Science and Technology news... :: View topic - International Conference on the Phaistos Disk

Franz Gnaedinger · Guest

On Jul 15, 3:49 pm, Ruud Harmsen <realemailons...@rudhar.com.invalid>
wrote:
[quote]Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:27:47 -0700 (PDT): Craoibhi...@gmail.com: in
sci.lang:

Franz, you are quite right. What you are doing is not knowledge-
seeking in the scientific sense. So why in the name of God do you try
to gain access to the scientific community with your projects? They
would be just fine as poetry and art. So why don>t you present your
Magdalenian vision to the world simply as inspired art?

Exactly my idea. Put it on a website and it will certainly be found
and appreciated by a group of followers. There is a market for this.
But it isn>t science.
[/quote]
Are you guys able to read? do you know in which
thread we are? It is about early writing in Crete
and in the Argolis. My confessing main killrater
Panu Petteri Höglund understands German, so he
could read the book by Derk Ohlenroth on the disk
in question, but no, it is not a textbook, and so, as
a textbook fetishist, he can>t read that book, but of
curse he can judge everything that is said in here,
and killrate me, and killrate me, and killrate me.
Together with his fellow killraters. That mob never
has an idea, all they know are textbooks, they never
had to propose and defend an idea, all they ever
did were tests on textbook matters. What a boring
impertinence of you and Panu Petteri Höglund
and the whole killrating mob of sci.lang. And as
for Magdalenian: if all the linguists assembled here
can>t disprove my compounds, then these are to be
considered serious scientific hypotheses. And there
is one link between the disk and Magdalenian,
namely Ss-Ey-R, Middle Helladic form of Zeus,
an emphatic form of TYR --- he who overcomes
in the double sense of rule and give. All the PIE
scholars in the world would not have guessed
Sseyr as an early form of Zeus, their proposition
was *dieus. But no, Middle Helladic for Zeus was
Sseyr. We owe this insight to Derk Ohlenroth,
a PIE reconstruction (origin of the Zeus name)
was falsified, and this may be one of the reasons
why people stupidly (yes, Peter T. Daniels) ignore
the book by Derk Ohlenroth. Another reason is
his very complicated language, only Kant could
possibly follow all the long sentences, and only
with my help. A further reason is DO>s historical
interpretation of the disk(s), which I find wrong.
But his great merit is the deciphering of the
Tiryns disk and Elaia disk, of the inscription on
the bronze double axe of Arkolokhori, and of the
inscription of the altar stone from Mallia. These
merits outweigh every flaw by far and forever.

Guest

On Jul 15, 6:41 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 15, 3:49 pm, Ruud Harmsen <realemailons...@rudhar.com.invalid
wrote:

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:27:47 -0700 (PDT): Craoibhi...@gmail.com: in
sci.lang:

Franz, you are quite right. What you are doing is not knowledge-
seeking in the scientific sense. So why in the name of God do you try
to gain access to the scientific community with your projects? They
would be just fine as poetry and art. So why don>t you present your
Magdalenian vision to the world simply as inspired art?

Exactly my idea. Put it on a website and it will certainly be found
and appreciated by a group of followers. There is a market for this.
But it isn>t science.

Are you guys able to read? do you know in which
thread we are? It is about early writing in Crete
and in the Argolis. My confessing main killrater
Panu Petteri Höglund understands German, so he
could read the book by Derk Ohlenroth on the disk
in question, but no, it is not a textbook, and so, as
a textbook fetishist,
[/quote]
You obviously didn>t read a word of what I wrote. This is, again, an
indication of your mental disturbance. Instead of nicely reading what
I wrote, and meaningfully communicating back, you keep repeating your
preconceived ideas about me, that have nothing to do with my person,
and that do not take into account the personal information that can be
gleaned from my postings in this group. You are simply attacking a
straw man. I admit that that is a very disconcerting situation,
because there is the possibility that you are actually physically
dangerous.

hagen · Guest

On Jul 14, 1:33 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 14, 2:22 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

On Jul 13, 8:53 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

If his only observation is that it isn>t like anything else, well,
we>ve known that for 100 years.

