posted
Horus Den/aka Macawiis_bile_Nigiish replies: ...this topic lost is original purpose so i will lock it
Hence, it's own topic, straightening the record!
Mystery Solver wrote:
Yes, because it appears a moderator, likely you, banned me for responding to insults hurled at me. I'm no pacifist.
Horus Den/aka Macawiis_bile_Nigiish replies:
That individual you were flaming with was banned permanently and yet you are still here..
Yes, Mustafino was banned, but NOT until having made numerous appearances. In fact, I warned time and again, that he’d continue flaming, and so, it would be difficult for other posters, as humans, to resist retaliating. I even warned that under such circumstance I won't be restrained. Had he not been able to come back several times, to continue his flame-baiting, perhaps I wouldn’t have had to defend myself against a back-to-back troll.
Mystery Solver wrote:
I use strong language according to the instigator. You've charged me with 'intimidating attitudes', and hence, it is only fair that you provide examples, with links, containing the entire discussion in full. That's the only way I can independently verify that it is presumably a 'one-sided' issue, as you try to portray it.
Horus Den/aka Macawiis_bile_Nigiish replies:
Never said it was 'one-sided' and the fact that other members who engaged in these flamewars were banned equally is a testimony to this fact
as i said before i do not have access to erased material so asking me to provide those flame-wars is futile cause i can't
Then why haven’t the other posters you just mentioned, al Takruri and Doug, been banned, as I was simply responding to a flame war that they initiated? Links to those examples you mentioned, would vindicate me on this. In fact, I recall Doug initiating the flame war, by calling Rasol a name for supposedly not seeing his ways, as well as asking him questions about his questionable claims, and then going onto to call me names because I was able to refute much of what he was saying then, upon which, I retaliated with the same level of intensity of strong language that he directed at me. Just recently, al Takruri took potshots at me, when I wasn’t even debating him, but was busy debating somebody else. He justified taking these potshots on the grounds that I’m an ‘intimidator’, along similiar lines as that of yourself, without substantiation. Even another poster in that discussion was able to observe and bring to his attention, his ironic intimidating ways. Why are these instigators still here, if no bias was involved?…and for the record, it isn’t the first time I’ve gone into rounds with these same personalities. Just recently, Djehuti criticized Marc and Clyde’s posting, only to have Clyde outright calling him names. Where is the outrage here? And it isn’t the first time he has done this. Yet, when I “retaliate“, I’m turned into this ‘instigating devil-horn headed villain”, threatened to be banned for 'retaliating' or for holding a viewpoint.
I wasn't necessarily asking you to produce links for citations on 'deleted threads', but for your 'charges' about my 'intimidating attitudes'.
Mystery Solver wrote: It is not the first time that somebody has suspected Yom to be yourself.
If you think that i as a Somali moderator was somehow biased towards Yom because he's an Ethiopian then that's very sad cause that's not the truth, since october 2006 i've been protecting every members ethnic background from insults and slurs
from African Americans to continental Africans to religious groups etc etc flame-warring was a everyday event on this forum back then yet they are rare today so i'm not biased towards any group of people at all
anyways i don't have time to continue this discussion if you have questions for me contact me through pm
this topic lost is original purpose so i will lock it
Okay, it is starting to make sense. Horus_Den_1 = Macawiss_bile_Nigiish, formerly going by the moniker “mad mullah” or something to that effect. You’ve been in these flame wars yourself in the past, and have responded in strong language. Why? Well, perhaps has it occurred to you, that while you may not have been the instigator in the particular topic, that you were offended when someone directed strong language at you, and as the human you are, couldn’t resist returning the offence? Guess what, I’m human with feelings, and I act on them, when offended. In fact, I don’t say much in a face-to-face situation; it goes straight to physical.
Flame baiting is relatively rarer now, because real trouble making people don’t frequent the site anymore…like Mustafino, whom at any rate, don’t even care if they were banned; they were more concerned about disruption. Clearly, I’m not one of such characters. I don’t go around trolling, calling people names just for the heck of it, which is what you attempt to make me out to be. In fact, many discussants here will be hard pressed to proclaim to have made as much meaningful contributions on Egyptsearch for a long period of time as I have. Why do I it? To spread truth about ancient Egypt and other potential African issues, even if it means offending Afrocentrists, regional ethno-centrists and Eurocentrists alike. Nothing more or less. I see myself as a truth-centrist, and will challenge ‘anyone’, who have varying levels of acquaintance on the subject matter at hand, on anything I deem questionable. Nobody is spared. Every now and then, people will loose it when they are challenged on a topic, and are unable to defend intellectually themselves, and so what do they do? Flame bait. This still happens on this board, by otherwise people who primarily come here to contribute, just like myself. In the heat of the debate, they’ll resort to offensive name calling, and hence instigate a tit for tat flame war, because then their debating counterpart gets offended.
You presume that I think you’re defending Yom, perhaps because you come from the same general region of Africa? Well, that’s news to me, since it never crossed my mind. I did however, assume that you were Yom, but that’s been cleared. However, I find it interesting that you’d jump to that conclusion, without my having to say anything to that effect...almost as though it were an unconscious confession on your part.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. That individual could have used proxies or other methods to return to the forums, the ad nauseam deleting of this person's posts by me is what caused the individual to leave and stop disrupting the forum
2.As a mod i look for patterns, the before mentioned character was engaging in flamewars with ''multiple'' individuals yet none of them were conducting flamewars between each other only you were having a flamewar with this individual and another member.
3.I told you my non-moderator name and therefore had a feeling you might have thought i'm biased but this not a subconcious confession at all for i know my own trackrecord and i have protected every group or religion as best as i could from trolls
4. Never tried to portray you in the same light as banned trolls i have said multiple times to you in the past, that as a ''senior contributing member'' you should set an example and ignore flame-baits, but you chose to ignore my advice
5. Yes i used to engage in these same flamewars but here's the difference between then and now,i was a newbie ''then'' and i'm not a newbie ''today''. If i had more experience with this forum in 2006, i would never have let myself get caught up in these flame-wars. this is where my previous point comes to relevance
I have only 5 min left before i head outside, i will reply later on today
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
1. That individual could have used proxies or other methods to return to the forums, the ad nauseam deleting of this person's posts by me is what caused the individual to leave and stop disrupting the forum
Well then, being aware of this fact, it shouldn't surprise you that tit for tat flame wars can result from such disrupting characters.
quote:Horus Den:
2.As a mod i look for patterns, the before mentioned character was engaging in flamewars with ''multiple'' individuals yet none of them were conducting flamewars between each other only you were having a flamewar with this individual and another member.
If you looked for patterns in them, you'll find them, just as you presumably find one in my case, even though when challenged to 'produce' this pattern of 'instigating', you come up with none.
quote:Horus Den:
3.I told you my non-moderator name and therefore had a feeling you might have thought i'm biased but this not a subconcious confession at all for i know my own trackrecord and i have protected every group or religion as best as i could from trolls
The subconscious confession was already specified; read it. To recap, it has to do with your presumption that I think you're biased in Yom's favor because he is Ethiopian.
Of note, I mentioned that I've personally witnessed your participation [not under your Horus Den alias, but another, the "madmullah" moniker] in flame wars before, in which you too have engaged in tit for tat strong language exchanges. Why?
quote:Horus Den:
4. Never tried to portray you in the same light as banned trolls i have said multiple times to you in the past, that as a ''senior contributing member'' you should set an example and ignore flame-baits, but you chose to ignore my advice
Easier said than done. We are all adults here, hopefully, and so, nobody should be exempt from setting a good example, as a new discussant or otherwise. If you can get offended by somebody else's flame bait and react, what makes you think I should be exceptional. I'm not a super-natural saint; I'm a human being.
quote:Horus Den:
5. Yes i used to engage in these same flamewars but here's the difference between then and now,i was a newbie ''then'' and i'm not a newbie ''today''. If i had more experience with this forum in 2006, i would never have let myself get caught up in these flame-wars. this is where my previous point comes to relevance
So what? Were you much much younger in 2006 than you are now? Of course not. I take it that you are at least an adult. Granted that you don't participate in these debates as much as I, you don't get to come across as many people who buckle when challenged, and hence, resort to calling their adversaries names, as a way to vent. You compare me with other people, but fact is, most people don't challenge advocates on any issue as much as I do. Some here, have nurtured a sort of 'friendship' club, where they allow some discussants to get away with questionable claims; NOT I. I don't come here to make friends. If I did need to make friends, I wouldn't be frequenting this site.
Ps - Whatever happened to that thread started on cranial and genetic diversity refuting Multi-regional Hypothesis of evolution of modern humanity?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MS or you could just ignore it all and just wait for me to delete these flamebaiting comments. when flamewars occur and there is no real discussion going on, i'm forced to lock the topic or when it's really sinister and bad delete it as a whole
again i can not produce deleted material, if a banned member like M.fino decided to return and then asked why he was banned and wether this was justified and then asked me to produce material that has been deleted my answer would be the same ''i can't''(don't confuse this analogy with me trying to compare you to him it's the situation and your request i'm comparing)
but he cannot claim he was innocent on the basis that right now i'm unable to retrieve the erased material that got him banned in the first place. Yes you are Human but an equally important member like Rasol is human too yet his approach is very different and in most cases he totally ignores baits projected at him from the regular members and still presses for the same truth your pressing for, you can't ''make'' someone believe in your point even when all the material you have provided discredits the other sides argument
also you might not be part of any friends groups it still doesn't mean these aren't the same individuals you will be discussing other issue's with next month or in two months time, therefore one should never allow him/herself say things that are really unacceptable cause attacking a person's background instead of the person him/herself will lead to generalizations and in most cases you offend more people than the individual you are having an argument with(and this goes for everybody)
my point is; a disagreement should never go to the extent where slurs and insults are thrown at eachother
In 2006 i was 19 but that wasn't my point, my point was as a newbie i entered ES when it was a flamewar festival and i didn't realize before all of that bickering this forum generated high quality discussions about multiple issue's related to AE,Africans and humans in general. At first sight to me this board was just another troll infested forum with hatefull individuals (these type are prevelant on the net), this ofcourse was not true
and here is where most newbies make a transition to becoming normal members and lifetime trolls, you are not a troll neither am i therefore both of us should never allow ourselves to be dragged into a flamewar. When Ausar gave me the opportunity to moderate this forum i tried my best to protect the high level of discussions on this board by simply deleting rude comments, cutting and slashing in members posts so any sympthom indicating a possible flamewar was effectively neutralized. Many times i received criticism for this but that didn't bother me cause the level of discussions continued to be high and that's what mattered to me
ps I really don't know.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
MS or you could just ignore it all and just wait for me to delete these flamebaiting comments.
