On Apr 22, 6:52 am, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:



On Apr 22, 5:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:32 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am just informing you language enthusiasts for the first time since
cradle (... or second time, I can't know better) Don't waste your time
trying to translate a mathematical riddle into grammar !!!

There seems to be something amiss with your memory. You have
"informed" us of this dozens of times already.

I could have told you the same remark if there was not a big
difference between Peter Daniels ans me : Peter Daniels doesn't
believe in your "solution" because he has written in his book that it
is a WRITTEN artifact, and that "nothing suggests that a verifiable
decipherment will ever been achieved". His references are J.P.
Olivier, Y. Duhoux and J. Chadwick. In other words, he follows his
Bible...

This _proves_, M. Faucounau, that you have no comprehension of
attributions and authors. The passage you are presumably alluding to
was not written by me, but by Emmett Bennett.

On Apr 22, 5:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:32 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am just informing you language enthusiasts for the first time since
cradle (... or second time, I can't know better) Don't waste your time
trying to translate a mathematical riddle into grammar !!!
There seems to be something amiss with your memory. You have
"informed" us of this dozens of times already.

I could have told you the same remark if there was not a big
difference between Peter Daniels ans me : Peter Daniels doesn't
believe in your "solution" because he has written in his book that it
is a WRITTEN artifact, and that "nothing suggests that a verifiable
decipherment will ever been achieved". His references are J.P.
Olivier, Y. Duhoux and J. Chadwick. In other words, he follows his
Bible...
As for myself, I don't believe either in your "solution", but at the
difference of Peter Daniels, it's not because I follow some "Bible",
written by some "authorities". it is for the reasons that I gave you
ten times : you started from a remarkable discovery : the abnormal
frequency of the "stems" in the text. But from there, you drew totally
FALSE conclusions : that it was not a text -- that it was an 8 months
Calendar -- etc. And to "justify" your conclusions, you accepted
strange hypotheses as true, like the number of the glyphs was 244 !..
The most inexplicable in my eyes is that you seem not to understand
why anybody can't follow you on the path you took. Your SELF-DELUSION
is for me a strange mystery !

graph...@www.comwrote:
This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",

I deleted them because I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to
you hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from someone
whose own method is inane.

On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Harlan Messinger

hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",

I deleted them because I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to
you hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from someone
whose own method is inane.

Still RIDICULOUS !...
1)- I have never pretended to have deciphered the Disk. I started a
few years ago with the intention of WRITING a BOOK on the Phaistos
Disk, and to fulfill my goal I began to SERIOUSLY study ALL the
published "solutions". (AS far as I know, I have been to this day THE
ONLY ONE to do so). Then, I stumbled upon J.Faucounau's papers (he had
published no book at that time), and found them very convincing,
compared to all the other solutions. Since then, I've given up writing
a book, but I have spent a lot of time DEFENDING on the NET the Proto-
Ionic Solution. (See for instance the several threads entitled "Le
Disque de Phaistos et les 40 Mensonges" I published on
fr.soc.histoire.antique).
2)- If J.Faucounau's "method" has not been published, except by
fragments in diverse not-easy-to-find journals (for some, I've had to
ask directly a copy to the author), its general lines are well-known :
he started by diverse "Calculations of Probabilities" in order to
determine the type of script and the probable language, and found
(after several years of calculations) that "the best probability" was
in favour of a "special type" of SYLLABIC SCRIPT and a IONIC-type
LANGUAGE. When he said that, at the beginning of the 1970, to several
specialists, he was told that "this was IMPOSSIBLE", so he didn't
publish his calculations, just later a paper (in 1975) "to fix the
date" with his "Probable Grid". He spent the next 25 years to SEARCH
for PROOFS. Between the end of the 60ies and 1975, he had found that
the script WAS ACROPHONIC, so he could ENTIRELY DECIPHER the TEXT
(It's about that time that I've exchanged a correspondence with him).
It is therefore COMPLETELY FALSE to talk about "an inane method" about
the way J.Faucounau has reached the Proto-Ionic Solution. If you has
made the effort to be INFORMED BEFORE WRITING, you would have avoided
writing NON-SENSES... But BEING INFORMED before TALKING is NOT you cup
of tea, right ?.. A TOO scientific attitude for you, probably... Like
seriously studying the EVIDENCE in favour of the Proto-Ionic
Solution...

grapheus

The enigma of the famous Phaistos disc has been satisfactory
solved !!!
(contrarily to the normal habit in such cases, I've had no
congratulations yet.

graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",
I deleted them because I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to
you hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from someone
whose own method is inane.

