Re: update KRS From dictionary of linguistics on net
bogart.lloy_at_uwlax.edu
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: Dylan Sung: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Previous message: Maleki: "Re: CNN tanking as Fox News surges"
- In reply to: I.E_Johansson: "Re: update KRS From dictionary of linguistics on net"
- Next in thread: m_zalar_at_hotmail.com: "Re: update KRS From dictionary of linguistics on net"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Mar 2005 08:54:37 -0800
Inger writes:
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:07:31 GMT
Local: Fri, Mar 4 2005 5:07 am
Subject: Re: update KRS From dictionary of linguistics on net
> Lukas,
[snip]
> if you don't accept that what's called a linguistic dictionary, your
problem
No, Inger, dictionaries (accepted or not) are YOUR problem. You
don't use them properly, nor do you interpret meanings correctly.
Your faults in this area are common knowledge in this newsgroup.
This newsgroup is NOT dedicated to discussions of the use of
language, or dictionaries, but if it were, you would still be dead
wrong to attempt to correct others for responding to your own
misunderstandings of the use language and dictionaries (and URL's).
> if you don't accept that there are, as
> others here most certainly will tell you,
> inform ation which been surpressed
> by linguists like you and other naysayers,
> that's your problem
This convenient conspiracy theory of yours has absolutely NOTHING to do
with the information YOU referred to, in opening the thread, and
NOTHING
to do with Lukas' response (which, unlike your own, is both
comprehensible
and accurate).
> But never ever tell that it's no reason to look - that's outradges
[That's probably dyslexic Swedish for 'outrageous'. However, using
the same incorrect spelling in the same way, time after time, while
resisting all attempts at correction, is NOT a symptom of dyslexia,
it's a symptom of IRATF Syndrome}
> and say a lot of the naysayer's position trying to stop discussion
> which doesn't go your way.
And what is this response of yours, to Lukas, if not an attempt to stop
a 'discussion' that (as usual) isn't going your way?
> I take it that you aren't aware that apart from the linguists
> mentioned by you and in the url, several linguists and
> archaeologi sts have changed their view.
OOOooH! SEVERAL! But who they are shall, of course, remain a secret.
> having seen the full context which is about to be presented in
public.
Yeah, yeah, yet ANOTHER false promise of something yet to come that
will
somehow make up for all that previous false information and bizarre
interpretation.
The Legion of Inger's Anonymous Right-thinking Scholars will publish
this in their very first newsletter, just about any month or year now.
> Stop telling people what to read and what's not important! Messages
> like that aren't valid you know
Now this is *really* classic. "Stop telling people what to read" you
say.
And what EXACTLY is the nature of your posting that starts THIS thread,
and so many others, if not YOU telling others what to read? And
usually
it's something with no archaeological content at all.
You make of yourself such a fool, in the eyes of the entire world.
Lloyd
*****
- Next message: Dylan Sung: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Previous message: Maleki: "Re: CNN tanking as Fox News surges"
- In reply to: I.E_Johansson: "Re: update KRS From dictionary of linguistics on net"
- Next in thread: m_zalar_at_hotmail.com: "Re: update KRS From dictionary of linguistics on net"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