Again, the issue here is the "human" component of having tendency to have feelings and be offended. Like I said, I'm no pacifist; I strike back at those who bully, just because they aren't able to "handle the heat in the kitchen", so to speak. If one can't handle the heat in the kitchen, then one needs to get out of the kitchen. When anyone comes to a forum, disagreement and the possibility of one being always challenged, should be anticipated by oneself as a very real possibility.
quote:Horus Den:
When flamewars occur and there is no real discussion going on, i'm forced to lock the topic or when it's really sinister and bad delete it as a whole
I have no problem with that. I just think it is wise to delineate between 'actual' contributors of the forum, and those who just come to cause trouble.
quote:Horus Den:
again i can not produce deleted material, if a banned member like M.fino decided to return and then asked why he was banned and wether this was justified and then asked me to produce material that has been deleted my answer would be the same ''i can't''(don't confuse this analogy with me trying to compare you to him it's the situation and your request i'm comparing)
You referring to my request for "deleted material", and I keep telling you this has nothing to do with "deleted material". This has to do with producing information, naturally with citations and links, to the pattern of "instigation" you charged me with. Like I said, as far as I know, I don't 'instigate' flame wars, however I do see them through, striking back at the instigator. Perhaps, if you need to charge me with anything at all, it would be lack of intolerance towards personal attacks on me. There are many people who simply don't like to corrected, and easily buckle upon being challenged. Some react to this, by attacking the person challenging them, as a way to get "even" and so, vent their frustration. I bet if you look into most of the so-called flame wars I've been involved in, you'll realize that more often than not, this is the case. However, one of the things that sets Egyptsearch and many other forums apart, is the anticipation that one can be challenged at anytime, particularly if one holds questionable ideologically-driven viewpoints.
quote:Horus Den:
but he cannot claim he was innocent on the basis that right now i'm unable to retrieve the erased material that got him banned in the first place.
See my response to this.
quote:
Yes you are Human but an equally important member like Rasol is human too yet his approach is very different and in most cases he totally ignores baits projected at him from the regular members and still presses for the same truth your pressing for, you can't ''make'' someone believe in your point even when all material you have provided discredits the other sides argument
I bet you, I can find you exchanges too, wherein Rasol has retaliated. Like I said, you are just so bent on making me out to be something, which you've failed to back up. Comparing me to Rasol makes no sense, since we are obviously two distinct individuals. He may have his way of dealing offenders, and I have mine. If opponents are given immunity by justifying that regular posters cannot strike back, upon disagreements, then my friend, you are actually setting up a dangerous atmosphere, which actually encourages trolling.
I have to get back to work; I'll address the remaining portion of your reply when I get a chance to.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mystery solver: Like I said, as far as I know, I don't 'instigate' flame wars, however I do see them through, striking back at the instigator. Perhaps, if you need to charge me with anything at all, it would be lack of intolerance towards personal attacks on me.
I have noticed this too, you never instigate flame wars, it's always others who call you name before you get loose on them. But you get dragged along quite easily though when others provocate you with insults or offending remarks. Maybe a solution would be the 30 days excercise. Basically it goes along that you try to avoid responding to people you feel are offending you for atleast 30 days or so, I think this might give results and you'll notice a difference. But if it doesn't work maybe cut it to 2 weeks excercise only replying to only 50% of trolls and other people who provocate you. I think this will limit the flame wars you get dragged in and eventually you might just ignore all these provocaters and get immune against them, and later their effort to instigate this against you will wane out, due to zero probability of response to nonesense from your side. They'll eventually notice you only tolerate quality posts and discard rubbish stuff, thus anything else will be futile from their part.
Ps. i used this 30 days excercise when i wanted to stop smoking and it worked, i smoked since i was 14-19 and after this i never smoked again.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enough is Enough!!! Horus, you are a good moderator, even better than Ausar...now you have to intervene...close this thread, MS is too harsh on you, he's the only one who is complaining, don't spend too much time with him: you are a moderator, we are not in kinder garden. You deleted several of my posts, I never complained, no special treatment for MS...don't feel sorry for some whining...he's an adult, he can take it...I can...if he can't he just have to go to a different forum...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't know about being better than Ausar, but Horus_Den is a good moderator.
By the way, MysterySolver may not be a troll but he is known to lose his temper easily and resort to name-calling.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horus, if you want to maintain the respect we(posters) have for you as a moderator...don't reply to any whining from any poster...including myself.
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Enough is Enough!!! Horus, you are a good moderator, even better than Ausar...now you have to intervene...close this thread, MS is too harsh on you, he's the only one who is complaining, don't spend too much time with him: you are a moderator, we are not in kinder garden. You deleted several of my posts, I never complained, no special treatment for MS...don't feel sorry for some whining...he's an adult, he can take it...I can...if he can't he just have to go to a different forum...
'Mystery solver might be easily provoked by trolls, but i don't think there are many people at this forum that can compete with him when it comes to enriching this place with all the information and comments he constantly provides. Besides him being stubborn on some discussions (mostly started by others) i can't really identify more than 3 other posters here that are equally or more knowledgable than him.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
also you might not be part of any friends groups it still doesn't mean these aren't the same individuals you will be discussing other issue's with next month or in two months time, therefore one should never allow him/herself say things that are really unacceptable cause attacking a person's background instead of the person him/herself will lead to generalizations and in most cases you offend more people than the individual you are having an argument with(and this goes for everybody)
By "friendship club", I'm not referring to a situation, were people actually know each other and hence, developed close relationship, although this may well the case in some cases. Like I said, I usually return the attack at the same level as the instigator. Again, this doesn't mean that tit-for-tat flame war is productive, but that is just the condition of being human, to react when offended. Every individual has his way of dealing with offenders, and clearly I have my distinctive ways of doing that.
Once again, I'm getting back to work, and I'll reply the rest of the posters who've voiced their opinions herein, respectively, when I get off work.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MS, you have the option to go to other forums, too much nose for nothing...there are numerous forums on the net...Enough is Enough!!! The moderator has to moderate other threads...Have a life, please!!! You are taking too much of his time...He suggested that you pm him...we(the majority of the posters) don't care about your personal problems...and they wrote about that in this thread...Horus, close this thread...on top of that you were banned long time ago Supercar, you are out...This is for the other posters: I agree 100% that Supercar contributed positively to that forum...but he has to understand that there are some limits...either you contribute positively and accept that there are moderators in this forum or you are out...I've been censored numerous time(and I'm not sure if I contribute positively to this forum) but MS or Supercar is crossing some lines...and Enough is Enough!!!!
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
my point is; a disagreement should never go to the extent where slurs and insults are thrown at eachother
Good philosophy, and one I'm quite familiar with and concur with in principal, but trying telling this to those individuals who easily break down once challenged, who feel that their only remaining option is to "save face" by attacking the person of the challenger. You have to understand that there is a psychological warfare component to these debates as well; being left with no 'intellectual arsenal', some broken down challenged individuals attempt to get "even", so to speak, by flame baiting via personal attacks. While it may seem trivial, my objective has been to see to it that, these culprits realize that they can be beaten even at that game of theirs. You see, there is no such thing as caving in for a bully, so that he/she won't bully you again; it has been demonstrated since time in memorial, that this acquiescence never works.
quote:Horus Den:
In 2006 i was 19 but that wasn't my point, my point was as a newbie i entered ES when it was a flamewar festival and i didn't realize before all of that bickering this forum generated high quality discussions about multiple issue's related to AE,Africans and humans in general. At first sight to me this board was just another troll infested forum with hatefull individuals (these type are prevelant on the net), this ofcourse was not true
Actually, this board has and always will attract flame-baiting trolls. What you won't admit, it seems to me, is that you responded the way you did because your emotions got the better of you, and you retaliated. There is nothing wrong with admitting this, but of course, if you did that, it would seem to you that you are buttressing my point. Just because someone is a "newbie" in a particular forum, doesn't mean that the said forum is necessarily their first experience being in a forum, or only experience for that matter. And even if it were one's first time, it doesn't mean that one has never been in debates before, with his/her colleagues. So, this idea that 'senior' members should behave, while "newbies" are free to adopt a "no man's land" rule of law, is a recipe for flame baiting. This sort of tolerance actually nurtures a hotbed for trolls, rather than inhibit them.
quote:Horus Den:
and here is where most newbies make a transition to becoming normal members and lifetime trolls, you are not a troll neither am i therefore both of us should never allow ourselves to be dragged into a flamewar.
See my posts above.
quote:Horus Den:
When Ausar gave me the opportunity to moderate this forum i tried my best to protect the high level of discussions on this board by simply deleting rude comments, cutting and slashing in members posts so any sympthom indicating a possible flamewar was effectively neutralized. Many times i received criticism for this but that didn't bother me cause the level of discussions continued to be high and that's what mattered to me
I've already made it known that I have no problem with that idea. I have however noticed that, an entire 'spoiled' thread which was otherwise enlightening before the flame war, is sometimes deleted, when the 'crappy' segments could have simply been deleted, leaving good information intact, and then the said thread perhaps closed to end further flaming. I understand this may be relatively time consuming, but sometimes it can be worth it, because a flame instigator wants nothing more than to spoil the entire thread to make up for his/her debacle. They'd rather see the entire thread deleted, so as to not remind them of the said debacle, whenever they have to come across those 'meaningful' counter-posts therein that descredited theirs.
Ps - Recap: when I say 'friendship club', what I'm largely referring to, is the expression of 'favoritism' and turning a blind eye to questionable claims of those posters deemed to share the same dogma as that of oneself. I don't prescribe to such bias.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mystery solver: Like I said, as far as I know, I don't 'instigate' flame wars, however I do see them through, striking back at the instigator. Perhaps, if you need to charge me with anything at all, it would be lack of intolerance towards personal attacks on me.
I have noticed this too, you never instigate flame wars, it's always others who call you name before you get loose on them. But you get dragged along quite easily though when others provocate you with insults or offending remarks. Maybe a solution would be the 30 days excercise. Basically it goes along that you try to avoid responding to people you feel are offending you for atleast 30 days or so, I think this might give results and you'll notice a difference. But if it doesn't work maybe cut it to 2 weeks excercise only replying to only 50% of trolls and other people who provocate you. I think this will limit the flame wars you get dragged in and eventually you might just ignore all these provocaters and get immune against them, and later their effort to instigate this against you will wane out, due to zero probability of response to nonesense from your side. They'll eventually notice you only tolerate quality posts and discard rubbish stuff, thus anything else will be futile from their part.