Poor Peter, the clay disk has three signs plus
the thorn in common with the bronze double axe

Did you read the article? Of course not. He refers to: the item being
intentionally fired (baked); to having its outer edge trimmed neatly
away as with a knife; and to the use of individual stamps.
[/quote]
The attempt to make the clarification of the structure of the disc
vanish into thin air as something unimportant, by focusing on the
marginal question of its autheticity, shall inevitably have the
opposite effect. I am afraid that you are miscalculating here. When a
calendar with all the characteristica of ancient countings emerges, is
this the right rhetorical pause to play your doubt? Does it make any
difference to the popularity of a century old riddle? if the solution
accidentally do not brings us closer to, say, original language, as
some had hoped?
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/fig02.htm
I don>t mean to scare you, but this time I am rehearsing two themes by
Mozart ;-). Give it a couple of days.
Hagen

hagen · Guest

On Jul 15, 5:59 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:17 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
textbook truths

textbook truths,

textbook truths.

You name the problem. What stands in a textbook
is the truth for you. No opinion by people who got
the power of defining things at a given time, no
opinion guided by interests, and no step in a never
ending process of seeking truth, but the very truth
itself, not open to questioning and discussion,
and so every other opinion must be killrated.

Hmm, now you think not only that Google Groups is Usenet, but that it>s
the entire world.

If you don>t realize that new ideas are accepted all the time, then what
do you think it is that people are presenting in all those papers that
they write and that get presented at those international meetings and
published in all those journals? Hmm?

So OBVIOUSLY the issue is not whether ideas are new. The issue is
whether they are based on factual observances and sound logic and
whether other people, in following up on the reports, can make the same
observations themselves, as opposed to being stuff you made up in your
head with your eyes closed while humming and then whine when people
don>t believe you because your claims make no sense and are completely
unverifiable.
[/quote]
Heavenly smoke! what then make you a disbeliever in my true story
about the disc?
Hagen

hagen · Guest

On Jul 15, 9:05 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]hagen wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:59 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:17 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
textbook truths
textbook truths,
textbook truths.
You name the problem. What stands in a textbook
is the truth for you. No opinion by people who got
the power of defining things at a given time, no
opinion guided by interests, and no step in a never
ending process of seeking truth, but the very truth
itself, not open to questioning and discussion,
and so every other opinion must be killrated.
Hmm, now you think not only that Google Groups is Usenet, but that it>s
the entire world.

If you don>t realize that new ideas are accepted all the time, then what
do you think it is that people are presenting in all those papers that
they write and that get presented at those international meetings and
published in all those journals? Hmm?

So OBVIOUSLY the issue is not whether ideas are new. The issue is
whether they are based on factual observances and sound logic and
whether other people, in following up on the reports, can make the same
observations themselves, as opposed to being stuff you made up in your
head with your eyes closed while humming and then whine when people
don>t believe you because your claims make no sense and are completely
unverifiable.

Heavenly smoke! what then make you a disbeliever in my true story
about thedisc?

First, a person who keeps posting, and reposting, and re-reposting pleas
for acceptance of his profound, earthshattering theories in sci.lang
isn>t even rational enough to realize that this is just a collection of
a very few linguists at leisure and some hangers-on (like myself), not a
forum where one>s theories will be seen, let alone considered, by the
linguistic community at large. Second, the community at large has
rejected your findings (at least according to you; as far as I know,
you>ve never even submitted your "findings" anywhere serious and you
only just tell us that you have), and since they know more than I do
and, in addition, since I>m driven by my first point, my conclusion is
that they were probably correct to do so. Third, you, like Dusan and
Franz, indulge in a game wherein you imagine you know what people
thousands of years ago were thinking and conclude that such-and-such
utterance or script MUST mean such-and-such, which is an absurd line or
reasoning.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
What a bunch of rubbish!
And I who thought, that you were the first honest person I dealt with
in this by sadism infected case. I must have dreamt.
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/disc.htm
hagen

Harlan Messinger · Guest

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
[quote]On Jul 13, 8:17 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
textbook truths

textbook truths,

textbook truths.

