago about how there were
seven signs, not six.
[quote]
Has anyone ever said there is anything on the stele that
should be read as an L?
If you look /real/ close I'm sure you'll see that I just answered
that question.
[/quote]
Indeed, no one has ever claimed that it should be read as an "L" as has
been stated many times. Yet, JTEM continues to make the claim that that
is what is being said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
(they're not though), count as one...
JTEM gives new meaning to
[/quote]
So you're saying that it would be unreasonable for someone
to assume that a glyph which appears like a feather might
actually depict a feather, or is it the idea that two signs might
be able to make up one letter that's taxed your brain?
Oh, don't bother. Whatever you say will either be completely
out of context or even more stupid.
Congratulations on another three days of avoiding a single
on-topic word though. That's quite a feat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]Anyone would think that he doesn't know that the articles
he butchers
[/quote]
Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
insist.
As that no doubt went over your head...
You're supposed to trim, idiot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
(they're not though), count as one...
Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols
in the name 6.
[/quote]
Seven, actually. But math was always your worst subject,
after ancient history.
Just the reed signs and mouth signs (counting the first
two reeds as one) gets us to four.
I'll let you add up the rest on your own, comfortable in
the knowledge that you won't.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]The problem is that the 7 signs JTEM identifies must
include the initial flowering reeds twice.
[/quote]
Not at all. That would result in eight.
Man, you really do suck at counting...
The flowering reed represents a palatal glide
[quote]and is usually transliterated as "i" or "ii" in some contexts; the
double flowering reed is taken as a "y"
[/quote]
It's rare to see anything but the double reed in the beginning of
a word.... immediately contradicting myself with the example
of Amon, but at least beating you to the punch.
Counted as one, that brings the total to seven. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:11 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
insist.
[/quote]
Two incomplete thoughts mashed into a complete sentence.
Remarkable.
JTEMS thinking, and by extension his writing, is as clean as a whistle
full of spit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 2:26 pm, Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 2009-10-28, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:40 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
I count more than a dozen 'signs' in the part of the
inscription that is usually identified as referring to
Israel.
The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
(they're not though), count as one...
JTEM gives new meaning to "poaching out of field."
crapsnip
Anyone would think that he doesn't know that the articles he butchers in
his replies are still there in their original form for anyone to read.
It's difficult to imagine any other explanation for his conduct.
[/quote]
Imagine all the potential employees, girlfriends, boyfriends, googling
this goober and finding the epitome of inanity in each of the dozens
of posts he adds to the archives.
What a find.
"Oops, Mary, we won't he hiring this cuckoo, shred his curriculum."
Is it a sin to lead the twit to more curriculum shredding? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:10 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
(they're not though), count as one...
JTEM gives new meaning to
So you're saying that it would be unreasonable for someone
to assume
[/quote]
Given that your training on Semitic language and knowledge of the
ancient Levant is -- I cannot put it more gently -- pathetic, it's not
only unreasonable but, well, pathetic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:11 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
insist.
Two incomplete thoughts
[/quote]
No. One single missing word: "Not," which should be between
"is" and "the" in the second line.
Then again, you were never very bright.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]You're supposed to respond to points and questions,
[/quote]
As I did. The whole idea that your inability to find
something using Google would have been turned into
Nobel Prize winning science if -- and only if -- I had
quoted your entire post is, like most everything you
say, pure drivel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]Given that your training
[/quote]
What you dod or do not imagine my "training" to be
is irrelevant. I ask you again, shit for brains:
Are you saying that it would be unreasonable for someone
to assume that a glyph which appears like a feather might
actually depict a feather, or is it the idea that two signs might
be able to make up one letter that's taxed your brain?
Which is it, shit for brains? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Whiskers... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-29, JTEM <jtem01 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers <catwheezel at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
Anyone would think that he doesn't know that the articles
he butchers
Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
insist.
As that no doubt went over your head...
[/quote]
It failed to reach the level of having meaning.
[quote]You're supposed to trim, idiot.
[/quote]
You're supposed to respond to points and questions, not carve up articles
into something they weren't, ignore the relevent points entirely, give
trite or silly responses to points and questions you've invented for
yourself, and insult everyone. When you "trim", you're supposed to
indicate the places where you've removed text from the article you're
responding to.
Were it not for your entertainment value, no-one would tolerate your
misconduct.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 2:26 pm, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:11 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
insist.
Two incomplete thoughts
No. One single missing word
[/quote]
a few missing screws and quite a few others fairly lose.
JTEM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:35 am
|
|