Scientists should be forthcoming about what they know (I suppose)
It would be reasonable to ask a scientist about something measurable by a standard and expect an answer.
So if you asked a scientist who has studied ancient Egypt "Were the ancient Egyptians mainly indigenous Africans?" it would be reasonable Isn't that all that is needed?
But if that scientist then added "Not all indigenous Africans are black" that is a separate issue for you to inquire about. Once this broader question is dealt with it covers with specific examples of indigenous African ethnic groups. However it's a problem because the term "black" has no standard of measure. It is not a scientific term It is considered a social construct term soi what it means varies and is open to a wide interpretation according to who you ask.
But if you asked " Were the ancient Egyptians mainly brown skinned indigenous Africans?" It's more scientific but it assumes that there has been peer reviewed data collected and analyzed by the scientist you are speaking to specific to skin color of mummies. Now if you were to bring up some article that a given scientist had not personally reviewed then that scientist is not responsible for making a judgement about it.
Again, if you were to bring up some article that a given scientist had not personally reviewed then that scientist is not responsible for making a judgement about it.
And If you brought up portrayals of Egyptians in the their art, a scientist could argue that artists and their royal bosses take artistic liberties so the degree of brown skin depicted in an artwork is not necessarily what color were that color in real life.
Look at the Pharoah here__________________^^^^
Is his skin tone "black" ??
The Pharaoh there is Ptolemy V , The Fifth King of Egypt's Ptolemaic Greek Period. Ptolemy V was a Macedonian Here King Ptolemy V offers the bull Buchis the sekhet, the symbol of the fields.
^^^ and here is Ptolemy V again depicted on a coin
Suppose this is just an anomaly or exception of some sort. Maybe Ptolemy's skin was that dark. maybe it wasn't But can we tell by looking at this? And is the literally brown colored skin tone here dark enough to fit someone's dfinition of 'black.? Yeah, says who? According to what method? "Brown" is not sufficient? Why not ??
But what if a scientist bypassed this late period issue entirely and said something you would probably like>> " Egyptian art strongly suggests that the Pharaohs of the Early and Middle and Intermediate periods were brown skinned"
That would be reasonable.
But would you then be satisfied?
You can take certain scientific instruments that analyze color frequencies and determine that a color is brown.
However if you asked the scientist "were the Ancient Egyptians prior to the late periods black?"
The scientists could say, " apart from some funerary depictions of Pharaohs personifying Osiris, depicted a black in color in what is apparently symbolic and while Kushites are sometimes depicted as literally black skinned, Egyptians are almost depicted brown not black"
And this would be true
And if you were to say "when I say black I don't mean literally black I mean a range of dark brown color"
The scientist could say "Brown is the actual literal skin color on the art. I can't answer a question about an undefined range of browns you prefer to call black rather than brown, I can't answer a question with no way of determining which shades of brown are to be called black and which shades of brown are too light to be called "black". "Black" is a social construct, not an anthropological term. It has no standard method to define it. It has a wide latitude of interpretation even as a social construct. Therefore I cannot answer your question."
And he or she would be correct
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^^ and here is Ptolemy V again depicted on a coin
Suppose this is just an anomaly or exception of some sort. Maybe Ptolemy's skin was that dark. But can we tell by looking at this? Is the literally brown skin tone here dark enough to be black? Yeah, says who? According to what method?
But what if a scientist bypassed this late period issue entirely and said something you would probably like>> " Egyptian art strongly suggests that the Pharaohs of the Early and Middle and Intermediate periods were brown skinned"
That would be reasonable.
But would you then be satisfied?
You can take certain scientific instruments that analyze color frequencies and determine that a color is brown.
However if you asked the scientist "were the Ancient Egyptians prior to the late periods black?"
The scientists could say, " apart from some funerary depictions of Pharaohs personifying Osiris, depicted a black in color in what is apparently symbolic and while Kushites are sometimes depicted as literally black skinned, Egyptians are almost depicted brown not black"
And this would be true
And if you were to say "when I say black I don't mean literally black I mean a range of dark brown color"
The scientist could say "Brown is the actual literal skin color on the art. I can't answer a question about an undefined range of browns you prefer to call black rather than brown, I can't answer a question with no way of determining which shades of brown are to be called black and which shades of brown are too light to be called "black". "Black" is a social construct, not an anthropological term. It has no standard method to define it. It has a wide latitude of interpretation even as a social construct. Therefore I cannot answer your question."
posted
Lioness what are you angling at here? Are you defending the weasel words of European scholars or just presenting them? What is your own mostly predictable labelling?
Princess Sikhanyiso Dlamini of Swaziland
Ato Boldon - Isn't his complexion a near perfect match for the Egyptian drawing?
Anwar Sadat - President Mubarak's predecessor. You see an Egyptian looking like the Pharoahs, not that Zawi Hawass would want to admit it.
Terry McMillan
Philip of Hesse - Behind Glass, Lioness this one has been added specially just to rile you.
Why are white people so butthurt over the fact that in our day and age people, whether in Africa, India, Indochina or in the Americas people with the reddish brown complexion seen in Egyptian art above are seen as black and labelled as such?
When a personality from the 17th century in the books described by Mike is described as black with a sanguine complexion why do they want to weasel around its meaning?
When biblical King David is described as having a ruddy complexion why do they want to weasel around its meaning?
When Alexander the Great is described as having a ruddy complexion why do they want to weasel around its meaning?
Don't want to get too into this comparison about King David and Alexander the great.
But ruddy can mean different things. There seems to be 3 types of Ruddy. Reddish, Brownish, and Pinkish.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING: Habsburg.
Don't want to get too into this comparison about King David and Alexander the great.
But ruddy can mean different things. There seems to be 3 types of Ruddy. Reddish, Brownish, and Pinkish.
The words ruddy and sanguine all refer to a reddish complexion which is very much what it says. White people want us to believe that a white person with flushed cheeks is what those terms referred to when applied to from the Mediterranean of thousands of years ago.