You name the problem. What stands in a textbook
is the truth for you. No opinion by people who got
the power of defining things at a given time, no
opinion guided by interests, and no step in a never
ending process of seeking truth, but the very truth
itself, not open to questioning and discussion,
and so every other opinion must be killrated.
[/quote]
Hmm, now you think not only that Google Groups is Usenet, but that it>s
the entire world.

If you don>t realize that new ideas are accepted all the time, then what
do you think it is that people are presenting in all those papers that
they write and that get presented at those international meetings and
published in all those journals? Hmm?

So OBVIOUSLY the issue is not whether ideas are new. The issue is
whether they are based on factual observances and sound logic and
whether other people, in following up on the reports, can make the same
observations themselves, as opposed to being stuff you made up in your
head with your eyes closed while humming and then whine when people
don>t believe you because your claims make no sense and are completely
unverifiable.

Harlan Messinger · Guest

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
[quote]And as
for Magdalenian: if all the linguists assembled here
can>t disprove my compounds, then these are to be
considered serious scientific hypotheses.
[/quote]
No, that isn>t how science, or life, works. If it were, then every
single religious doctrine about the supernatural would be considered a
"serious scientific hypothesis", as would every drug-inspired delusion.

Harlan Messinger · Guest

hagen wrote:
[quote]On Jul 15, 5:59 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:17 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
textbook truths
textbook truths,
textbook truths.
You name the problem. What stands in a textbook
is the truth for you. No opinion by people who got
the power of defining things at a given time, no
opinion guided by interests, and no step in a never
ending process of seeking truth, but the very truth
itself, not open to questioning and discussion,
and so every other opinion must be killrated.
Hmm, now you think not only that Google Groups is Usenet, but that it>s
the entire world.

If you don>t realize that new ideas are accepted all the time, then what
do you think it is that people are presenting in all those papers that
they write and that get presented at those international meetings and
published in all those journals? Hmm?

So OBVIOUSLY the issue is not whether ideas are new. The issue is
whether they are based on factual observances and sound logic and
whether other people, in following up on the reports, can make the same
observations themselves, as opposed to being stuff you made up in your
head with your eyes closed while humming and then whine when people
don>t believe you because your claims make no sense and are completely
unverifiable.

Heavenly smoke! what then make you a disbeliever in my true story
about the disc?
[/quote]
First, a person who keeps posting, and reposting, and re-reposting pleas
for acceptance of his profound, earthshattering theories in sci.lang
isn>t even rational enough to realize that this is just a collection of
a very few linguists at leisure and some hangers-on (like myself), not a
forum where one>s theories will be seen, let alone considered, by the
linguistic community at large. Second, the community at large has
rejected your findings (at least according to you; as far as I know,
you>ve never even submitted your "findings" anywhere serious and you
only just tell us that you have), and since they know more than I do
and, in addition, since I>m driven by my first point, my conclusion is
that they were probably correct to do so. Third, you, like Dusan and
Franz, indulge in a game wherein you imagine you know what people
thousands of years ago were thinking and conclude that such-and-such
utterance or script MUST mean such-and-such, which is an absurd line or
reasoning.

