Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Minerva-paper on the Phaistos Disk : The main argument

Ramblin Bob · Guest

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

[quote]On Jul 24, 2:50 pm, Ramblin Bob <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Anyone who is interested has already read it in another thread. Stop
doing this.

That was a public service announcement from sci.lang>s
Dictator for Life.

Interesting. I clicked on jagoff bob>s "Profile" and learned that he
has been "banned" from google groups for violating its Terms of
Service.
[/quote]
You poophead. Do you know what google>s profile does? It
only looks at the e-mail address, not the name.

Do you know how many different people use me@privacy.net?
It>s a very old anti-spam address. That banned/violation
B.S. just means that google is tripped up by a zillion
different people using the same address.

António Marques · Guest

grapheus@www.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 24, 8:38 pm, António Marques<m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
On Jul 24, 7:38 pm, António Marques<m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
So, I repeat here what I wrote in another thread :
Anyone who is interested has already read it in another thread.
How can I know, when there are no reactions ?..
There are no reactions because people are not interested. I think I>ve
said it once to Ole Hagen: people usually get interested in deciphering
scripts because knowing how to read one artifact you know how to read
other artifacts using the same script, and possibly decipher related
artifacts.
This is really a very narrow point of view !!!
It>s not a point of view, it>s the way the human mind works. Even yours.
Your interest in the PD is not the general kind of interest described
above, but specific interest. Which applies only to you.

STRANGE narrow point of view again !!!!
[/quote]
I T ' S N O T A P O I N T O F V I E W .

[quote]In fact, I>ve always been interested in misappreciated theories in
History/Archaeology... But it happens that the "Proto-Ionian Theory"
is the most important !...
[/quote]
What>s that got to do with anything?

[quote]Happily you must the ONLY ONE to think that way !... Because ANYTHING
one may learn from EVEN A SINGLE ITEM, would it be a little broken
piece of pottery, increases our understanding of the past... And this
is the MAIN INTEREST of Historians.
OK. I should have posted my message in another Group...
This applies not only to scripts but to everything, the
delight in understanding a particular thing lies in no small part in the
way it brings other things closer to you.
YES.
One-of-a-kind items - be they
the PD or some weird disease someone caught in 1856 and nobody>s ever
heard of either before or since - are just not interesting to the human
mind.
You are CONTRADICTING YOURSELF from one sentence to the next !!!!
The Phaistos Disk, although a single item for the moment (because no
digging has been done until now at the right spot) is HIGHLY
INSTRUCTIVE, with the QUESTIONS it raises. And I>m very grateful to dr
Eisenberg for HAVING ASKED some of them !...
Just where is the supposed CONTRADICTIon?

In your two sentences : "This applies not only to scripts..." and "One
of the kind item is not interesting"..
[/quote]
If that>s the *where*, then tell me the *what*.

[quote]Where are the other disks written in the PD>s script?

In the island where the Disk is coming from.
[/quote]
Ok, this is about the only interesting thing you>ve brought so far.
Where do you suppose they can be found, how, will all of those items be
disks? Tell us more about them.

[quote]This is also why facts which don>t fit established scientific
theories are disregarded - there is no clear way to integrate them.
But the "Proto-Ionian Theory" CAN BE EASILY INTEGRATED in the
SCIENTIFIC FRAME !!!!
Which has nothing to do with what I say in this sentence you quote.

???????????
[/quote]
Instead of '???????????' you could have made another attempt at
understanding it, but no, your drivel goes on below.

[quote]The ONLY "Scientific HYPOTHESES" which have to be left are 1)- that
"Ionic is a Late Dialect, posterior to 1200 BC" 2)- that "Mycenaeans
were "the First Greeks".."
...and which (my sentence you quoted just above) hasn>t got to do with
disproving this or that hypothesis - that>s done all the time - but
simply with having no possible framework in which to intregrate
one-of-a-kind items.

BUT THIS FRAMEWORK DOES EXIST !!!!!!
It is called "The Proto-Ionian Theory" !..
BTW, have you ever read any book or paper on it ???
[/quote]
Your 'framework' says it isn>t a one-of-a-kind item, so it has no
relevance to this point. *If* the PD turned out not to be a
one-of-a-kind item, everyone would get interested in it.

[quote](My mention of the disregarding of facts which
can>t be assimilated has nothing to do with the PD - it>s just the
reflex in science of the same general lack of interest that makes the PD
uninteresting to people.)

THIS is WRONG : Many scholars say that they are "not interested" in
the Phaistos Disk ONLY BECAUSE they know that studying it SERIOUSLY
would lead them to ABANDON the DOGMA they have defended for years !!!!
[/quote]
Nonsense. Any of them would be delighted to appropriate any good theory
(easy to do) and be the one to explain the disk. Contrary to kooks'
imagination, scholars are quite eager to challenge 'dogma', most do it
whenever they find a leg to stand on. As someone once put it, don>t be
afraid that your good ideas are ignored. If they are any good, your
concern should be they they>d be stolen.