Still RIDICULOUS !...
1)- I have never pretended to have deciphered the Disk.

I didn't say you did. I didn't even imply that you'd ever had any
interest in it. Read for comprehension.

graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 9:26 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",
I deleted them because I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to
you hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from someone
whose own method is inane.
Still RIDICULOUS !...
1)- I have never pretended to have deciphered the Disk.
I didn't say you did. I didn't even imply that you'd ever had any
interest in it. Read for comprehension.

I have sometimes some trouble understanding what is written, but as
your sentence is written, it is difficult to understand WHO is this
"someone whose own method is inane"... Could you rewrite it in a more
intelligible way, please ?..

I will write it the same way, with emphasis: "I was referring to
YOUR hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from
someone whose own method is inane." Who do you think a hypocritical
attack described as YOURS was coming FROM?

This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",

[Nothing interesting.]

On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",
I deleted them because I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to
you hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from someone
whose own method is inane.

Still RIDICULOUS !...
1)- I have never pretended to have deciphered the Disk.

On Apr 22, 9:26 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",
I deleted them because I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to
you hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from someone
whose own method is inane.
Still RIDICULOUS !...
1)- I have never pretended to have deciphered the Disk.
I didn't say you did. I didn't even imply that you'd ever had any
interest in it. Read for comprehension.

I have sometimes some trouble understanding what is written, but as
your sentence is written, it is difficult to understand WHO is this
"someone whose own method is inane"... Could you rewrite it in a more
intelligible way, please ?..

On Apr 22, 10:10 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 9:26 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",
I deleted them because I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to
you hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from someone
whose own method is inane.
Still RIDICULOUS !...
1)- I have never pretended to have deciphered the Disk.
I didn't say you did. I didn't even imply that you'd ever had any
interest in it. Read for comprehension.
I have sometimes some trouble understanding what is written, but as
your sentence is written, it is difficult to understand WHO is this
"someone whose own method is inane"... Could you rewrite it in a more
intelligible way, please ?..
I will write it the same way, with emphasis: "I was referring to
YOUR hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from
someone whose own method is inane." Who do you think a hypocritical
attack described as YOURS was coming FROM?

So, my first interpretation was correct, in spite of your remark !..
Nice to know, that, as a simple witness trying just to INFORM other
people, I have "a METHOD" !!!!

On Apr 21, 8:26 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you should still not know, and about these matter I will stay
blind.
The enigma of the famous Phaistos disc has been satisfactory
solved !!!

No, it hasn't. Please contact a psychiatrist.

graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 10:10 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 9:26 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
This is the remark of someone WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW the file.
Writing such a FALSEHOOD is the proof that YOU have NEVER seriously
read WHAT YOU CAREFULLY DELETED, i.e. the PROOFS supporting the "Proto-
Ionic Solution",
I deleted them because I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to
you hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from someone
whose own method is inane.
Still RIDICULOUS !...
1)- I have never pretended to have deciphered the Disk.
I didn't say you did. I didn't even imply that you'd ever had any
interest in it. Read for comprehension.
I have sometimes some trouble understanding what is written, but as
your sentence is written, it is difficult to understand WHO is this
"someone whose own method is inane"... Could you rewrite it in a more
intelligible way, please ?..
I will write it the same way, with emphasis: "I was referring to
YOUR hypocritical attack on Hagen's method, coming as it was from
someone whose own method is inane." Who do you think a hypocritical
attack described as YOURS was coming FROM?

So, my first interpretation was correct, in spite of your remark !..
Nice to know, that, as a simple witness trying just to INFORM other
people, I have "a METHOD" !!!!

No, it wasn't. I repeat: I didn't imply that you had ever dealt with the
Phaistos disk.

Craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:aa28b658-742f-4bb6-88fc-5e16dea636d9@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 21, 8:26 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you should still not know, and about these matter I will stay
blind.
The enigma of the famousPhaistosdischas been satisfactory
solved !!!

No, it hasn't. Please contact a psychiatrist.

He has and was told to use 'Net for therapy.

pjk
I am not a believer in psychology, or astrology, or the rest of the