Harlan Messinger · Guest

hagen wrote:
[quote]On Jul 15, 9:05 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
hagen wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:59 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:17 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
textbook truths
textbook truths,
textbook truths.
You name the problem. What stands in a textbook
is the truth for you. No opinion by people who got
the power of defining things at a given time, no
opinion guided by interests, and no step in a never
ending process of seeking truth, but the very truth
itself, not open to questioning and discussion,
and so every other opinion must be killrated.
Hmm, now you think not only that Google Groups is Usenet, but that it>s
the entire world.
If you don>t realize that new ideas are accepted all the time, then what
do you think it is that people are presenting in all those papers that
they write and that get presented at those international meetings and
published in all those journals? Hmm?
So OBVIOUSLY the issue is not whether ideas are new. The issue is
whether they are based on factual observances and sound logic and
whether other people, in following up on the reports, can make the same
observations themselves, as opposed to being stuff you made up in your
head with your eyes closed while humming and then whine when people
don>t believe you because your claims make no sense and are completely
unverifiable.
Heavenly smoke! what then make you a disbeliever in my true story
about thedisc?
First, a person who keeps posting, and reposting, and re-reposting pleas
for acceptance of his profound, earthshattering theories in sci.lang
isn>t even rational enough to realize that this is just a collection of
a very few linguists at leisure and some hangers-on (like myself), not a
forum where one>s theories will be seen, let alone considered, by the
linguistic community at large. Second, the community at large has
rejected your findings (at least according to you; as far as I know,
you>ve never even submitted your "findings" anywhere serious and you
only just tell us that you have), and since they know more than I do
and, in addition, since I>m driven by my first point, my conclusion is
that they were probably correct to do so. Third, you, like Dusan and
Franz, indulge in a game wherein you imagine you know what people
thousands of years ago were thinking and conclude that such-and-such
utterance or script MUST mean such-and-such, which is an absurd line or
reasoning.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What a bunch of rubbish!
[/quote]
Are you under the impression that you DON>T post, and repost, and
re-repost your frantic cries of "Notice me! Admire my discoveries!" and
that you haven>t been doing so for years? Are you under the impression
that you HAVEN>T told us of your rejection by the scientific community?
Sorry, I don>t see what part of what I wrote is rubbish. If you think it
is, well, you>ve just added point number 4 for me.

[quote]And I who thought, that you were the first honest person I dealt with
in this by sadism infected case. I must have dreamt.
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/disc.htm
[/quote]
Oh, I forgot, point number 5: the ad hominem, and point 6, the paranoia.
("Sadism"?)

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Jul 15, 1:35 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 14, 1:33 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

On Jul 14, 2:22 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

On Jul 13, 8:53 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

If his only observation is that it isn>t like anything else, well,
we>ve known that for 100 years.

Poor Peter, the clay disk has three signs plus
the thorn in common with the bronze double axe

Did you read the article? Of course not. He refers to: the item being
intentionally fired (baked); to having its outer edge trimmed neatly
away as with a knife; and to the use of individual stamps.

The attempt to make the clarification of the structure of the disc
vanish into thin air as something unimportant, by focusing on the
marginal question of its autheticity,
[/quote]
If it>s not authentic, why on earth would you and hundreds of other
"decipherers" waste years of their life on it?

Franz Gnaedinger · Guest

On Jul 15, 5:55 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]
You obviously didn>t read a word of what I wrote. This is, again, an
indication of your mental disturbance. Instead of nicely reading what
I wrote, and meaningfully communicating back, you keep repeating your
preconceived ideas about me, that have nothing to do with my person,
and that do not take into account the personal information that can be
gleaned from my postings in this group. You are simply attacking a
straw man. I admit that that is a very disconcerting situation,
because there is the possibility that you are actually physically
dangerous.
[/quote]
Why should I "nicely" read what you wrote? When you showed
up in sci.lang you attacked me, hoping to earn some brownies
with the people who count in here (I call this the strategy of
the weak dog, as I explained several times). Then I looked up
what you wrote in soc.men and gave you back (not being the
weak dog you assumed me to be). Then you killrated me.
And not so long ago you told me there is no killrating mob
in sci.lang; you, Panu Petteri Höglund, are my one and only
killrater. Meanwhile I got way over 4,000 ratings, most of them
killratings. You say you are my only killrater, it>s wrong, but
you may still be responsible for 1,000 until 1,500 killratings.
Don>t you find this maniacal, to use a word of yours? The
reason for your behaving is apparently taking revenge on me:
you attended three universities but you got nothing to say,
I had to leave the university of Zurich out of financial reasons,
then I studied on my own and in my own way, and it pays out
in ideas. The only ideas, and the only on topic ideas in this
here thread, are by me. You contributed nothing. Just having
placed your arse on a pile of textbooks doesn>t make you a
judge of me. And yes, I am dangerous to you, but not physically,
intellectually. I pay back your killrating, and I pay back in words.