Remember that the term complexion applies to a person's whole body, not just the face, and note in relation the Bible and ancient Mediterranean the word ruddy is the way word in ancient Greek or Latin has been translated. Even many of the descriptions of Europeans from the medieval era are in Latin so what European scholars are doing are simply falsifying the meanings by projecting their own contemporary meaning onto it. Child you should know better by now.
quote:Sanguine or red chalk is chalk of a reddish-brown colour, so called because it resembles the colour of dried blood. It has been popular for centuries for drawing (where white chalk only works on coloured paper), and the term also describes a drawing done in sanguine. The word comes via French from the Italian sanguigna and originally from the Latin sanguis.
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: Don't forget that the Hebrews did not look much different from the Egyptians
Excellent post Habsburg, I hadn't seen that illumination before.
And yes you are correct, all of those original people were of course Black, Tacitus confirms that.
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-118 A.D.) had these thoughts on the origins and customs of the Hebrews, as the Romans prepared to destroy Jerusalem. This is in the context of Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea.
Tacitus: History Book 5
1. EARLY in this year Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea, and who had gained distinction as a soldier while both were still subjects, began to rise in power and reputation, as armies and provinces emulated each other in their attachment to him. The young man himself, anxious to be thought superior to his station, was ever displaying his gracefulness and his energy in war. By his courtesy and affability he called forth a willing obedience, and he often mixed with the common soldiers, while working or marching, without impairing his dignity as general. He found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian's. To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied troops and eight squadrons of cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours, and, lastly, by many persons brought from the capital and from Italy by private hopes of securing the yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus entered the enemy's territory, preserving strict order on his march, reconnoitring every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last he encamped near Jerusalem.
2. As I am about to relate the last days of a famous city, it seems appropriate to throw some light on its origin. Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries. Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbours to seek a new dwelling-place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation celebrated in the poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded Hierosolyma after their own name.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL Mike according to your's & your ilk's (Habsburg, King, Mena7,Clyde, Ironfaggot,Kdolo, Narmer,Xyythater,Troll Patrol, etc) White people hating, Black racist, Black supremacist butts everybody except for of course ones you don't wish to claim because they never really accomplished anything or weren't known as great warriors were Black, all the ones that you don't wish to claim were of course White according to you. You believe Whites are inferior non-humans, you think that Whites have no right to exist, you want White children to think they have nothing to be proud of as Whites, you want them to think that their people have built nothing & accomplished nothing through history to present, you want them to think they have no identity, no homeland Why do you, Clyde, Habsburg, Mena7, KING, Xyythater, Ironfaggot, Kdolo, Troll Patrol, Marc, etc do it, simply because you are Black racists who hate White people.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doxie, did you see my musings on the previous page? Well here it is, what do you have to say?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: Lamin accuses White researchers of suffering from cognitive dissonance about Black African Egypt.....
Then he goes on to engage in the same cognitive dissonance when discussing Black Europeans.....
I wish lamin did suffer from cognitive dissonance, that would be an honest response to new information that is contrary to what he was taught or currently believes.
But lamin, like most Albinos (referencing personal communications), through no other faculty than common sense, knows that their history is a lie: while intelligent Blacks simply dismiss it by referring to it as HIStory.
The only ones who don't know that, are the poor downtrodden Negroes who are too busy trying to survive to think about the "fast one" the Albinos pulled off on them. (Free thought is a luxury of leisure time).
It harkens back to Camus's definition of a revolutionary: i.e. men are not revolutionaries in the depths of their oppression, they only become revolutionaries when they see an end in sight - when they have reason to hope. (Paraphrasing).
What I always wonder about, is what happens when the Africans and downtrodden Negroes figure it out.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^What about the Crackers/Rednecks like you-know-who?
Their behavior during the slavery times demonstrates their mindset.
These non-slave-holding whites were known as "poor white trash" and "hillbillies". But these whites were in support of slavery because they wanted to eventually own a slave or two of their own, and thus achieve the "American dream" of moving up socially. To them, the riches of the Cotton Kingdom were a distant dream and they often sneered at the lordly pretensions of the cotton “snobocracy” all the while, hoping to emulate them . These red-necked farmers participated in the market economy scarcely at all, they were subsistence farmers who raised corn and hogs, not cotton, and often lived isolated lives (only occasionally meeting).
Thus the antebellum South was really a place of delusion and delusionary dreams. The wealthy Planter thought of himself as a noble aristocrat: yet he was the most degenerate of men, one who made his living off of the deaths and misery of fellow human beings.
His supporter and enabler, the common White Redneck: was in fact used and abused by the planter class. The planter had slaves to do every task, and supply every need, thus there was never any opportunity for the Redneck to learn a skill or get a job. But interestingly, the Redneck did not respond to this situation with anger at the Planter class. The reality of Black slaves being better educated and skilled than himself, only served to drive the Redneck further into racial delusion. The Redneck could see Black slaves working the fields and surviving, like his skin would never allow him to do: designing and building fine buildings and Bridges, like he lacked the skills to do: also doing the common skilled work such as Carpentry, Blacksmith and such. But instead of blaming the Planter Class for his lack of opportunity, the Redneck was taught to satisfied himself with the sure knowledge, that because he was White, he was better than the Black slave.
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: When a personality from the 17th century in the books described by Mike is described as black with a sanguine complexion why do they want to weasel around its meaning?
When biblical King David is described as having a ruddy complexion why do they want to weasel around its meaning?
He,he,he,he:
You shouldn't take our resident Albinos too seriously Habsburg. Haven't you noticed that they run a "Tag-Team"? Doxie declares that only western Europeans are White. Meanwhile Lioness declares that anyone not Jet Black, with a wide nose and thick lips is White.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike you are an idiot. I most certainly do not declare that only Western Europeans are White. Western Euros are White, Northern Euros are White, Southern Euros are White, so are Central & Eastern Euros (slavs). Euro-Americans & Euro-Canadians, Euro-Australians & Euro-Kiwis are also White as are the Boers.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I Samuel 16: 12 and 17: 42 describe David as admoni, which translates as "reddish" or "ruddy". The Latin Vulgate translates admoni as "rufus" meaning "redhead" and the earlier Septuagint (LXX) as purrakes meaning "flaming red [haired]".
It is most likely describing his red hair, not a ruddy complexion. Red hair, is hardly applicable to a "black" person.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is pretty foolish to argue the ancient Jews were "black" when they describe themselves in their old literature.