Ps. i used this 30 days excercise when i wanted to stop smoking and it worked, i smoked since i was 14-19 and after this i never smoked again.
Of all the posts here, this seems to be the most constructive feedback. All other characters here seem to be more concerned about getting "even", as I just mentioned, looking at this topic as an opportunity to 'bash' the author's character. Again, I understand your recommendation was done in good faith, which is surely appreciated, but it is easier said than done. As I said, there seems to be this covert 'psychological' warfare aspect of 'flame wars' instigations by the culprits, once the challenged party (culprit) is backed into the corner, and feel that this is his/her last "weapon".
While I may offer little tolerance in way of ad hominem directed at me, doesn't mean I'm not considerate to any degree. In fact, just to give you an example, I see Doug make these assessments about Africans, which many a times, I find very simplistic at best, if not outright misleading. For instance, when he keeps saying that Africans are stupid for doing this or that, for their not understanding that they are being 'used' by "western institutions". I for one, realize that average working class Africans are no less 'intellectually capable' than their counterparts in relatively 'wealthier' nations than that of their own. What I realize, is that there are thin layers of African elites who have an interest that doesn't seem to converge with ordinary Africans; this social layer is complicit in exploitation of African natural resources at the expense of ordinary Africans, but they themselves do get something out of it, as opposed to ordinary Africans. Is this stupid of the said elite social layers? From their viewpoint: no, because they are getting a piece of the pie, regardless whether it is relatively smaller than their heads of state counterparts of more wealthier nations; the attitude is, 'if we can't beat them, then let's join them'. It is compromise that is defeatist, no doubt, but that's how bankrupt these social layers of Africans are. Nonetheless, they don't go through the same challenges faced by the working class, and so, don't identify with that layer. Ordinary Africans have to deal with very real possibilities, and more often the case, of reactionary African elites being financially, if not militarily as well, backed by the said 'richer' nations, to give them leverage to suppress the concerns of ordinary Africans, who protest. So, it is ordinary Africans against the combination of these allied forces.
Yet I've turned a blind eye to Doug's assessments, lest that he thinks I'm "out to get him", rather than actually 'correcting' him. I've turned a blind eye to other posters comment every now and then, for the same reason.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Enough is Enough!!! Horus, you are a good moderator, even better than Ausar...now you have to intervene...close this thread, MS is too harsh on you, he's the only one who is complaining, don't spend too much time with him: you are a moderator, we are not in kinder garden. You deleted several of my posts, I never complained, no special treatment for MS...don't feel sorry for some whining...he's an adult, he can take it...I can...if he can't he just have to go to a different forum...
Africa is a prime example of what I've been talking about all this time. Notice that he is totally oblivous to the fact that this thread was only opened after, having been a spin-off of an ongoing discussion. That earlier matter at hand had nothing to do with "complaining" about the moderator, but more to addressing the "charges" of a poster, whom I suspected to be the moderator in question, but turned out to be not so. I opened this topic for that same reason, the moderator charging me with something. Thus, this topic is more about setting the records straight than complaining about the moderator per se. There are however, "actual" threads outright complaining about this moderator, of which I have nothing to do with.
Now, back to the issue of Africa being a 'prime example'. By this, I mean that this is the sort of poster who comes here to explicitly stir up trouble between discussants, and instigating ethnic flame wars. Notice his words, "Horus, you are a good moderator, even better than Ausar", which if one of these individuals were to allow to go into their head, could spell unspoken 'animosity' in one or the other individual or both. His rants are only spewed for one reason, flame bait.
Notwithstanding this agent provocateur, and his notoriety for stirring up trouble, while being one of the least contributing people on this board, I notice no real effort to carp on about this personality. Why?...I suspect for reasons I've already spelt out. He doesn't actually intellectually challenge anybody; quite far from it, and so, his trolling and flame-baiting ways are easily dismissed as being trivial. These sort of individuals, whose sole purpose is to stir up trouble, are the ones forums can do away with.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ I don't know about being better than Ausar, but Horus_Den is a good moderator.
By the way, MysterySolver may not be a troll but he is known to lose his temper easily and resort to name-calling.
Djehuti, I've seen you go into rounds with several people every now and then, including Mustafino, Clyde and One_and_Done and while you may not be a troll, I wonder why it is, that you react this way?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
At the root of this cheerleading, is hypocrisy at the core. Now, if anyone wants to know an example of a poster who outright insults his adversaries just for criticizing him, Clyde comes as no less better candidate. Case in point, was that time when I criticized his assessment about M1 lineages, where he then instantly resorts to making degrading remarks about my 'mama'; now of course, I retaliated, but not without having already given him several warning on his ad hominems prior to it. I suspect that Clyde will not get away with such comments in a face-to-face situation. This is the same person, when his 'linguistic' methods are criticized about "Meroitic" being translatable using "Tocharian", a distinctive script with its own alphabets different from that of Meroitic, he goes onto to ask people questions about what degree they had supposedly earned, make premature judgements about what his opponent haven't supposedly published or that discrediting his claims is necessarily preconditioned by his opponents need to publish something, the same individual who charges his adversaries of being 'Eurocentric-brainwashed', just for rejecting his shaky hypothesis, and the same person who charges his opponents with 'being jealous' of him. These remarks are from an individual who barely knows the people he is making the said remarks about. Clyde will be hard-pressed to come across myself habitually calling people names without belittling directed at me first; quite the opposite of what he does, which is usually for nothing more than the fact that they are rejecting or questioning his claims. Yet, he acts as though he holds some sort of moral authority over me. Surely, if anyone has to be reprimanded for such behavior, he is well placed to be a pristine candidate. I suspect though, his background of "having published" his familiar out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints, have earned him some following [of which I'm not a part, obviously] and being flaunted as a 'scholar' who needs to be confronted about his viewpoints, and hence, providing something to debate about, while overshadowing his crude and unprofessional debating attitudes, which he appears to be oblivious to, but quick to charge others with having that attitude which actually underlines his own, and to recommend that they be reprimanded. Now that's the sort of behavior I call 'hypocrisy', marked with 'irony'.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
MS, you have the option to go to other forums, too much nose for nothing...
Better yet, why do you not take the advice that you are purportedly giving me, being that I've been here for *far much longer than you have*, *contribute far more than you do*, and *don't compare with you, when it comes instigating flame wars*? And you wonder why people think you're odd.
quote:Africa:
there are numerous forums on the net...Enough is Enough!!!
I agree; take your 'baggage' to those forums, since you seem to be quite familiar with them.
quote:Africa:
The moderator has to moderate other threads...Have a life, please!!!
You have a knack for misguided advice, don't you? The question is, why do linger around this forum, when you have nothing much to put into it, save for futile ways to flame-bait? Doesn't that tells us more about what you don't have in life, which is why you waste your time here with a meaningless existence on the board, and 'attempt' to waste other folks' time?
quote:Africa:
You are taking too much of his time...He suggested that you pm him...we(the majority of the posters) don't care about your personal problems...and they wrote about that in this thread...Horus, close this thread...on top of that you were banned long time ago Supercar, you are out...
This is precisely one issue that this thread seeks to expose: the fact that a non-contributing flame baiter like yourself is still lingering on the board, while a highly contributing poster like me, is supposedly reprimanded for 'retaliating' in a flame war that someone else initiated.
quote:Africa:
This is for the other posters: I agree 100% that Supercar contributed positively to that forum...
...while you haven't, and yet you're still here.
quote:Africa:
but he has to understand that there are some limits...either you contribute positively and accept that there are moderators in this forum or you are out...
...and you have to make sure you understand the premises of the topic, to avoid making the out-of-sync unenlightening and fame instigating claims that mark your comments here. BTW, whatever happened to RU2religious' thread about the correspondence between African cranial diversity and genetic diversity, in which you were involved?
quote:Africa:
I've been censored numerous time(and I'm not sure if I contribute positively to this forum) but MS or Supercar is crossing some lines...and Enough is Enough!!!!
If you were censored, you would have been banned by now...and legitimately, than I ever was.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't mind Africa he's a Super Troll, i'm suprised he hasn't get banned yet, despite his constant instigating mode. He loves drama which can't be more obvious than his recent posts.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind criticism. Your problem is that you are like a pit bull once you get an idea you believe in you stick to that idea and become aggressive when your idea is not accepted.
When you go into this mode you ignore what the other person is saying and attack that person without regard to formal debate bounderies. This is bad and usually causes ruin to the preceeding debate, and ultimately, lock down of the thread.
You have began every argument with me. I only repond in similar manner, but I try not to be as mean as you.
Your comments on Meroitic and M1 does not bother me. Years ago I discussed the alleged decipherment of Epi-Olmec using a "proto-language". My comments were ignored and it took M. Coe to publish an article disputing the Proto-Mixe-Epi Olmec connection before the alleged decipherment was rejected.
The M1 issue does not disturb me because I intend to establish the African origin of the Indian M haplogroups in the scientific arena. This may be a protracted effort but I am sure that eventually I will change minds once people find out that the Eurocentric view of Dravidian history is wrong.
There is only one way to change a scientific idea that is hypothesis testing. The Asian origin of M1 and the Indian M haplogroups can not be supported by the extra-mtDNA evidence so it will be easy to dispute this theory using traditional population genetics methods, that can only be confirmed by anthropological, linguistic and archaeological evidence. Once you show there is no colateral evidence supporting the Indian origin for the M haplogroups, the whole theory will collapse.
My letter published in BioEssay was just an opening battle in a long war.It establishes the fact that the Dravidians probably originated in Africa. The second letter makes it clear that the Dravidians and Indo-Aryan sepakers are a single population. These papers are all part of my plan to change the discussion on the Indian M haplogroups in the scientific community.
Letters to the editor can be powerful instruments in changing scientific ideas. People may have forgotten that the Quintana-Murci et al piece was a letter to the editor. It was this letter that established the probable origin of the M1 haplogroups in Africa.
So as you can see I am always prepared to debate an issue scientifically. But you can not debate a person, who closes his mind to the evidence and only argues for argument sake.
For example, Djehuti asked you why you opposed the Olivieri et al article. You provided a list of points but you did not explain why these points were important. When Djehuti requested clarification of the points you attacked him.Why did you try to argue with this man when he was just asking a question?
This was not necessary he just wanted more details. This behavior makes it clear to me that you are not listening and probably tired due to your efforts on ES and your employment.