Of course, sometimes novel ideas are ridiculed by the 'scientific
community', only to be accepted decades later. But that>s because
they>re so novel that it takes a great deal to even realise what they
are about. Not so with kooks' 'theories' - those aren>t difficult to
understand in the least.

[quote]Your digression on how the
PD is so important and how your protojonians could explain everything
completely misses the mark.

NOT AT ALL !!!! It is THE HEART of the matter:
BECAUSE, as you wrote, to be "interesting", the Disk has to be
integrated into a SCIENTIFIC COHERENT THEORY.
[/quote]
No, the heart of the matter is that that doesn>t suffice. Anyone can
build a coherent theory that integrates any given number of
one-of-a-kind items, precisely because being one-of-a-kind they
introduce no constraints (e.g. a single point can be contained in a
straight line of any slope, whereas two points require the line to have
a given slope, &c).
A one-of-a-kind item can only have general interest if it is so large or
complex that it encompasses enough and diverse many-of-a-kind sub-items.

[quote]That you refuse to be informed about this theory is YOUR problem. But
some scholars - happily - are of a different opinion, in spite of the
pressure of the "Guardians of the Chadwick DOGMA" !!! (In particular,
your compatriot A.Tovar. If he is still alive, ask him what he think
about the "Risch-Chadwick Theory" !).
[/quote]
It would be a stretch to call him a compatriot.
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

António Marques · Guest

grapheus@www.com wrote:

[quote]Here is a good link about Tovar>s ideas on the Risch-Chadwick Theory
: <http://www.varchive.org/dag/dialect.htm
[/quote]
I>m not an expert in greek, but I>d be surprised if linguists offhand
considered any earliest attested variety of a language [group] as the
ancestor of all the other forms of that language [group]. Early tamil
isn>t equated with proto-dravidian, nor sanskrit with proto-indic. Only
where a given dialect spread so much from its original home that it
differentiated into a whole group (cf. latin) does such a possibility
rise (i.e. early latin as the ancestor of all the romance languages).
Now, Crete wasn>t certainly the original home of the greeks, so it>s
questionable that mycenian could be the ancestor of all of greek (it
would still be possible, since Crete was after all a place from which a
language could spread geographically).
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

António Marques · Guest

grapheus@www.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 24, 11:19 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:50 pm, Ramblin Bob<m...@privacy.net> wrote:

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Anyone who is interested has already read it in another thread. Stop
doing this.
That was a public service announcement from sci.lang>s
Dictator for Life.
Interesting. I clicked on jagoff bob>s "Profile" and learned that he
has been "banned" from google groups for violating its Terms of
Service.

If jagoff "Ramblin Bob" wants to discuss the Phaistos Disk with
grapheus, Hagen, Franz, and Eisenberg, he is free to do so wherever he
chooses.

Hopefully he will not choose to do so in some new thread.

ANOTHER GOOD DIVERSION from the main topic, eh????
[/quote]
*You* spawn threads at whim and then accuse others of diversion?
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

hagen · Guest

On Jul 25, 5:34 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 4:55 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 24, 7:38 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:

graph...@www.comwrote:
So, I repeat here what I wrote in another thread :

Anyone who is interested has already read it in another thread.

How can I know, when there are no reactions ?..

There are no reactions because people are not interested. I think I>ve
said it once to Ole Hagen: people usually get interested in deciphering
scripts because knowing how to read one artifact you know how to read
other artifacts using the same script, and possibly decipher related
artifacts. This applies not only to scripts but to everything, the
delight in understanding a particular thing lies in no small part in the
way it brings other things closer to you. One-of-a-kind items - be they
the PD or some weird disease someone caught in 1856 and nobody>s ever
heard of either before or since - are just not interesting to the human
mind. This is also why facts which don>t fit established scientific
theories are disregarded - there is no clear way to integrate them. (The
last sentence will be fodder to all our beloved kooks, but in fact
they>ve got nothing to hold on to: no kook has ever presented a
scientifically *novel* way to address irregular facts, what they present
is commonplace mumbo-jumbo which they think is original just because
normal people don>t lose 5 minutes with it.)
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Sometimes my ears nearly not believe what they hear. One of the most
challenging enigma>s ever heard about, is suddently of no interest?
This famousdiscfromPhaistos, which has withhold all attempts of
deciphering over a time spand of a hundred years and therefore
released by the scholars for you and me to try our hands at. Every
child>s dream of being a new Ventris, because of the full-seize
pictures of this artifact in almost every encyclopedia through
generations, is of no interest anymore? This unbrokendiscwith its
handsome hieroglyphs, talking to the imagination of everyone,
comparable to the Gordian knot (in two), the quadrature of the
(calendar) circle, the secret of the (calendar) pyramid. What kind of
zeal is this?