The Jews contrasted themselves to the white Germani and black Aethiops, so they regarded themselves to have an 'intermediate' complexion. This is not surprising given their latitude.
Rabbi, R. Ishmael, c. 120 AD said: "The sons of Israel are like boxwood, neither black nor white but between the two."
posted
King David having red hair might seem out of place for Jews in the Levant/Middle East (where it runs at a very small percentage). However note that his mother is never described in the Old Testament. There's a theory that he was illegitimate, and that his mother was not Jewish.
Yalqat ha-makhiri (to Psalm 118) also describes David as a "red-haired illegitimate son".
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha! Ha! Ha! Neurotic Europeans and their obsessions.
The side-effects of lack of melanin
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Habsburg: [qb] When a personality from the 17th century in the books described by Mike is described as black with a sanguine complexion why do they want to weasel around its meaning?
When biblical King David is described as having a ruddy complexion why do they want to weasel around its meaning?
He,he,he,he:
You shouldn't take our resident Albinos too seriously Habsburg. Haven't you noticed that they run a "Tag-Team"? Doxie declares that only western Europeans are White. Meanwhile Lioness declares that anyone not Jet Black, with a wide nose and thick lips is White. /QUOTE]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this "lad" off his meds? A red headed Levantine? Hell, not even Southern Europeans are redheads. Someone take the razor away from him.
Doesn't he know the indigenous people of the Levant are the Bedoiuns? That is why all Genetic studies include them in their sample set!
Pitfalls of a neurotic.
quote:Originally posted by Dead: King David having red hair might seem out of place for Jews in the Levant/Middle East (where it runs at a very small percentage). However note that his mother is never described in the Old Testament. There's a theory that he was illegitimate, and that his mother was not Jewish.
Yalqat ha-makhiri (to Psalm 118) also describes David as a "red-haired illegitimate son".
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: I Samuel 16: 12 and 17: 42 describe David as admoni, which translates as "reddish" or "ruddy". The Latin Vulgate translates admoni as "rufus" meaning "redhead" and the earlier Septuagint (LXX) as purrakes meaning "flaming red [haired]".
It is most likely describing his red hair, not a ruddy complexion. Red hair, is hardly applicable to a "black" person.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the term redhead applied to their hair, rather than their whole body complexion? Not only that I have presented here evidence that the people who drew those images believed that David was a reddish brown complexioned person with thick black hair looking like dreadlocks.
As a person living over a 1000 years after what makes you think you are better equipped to interpret the meaning of the texts than the people of that era? The assumption or more likely the wishful thinking that the biblical personalities were pinkish/white complexioned people prevents European scholars (many of whom know better now) from making or admitting to the simple most direct interpretations of the words.
Why should the term ruddy or sanguine refer to the seated lighter complexioned man than the one in standing in the foreground (Hercules)? If ruddy is applied to the man seated because he has pink cheeks, then you and your fellow Eurocentric scholars please tell me what other term(s) the people of that era used to describe people with the complexion displayed of Hercules, or Ptolemy in Lioness's post. The complexions are distinctive enough to warrant their own terms. Did they have any or not?
The unwillingness of European scholars to use the already existing names for complexions exhibited by people whose civilizations they inherited because the people with those complexions today are either African, South Asian or Native American is simply grotty. Doxie, Dead, and Lioness that's you.
These academic culture of these guys are so racist and satanic that they don't even want to honour their cultural and spiritual ancestors by acknowledging their complexions. Perhaps they don't truly regard them as their cultural and spiritual ancestors.
It looks like Egyptology is the academic discipline that was created for the purpose of finding excuses not to call the ancient Egyptians black (or non-white, which might be more acceptable so some people hereabouts).
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Is this "lad" off his meds? A red headed Levantine? Hell, not even Southern Europeans are redheads. Someone take the razor away from him.
Doesn't he know the indigenous people of the Levant are the Bedoiuns? That is why all Genetic studies include them in their sample set!
Pitfalls of a neurotic.
quote:Originally posted by Dead: King David having red hair might seem out of place for Jews in the Levant/Middle East (where it runs at a very small percentage). However note that his mother is never described in the Old Testament. There's a theory that he was illegitimate, and that his mother was not Jewish.
Yalqat ha-makhiri (to Psalm 118) also describes David as a "red-haired illegitimate son".
You're posting nonsense as usual. There are South European redheads. Red hair is found in all populations, but sharply differs by frequency. It can be found in the Middle-East, as well as Polynesia, Sub-Saharan Africa and so on. But these places have it at incredibly low/rare frequency, well under 1%, like < 0.1%. It is only Northern Europe, or more specifically the British Isles where it appears at > 10%. It is estimated between 13% and 15% of Scotland is red-haired. Anyway, red-hair among the ancient Israelites/Jews was very low and rare. Their own rabbinic literature and the Old Testament makes it clear black hair was the norm. I pointed out though that King David's biological mother was probably not Jewish. She could have been a Hittite.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
By Dead: " It is pretty foolish to argue the ancient Jews were "black" when they describe themselves in their old literature.
The Jews contrasted themselves to the white Germani and black Aethiops, so they regarded themselves to have an 'intermediate' complexion. This is not surprising given their latitude.
Rabbi, R. Ishmael, c. 120 AD said: "The sons of Israel are like boxwood, neither black nor white but between the two."
Note: The Dead Sea is very unusual, because the harsh sunlight common in the Middle East is blocked due to evaporation & ozone of the low/ deep basin of the Dead Sea, including extremely low Ultra Violet light. The single place on Earth that tropical albinos would probably do extraordinary well would be at Ein Geddes oasis there. Comments?
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Habsburg, Hercules is described as fair-haired and lightish eyed in classical sources. Are these descriptions really applicable to a "black" man?
Dicaearchus (4th century BC) described Herakles eyes as hypocharopos (Clem. EG. II. 30. 7). It translates as "rather blue eyed"/"somewhat blue-grey eyed".
"ὑποχαροπός ( hypocharopós) rather blue-eyed, X.Cyn.5.23 (v.l.), Dicaearch. Hist. 10, Ptol.Tetr.144; also ὑποχάροψ, PTeb.816i 14 (ii B. C.).