Supercar you are a great contributor, but you have to learn that if someone does not accept your response to an issue--to just stop discussing that issue and go on to another topic. I do this often when it is clear that someone just does not understand what I am writing about.
As I suggested elsewhere, maybe you are tired and need a vacation from the group to recoup your sensibility. A week or two vacation from ES will probably allow you to have more patience for people who disagree with your ideas.
I am glad Horus has given you the respect to attempt understanding your frustration in attempting to make people accept your ideas unconditionally. But as Africa, acknowledges in earlier post, attacking the moderator, when that moderator has been extremely fair to you is going too far. Please take a rest, so Mystery Solver is not also banned from the forum.
.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
^^Good post. I agree.
At the root of this cheerleading, is hypocrisy at the core. Now, if anyone wants to know an example of a poster who outright insults his adversaries just for criticizing him, Clyde comes as no less better candidate. Case in point, was that time when I criticized his assessment about M1 lineages, where he then instantly resorts to making degrading remarks about my 'mama'; now of course, I retaliated, but not without having already given him several warning on his ad hominems prior to it. I suspect that Clyde will not get away with such comments in a face-to-face situation. This is the same person, when his 'linguistic' methods are criticized about "Meroitic" being translatable using "Tocharian", a distinctive script with its own alphabets different from that of Meroitic, he goes onto to ask people questions about what degree they had supposedly earned, make premature judgements about what his opponent haven't supposedly published or that discrediting his claims is necessarily preconditioned by his opponents need to publish something, the same individual who charges his adversaries of being 'Eurocentric-brainwashed', just for rejecting his shaky hypothesis, and the same person who charges his opponents with 'being jealous' of him. These remarks are from an individual who barely knows the people he is making the said remarks about. Clyde will be hard-pressed to come across myself habitually calling people names without belittling directed at me first; quite the opposite of what he does, which is usually for nothing more than the fact that they are rejecting or questioning his claims. Yet, he acts as though he holds some sort of moral authority over me. Surely, if anyone has to be reprimanded for such behavior, he is well placed to be a pristine candidate. I suspect though, his background of "having published" his familiar out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints, have earned him some following [of which I'm not a part, obviously] and being flaunted as a 'scholar' who needs to be confronted about his viewpoints, and hence, providing something to debate about, while overshadowing his crude and unprofessional debating attitudes, which he appears to be oblivious to, but quick to charge others with having that attitude which actually underlines his own, and to recommend that they be reprimanded. Now that's the sort of behavior I call 'hypocrisy', marked with 'irony'.
I don't mind criticism. Your problem is that you are like a pit bull once you get an idea you believe in you stick to that idea and become aggressive when your idea is not accepted.
You have began every argument. I only repond in similar manner, but I try not to be as mean as you.
If by "You have began every argument", you mean my challenging you, well of course, that is a given. If you believe that I've been the instigator in these debates I've had with you, then produce the citations in question, and the links that associate with them. I'm willing to bet you that, I'll be able to find something in those very links and many others that'll falsify your charge.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Your comments on Meroitic and M1 does not bother me. Years ago I discussed the alleged decipherment of Epi-Olmec using a "proto-language". My comments were ignored and it took M. Coe to publish an article disputing the Proto-Mixe-Epi Olmec connection before the alleged decipherment was rejected.
They sure bothered you, enough to call me names, rather than focus on what's being said. Interestingly enough, in the journal site where you supposely posted your article about Dravidians and M1, the authors you used in the study came out and flatout told you what I and others have been since telling you when you first brought the issue of M1 into your discourse, as an effort to support you.
quote:Clyde Winters'
There is only one way to change a scientific idea that is hypothesis testing. The Asian origin of M1 and the Indian M haplogroups can not be supported by the extra-mtDNA evidence so it will be easy to dispute this theory using traditional population genetics methods, that can only be confirmed by anthropological, linguistic and archaeological evidence. My letter published in BioEssay was just an opening battle in a long war. Moreover, people may have forgotten that the Quintana-Murci et al piece was a letter to the editor.
You've already been informed about the very real prospect of M1 not originating in India ad nauseam, and so, not sure why that is news or a contentious issue.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Supercar you are a great contributor, but you have to learn that if someone does not accept your response to an issue--to just stop discussing that issue and go on to another topic. I do this often when it is clear that someone just does not understand what I am writing about.
I stick to points which I deem valid, just as you stick to your time and again discredited work. The differece between yourself and I, is that I actually make sure my viewpoint has up-to-date scientific substance, and in the event that I need to be proven wrong, the burden lies on the opponent to do so, using counter-scientific evidence, not simply opinionated rejection without basis. You say that you stop debating when the other side doesn't relent, yet in most of the debates you are engaged in, you go so far as to repeatedly repost everything that had just been descredited methodologically, spamming threads with repeat posts. At times, you get into a circular argument, asking for evidence that had already been provided ad nauseam. Disagree? I'll be happy to furnish you with the necessary links.
quote:Clyde Winters:
As I suggested elsewhere, maybe you are tired and need a vacation from the group to recoup your sensibility. A week or two vacation from ES will probably get you to have more patience for people who disagree with your ideas.
How can I be deemed to be tired, on the basis of a debating approach that I'm literally known for? This is obviously a very thinly veiled plee for me not to "challenge" you in the short term. You are hoping that it will 'gag' me for the time being. This is what I was alluding to in the post you cited. As you don't seem to be able to hold up to criticism or handle it on Egyptsearch alone, what makes you think on a mano-a-mano basis that your argument won't be shattered into pieces in public face-to-face arenas with lettered researchers on specific disciplines? Yeah, I know; you'll probably come back with that line, that you've been to presentations and nobody saw fit to challenge you. You misconstrue other scholars' ignoring you or 'silence' as their way of not being able to refute you. If anyone needs a big break on this board, from being regularly descredited, I can't think of any candidate better than you.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Addressing Clyde's *edited* post, done after my reply...
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
So as you can see I am always prepared to debate an issue scientifically. But you can not debate a person, who closes his mind to the evidence and only argues for argument sake.
You are a prime example of this; had you opened your mind to the genetic facts being relayed to you by us, the more learned individuals on the matter, perhaps you would have saved yourself the criticism that follows mine, by experts in the field:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Did the Dravidian speakers originate in Africa?*
Dear Sir,
Chaubey et al. ''Peopling of South Asia'', argue that most Indians are autochthonous and originated shortly after the African migration to India 50–60,000 ybp, given the diversity of M haplogroups in India. Molecular, archaeological, linguistic and osteological studies of Dravidian-speaking people, however, suggest a more-recent origin for people speaking these languages. According to Sergent, (1) the Dravidian populations are not autochthonous to India. Using osteological data, researchers have made it clear that the Dravidian speakers of South India and the Indus valley were primarily related to the ancient Capsian population, which originated in Africa. (2–9) Lahovary (5) and Sastri(6) maintains that this population was unified over an extensive zone from Africa, to South India.
Some researchers maintain that the Capsian civilization originated in East Africa. (5,10) Researchers have proven that the Dravidians are related to the C-group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used (1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), (6) (2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures (5,6) and (3) a common type of rock-cut sepulcher. (5) The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India. (11) Singh made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.(12)
Many linguists claim that the Dravidian languages are genetically related to the Niger-Congo group especially languages spoken today in the Niger Valley and Senegambia region. (5,13–21) The Niger-Congo speakers originated in Nubia. Winters has reconstructed the Paleo-African- Dravidian terms for the hoe, millet, cattle, sheep and goats. (5,18–24) R. Balakrishnan claims that Onomastics indicate an African ''root'' for the Dravidian-speaking tribes. (25) He presents data that the names for rivers and hills in Koraput, for example, are identical to the names for rivers and hills in Africa. (25) The diversity of M HGs in India has led many researchers besides Chaubeyet al. to suggest that theMclades have an insitu origin. (26,27)
These researchers speculate that, although L3 originated in Africa, the M1HG is only found in Ethiopia and Egypt and may be the result of a back migration to Africa from India.(26,27) The M lineages are not found only in East Africa. Rosa et al. found a low frequency of the M1 HG among West Africans who speak the Niger-Congo languages, such as the Balanta-Djola. (28) Gonzalez et al. found N, M and M1 HGs among Niger-Congo speakers living in Cameroon, Senegambia and Guinea Bissau. (29) Gonder et al. has also found N, M and M1 in Tanzania. (30) The molecular data make it clear that haplogroups M and M1 are spread across Africa from East to West, not just Ethiopia. (28–30,32)
Anna Oliviera et al. argue that M1 must have originated in West Asia, because none of the Asian M haplogroups harbor any distinguishing East African root mutations. (30) They claim that the presence of any East African M1 root mutations in Asian-specific clades suggest a recent arrival of M1; and that the absence of M1 root mutations among Eurasian sister clades indicate a back migration into East Africa of HG M1. (30) Oliviera et al. claim that East African M1 root mutations are absent in Eurasian M sister clades is not supported by the evidence. (36) For example, Gondar et al. make it clear that the Tanzanian M1 haplogroup cluster with people from Oceania. In addition, Roychoudhury et al. noted nucleolides shared by East African M1, and Indian M haplogroups include HG M4 at 16311; HG M5 at 16,129; and HG M34 at 16,249.
It is also not true that HGM1 is absent in India. Kivisild et al. noted that 26 of the subjects in his study belonged to the M1 haplogroup. (31) In this study, it was discovered that subcluster M1 was found mainly in Kerala and Karnataka. (31) Kivisild et al. found 5 major haplogroup M subclusters in India: M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5.(31) Kivisild et al. make it clear that each Indian M lineage has its own unique star features. (31) A cursory examination of Kivisild et al.'s Fig. 3, makes it clear that they found different transitions at nps for Indian haplogroups. (31) Indian M subclusters have mutations common to the East African M1 HG. (33,35) In Fig. 3, Kivisild et al. identify transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189. (31) Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, according to Fig. 3, include: HG M5a 16,311, HG M5 16,189, and HG M2a 16,189. (31) An African genesis for India's M haplogroups would explain the variant nucleolides East African M1 shares with Indian haplogroups: HG M4 at 16311, 16129 with HG M5 and 16249 with HG M34/. (31,33) This is interesting given Quintain-Murci et al.'s claim that the East African HG M1 HVS-I motif is characterized by four transitions at nt 16,129,16,189, 16249 and 16,311.(32)
Researchers have made it clear that M1 and the M macrohaplogroup originated from an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C. (32,34,35) The presence of shared root mutations between East African M1, and Oceanic and Indian M haplogroups, (30,33,35) may indicate a recent arrival of Eurasian M clades from Africa. A Proto-Dravidian migration event from Africa would explain the East African HVS-I signature motifs in the Indian M haplogroup samples.(30,33,35) The geographical range of Indian M haplogroups is explained by the coalescent theory, i.e. the small Proto-Dravidian population that settled the Indus Valley expanded and spread over the subcontinent from Pakistan in the North to South India.