Nice declamatory spech, Ole !.. All my congratulations for it !
But you must understand : Antonio is a good soldier. He follows the
leader. And the leader has said : "Let us forget about thisPhaistos
Disk, which obliges us to abandon our DOGMA... Spread around the
word : People, go your way ! There is nothing to see !"...

Could it be caused by some dirty gambling in > connection
with my decipherment?.

Of course, not, Ole !.. Don>t be such an ego-centric !..

grapheus- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
In that case it would be a cheap gamling on my soul, yours nothing.
in regard
hagen

hagen · Guest

On Jul 25, 9:03 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 5:34 pm, "graph...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:

On Jul 25, 4:55 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 24, 7:38 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:

graph...@www.comwrote:
So, I repeat here what I wrote in another thread :

Anyone who is interested has already read it in another thread.

How can I know, when there are no reactions ?..

There are no reactions because people are not interested. I think I>ve
said it once to Ole Hagen: people usually get interested in deciphering
scripts because knowing how to read one artifact you know how to read
other artifacts using the same script, and possibly decipher related
artifacts. This applies not only to scripts but to everything, the
delight in understanding a particular thing lies in no small part in the
way it brings other things closer to you. One-of-a-kind items - be they
the PD or some weird disease someone caught in 1856 and nobody>s ever
heard of either before or since - are just not interesting to the human
mind. This is also why facts which don>t fit established scientific
theories are disregarded - there is no clear way to integrate them. (The
last sentence will be fodder to all our beloved kooks, but in fact
they>ve got nothing to hold on to: no kook has ever presented a
scientifically *novel* way to address irregular facts, what they present
is commonplace mumbo-jumbo which they think is original just because
normal people don>t lose 5 minutes with it.)
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Sometimes my ears nearly not believe what they hear. One of the most
challenging enigma>s ever heard about, is suddently of no interest?
This famousdiscfromPhaistos, which has withhold all attempts of
deciphering over a time spand of a hundred years and therefore
released by the scholars for you and me to try our hands at. Every
child>s dream of being a new Ventris, because of the full-seize
pictures of this artifact in almost every encyclopedia through
generations, is of no interest anymore? This unbrokendiscwith its
handsome hieroglyphs, talking to the imagination of everyone,
comparable to the Gordian knot (in two), the quadrature of the
(calendar) circle, the secret of the (calendar) pyramid. What kind of
zeal is this?

Nice declamatory spech, Ole !.. All my congratulations for it !
But you must understand : Antonio is a good soldier. He follows the
leader. And the leader has said : "Let us forget about thisPhaistos
Disk, which obliges us to abandon our DOGMA... Spread around the
word : People, go your way ! There is nothing to see !"...

Could it be caused by some dirty gambling in > connection
with my decipherment?.

Of course, not, Ole !.. Don>t be such an ego-centric !..

grapheus- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In that case it would be a cheap gamling on my soul, yours nothing.
in regard
hagen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
To have pin-pointed the schism about the Phaistos disc, is one of the
ten most applied pieces of research in several decades, I alone know.
To organize a rejection of this Oddyssee with all the bad psychology,
it takes (black-listning, premium methodic, "Paul alone in the world",
etc.) Is one of the ten most frantically reaction agasinst a great
feat ever heard about. Know, that you are free to help me out of the
hands of those maniacs on the loose. Just speak out honestly about my
discovery, and they shall wither like leaves..
Marathon man
Ole Hagen
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/step.htm

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Jul 25, 7:46 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]graph...@www.comwrote:
Here is a good link about Tovar>s ideas on the Risch-Chadwick Theory
: <http://www.varchive.org/dag/dialect.htm

I>m not an expert in greek, but I>d be surprised if linguists offhand
considered any earliest attested variety of a language [group] as the
ancestor of all the other forms of that language [group]. Early tamil
isn>t equated with proto-dravidian, nor sanskrit with proto-indic. Only
where a given dialect spread so much from its original home that it
differentiated into a whole group (cf. latin) does such a possibility
rise (i.e. early latin as the ancestor of all the romance languages).
[/quote]
Or, as Grumach and Bonfante have it, the different stages of Latin as
it spread across Europe were the ancestors of the different Romance
languages. Whichever region was colonized first has the most
conservative language, whichever was colonized last has the most
innovative language.

[quote]Now, Crete wasn>t certainly the original home of the greeks, so it>s
questionable that mycenian could be the ancestor of all of greek (it
would still be possible, since Crete was after all a place from which a
language could spread geographically).[/quote]


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
Page 2 of 2