Euripides (5th century BC) also described Heracles as having xanthos plokos, fair hair (usually translated light brown, auburn etc).
Why ignore all these sources?
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: I Samuel 16: 12 and 17: 42 describe David as admoni, which translates as "reddish" or "ruddy". The Latin Vulgate translates admoni as "rufus" meaning "redhead" and the earlier Septuagint (LXX) as purrakes meaning "flaming red [haired]".
It is most likely describing his red hair, not a ruddy complexion. Red hair, is hardly applicable to a "black" person.
DAMN - YOU"RE STUPID!
.
Fool, how many time must I tell you that we make you Albinos on a daily basis.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: It is pretty foolish to argue the ancient Jews were "black" when they describe themselves in their old literature.
The Jews contrasted themselves to the white Germani and black Aethiops, so they regarded themselves to have an 'intermediate' complexion. This is not surprising given their latitude.
Rabbi, R. Ishmael, c. 120 AD said: "The sons of Israel are like boxwood, neither black nor white but between the two."
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Habsburg, Hercules is described as fair-haired and lightish eyed in classical sources. Are these descriptions really applicable to a "black" man?
Dicaearchus (4th century BC) described Herakles eyes as hypocharopos (Clem. EG. II. 30. 7). It translates as "rather blue eyed"/"somewhat blue-grey eyed".
"ὑποχαροπός ( hypocharopós) rather blue-eyed, X.Cyn.5.23 (v.l.), Dicaearch. Hist. 10, Ptol.Tetr.144; also ὑποχάροψ, PTeb.816i 14 (ii B. C.).
Euripides (5th century BC) also described Heracles as having xanthos plokos, fair hair (usually translated light brown, auburn etc).
Why ignore all these sources?
Lets see those quotes Brain-DEAD.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Habsburg, Hercules is described as fair-haired and lightish eyed in classical sources. Are these descriptions really applicable to a "black" man?
Dicaearchus (4th century BC) described Herakles eyes as hypocharopos (Clem. EG. II. 30. 7). It translates as "rather blue eyed"/"somewhat blue-grey eyed".
"ὑποχαροπός ( hypocharopós) rather blue-eyed, X.Cyn.5.23 (v.l.), Dicaearch. Hist. 10, Ptol.Tetr.144; also ὑποχάροψ, PTeb.816i 14 (ii B. C.).
Euripides (5th century BC) also described Heracles as having xanthos plokos, fair hair (usually translated light brown, auburn etc).
Why ignore all these sources?
My argument here is not about what Hercules and some other historical and mythological persons looked like. My main point here is that to apply the contemporary Anglo-Saxon meanings of the words ruddy and sanguine to people of that part of the world when images from that era display figures whose complexion matches the etymological roots of these words is simply fraudulent, dishonest and outright misrepresentation.
For instance today some lighter complexioned Europeans use the word black to describe darker Europeans. Now imagine that in some future the word was used in ancient texts relating to people from sub Saharan Africa, and then some European scholars insisted that the term black was used to refer to people with complexion of darker contemporary Europeans because that is how the term is used today. How honest would that be?
Even today in sub Saharan Africa the word fair is used to describe the complexions above. Would it be meaningful in some future to insist that the word described white people because fair in Europe today means lighter haired and complexioned white people?
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Swenet I know you're feeling somewhat burnt right now, but fabrication won't salvage your credibility. Sorry to have tripped you up (again) so publicly, but there are times when I find you really irritating.
I've told you before on this site that I found your analysis excellent. You played a very useful role when you and I were in contact; in vindicating my approaches to the academics. You read the messages and fed back. But you were never an author. Unfortunately for you, your comments/quotes pertaining to the Kemp dialogue are clearly in reaction to his responses to MY questions. And sorry to deflate, but the background information you provided was just that - background. Interesting, but largely superfluous and unnecessary. Are you really saying that I can't read Kemp for myself, assimilate and make arguments independently? Moreover, I had already begun my communications before I even approached you, and they continued long after I ditched your facebook group...I must have had 'dialogue' with ooooh, over 40 professionals by now...believe me when I say it's an all-star cast! But gee, how could I have managed all that without Swenet?
quote: He comes out of hiding specifically to vent his indignation with minutiae.
Oh, groan. I have a life that isn't measured by the hours I spend on Egyptsearch, nor the number of people I try to insult when engaging in petty internet arguments.
I responded to your point because it's false.
quote: That lets you know who's really "stung". It suffices to say, that all you did was apply things you did not originate, think out or gather, to specific points academics were raising. You never did any research, and whatever fetching you did, you were utterly incapable of understanding the vast majority of it on your own. Most of the time you were merely a vessel who, after a bit of tinkering and requiring tons of explanations, relayed external information to academics. Some of which you didn't or barely understood, while you posed as as knowledgeable in in these emails.
The fact that you protest my use of "author" as opposed to the fact that I'm telling you, you had a negligible role in what you were taking credit for earlier, towards yourself (you're lying to yourself now?), Truthcentric and the people who are giving you accolades for something you're too incompetent to do by yourself, shows you're almost there; you just have to remove the last bits of tenacious denial in your head, that you can't seem to get rid of. But don't worry, I'll gladly help reminding you of the limits of your, shall we say, 'modest capabilities' in the exposures that will follow.
But, there is no need for me to even address what you say at this point. Just know, your posts are being archived and there is a special blogpost being written, just for you. Unlike what I may post on ES, that blogpost will NEVER be deleted, and, also know, I won't have restrictions such as politeness or going off topic there. I will stay around for a while on ES to log everything you say in regards to this topic, so keep on venting.
Why did you stop, anyway? Again, YOU stopped after having promised "more to come"
Ummm, but more did come...go back and read the sequence of quotes where I showed your enthusiastic support of my communications with Kemp, which contrasted with your feigned outrage after we'd fallen out.
quote: Was it something I said, re: blogpost? Lol. It's evident that YOU are fearful of being embarrassed or whatever else you're projecting onto me. I will teach you never to lie on someone who has access to the same emails you have. I will teach you never to expose someone when you have no real ammunition and that person knows you have astronomically more to loose.