The Dravidian speakers are probably not autochthonous to India as claimed by Chaubeyet al. It is clear that the Dravidians and Africans speak genetically related languages, (5,13–21) and share anthropological (2–9) and archaeological (5,6,11,12) features that unite both groups. The presence of M1 in India,(31) and the absence of Indian-specific clades in Africa, indicates that IndianMsubclusters probably developed in India, after the migration of proto- Dravidian speakers from the Indus Valley down into South India.
This path for Dravidian migration may be marked by the spread of (1) shared toponyms, (21,25) (2) genetically related languages,(5,13–21) (3) skeletal remains,( 2–9) and (4) red-and-black pottery.(5,6,11,12)...
Mystery Solver replied:
This whole piece is actually a regurgitation both completely discredited and a hodgepodge of "half-truth" pieces from studies brought to Clyde's attention by various discussants, including myself, in previous discussions; examples of such discussions include the following:
Essays On African Dravidian Relations, where for example this highlighted piece of info: Researchers have made it clear that M1 and the M macrohaplogroup originated from an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C., was brought to his attention by none other than myself, from the Semino et al. piece he never could accurately interpret no matter how times the gist of the study has been explained to him.
Clyde's this piece, with emphasis on the highlighted: The presence of shared root mutations between East African M1, and Oceanic and Indian M haplogroups, (30,33,35) may indicate a recent arrival of Eurasian M clades from Africa., has also been discredited in that same link above, by Semino et al. and Chang Sun et al.
This decrediting was duplicated in the following discussions:
This Clyde piece: "It is also not true that HGM1 is absent in India. Kivisild et al. noted that 26 of the subjects in his study belonged to the M1 haplogroup. ", was demonstrated here on Egyptsearch to have been discredited by none other than the very author that Clyde professes to have learnt the said information from, Kivisild!...in a much more UP-TO-DATE PUBLICATION.
This Clyde piece: Researchers have made it clear that M1 and the M macrohaplogroup originated from an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C. (32,34,35) The presence of shared root mutations between East African M1, and Oceanic and Indian M haplogroups, (30,33,35) may indicate a recent arrival of Eurasian M clades from Africa.
Goes back to the very first discussion I linked to in this post. Aside from 10400C->T transition, and the 10873C as noted in that discussion, what other "root mutations" are shared between East African M1 and Asian M macrohaplogroup?...for we know from Maca-Meyer et al., Semino et al., Raj Kummar et al., Metspalu et al. and Chang Sun et al., the same thing that the following brings to our attention:
Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). - Chang Sun et al
This Clyde piece: Indian M subclusters have mutations common to the East African M1 HG. (33,35) In Fig. 3, Kivisild et al. identify transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189. (31) Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, according to Fig. 3, include: HG M5a 16,311, HG M5 16,189, and HG M2a 16,189. (31) An African genesis for India's M haplogroups would explain the variant nucleolides East African M1 shares with Indian haplogroups: HG M4 at 16311, 16129 with HG M5 and 16249 with HG M34/. (31,33) This is interesting given Quintain-Murci et al.'s claim that the East African HG M1 HVS-I motif is characterized by four transitions at nt 16,129,16,189, 16249 and 16,311.(32)
^Nothing really interesting here, once it is understood that these mutations are parallel mutations found "randomly" across the M macrohaplogroup.
This Clyde piece: The Dravidian speakers are probably not autochthonous to India as claimed by Chaubeyet al. It is clear that the Dravidians and Africans speak genetically related languages, (5,13–21) and share anthropological (2–9) and archaeological (5,6,11,12) features that unite both groups. The presence of M1 in India,(31) and the absence of Indian-specific clades in Africa, indicates that IndianMsubclusters probably developed in India, after the migration of proto- Dravidian speakers from the Indus Valley down into South India.
The ludicrous idea of M1 being present in India has already been noted. The idea that "Indian M subclusters probably developed in India, **after** the migration of proto- Dravidian speakers from the Indus Valley down into South India", according to Clyde above, easily contradicted by the fact that the Asian M lineages come from migrations of Paleolithic background as deemed from the much older TMRCA and expansion time frames for the Asian M lineage in comparison to the relatively younger expansion dates for the East African M1.
This Clyde piece says: Anna Oliviera et al. argue that M1 must have originated in West Asia, because none of the Asian M haplogroups harbor any **distinguishing** East African **root mutations. (30)
...and right thereafter says this:
They claim that the presence of any **East African M1 root mutations** in Asian-specific clades suggest a **recent arrival** of M1;
^Contradicts the former claim by the authors, at least according to how it is framed in Clyde's dissemination.
...furthermore,
and that the absence of M1 root mutations among Eurasian sister clades indicate a back migration into East Africa of HG M1.
...is obviously without any substantive merit, as neither M1 [Iran basically forms the eastern-most limit, and even there, these are only downstream lineages of M1 from those found in East Africa], nor the M1 predecessor is found in south Asia [including the Indian sub-continent].
Proceeding with Clyde's claim, we are confronted with...
(30) Oliviera et al. claim that East African M1 root mutations are absent in Eurasian M sister clades is not supported by the evidence. (36) For example, Gondar et al. make it clear that the Tanzanian M1 haplogroup cluster with people from Oceania.
"Finally, our limited genetic data from Tanzanians belonging to haplogroups M1, N1 and J suggest two alternatives that are not mutually exclusive. Populations in Tanzania may have been important in the migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions, as noted in previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). For example, mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania, while Tanzanian mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup N1 and J, cluster with peoples of Middle Eastern and Eurasian origin. However, the presence of haplogroups N1 and J in Tanzania suggest “back” migration from the Middle East or Eurasia into eastern Africa, which has been inferred from previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Kivisild et al. 2004). These results are intriguing and suggest that the role of Tanzanians in the migration(s) of modern humans within and out of Africa should be analyzed in greater detail after more extensive data collection, particularly from analysis of Y-, X-, and autosomalchromosome markers...
"mtDNAs belonging to haplogroups M and N form two monophyletic clades (Figure 2a). These two M and N haplogroup clades included a few Tanzanians (belonging to haplogroups M1, M, N1 and J), suggesting possible recent gene flow back into Africa and/or that ancestors of the Tanzanian populations may have been a source of migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions (Figure 2b)." - Gonder et al.
It had been noted in the said discussion by myself, that Gonder et al. are making their assessments [about recent gene flow and/or the idea that the Tanzanian groups may be remnants of basal African groups who went onto populate Asia in the Paleolithic to form the basis of populations therein; the latter is lent some support by the Senegalese "basal-M like" L3 haplotype] based on the "inclusion" of other non-M1 M lineages found in Tanzanian samples, into consideration with N lineages [including the N derived J lineage], as opposed to the presence of the East African "M1", which is not found in the Indian sub-continent. The inclusion of M1 into the M superhaplogroup, as I noted earlier, is based on the basal 10400C->T transition and the 10873C according to Semino et al., but for various other geneticists - as noted by Semino et al., Metspalu et al. and Chang Sun et al. for example - it was largely done so initially and prematurely by observation [and a shakey premise at that] of "random" re-occurrence of certain hyper-variable region transitions across the M superhaplogroup amongst certain identified M sub-lineages, although the M1 HVS-I arrangement itself isn't duplicated in any other M lineage. So, it is in that backdrop, as just mentioned now, M1 is clustered with the M macrohaplogroup. There is no evidence whatsoever, as noted by Chang Sun et al., Metspalu et al. for instance, that M1 originates from Asia, and Semino et al.'s aforementioned study for its part, largely makes a reasonable case against M1 as a product of back-migration. Understanding of underlying genetic premises is in order, before one attempts to draw conclusions, and especially questionable ones at that, from population genetics publications.
"Substantive" merit should be given priority, imo, before any superficial idea of attaining "publicity", and corresponding fanfare.
Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, Toomas Kivisild. 2007. “Reply to Winters” BioEssays 29(5): 499
Published Online: 20 Apr 2007 DOI: 10.1002/bies.20574
Reply to Winters
Dear Sir,
The origins of Dravidian speaking populations of South Asia have been a matter of scientific debate over many decades. In our recent review on the genetic affinities of Indian tribal and caste populations,(1) we concluded that both Indo- European- and Dravidian-speaking populations of India share largely the same pool of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages that has evolved in situ in South Asia since the Out-of-Africa migration of anatomically modern humans (AMH) some 50–70 KYA.
Dr. Clyde Winters in his correspondence(2) to our paper disagrees with this view and argues instead that there are linguistic, archaeological as well as genetic evidences for a relatively recent African origin of Dravidian populations.
For a recent discussion on the origin of Dravidian languages, the reader is referred to a monograph by B. Krishnamurti.(3)
MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking **changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature**.
Namely hg, ***M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5)***
Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) ***do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.***
....
Mystery Solver replied:
Thank you sir for posting this. It is undoubtedly a terrible blow to Mr. Winters' regular propagation on this matter, and by the very authors he continues to use notwithstanding, to push forth his proclamations. Of course, nothing herein has been said by the said geneticists which either myself or other posters have not already relayed to Winters ad nauseam. However, it would be a mistake to assume that this would pull the reins of Mr. Winters' horses, to continue pushing forth discredited ideology.
For example, Djehuti asked you why you opposed the Olivieri et al article. You provided a list of points but you did not explain why these points were important. When Djehuti requested clarification of the points you attacked him.Why did you try to argue with this man when he was just asking a question?
This was not necessary he just wanted more details. This behavior makes it clear to me that you are not listening and probably tired due to your efforts on ES and your employment.
Citations, backed with links:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I'm a little confused. So underived M* originated in Africa and spread to Asia with the initial OOA migration, but M* in Africa developed into M1 whereas that in Asia through parallel mutation developed into different derivatives?
Mystery Solver replied:
No, the studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, perhaps ~ 60,000 years ago or so. Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago, these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 30-10 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continently as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
And...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I don't know. You tell us, if you've read the Olivieri study.
Mystery Solver replied:
I asked those questions, precisely because I've read the Olivieri et al. piece. The questions are meant to drive home some specific points by way of answers to them, and precisely the reason they were placed before the 'intended' respondent, or else whomever, including yourself, to answer, if you have answers to them.