Franz Gnaedinger · Guest

On Jul 15, 6:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]
No, that isn>t how science, or life, works. If it were, then every
single religious doctrine about the supernatural would be considered a
"serious scientific hypothesis", as would every drug-inspired delusion.
[/quote]
My scientific goal is to make cave art and other
early art, for example Göbekli Tepe, speak again.
I give the cave paintings words. I don>t promise
eternal life in the beyond, something nobody can
check. You can promise everything for the beyond.
But you can>t as simply make cave art speak in
words. I do, my reconstructions so far are coherent,
and my compounds, which reveal the true strength
of my approach, can>t be disproved by you and by
the other competent members of sci.lang, and so
I consider them serious scientific hypotheses.

Franz Gnaedinger · Guest

On Jul 15, 5:59 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]
Hmm, now you think not only that Google Groups is Usenet, but that it>s
the entire world.

If you don>t realize that new ideas are accepted all the time, then what
do you think it is that people are presenting in all those papers that
they write and that get presented at those international meetings and
published in all those journals? Hmm?

So OBVIOUSLY the issue is not whether ideas are new. The issue is
whether they are based on factual observances and sound logic and
whether other people, in following up on the reports, can make the same
observations themselves, as opposed to being stuff you made up in your
head with your eyes closed while humming and then whine when people
don>t believe you because your claims make no sense and are completely
unverifiable.
[/quote]
I see what happens with Derk Ohlenroth. One can>t
publish in a more scientific way, and yet his book
is getting ignored. Just in here. Peter T. Daniels
judges the book without having much as laid eyes
on it, and for years and years. I offered to send him
some photocopies from the book, he ignored my
offer (or even rejected it). You told me you won>t look
at the book. The only one I could surprise was Jacques
Guy (hellow, Jacques, how are you?). He aquired me
for sci.lang by pasting a message of mine on the disk
here in sci.lang, without informing me, but I found out.
It was my translation of Derk Ohlenroth>s translation
of the disk(s). Then he made fun of me and of Derk
Ohlenroth for years. Then I sent him a couple of
photocopies from Ohlenroth>s book to his home
address in Palmspring, Australia, if memory serves.
He must have opened the letter, and then he fell silent
regarding Ohlenroth. Must have impressed him what
he read or just saw on these four or five pages. Even
he, the most satirical mind of sci.lang, fell silent and
kept his mouth, then he vigorously defended me in
a nasty case, and when I started my Magdalenian
experiment, he did not attack me, although being
a fervent enemy of Nostratic and everything of that
sort, instead he retired, letting me do my work.
Merci bien, Jacques Guy.

grapheus@www.com · Guest

On Jul 16, 9:03 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 15, 5:59 pm, Harlan Messinger

So OBVIOUSLY the issue is not whether ideas are new. The issue is
whether they are based on factual observances and sound logic and
whether other people, in following up on the reports, can make the same
observations themselves, as opposed to being stuff you made up in your
head with your eyes closed while humming and then whine when people
don>t believe you because your claims make no sense and are completely
unverifiable.

I see what happens with Derk Ohlenroth. One can>t
publish in a more scientific way, and yet his book
is getting ignored. Just in here. Peter T. Daniels
judges the book without having much as laid eyes
on it, and for years and years. I offered to send him
some photocopies from the book, he ignored my
offer (or even rejected it). You told me you won>t look
at the book.
[/quote]
But LOTS of scholars have looked at Derk Ohlenroth>s book !.. I did
it. And I told you several times why his "solution" was SURELY WRONG :
1)- the hypothesis of an alphabet goes against the mathematical data
2)- the reading direction goes against the epigraphical data.
No need to go further...

grapheus

Guest

On Jul 16, 9:49 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 15, 6:04 pm, Harlan Messinger

hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:

No, that isn>t how science, or life, works. If it were, then every
single religious doctrine about the supernatural would be considered a
"serious scientific hypothesis", as would every drug-inspired delusion.

My scientific goal is to make cave art and other
early art, for example Göbekli Tepe, speak again.
I give the cave paintings words.
[/quote]
It is not a scientific goal. It is an artistic goal, and a noble one
at that. If you call your ideas science, you will be soundly rejected
and attacked. If you call them art, you will be taken seriously.

However, I am under the impression that you have no real artistic
creativity, and that this is why you are trying to pass your ideas off
as science.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Languages Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 17, 18, 19 Next
Page 6 of 19