Feel those sweat drops trickle down your back and armpits ? You gon'learn today. Lol.
"Lol" indeed!
Help! Help! Swenet's about to destroy my life and I'll lose everything I've ever worked for!!!Just like he did to Bob Brier!!!I'll be shunned!! I'll become a pariah!
He's like a yapping pup. Honestly.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. It's raining desperation from the estrogen- drenched "Tropicals Redacted" drama princess, who seems to be on his extended period.
1) I never said I authored those mails
2) I said YOU DIDN'T author them--i.e. the ones that involved my help, either when you panicked when these academics were punking you, where I schooled you on genetics, physical anthro and various other topics in general, when you were trying to contact academics you were too ignorant to confront yourself, without making yourself look like a fumbling klutz, and the list goes on
3) Author doesn't just mean "write", and even if it did mean just that, feeding back notes to others after having picked someone's brain over the years is not compatible with being a credit- worthy writer, either. Your desperation is going through the roof.
4) LMAO at this witless buffoon. Denial is a powerful figment-inducing coping strategy, indeed. The extended schooling I provided you with didn't help you in my absence? I'm willing to bet you're sucking up to someone else right now, begging to be that person's parrot, because you still don't know jack. Before you had an emotional breakdown on the FB group and left, the only contributions you could make was posting news stories--and that was AFTER I had already tried to boost your learning curve over the years, Lol. That's all you're good for: fetching news stories and running to everyone with your emails for sympathy, brownie points, appearing knowledgeable and sucking up to people who actually do the hard work. Don't get things twisted, lol. You desperately try to take shortcuts to becoming a well-respected contributor, not by any merits, but by gossiping, snitching and slandering, like a little drama queen. But you can only hide your glaring incompetence in these areas for so long before people start to realize you've yet to make a contribution you didn't leech from elsewhere or without stirring up drama with academics, Dead/Anglo and others.
You have yet to express a single profound thought on Egyptsearch; a couple of days ago you needed confirmation on whether black people are capable of crossing deserts or following rivers. What makes you think people will believe you're capable of standing your ground with academics without having someone to parrot and leech in your corner? Princess, please
5) Stop telling the forum how competent I am, and how I schooled you over the years, up until the point you had an emotional breakdown and made yourself look like an emotional wreck; flattery is not going to help you. You're going to be done shortly.
6) Just thought I'd remind you again, that your posts relating to this topic are logged for a very, very imminent exposure.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Seriously folks, who but that degenerate lying Bitch of an Albino, would try to pass off obvious MULATTOES as WHITE or BLACK?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As we know from past experience, the Turk Mulatto knows no limits, With lionesses permission they are: Berbers, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Anatolians, Cretans, etc,etc. And now they want the U.S. government to give them total credit for all of their stolen Black Identities!
U.S. mulls Middle East-North Africa category for 2020 census
By JEFF KAROUB Associated Press
DETROIT (AP) -- The federal government is considering allowing those of Middle Eastern and North African descent to identify as such on the next 10-year census, which could give Arab-Americans and other affected groups greater political clout and access to public funding, among other things.
The U.S. Census Bureau will test the new Middle East-North Africa (MENA) classification for possible inclusion on the 2020 census if it gets enough positive feedback about the proposed change by Sunday, when the public comment period ends.
Arab-Americans, who make up the majority of those who would be covered by the MENA classification, have previously been classified by default as white on the census, which helps determine congressional district boundaries and how billions of dollars in federal funding are allocated, among other things.
Those pushing for the MENA classification say it would more fully and accurately count them, thus increasing their visibility and influence among policymakers.
The Census Bureau plans to test it later this year by holding focus group discussions with people who would be affected by the proposed change. Congress would still have to sign off on the proposal before the change could be added to the 2020 census.
"We know the challenges," says Hassan Jaber, who runs a Detroit-area social services group and serves on a census advisory board formed to evaluate Americans' changing racial and ethnic identities. "It really does take rethinking ... who we are as a population and what our needs are, (but) there are specific needs for Arab-Americans that are not being recognized and not being met."
Jaber's group, ACCESS, and others that serve U.S. Middle Eastern communities have been pushing for the new census classification, which could also allow people to identify under sub-categories such as Assyrian or Kurdish.
"Frankly, being under MENA will also give us a chance for the first time for minorities within the Arab communities, such as Chaldeans, Berbers and Kurds, to self-identify," said Jaber, a Lebanese-American who serves on the U.S. Census' National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations.
Arabs have been coming to America in large numbers since the late 19th century and their ranks have grown in recent decades due to wars and political instability in the Middle East, with many settling in and around Detroit, New York and Los Angeles. The Census Bureau's 2013 American Community Survey, which had a sample size of about 3 million addresses, estimated that 1.5 million people were of Arab ancestry in 2006-10.
Although Jaber thinks the public comment and testing periods should go well, he said it could be difficult getting congressional approval. Some Republican lawmakers are generally critical of the expense and intrusion of the census and have sought to eliminate the community surveys, which, unlike the main decennial count, aren't constitutionally mandated.
There also isn't universal support for the proposed census change among those who could identify as Middle Eastern or North African.
Some have expressed concern about sharing such information with the government in a post-9/11 world. And some have said that keeping the status quo would let them feel more American.
"I'm not for it. ... I feel I'm a Mayflower American," said Eide Alawan, a 74-year-old son of a Syrian immigrant whose roots are mostly Arab.
Alawan, a diversity liaison at a Detroit hospital and interfaith outreach coordinator at the area's largest mosque, said he knows there are benefits to having the category, but that he thinks the change would be divisive.
"We're broken down into villages and countries (where we come from) - I don't like that."
Some older Middle Eastern immigrants or their descendants live with the legacy of U.S. laws in the early 20th century that excluded Asians from entry and at one point included Syrians and others from the eastern Mediterranean. Groups were formed to fight those decisions and eventually the Middle Eastern immigrants were deemed white and were allowed to become citizens.
Sally Howell, an associate professor at University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of several books on Arabs and Muslims in Detroit, said that argument is common among "people that were raised in an America that was more polarized along black and white lines." But she added younger people generally are "less eager to see the world in those binary terms," and the census should reflect that.
