Re: Pyramidable

From: grapheus (grapheus_at_www.com)
Date: 10/10/04 

Date: 10 Oct 2004 12:18:13 -0700

qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0410100649.1145e88@posting.google.com>...
> grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0410091331.4493ee1c@posting.google.com>...
> > qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0410090632.61555a56@posting.google.com>...
> > > grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0410082346.7dc4b54a@posting.google.com>...
> > > > This is one of the best DOGMATIC reasoning I've even read !...
> > > > Qakare considers as "PROVEN" a theory which is not, but as UNPROVEN a
> > > > theory which has DEFINITELY shown to be the ONLY CORRECT ONE !!!!
> > >
> > > Hi Faucounau.
> >
> > AND ALWAYS THE SAME OLD TRICK, A LIE REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN, a
> > DIGRESSION made in order to AVOID a SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION about the
> > PROOFS that the Proto-Ionic Decipherment of the Phaistos Disk *IS THE
> > ONLY CORRECT ONE* !!!
> >
> > > This type of error can also
> > > be found in your books.
> >
> > "My" books !.. ALWAYS THE SAME OLD TRICK, a LIE repeated AGAIN AND
> > AGAIN, a DIGRESSION made in order to AVOID a scientific discussion
> > about the Phaistos Disk's problem !..
> >
> > >For instance you
> >
> > "you" !.. ALWAYS THE SAME OLD TRICK, a LIE REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN, a
> > DIGRESSION made in order to AVOID a scientific discussion about the
> > Phaistos Disk's problem !
>

> Hi Faucounau alias Grapheus.

Hi, Mr-the-DOGMATIC !..
USING ALWAYS THE SAME OLD TRICK, a LIE REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN in
order to make people believe that it is true !...

> I know that the use of the trick to
> repeat statements is only allowed for respectable scholars like you.
> No necessary to repeat it again and again.

BUT YOU WILL DO IT, I am sure, in your next post, right ?...
This is the PROOF of your SUPER-GENIUS as a PROPAGANDIST ...
Wow !.. What a GENIUS YOU ARE, using SUCH a CLEVER TRICK !!!!!

>
> > > published the values for
> > > signs like a turtle or a owl, which does not exist on the Phaistos
> > > Disk.
> >
> > Lastly !.. A remark concerning the Proto-Ionic Decipherment of the
> > Phaistos Disk !...
> >
> > These are "reconstitution" of OBLITERATED SIGNS from the traces left
> > in the clay... Of course, these reconstitutions CANNOT be said to be
> > SURE... But, FROM the TRACES, they are PERFECTLY PLAUSIBLE. So,
> > saying that these signs "have not existed" is a GRATUITOUS and
> > RIDICULOUS ASSERTION as long as there is NO DEMONSTRABLE IMPOSSIBILITY
> > for them to have existed.
>
> Where did you read the statement "have not existed"? I see only a
> statement "which DOES not exist ON THE PHAISTOS DISK".

Of course, they "do not exist" !!!!! They are OBLITERATED SIGNS !!!!
Your remark is FULL OF GENIUS !..

>
> > This is a NEW EXAMPLE of the WAY DOGMATICS [1 use] act : NOBODY CANNOT KNOW
> > whether these reconsctructions are correct or not. And J.F. - a true
> > scholar - has NEVER WRITTEN that they are 100% SURE...
>
> There is no statement about something "100% sure". There is only a
> statement "PUBLISHED the values for signs like a turtle or a owl".

WOW ! Another REMARK of yours FULL of GENIUS !...
Don't you see the difference between YOUR statement (citing YOUR own
words) and mine (citing J.F.'s book) ?????
Do you want me to explain it ?..

>
> > But DOGMATICS [2nd use]
> > like you DON'T HESITATE to AFFIRM that THEIR ideas are TRUE, even when
> > they have a 50% chance or more to be WRONG !...
>
> Maybe you should read your postings of the past again with that
> defintion in mind. For instance in message
> <337ae51f.0405160042.4b466a3d@posting.google.com> you has named the
> explanation for a obliterated sign as proof.

YES. And I MAINTAIN IT !.. IF you had read the J.F.'s book, you would
know that there are SEVERAL "obliterated signs" in the text, some
which can be reconstructed with certainty, others not. My claim
applies, of course, fully to the ones of which the reconstruction is
sure.

>
> > As I said, there is NO WAY to convince a DOGMATIC [3rd use]. But one can
> > demonstrate WHAT a kind of DOGMATIC [4th use] he is by pointing up his BASELESS
> > ASSERTIONS.
>
> This time I counted four usages of "dogmatic".

YES, MR-the-DOGMATIC. You are right on this point !...

grapheus

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pyramidable
    ... AND ALWAYS THE SAME OLD TRICK, A LIE REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN, a ... DIGRESSION made in order to AVOID a SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION about the ... PROOFS that the Proto-Ionic Decipherment of the Phaistos Disk *IS THE ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Pyramidable
    ... > DIGRESSION made in order to AVOID a SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION about the ... > about the Phaistos Disk's problem!.. ... No necessary to repeat it again and again. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: .Java File Error
    ... > Many editors, whether Java-specific or not, are ... >this can be very handy if you'd rather not count ... Another way to avoid this kind ... I wish SCIDS learned the trick I use in JDisplay to use variable size ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: You need him more than he needs you!
    ... Then you can avoid talking about him ... That'll do the trick. ... Lol! ... Turtill probably started this thread. ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • The solution to the greedy "middle companies"
    ... IF people want to avoid the gross markups ... America or Europe, the trick is to form a ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)