^^Come again?...Suuuure, these are "attacks"...as opposed to explanations that Djehuti or any person with an open mind can learn from.
I find it interesting that you'd even bother using Djehuti to make case, since you are notorious for outright insulting him for rejecting your claims.
quote:Horus Den:
I am glad Horus has given you the respect to attempt understanding your frustration in attempting to make people accept your ideas unconditionally. But as Africa, acknowledges in earlier post, attacking the moderator, when that moderator has been extremely fair to you is going too far. Please take a rest, so Mystery Solver is not also banned from the forum.
Don't know if you are aware of this, but your harmony with Africa on what this thread is presumably about, only testifies to how your minds are extremely resistent to the diffusion of the real intentions of the topic at hand than many of us, even though the author [myself] has literally spelt it out. By comparing yourself to Africa, you are essentially short-changing yourself, in that you show an attention span, which most would view as being quite different from us 'normies'. Any truely unbiased moderator would have actually made it a priority to ban 'actual' culprits like you, who go on offensive in unprovoked personal attacks on your adversaries, for no other simple reason short of simply rejecting your repeatedly discredited position, rather than contributing posters who were simply following up with defensive retaliatory counter-posts...a point already made several times now. Your so-called 'publications' would have made no difference.
Recap: Now, if anyone wants to know an example of a poster who outright insults his adversaries just for criticizing him, Clyde comes as no less better candidate. Case in point, was that time when I criticized his assessment about M1 lineages, where he then instantly resorts to making degrading remarks about my 'mama'; now of course, I retaliated, but not without having already given him several warning on his ad hominems prior to it. I suspect that Clyde will not get away with such comments in a face-to-face situation. This is the same person, when his 'linguistic' methods are criticized about "Meroitic" being translatable using "Tocharian", a distinctive script with its own alphabets different from that of Meroitic, he goes onto to ask people questions about what degree they had supposedly earned, make premature judgements about what his opponent haven't supposedly published or that discrediting his claims is necessarily preconditioned by his opponents need to publish something, the same individual who charges his adversaries of being 'Eurocentric-brainwashed', just for rejecting his shaky hypothesis, and the same person who charges his opponents with 'being jealous' of him. These remarks are from an individual who barely knows the people he is making the said remarks about. Clyde will be hard-pressed to come across myself habitually calling people names without belittling directed at me first; quite the opposite of what he does, which is usually for nothing more than the fact that they are rejecting or questioning his claims. Yet, he acts as though he holds some sort of moral authority over me. Surely, if anyone has to be reprimanded for such behavior, he is well placed to be a pristine candidate. I suspect though, his background of "having published" his familiar out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints, have earned him some following [of which I'm not a part, obviously] and being flaunted as a 'scholar' who needs to be confronted about his viewpoints, and hence, providing something to debate about, while overshadowing his crude and unprofessional debating attitudes, which he appears to be oblivious to, but quick to charge others with having that attitude which actually underlines his own, and to recommend that they be reprimanded. Now that's the sort of behavior I call 'hypocrisy', marked with 'irony'.Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar this is what you don't understand: scholars disagree but they don't have to refer to people as private organs. Yes these people disagreed with my piece but it did not stop publication of my letter.
The letter was published because it was supported with citations to articles supporting an African origin of the Dravidian speakers. Right now the researchers supporting the Indian origin of the M subhaplogroups have no evidence to support their contention except mtDNA, this will not suffice in the long run.
Most research is confirmatory research. Now that there is an article discussing the African origin of the Dravidians it is only a matter of time before this finding will be confirmed by other researchers.
The major problem Kivisild et al , will never be able to escape is the evidence they reported of 26 carriers of M1 among high caste Dravidians. They can not explain away their finding of M1, as being M3, because these clades were carefully explained and discussed in their 1999 article, eventhough Sun et al , claim they did not find any evidence of the genes today.
This is easily explained. We know that most researchers use genetic material already collected by other researchers. It is my belief that the 26 M1 samples were not analyzed because they were removed from samples of Indian M haplogroups.
This would not be too surprising because we know that Gonzalez et al (2007)in their analysis of the M1 haplogroup admit that they left out , if I remember correctly, 40 Ethiopian samples out of their analysis. This means that we must be careful in accepting their findings because they have made their conclusions based on a small sample from North West Africa.
As I stated earlier my research program to confirm the African origin of the Indian M haplogroups is going along nicely. You feel that my research should not be published, because it conflicts with the status quo. But as you can see from my publication of the article in BioEssay in the scientific community you can have opposing views, without getting so upset you call people any sick names that comes to your mind.
.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Addressing Clyde's *edited* post, done after my reply...
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
So as you can see I am always prepared to debate an issue scientifically. But you can not debate a person, who closes his mind to the evidence and only argues for argument sake.
You are a prime example of this; had you opened your mind to the genetic facts being relayed to you by us, the more learned individuals on the matter, perhaps you would have saved yourself the criticism that follows mine, by experts in the field:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Did the Dravidian speakers originate in Africa?*
Dear Sir,
Chaubey et al. ''Peopling of South Asia'', argue that most Indians are autochthonous and originated shortly after the African migration to India 50–60,000 ybp, given the diversity of M haplogroups in India. Molecular, archaeological, linguistic and osteological studies of Dravidian-speaking people, however, suggest a more-recent origin for people speaking these languages. According to Sergent, (1) the Dravidian populations are not autochthonous to India. Using osteological data, researchers have made it clear that the Dravidian speakers of South India and the Indus valley were primarily related to the ancient Capsian population, which originated in Africa. (2–9) Lahovary (5) and Sastri(6) maintains that this population was unified over an extensive zone from Africa, to South India.
Some researchers maintain that the Capsian civilization originated in East Africa. (5,10) Researchers have proven that the Dravidians are related to the C-group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used (1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), (6) (2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures (5,6) and (3) a common type of rock-cut sepulcher. (5) The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India. (11) Singh made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.(12)
Many linguists claim that the Dravidian languages are genetically related to the Niger-Congo group especially languages spoken today in the Niger Valley and Senegambia region. (5,13–21) The Niger-Congo speakers originated in Nubia. Winters has reconstructed the Paleo-African- Dravidian terms for the hoe, millet, cattle, sheep and goats. (5,18–24) R. Balakrishnan claims that Onomastics indicate an African ''root'' for the Dravidian-speaking tribes. (25) He presents data that the names for rivers and hills in Koraput, for example, are identical to the names for rivers and hills in Africa. (25) The diversity of M HGs in India has led many researchers besides Chaubeyet al. to suggest that theMclades have an insitu origin. (26,27)
These researchers speculate that, although L3 originated in Africa, the M1HG is only found in Ethiopia and Egypt and may be the result of a back migration to Africa from India.(26,27) The M lineages are not found only in East Africa. Rosa et al. found a low frequency of the M1 HG among West Africans who speak the Niger-Congo languages, such as the Balanta-Djola. (28) Gonzalez et al. found N, M and M1 HGs among Niger-Congo speakers living in Cameroon, Senegambia and Guinea Bissau. (29) Gonder et al. has also found N, M and M1 in Tanzania. (30) The molecular data make it clear that haplogroups M and M1 are spread across Africa from East to West, not just Ethiopia. (28–30,32)
Anna Oliviera et al. argue that M1 must have originated in West Asia, because none of the Asian M haplogroups harbor any distinguishing East African root mutations. (30) They claim that the presence of any East African M1 root mutations in Asian-specific clades suggest a recent arrival of M1; and that the absence of M1 root mutations among Eurasian sister clades indicate a back migration into East Africa of HG M1. (30) Oliviera et al. claim that East African M1 root mutations are absent in Eurasian M sister clades is not supported by the evidence. (36) For example, Gondar et al. make it clear that the Tanzanian M1 haplogroup cluster with people from Oceania. In addition, Roychoudhury et al. noted nucleolides shared by East African M1, and Indian M haplogroups include HG M4 at 16311; HG M5 at 16,129; and HG M34 at 16,249.
It is also not true that HGM1 is absent in India. Kivisild et al. noted that 26 of the subjects in his study belonged to the M1 haplogroup. (31) In this study, it was discovered that subcluster M1 was found mainly in Kerala and Karnataka. (31) Kivisild et al. found 5 major haplogroup M subclusters in India: M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5.(31) Kivisild et al. make it clear that each Indian M lineage has its own unique star features. (31) A cursory examination of Kivisild et al.'s Fig. 3, makes it clear that they found different transitions at nps for Indian haplogroups. (31) Indian M subclusters have mutations common to the East African M1 HG. (33,35) In Fig. 3, Kivisild et al. identify transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189. (31) Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, according to Fig. 3, include: HG M5a 16,311, HG M5 16,189, and HG M2a 16,189. (31) An African genesis for India's M haplogroups would explain the variant nucleolides East African M1 shares with Indian haplogroups: HG M4 at 16311, 16129 with HG M5 and 16249 with HG M34/. (31,33) This is interesting given Quintain-Murci et al.'s claim that the East African HG M1 HVS-I motif is characterized by four transitions at nt 16,129,16,189, 16249 and 16,311.(32)
Researchers have made it clear that M1 and the M macrohaplogroup originated from an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C. (32,34,35) The presence of shared root mutations between East African M1, and Oceanic and Indian M haplogroups, (30,33,35) may indicate a recent arrival of Eurasian M clades from Africa. A Proto-Dravidian migration event from Africa would explain the East African HVS-I signature motifs in the Indian M haplogroup samples.(30,33,35) The geographical range of Indian M haplogroups is explained by the coalescent theory, i.e. the small Proto-Dravidian population that settled the Indus Valley expanded and spread over the subcontinent from Pakistan in the North to South India.
The Dravidian speakers are probably not autochthonous to India as claimed by Chaubeyet al. It is clear that the Dravidians and Africans speak genetically related languages, (5,13–21) and share anthropological (2–9) and archaeological (5,6,11,12) features that unite both groups. The presence of M1 in India,(31) and the absence of Indian-specific clades in Africa, indicates that IndianMsubclusters probably developed in India, after the migration of proto- Dravidian speakers from the Indus Valley down into South India.
This path for Dravidian migration may be marked by the spread of (1) shared toponyms, (21,25) (2) genetically related languages,(5,13–21) (3) skeletal remains,( 2–9) and (4) red-and-black pottery.(5,6,11,12)...
Mystery Solver replied:
This whole piece is actually a regurgitation both completely discredited and a hodgepodge of "half-truth" pieces from studies brought to Clyde's attention by various discussants, including myself, in previous discussions; examples of such discussions include the following:
Essays On African Dravidian Relations, where for example this highlighted piece of info: Researchers have made it clear that M1 and the M macrohaplogroup originated from an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C., was brought to his attention by none other than myself, from the Semino et al. piece he never could accurately interpret no matter how times the gist of the study has been explained to him.
Clyde's this piece, with emphasis on the highlighted: The presence of shared root mutations between East African M1, and Oceanic and Indian M haplogroups, (30,33,35) may indicate a recent arrival of Eurasian M clades from Africa., has also been discredited in that same link above, by Semino et al. and Chang Sun et al.
This decrediting was duplicated in the following discussions:
This Clyde piece: "It is also not true that HGM1 is absent in India. Kivisild et al. noted that 26 of the subjects in his study belonged to the M1 haplogroup. ", was demonstrated here on Egyptsearch to have been discredited by none other than the very author that Clyde professes to have learnt the said information from, Kivisild!...in a much more UP-TO-DATE PUBLICATION.
This Clyde piece: Researchers have made it clear that M1 and the M macrohaplogroup originated from an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C. (32,34,35) The presence of shared root mutations between East African M1, and Oceanic and Indian M haplogroups, (30,33,35) may indicate a recent arrival of Eurasian M clades from Africa.
Goes back to the very first discussion I linked to in this post. Aside from 10400C->T transition, and the 10873C as noted in that discussion, what other "root mutations" are shared between East African M1 and Asian M macrohaplogroup?...for we know from Maca-Meyer et al., Semino et al., Raj Kummar et al., Metspalu et al. and Chang Sun et al., the same thing that the following brings to our attention:
Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). - Chang Sun et al
This Clyde piece: Indian M subclusters have mutations common to the East African M1 HG. (33,35) In Fig. 3, Kivisild et al. identify transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189. (31) Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, according to Fig. 3, include: HG M5a 16,311, HG M5 16,189, and HG M2a 16,189. (31) An African genesis for India's M haplogroups would explain the variant nucleolides East African M1 shares with Indian haplogroups: HG M4 at 16311, 16129 with HG M5 and 16249 with HG M34/. (31,33) This is interesting given Quintain-Murci et al.'s claim that the East African HG M1 HVS-I motif is characterized by four transitions at nt 16,129,16,189, 16249 and 16,311.(32)
^Nothing really interesting here, once it is understood that these mutations are parallel mutations found "randomly" across the M macrohaplogroup.
This Clyde piece: The Dravidian speakers are probably not autochthonous to India as claimed by Chaubeyet al. It is clear that the Dravidians and Africans speak genetically related languages, (5,13–21) and share anthropological (2–9) and archaeological (5,6,11,12) features that unite both groups. The presence of M1 in India,(31) and the absence of Indian-specific clades in Africa, indicates that IndianMsubclusters probably developed in India, after the migration of proto- Dravidian speakers from the Indus Valley down into South India.
The ludicrous idea of M1 being present in India has already been noted. The idea that "Indian M subclusters probably developed in India, **after** the migration of proto- Dravidian speakers from the Indus Valley down into South India", according to Clyde above, easily contradicted by the fact that the Asian M lineages come from migrations of Paleolithic background as deemed from the much older TMRCA and expansion time frames for the Asian M lineage in comparison to the relatively younger expansion dates for the East African M1.
This Clyde piece says: Anna Oliviera et al. argue that M1 must have originated in West Asia, because none of the Asian M haplogroups harbor any **distinguishing** East African **root mutations. (30)
...and right thereafter says this:
They claim that the presence of any **East African M1 root mutations** in Asian-specific clades suggest a **recent arrival** of M1;
^Contradicts the former claim by the authors, at least according to how it is framed in Clyde's dissemination.
...furthermore,
and that the absence of M1 root mutations among Eurasian sister clades indicate a back migration into East Africa of HG M1.
...is obviously without any substantive merit, as neither M1 [Iran basically forms the eastern-most limit, and even there, these are only downstream lineages of M1 from those found in East Africa], nor the M1 predecessor is found in south Asia [including the Indian sub-continent].
Proceeding with Clyde's claim, we are confronted with...
(30) Oliviera et al. claim that East African M1 root mutations are absent in Eurasian M sister clades is not supported by the evidence. (36) For example, Gondar et al. make it clear that the Tanzanian M1 haplogroup cluster with people from Oceania.
"Finally, our limited genetic data from Tanzanians belonging to haplogroups M1, N1 and J suggest two alternatives that are not mutually exclusive. Populations in Tanzania may have been important in the migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions, as noted in previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). For example, mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania, while Tanzanian mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup N1 and J, cluster with peoples of Middle Eastern and Eurasian origin. However, the presence of haplogroups N1 and J in Tanzania suggest “back” migration from the Middle East or Eurasia into eastern Africa, which has been inferred from previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Kivisild et al. 2004). These results are intriguing and suggest that the role of Tanzanians in the migration(s) of modern humans within and out of Africa should be analyzed in greater detail after more extensive data collection, particularly from analysis of Y-, X-, and autosomalchromosome markers...
"mtDNAs belonging to haplogroups M and N form two monophyletic clades (Figure 2a). These two M and N haplogroup clades included a few Tanzanians (belonging to haplogroups M1, M, N1 and J), suggesting possible recent gene flow back into Africa and/or that ancestors of the Tanzanian populations may have been a source of migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions (Figure 2b)." - Gonder et al.
It had been noted in the said discussion by myself, that Gonder et al. are making their assessments [about recent gene flow and/or the idea that the Tanzanian groups may be remnants of basal African groups who went onto populate Asia in the Paleolithic to form the basis of populations therein; the latter is lent some support by the Senegalese "basal-M like" L3 haplotype] based on the "inclusion" of other non-M1 M lineages found in Tanzanian samples, into consideration with N lineages [including the N derived J lineage], as opposed to the presence of the East African "M1", which is not found in the Indian sub-continent. The inclusion of M1 into the M superhaplogroup, as I noted earlier, is based on the basal 10400C->T transition and the 10873C according to Semino et al., but for various other geneticists - as noted by Semino et al., Metspalu et al. and Chang Sun et al. for example - it was largely done so initially and prematurely by observation [and a shakey premise at that] of "random" re-occurrence of certain hyper-variable region transitions across the M superhaplogroup amongst certain identified M sub-lineages, although the M1 HVS-I arrangement itself isn't duplicated in any other M lineage. So, it is in that backdrop, as just mentioned now, M1 is clustered with the M macrohaplogroup. There is no evidence whatsoever, as noted by Chang Sun et al., Metspalu et al. for instance, that M1 originates from Asia, and Semino et al.'s aforementioned study for its part, largely makes a reasonable case against M1 as a product of back-migration. Understanding of underlying genetic premises is in order, before one attempts to draw conclusions, and especially questionable ones at that, from population genetics publications.
"Substantive" merit should be given priority, imo, before any superficial idea of attaining "publicity", and corresponding fanfare.
Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, Toomas Kivisild. 2007. “Reply to Winters” BioEssays 29(5): 499
Published Online: 20 Apr 2007 DOI: 10.1002/bies.20574
Reply to Winters
Dear Sir,
The origins of Dravidian speaking populations of South Asia have been a matter of scientific debate over many decades. In our recent review on the genetic affinities of Indian tribal and caste populations,(1) we concluded that both Indo- European- and Dravidian-speaking populations of India share largely the same pool of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages that has evolved in situ in South Asia since the Out-of-Africa migration of anatomically modern humans (AMH) some 50–70 KYA.
Dr. Clyde Winters in his correspondence(2) to our paper disagrees with this view and argues instead that there are linguistic, archaeological as well as genetic evidences for a relatively recent African origin of Dravidian populations.
For a recent discussion on the origin of Dravidian languages, the reader is referred to a monograph by B. Krishnamurti.(3)
MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking **changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature**.
Namely hg, ***M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5)***
Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) ***do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.***
....
Mystery Solver replied:
Thank you sir for posting this. It is undoubtedly a terrible blow to Mr. Winters' regular propagation on this matter, and by the very authors he continues to use notwithstanding, to push forth his proclamations. Of course, nothing herein has been said by the said geneticists which either myself or other posters have not already relayed to Winters ad nauseam. However, it would be a mistake to assume that this would pull the reins of Mr. Winters' horses, to continue pushing forth discredited ideology.
For example, Djehuti asked you why you opposed the Olivieri et al article. You provided a list of points but you did not explain why these points were important. When Djehuti requested clarification of the points you attacked him.Why did you try to argue with this man when he was just asking a question?
This was not necessary he just wanted more details. This behavior makes it clear to me that you are not listening and probably tired due to your efforts on ES and your employment.
Citations, backed with links:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I'm a little confused. So underived M* originated in Africa and spread to Asia with the initial OOA migration, but M* in Africa developed into M1 whereas that in Asia through parallel mutation developed into different derivatives?
Mystery Solver replied:
No, the studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, perhaps ~ 60,000 years ago or so. Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago, these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 30-10 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continently as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
And...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I don't know. You tell us, if you've read the Olivieri study.
Mystery Solver replied:
I asked those questions, precisely because I've read the Olivieri et al. piece. The questions are meant to drive home some specific points by way of answers to them, and precisely the reason they were placed before the 'intended' respondent, or else whomever, including yourself, to answer, if you have answers to them.
^^Come again?...Suuuure, these are "attacks"...as opposed to explanations that Djehuti or any person with an open mind can learn from.
I find it interesting that you'd even bother using Djehuti to make case, since you are notorious for outright insulting him for rejecting your claims.
quote:Horus Den:
I am glad Horus has given you the respect to attempt understanding your frustration in attempting to make people accept your ideas unconditionally. But as Africa, acknowledges in earlier post, attacking the moderator, when that moderator has been extremely fair to you is going too far. Please take a rest, so Mystery Solver is not also banned from the forum.
Don't know if you are aware of this, but your harmony with Africa on what this thread is presumably about, only testifies to how your minds are extremely resistent to the diffusion of the real intentions of the topic at hand than many of us, even though the author [myself] has literally spelt it out. By comparing yourself to Africa, you are essentially short-changing yourself, in that you show an attention span, which most would view as being quite different from us 'normies'. Any truely unbiased moderator would have actually made it a priority to ban 'actual' culprits like you, who go on offensive in unprovoked personal attacks on your adversaries, for no other simple reason short of simply rejecting your repeatedly discredited position, rather than contributing posters who were simply following up with defensive retaliatory counter-posts...a point already made several times now. Your so-called 'publications' would have made no difference.