No matter what happens, identity would remain a choice, but she said an evolving population requires asking new questions.
"We need to kind of rethink who Arab-Americans are, really. The community has changed radically over the last 25-30 years," she said. "The only way we're going to have a good sense of the changes is if we have good data to work with."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I take it you remember the occasion when I summarised one of your ideas and forwarded it to a geneticist who didn't know what the fvck you/Swenet was talking about.
And again, your that crazy suggestion that Kemp paid an academic to doctor the dendograms in his book? Thank god I rejected the bulk of your commentary. I was right to. I'm not churlish, so I'm not going to say that your analysis was utterly sh1t- but it was useful as complementary background information; your role was really just to listen and react as my test audience. I buttered up your fragile ego to get what I wanted out of you. It worked.
quote: Lol. It's raining desperation from the estrogen- drenched "Tropicals Redacted" drama princess, who seems to be on his extended period.
1) I never said I authored those mails
2) I said YOU DIDN'T author them--i.e. the ones that involved my help, either when you panicked when these academics were punking you , where I schooled you on genetics, physical anthro and various other topics in general, when you were trying to contact academics you were too ignorant to confront yourself , without making yourself look like a fumbling klutz, and the list goes on
3) Author doesn't just mean "write", and even if it did mean just that, feeding back notes to others after having picked someone's brain over the years is not compatible with being a credit- worthy writer, either. Your desperation is going through the roof.
4) LMAO at this witless buffoon. Denial is a powerful figment-inducing coping strategy, indeed. The extended schooling I provided you with didn't help you in my absence? I'm willing to bet you're sucking up to someone else right now, begging to be that person's parrot, because you still don't know jack. Before you had an emotional breakdown on the FB group and left, the only contributions you could make was posting news stories--and that was AFTER I had already tried to boost your learning curve over the years, Lol. That's all you're good for: fetching news stories and running to everyone with your emails for sympathy, brownie points, appearing knowledgeable and sucking up to people who actually do the hard work. Don't get things twisted, lol. You desperately try to take shortcuts to becoming a well-respected contributor, not by any merits, but by gossiping, snitching and slandering, like a little drama queen. But you can only hide your glaring incompetence in these areas for so long before people start to realize you've yet to make a contribution you didn't leech from elsewhere or without stirring up drama with academics, Dead/Anglo and others.
You have yet to express a single profound thought on Egyptsearch; a couple of days ago you needed confirmation on whether black people are capable of crossing deserts or following rivers. What makes you think people will believe you're capable of standing your ground with academics without having someone to parrot and leech in your corner? Princess, please - - - -
5) Stop telling the forum how competent I am, and how I schooled you over the years, up until the point you had an emotional breakdown and made yourself look like an emotional wreck; flattery is not going to help you. You're going to be done shortly.
6) Just thought I'd remind you again, that your posts relating to this topic are logged for a very, very imminent exposure.
^ Take a reality check - you're inconsequential.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, you are correct. The Turk Mulattoes are shameless........ look at the quote ....
"....I'm not for it. ... I feel I'm a Mayflower American," said Eide Alawan, a 74-year-old son of a Syrian immigrant whose roots are mostly Arab."
This Turk Mulattoe now feels that he is an Anglo -Saxon ..... no doubt that in time he, he and his ilk with sufficient numbers and eco/political power will start the propaganda they are the real Americans.
Once they enter a society, how long does it take typically before they take over and attempt to take over the cultural narrative ??
Doxie, are you reading this .... with their psychological delusion and Islam, these people actually represent a threat to you Doxie.... in a few hundred years or so, they will mistreat you and call you an illegal immigrant or slave while calling themselves real Americans.
....and you are obsessed with the Negroe....
-------------------- Keldal Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dead " It is only Northern Europe, or more specifically the British Isles where it appears at > 10%. It is estimated between 13% and 15% of Scotland is red-haired. "
I've read claims that red hair there was a result of Norse Viking blonde mixture with dark haired locals, and that some names eg. O'Neil are Scandinavian derivatives. - - -
Agade : An initial {a}, in Akkadian, means "I" example: ktm = to cover, a.ktm = I cover In Arabic, aktum = I cover
Ain(Ein) Gede oasis near Qumran/Masada/Red Sea 50 miles South of Jerusalem The name Ein Gedi is composed of two Hebrew/Arab words: ein: spring; gdi: goat-kid. (see bottom)
Were Agade and Ain Gede linked in some manner?
A legend of Attila the Hun: "According to the Miholjanec legend, Stephen V of Hungary had in front of his tent a golden plate with the inscription: "Attila, the son of Bendeuci, grandson of the great Nimrod, born at Ein Gedi: By the Grace of God King of the Huns, Medes, Goths, Dacians, the horrors of the world and the scourge of God." " wiki
Addendum to my note "The Dead Sea is very unusual, because the harsh sunlight common in the Middle East is blocked due to evaporation & ozone of the low/ deep basin of the Dead Sea, including extremely low Ultra Violet light. The single place on Earth that tropical albinos would probably do extraordinary well would be at Ein Gede oasis there."
Light/fair/white skin would be expected to develop and be sustained there due to both lack of UV and benefit of camouflage , since the shore region is encrusted with white mineral salts, similar to snow. Recall the bible passage that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt.
This perhaps explains the 'Leprosy' noted by alTakruri:
"The Torah of Moshe extensively details laws of leprosy (which trait ties in with the Egyptians' account). Biblical leprosy wasn't Hanson's disease but an affliction which in humans turns the skin pale and the hair yellow or white. Lepers who turned pale from head to foot could pass the trait on to their descendents and were not considered impure by Torah law." http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009156;p=1#000001
1. White 2. White 3. Non White 4 White 5. White 6. White
Kdolo, Oh well, if we lose the USA to the Arabs or other non-Whites then we didn't deserve the land in the first place since we couldn't defend it. Besides the USA is NOT White people's land, the USA is the Amerindians' land. To answer your question though, usually the Muslims start terror attacks, etc when they get to be 20% of the population or above. Until then they act just like you Negros, moaning & groaning, complaining ohh we're being all oppressed and sheet, rioting, looting, protesting with the protests becoming more and more violent the higher their population gets. Like you they use the stupid Whites to aid them in seeing to the destruction of their own people. The Libtard/Self-hating/Anti-White Whites thinking that Negros & Arab Muslims are their friends not knowing that Negros & Arabs would sooner slit their throats than look at them.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: I take it you remember the occasion when I summarised one of your ideas and forwarded it to a geneticist who didn't know what the fvck you/Swenet was talking about.