Recap: Now, if anyone wants to know an example of a poster who outright insults his adversaries just for criticizing him, Clyde comes as no less better candidate. Case in point, was that time when I criticized his assessment about M1 lineages, where he then instantly resorts to making degrading remarks about my 'mama'; now of course, I retaliated, but not without having already given him several warning on his ad hominems prior to it. I suspect that Clyde will not get away with such comments in a face-to-face situation. This is the same person, when his 'linguistic' methods are criticized about "Meroitic" being translatable using "Tocharian", a distinctive script with its own alphabets different from that of Meroitic, he goes onto to ask people questions about what degree they had supposedly earned, make premature judgements about what his opponent haven't supposedly published or that discrediting his claims is necessarily preconditioned by his opponents need to publish something, the same individual who charges his adversaries of being 'Eurocentric-brainwashed', just for rejecting his shaky hypothesis, and the same person who charges his opponents with 'being jealous' of him. These remarks are from an individual who barely knows the people he is making the said remarks about. Clyde will be hard-pressed to come across myself habitually calling people names without belittling directed at me first; quite the opposite of what he does, which is usually for nothing more than the fact that they are rejecting or questioning his claims. Yet, he acts as though he holds some sort of moral authority over me. Surely, if anyone has to be reprimanded for such behavior, he is well placed to be a pristine candidate. I suspect though, his background of "having published" his familiar out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints, have earned him some following [of which I'm not a part, obviously] and being flaunted as a 'scholar' who needs to be confronted about his viewpoints, and hence, providing something to debate about, while overshadowing his crude and unprofessional debating attitudes, which he appears to be oblivious to, but quick to charge others with having that attitude which actually underlines his own, and to recommend that they be reprimanded. Now that's the sort of behavior I call 'hypocrisy', marked with 'irony'.
Supercar this is what you don't understand: scholars disagree but they don't have to refer to people as private organs. Yes these people disagreed with my piece but it did not stop publication of my letter.
The very geneticists you've used & cited, and who know much better than you, have said your work is bunk, with absolutely zero genetic basis. This is no mere disagreement; this is 'rejection' of what you produced, as having no genetic validity whatsoever. They've already pointed out that posting a stuff on the site, doesn't give it any legitimacy, and yet, you continue to act like your English is failing you when it comes to understanding this.
quote:Clyde Winters:
The letter was published because it was supported with citations to articles supporting an African origin of the Dravidian speakers. Right now the researchers supporting the Indian origin of the M subhaplogroups have no evidence to support their contention except mtDNA, this will not suffice in the long run.
Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, Toomas Kivisild. 2007. “Reply to Winters” BioEssays 29(5): 499
Published Online: 20 Apr 2007 DOI: 10.1002/bies.20574
Reply to Winters
Dear Sir,
The origins of Dravidian speaking populations of South Asia have been a matter of scientific debate over many decades. In our recent review on the genetic affinities of Indian tribal and caste populations,(1) we concluded that both Indo- European- and Dravidian-speaking populations of India share largely the same pool of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages that has evolved in situ in South Asia since the Out-of-Africa migration of anatomically modern humans (AMH) some 50–70 KYA.
Dr. Clyde Winters in his correspondence(2) to our paper disagrees with this view and argues instead that there are linguistic, archaeological as well as genetic evidences for a relatively recent African origin of Dravidian populations.
For a recent discussion on the origin of Dravidian languages, the reader is referred to a monograph by B. Krishnamurti.(3)
MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking **changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature**.
Namely hg, ***M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5)***
Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) ***do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.***
....
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
You can bet that if my letter was not throughly research it would not have been published
Quetzalcoatl replies:
Not so. Although the journal is a "peer reviewed journal" , this letter was NOT peer reviewed and cannot be claimed to have been "throughly researched." As I posted earlier the editorial office confirmed that items in "correspondence" where this was printed are posted without a "peer review" and this is the reason why the authors of the original article were asked to reply to Clyde's letter. From above:
Although BioEssays is a peer-reviewed journal. the letter, which is what Clyde wrote, are not peer-reviewed. Here is an e-mail from the journal:
"In answer to your question - No - correspondence does not undergo peer review, it is read and accepted or rejected by the Editor only.
If you would like to send me your piece I will pass it to the Editor.
Best wishes Stephanie Hamer Editorial Administrator"
^Now, convince *yourself* again, that the reply letter is not a scientific rejection of your work!
You repeat lies to the very same discussants, as though they were just born yesterday.
Having already destroyed your claims piece by piece ad nauseam, I'm not going to bother rehashing them, in response to the rest of your comments. That's besides the point of this topic. The point of reposting these destructions of your posts, was to demonstrate that you are that closed-minded individual, that you like to accuse others of. If you weren't, you would have actually learnt something, and saved yourself the unnecessary embarrassment.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Perhaps you need to start entertaining the idea that scholars *ignore* you, not out of your imagination that they're doing so out of some sort of fear, but because, you are quite well known for being hard-headed and closed-minded.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat. In the original Greek, παράνοια (paranoia) simply means madness (para = outside; nous = mind) and, historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state.
Paranoia is distinct from phobia, which is more descriptive of an irrational and persistent fear, usually unfounded, of certain situations, objects, animals, activities, or social settings. By contrast, a person suffering paranoia or paranoid delusions tends more to blame or fear others for supposedly intentional actions that somehow affect the afflicted individual.Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Classic of a non-contributing flame-baiting troll, to post stuff that is totally out of sync with reality of the issues or situations at hand.
I had some reservation about it earlier, when Lamin correctly noted that this individual, going by the appellation of continental Africa, can in no way be an actual African. He is equally right about the psychological 'abnormality' of this poster.
This non-contributing flame-baiting pseudo-African has only accomplished one thing in this thread, as he/she does in others: wastefully spam the thread by his/her mere presence.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Africa there is a reason for your name now being accompanied by an I, your provactive timebombs are wellknown on this forum please do not compare me to Ausar, for his years of contributing to this forum as a mod and a member dwarfs my short stay on ES, i'm sure your well aware of this fact and this comment must have been more of your C-4
to MysterySolver while it may be true that in most cases your provoked, my advice to you is; do not go to the level of degrading a person's background, i recall a argument between you and Djehuti and he called you something along the lines of childish and you replied with a slur, in the minds of future moderators these type of replies will stick in their heads instead of the comments of the person your having an argument with and this can be decisive when it comes to judging who needs to be on the ban list
To all members it would be wise for any of you interested in the survival of this forum to put yourselves forth as potential candidates for i don't have the kind of time i had in the past to moderate and truthfully don't feel like it anymore
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who wants such a time consuming nerve wracking thankless non-paying job, a masochist perhaps? ________________ __________________ You've shown much knowledge and maturity to be 19. Despite my differences with you I have to hand you that.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am sorry that you are leaving the job. You did a remarkable!! job. Thank you Horus_Den_1
My advice to future Moderators. There is a reason why you are a moderator, and you should use your authority, meaning, do not engage! debates in public! Second, contributors should not ask the authority of the moderator or why a certain topic was closed. Send a pm.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
AlTakruri thanks! and about the ''locking a topic'' issue a moderator could delete all the offensive material in it but then a member that wasn't present during the mud-slinging incident would ask him/herself why the topic got locked in the first place and request it to be opened which then could generate the same insults and mudslinging as before bringing us back to the same point
therefore having it locked like this, is much better and when a few months have past the topic could be cleaned up and re-opened as i have done with other threads!
Arwa Mahadsanid sister and good advice!
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Africa there is a reason for your name now being accompanied by an I, your provactive timebombs are wellknown on this forum please do not compare me to Ausar, for his years of contributing to this forum as a mod and a member dwarfs my short stay on ES, i'm sure your well aware of this fact and this comment must have been more of your C-4
to MysterySolver while it may be true that in most cases your provoked, my advice to you is; do not go to the level of degrading a person's background, i recall a argument between you and Djehuti and he called you something along the lines of childish and you replied with a slur, in the minds of future moderators these type of replies will stick in their heads instead of the comments of the person your having an argument with and this can be decisive when it comes to judging who needs to be on the ban list.
I too recall that exchange you're referring to quite vividly, and I think your account of it, is rather simplistic. To recap: It was initiated by Djehuti in a thread where I posted photographs & images of the Egyptian Was-scepter and other staffs side by side with comparable African examples from other regions, to demonstrate that similar types were found elsewhere in Africa, besides the African Horn. Naturally, this demonstration was unpopular with him at the time, and so, Djehuti made an issue of the photos, upon which I disagreed. He referred to my disagreement as being 'paranoid' and 'childish'. My initial response to him, was to return the name-calling to him, as being childish himself. Now of course, even then, I expressed my desire to Djehuti not to engage further in the quibble with him, but to no avail. He decided to follow me from thread to thread, to remind me of the issue, all the while where I simply returned his name calling on his own terms, but finally, at some point in the thread about the location of Punt, one version of Hikuptah's multiple threads on that same issue and wherein I made a point about the physical diversity of Puntites, I apparently had enough of it. After having repeatedly warned him to stop following me around, using that same tired old line of name callings on me, it occurred to me that he didn't get the message, and this, even after our prior 'quibbles' were edited by the moderator. It was at this point, if you'll excuse my language just as a means to specify my recapitulation, when I finally called him " * ***** ********** ***", the slur you [Horus Den] are supposedly referring to. So, it wasn't quite a simplistic as a picture that you portrayed it out to be. It goes back to my point about the desire to reprimand the person retaliating, and ignoring the provocateur. This sets up a poor precedence, because the idea that the person they provoked is going to be reprimanded rather than the provocateur themselves, emboldens them to hone their skills on provoking and know when to presumably retreate, so as to get their next 'victim' of their provocation reprimanded instead of themselves. In other words, this actually encourages trolls and flame-baiting, naturally including those provocateurs who would like to see their most ardent and outspoken adversaries gagged.
As for Africa, if by this, "there is a reason for your name now being accompanied by an I, you mean that the person was reprimanded, it would seem to me, that this hasn't been the case. This isn't the first time that this person has changed usernames.
And oh btw, the last time I checked, this site has not been fascistic, at least before the addition of a new moderator to this section. By this, I'm referring to the idea about members not having to have the freedom of speech to question "charges" made against them by moderators or anybody else.
posted
Ok i will stop it here since continuing this discussion on wether i'm biased or not matters not anymore since i will be replaced by new moderators
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
________________ 
Printer-friendly view of this topic