LMAO. The estrogen in this one is strong. He's completely losing it. Lashing out wildly in all directions, like a girl in a catfight that just had her bra torn off and has one high heel on and the other one somewhere down the street. For the record, the "Tropicals Redacted" fraud is talking about this observation I made about the large amount of shared STR markers between Hawass et al 2010 and 2012. The fact that this buffoon is now trying to discredit this observation (which even a three year old can confirm) PROVES that he's completely incapable of debating academics on his own. How can you debate professionals on your own when you secretly need them to give you a signal that you're not completely talking out your behind half of the time, because what you sent them was a paraphrase of what someone else said? As a matter of fact, you're so clueless about what you're asking them through me, that their inability/refusal to answer your question makes you insecure about whether what you said made sense. See what I mean when I talk about his passivity in all of this? He's inadvertently proving it by giving an example of being completely bewildered by the stuff he heard me say, but he'd then send it out, anyway.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: And again, your that crazy suggestion that Kemp paid an academic to doctor the dendograms in his book?
^Same here. You were not able to catch my error before I did, even though you had gone through the material before I did, and you had posted it yourself. If I never told you I made that error you wouldn't know. This was/is the true extent of your complete bewilderedness when it comes to these data. I could have been talking bs for months and you wouldn't even know; that's how helpless you were and still are. This betrays the fact that you were nothing but a passive recycler of other people's ideas; most of the time you were talking about non-layman stuff (i.e. pretty much all the time) you were on auto-pilot like a buffoon; just passing data along without even understanding it. Thanks for proving it.
quote:Thank god I rejected the bulk of your commentary.
Please. As Dead/Anglo already observed about you, you know NOTHING about physical-anthro, and, being actually familiar with what you know, I can extend that to anthropology in general. You know little about this topic sans what I schooled you on or the basic stuff you heard someone else say. A couple of days ago you expressed bewilderment over whether Africans are capable of crossing a desert or following a river. Are you kidding me, princess? You are in no position to judge data on it's veracity/plausibility. Are you lying to yourself again? Denial is a helluva figment-inducing coping strategy.
When will you learn that you're just good for starting slander campaigns and parroting other people and pretending you originated it? Population genetics, physical anthro, etc. is not for you. Don't make me remind you of how long it took me to introduce you to a basic idea from a cranio- metric study. It got your head spinning so hard that you needed to take a break. Your got so onfused that you needed to print the document and attempt to gawk at it again at your own little special ed pace. And I bet you still didn't get it. C'mon princess. Do I really need to expose you in front of those cheer-leading friends of yours who are lurking here regularly? Stop lying already.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. Raving lunatic. On the verge of another public meltdown?
Prove me wrong, drama princess!
Most of the time you weren't discussing basic stuff with academics you were sending out material you didn't understand or master. I DARE you to challenge that. Lol.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: I've been told (by academics) that the questions were/are intelligent and interesting.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: What do you make of Swenet's support of what I was doing in my correspondence with academics and present criticism?
"I've been told (by academics) that the questions were/are intelligent and interesting."
"Swenet's support [..] what I've been doing"
What non-leeched input did you bring to the table, other than nodding away at everything I schooled you on? You don't even have the basic frame of reference to know that the Sahara couldn't have been a barrier to Sub-Saharan Africans, but we're supposed to believe you're capable of going toe to toe with trained professionals on your own? Do you think the people on ES áre dumb? Stop trying to insult their intelligence, lying plagiarist. SMH.
You even admit to sending out things you got from me, that went completely over your head, and they apparently still do. Are you saying the other emails you composed with answers and explanations I gave you, were somehow radically different?
Somewhere in the middle of your interactions with these academics you took a basic course in physical anthropology (which didn't help you, given the absolute low you're still at). Lol. You're going to start engage these academics on physical anthro and then take an elementary course years later? Lol. You just can't make this up. Who would start taking courses years AFTER starting debates with academics? A plagiarist who has relied on proxies to debate academics through him all this time, that's who. You're a complete CLOWN. You're in no position to be calling people "inconsequential".
posted
I was writing a very long, detailed response, which I misposted... and then the wire got pulled out of the PC so the replacement post got lost...but I'll carry on - this is the first post.
quote:Stop trying to insult their intelligence, lying plagiarist. SMH.
Look, time to stop being a boy. If I write and self-publish/publish this book, and you read it and think that I've plagiarised your 'work', then explore your legal options. Have your day in court. Bring it all out into the open.
You know who I am. I know who you are.
No more idiocy.
Try and sue me.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by tropicals redacted: I was writing a very long, detailed response, which I misposted... and then the wire got pulled out of the PC so the replacement post got lost...but I'll carry on - this is the first post.
HAHAHA. Yeah right... and the dog ate my homework.
You're such a lost little puppy. Do you really think I'm after credit? I wouldn't even be bringing this up if you didn't go on estrogen-induced gossiping rants, trying to take credit for what you didn't do. You single-handedly ethered yourself with that move.
It's nothing I can't prove with a couple of blogposts, anyway. Lol. What would I need the court for, buffoon.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys why are you on this forum arguing like this??
Whats the point?
Both of you guys need to curb your egos.
I think that both of you have scholarship that you can post about the thread title. Why flood the thread with arguments.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: For the record, the "Tropicals Redacted" fraud is talking about this observation I made about the large amount of shared STR markers between Hawass et al 2010 and 2012. The fact that this buffoon is now trying to discredit this observation (which even a three year old can confirm) PROVES that he's completely incapable of debating academics on his own. How can you debate professionals on your own when you secretly need them to give you a signal that you're not completely talking out your behind half of the time, because what you sent them was a paraphrase of what someone else said? As a matter of fact, you're so clueless about what you're asking them through me, that their inability/refusal to answer your question makes you insecure about whether what you said made sense. See what I mean when I talk about his passivity in all of this? He's inadvertently proving it by giving an example of being completely bewildered by the stuff he heard me say, but he'd then send it out, anyway.
Given that you have access to our private Facebook correspondence, it seems strange you’ve forgotten to mention that one of the geneticists who worked on the Hawass 2010 and 2012 studies gave short shrift to your idea, no?
quote: He's inadvertently proving it by giving an example of being completely bewildered by the stuff he heard me say, but he'd then send it out, anyway.
Strange that you should say that, since you approved of the e-mails I sent him. Again, you still seem to have access to our Facebook correspondence so could you dig out the pertinent section of the correspondence? Anyway, I have this response from the scientist in question:
quote:it is unclear to me how you calculated the 60%.
And:
quote: I do not understand where you see similarities. Do you compare individuals, groups, markers, allelic segregation patterns, or what?
Now what's odd is that, with the 2010 results being controversial, it's reasonable to assume that this academic would have taken up the opportunity to prove their credence, and the efficacy of ancient DNA testing in general. The fact that this person didn't, gave me pause for thought regarding your 'analysis'.
As did your outlandish suggestion that Kemp paid someone to doctor the dendograms in his book.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: Lol. What would I need the court for, buffoon.
So there we have it.
On line he's all mouth.
But ask him to formalise his complaint and he runs.
Swenet is a sh1t leg.
quote: It's nothing I can't prove with a couple of blogposts, anyway.
You'll remember to post my suggestion and your declining of it on your blog posts, won't you sh1t leg Swenet?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, presumably attempting to save face, Swenet invoked the non-expert, non-committal ‘endorsement’ of my former Bio-Archaeology tutor. I’d asked them whether they knew of any ancient DNA specialists and the reply was:
quote: 22/10/2013 Yes, lots, but it's a finicky, fussy, unreliable and expensive process
Swenet questioned this, particularly the reservation about cost – he’ll have access to the correspondence so he can post it here.
I then sent the same information regarding the 2010, 2012 tests that I sent to the first scientist. They responded:
quote: 23/10/2013 Pffft. They're probably related. You can't get much more out of it than that. And most of what Hawass says can be dismissed out of hand.
Will forward your email on to a friend who might be able to answer more diplomatically
There was no further response on the issue.
However, as stated above, following the first scientist’s scepticism towards Swenet’s idea, Swenet fell back on the comments of my tutor. Swenet, you’ll have access to this, so maybe you could post it here?
Later on though, Swenet remarked that everything my Bio-archaeology tutor said could be “dismissed out of hand”.
Swenet, quote please?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Given that you have access to our private Facebook correspondence, it seems strange you’ve forgotten to mention that one of the geneticists who worked on the Hawass 2010 and 2012 studies gave short shrift to your idea, no?
Appeal to authority fallacy. The geneticist in question could have printed it out and fed it to a paper shredder, for all I care. The fact of the matter is that your incompetence to verify my observation on your own proves that you don't have the skill to go to toe to toe with anyone, let alone academics.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Strange that you should say that, since you approved of the e-mails I sent him.
Not necessarily. I distinctly recall that you botched my explanation because you weren't able to paraphrase it correctly (it was all like a foreign data to you, and hence, it completely flew over your head that a missing word here and a replaced word there would distort the original idea), no doubt adding to the confusion of the recipient what the hell you were stammering about.
quote:Now what's odd is that
See the above. All your arguments are fallacious and you don't even realize it because you don't even know how to debate (as seen in this thread and elsewhere). Either you can falsify my observation (as expressed here or you can't. And it's clear, estrogen-drenched princess, that YOU can't.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not necessarily. I distinctly recall that you botched my explanation because you weren't able to paraphrase it correctly (it was all like a foreign data to you, and hence, it completely flew over your head that a missing word here and a replaced word there would distort the original idea), no doubt adding to the confusion of the recipient what the hell you were stammering about.
Not necessarily? There's no need to strain your memory and "distinctly recall" when it's recorded in our conversation:
Swenet, could you access the pertinent conversation about this please?Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: Appeal to authority fallacy. The geneticist in question could have printed it out and fed it to a paper shredder, for all I care. The fact of the matter is that your incompetence to verify my observation on your own proves that you don't have the skill to go to toe to toe with anyone, let alone academics.
quote:Appeal to authority fallacy.
Hmm. I wonder what you'd be saying if he agreed with you...
quote:The geneticist in question could have printed it out and fed it to a paper shredder, for all I care
Clearly. I was hoping to get mainstream verification of something which would have added to the mounting evidence of black Egypt, and you act like some petulant, dismissive adolescent.
Again, this example and the Kemp accusation told me that I should be very cautious about using your 'analysis'.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. Estrogen-drenched princess. Leaking emails is your forte, not mine, remember? You're the snitch. Don't ever get that twisted. YOU gossip; it's already proven that YOU're the drama princess.
Notice how all of his "responses" are not really responses at all. Just evasions and decoys to hide the fact that he doesn't have the skill to verify anything I say, himself. But then he wants the forum to believe that he's been debating academics on his own for years. Pulease.
quote:Orginally posted by tropicals redacted:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Appeal to authority fallacy.
Hmm. I wonder what you'd be saying if he agreed with you...
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Not necessarily. I distinctly recall that you botched my explanation because you weren't able to paraphrase it correctly (it was all like a foreign data to you, and hence, it completely flew over your head that a missing word here and a replaced word there would distort the original idea), no doubt adding to the confusion of the recipient what the hell you were stammering about.
Not necessarily? There's no need to strain your memory and "distinctly recall" when it's recorded in our conversation:
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: I'd never come across the 'appeal to fallacy' diversion until I started reading around the Egyptian race debate. I thought it a dishonest way of dismissing inconvenient evidence. Tukuler summed it up nicely a while back:
posted
I'd never come across the 'appeal to fallacy' diversion until I started reading around the Egyptian race debate. I thought it a dishonest way of dismissing inconvenient evidence. Tukuler summed it up nicely a while back:
quote: Also the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" is referencing an authority outside their field of study. Citing authorities in their very discipline is never an appeal to authority, it's the way theses are regularly supported.
'Appeal to authority', was it Swenet? An appeal that you endorsed.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic