Re: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to Faucounau (was: Fischer)

From: Qakare (qakare_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: 22 Jul 2004 03:36:42 -0700

grapheus@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0407210240.3f547032@posting.google.com>...
> qakare@hotmail.com (Qakare) wrote in message news:<dad05270.0407201108.13a8db06@posting.google.com>...
> > Wrong. I have only a different opinion as you.
>
> The difference in opinion comes from the fact that YOU did'n't study
> the PROOFS, when I did !.. And that you REFUSE to APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC
> RULE that if ALL the CONSEQUENCES of a theory are VERIFIED, this
> theory has to be considered as true !...

Not if this theory contradicts facts! On probleme for instance is,
that the syllabary used by Faucounau is not reasonable! That in a
script mainly using syllables like <qa>, <ka> and <re> also syllables
like <as> exist is unbelievable.

> As I already wrote, if an event having a very small chance to appear
> HAPPENS, one may think to a mere coïncidence. But when SEVERAL EVENTS
> of this type HAPPEN, chance MUST BE EXCLUDED !... This is you don't
> want to accept. For YOU, if SEVERAL events, CONTRADICTING YOUR
> FAVOURITE DOGMA and having each a very small probability to happen by
> chance, HAPPEN, they are "JUST coîncidences which PROVE NOTHING"
> !!!!!

There is no small chance even if you say it again and again.

> >
> > > > For instance in B 1 a sign 23 is overprinted by a sign 12. Faucounau
> > > > invented a Fairy tail about a overprinted additional sign with a funny
> > > > owl on this place.
> > >
> > > AND HERE YOU GO AGAIN with your BLATANT BAD FAITH !...
> > > Before PROPOSING to read a new sign n° 49 representing "an owl", J.F.
> > > HAS DEMONSTRATED that, from the traces left, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE for the
> > > obliterated sign to be Sign n° 23 !....
> >
> > Faucounau only writes: "En B1, on voit sous le signe du 'bouclier' une
> > sorte de hampe oblique qui ne correspond, d'après les traces
> > restantes, à aucun des signes connus envisageables (Signes S19, 22, 23
> > ou 39).".
>
> "D'après les traces restantes" (= "from the traces left in the clay")
> IS OBVIOUSLY the MOTIVE of the IMPOSSIBILITY that the obliterated sign
> could be S23 !...

Why?

> > No further explanation is given.
>
> NO, but anyone may CHECK from the original !... I did it, and was of
> the same opinion as J.F.

Where did you see a difference?

> > Anyway his reason for the correction
> > is that ka-sae was changed to ka-s-ae. But in this case no correction
> > would be necessary.
>
> EXCEPT for METRICAL REASONS !... One will not chant the PSALM the
> same way !...

This sounds like Ohlenroth. He also explains contradictions with
metrical reasons.

> > > But, of course, you present the thing as this DEMONSTRATION DID'N'T
> > > EXIST, although anyone may find it on pages 140 to 143 with the
> > > corresponding figures !....
> > > This is the TYPICAL ATTITUDE of DOGMATICS : they DON'T DISCUSS the
> > > arguments against THEIR DOGMA. They JUST go on, ACTING and IGNORING
> > > THEM !!!!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > And in the case of the Phaistos Disk, both DO EXIST, but you
> > > > > STUBBORNLY REFUSE to consider that If the decipherment EXPLAINS THE
> > > > > MOTIVE why the scribe has cut a sentence adding a KAS in A5, or has
> > > > > corrected several KA(s) in KA-S , or has crowded his signs in A29, but
> > > > > not in A31, or.. etc. are the INQUESTIONABLE PROOF that the
> > > > > decipherment is correct. Because when something having a very small
> > > > > probability happens, one may think to a coïncidence happening by
> > > > > chance. When SEVERAL of such coïncidences happen, CHANCE cannot more
> > > > > be called for !...
> > > >
> > > > Right this can not be explained by chance. It must be explained by the
> > > > hard work of Faucounau to find them.
> > >
> > > Ha,ha,ha !... "Hard work" CANNOT CHANGE THE "hard FACTS" !!!
> >
> > You can not expect chance at the end of hard work.
>
> That what I said ...

Then it's no surprise that Faucounau found some explanations after
more then 20 years.

> > > > > > > > > the SAMPLE that the Phaistos Disk's text is. Therefore the great
> > > > > > > > > percentage of the ATTEMPTS starting from these HYPOTHESES !..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pleace be so kind and give references where the descriptions of the
> > > > > > > > fits can be found.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Amongst the published ones, I'll cite the paper "Evidence for Hellenic
> > > > > > > Dialect in the Phaistos Disk" by St. Fisher (1988).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you mean sentences like this: "It is surprising to find PD12 and
> > > > > > PD35 having the values -qe and -te; this certainly cannot be Greek"
> > > > > > (Evidence for Hellenic Dialect in the Phaistos Disk by St. Fisher,
> > > > > > 1988, p. 27)?
> > > > >
> > > > > These remarks are PERFECTLY CORRECT !... Because PD12 has NOT the
> > > > > QE-value, and PD35 the TE-value.
> > > > > The Fischer's error has been in TRYING TO FORCE the plausible things
> > > > > !!!!
> > > >
> > > > But the plausible things are that he compared the signs at the
> > > > Phaistos Disc with the signs in the Linear scripts. Anyway I found
> > > > nothing in his book giving evidence for a Greek language!
> > >
> > > NOT in his book !.. I wrote : in his paper "Evidence for Hellenic
> > > Dialct in the Phaistos Disk" !..
> >
> > In which magazine has he published his paper? In "Fairy Tales" edited
> > by grapheus?
> >

That you didn't answer to this point shows that I'm right.

> > > > > > > > > It's a pity that J.F. has not published this part of his work, but I
> > > > > > > > > can tell you that his conclusions were the same : There is a STRONG "a
> > > > > > > > > priori" PROBABILITY for the Phaistos Disk's Language to be GREEK.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Demonstrate the probability or be quiet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That you didn't answered to this point I take as confession that you
> > > > > > have nothing to show that Faucounau is right at this point.
> > > > >
> > > > > Faucounau ?.. No, because he did'n't publish his calculations... But
> > > > > he said what his conclusion was after his "First Round of
> > > > > Calculations" as he called it, and I have no reason for not believing
> > > > > him !.. If you have a strong one, please let us know !..
> > > >
> > > > Yes I have a strong one. He didn't publish his calculations! Maybe
> > > > because Faucounau means that it is helpful to write a "Fairy Tail"
> > > > about a statistical decipherment as long as nobody would be able to
> > > > disprove it. It seems to me that Faucounau has the same problem as you
> > > > to understand the difference between "maybe" and "it is" or "evidence"
> > > > and "proof". It is not enough to publish a decipherment saying you
> > > > have to believe me that all my conclusions are right.
> > >
> > > AND HERE YOU GO AGAIN !... DENYING, denying, denying THAT PROOFS DO
> > > EXIST !...
> > > And repeating ALWAYS the SAME MOTTO : "J.F. did not publish HIS
> > > METHOD" !...
> > > When it has been said several times that "the Method being of
> > > PROBABILISTIC NATURE, the RESULTING DECIPHERMENT HAS TO BE *PROVED* "
> > > !... And that ONLY THE PROOFS count !...
> > > But, of course, it's ESSENTIAL for A DOGMATIC to IGNORE THEM !!!!!
> >
> > Which proof did you mean? I didn't found any proof in his book.
>
> BECAUSE you are VOLUNTARILY BLIND !.. You did'n't SERIOUSLY EXAMINE (I
> don't even say : REFUTE !) any of the PROOFS !...

I can repeat it. Even if the external "proofs" are true this doesn't
mean that the language of the Phaistos Disk is Greek. Therefore it's
enough to read what Faucounau has written in his book. Obviously
Faucounaus opinion was the same and he didn't waste the place in his
book to give details!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, the majority does not count only facts count. Therefore your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > statement "Moreover, do you seriously believe that if the MAJORITY of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the deciphering attempts have USED GREEK as a language, this CAN BE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DUE TO MERE CHANCE ?" is only rubbish.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And WHY ?????
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As Hempl has said it. Greek was used mostly, because this was the only
> > > > > > > > > > > > known old language for the majority.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is also demonstrated by the scholars reading the Phaistos Disk
> > > > > > > > from left to right like Ephron, Otto or Ohlenroth. They also mean that
> > > > > > > > they found evidence for a Greek language!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > SO WHAT ?..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They are using the wrong reading direction! Evidence for a Greek
> > > > > > language they found only by mistake. But also the majority for this
> > > > > > reading direction is using Greek as language. Therefore you can't use
> > > > > > the majority as proof for a Greek language.
> > > > >
> > > > > I contest this point : If one does'n't count all the attempts using a
> > > > > wrong direction, there is STILL a MAJORITY in favour of attemps using
> > > > > Greek as a language !..
> > > >
> > > > The majority of the scientists (Ipsen, Gordon, Ventris, Grumach,
> > > > Duhoux, Nahm, Schürr) have a different opinion. This is a majority
> > > > against an attempt using Greek as language.
> > >
> > > I was talking about people HAVING PROPOSED a DECIPHERMENT !...
> >
> > That's the problem; the result depends on the definition. Therefore
> > the majority does not count only facts count.
> >
> > > AS far as I know, NONE of the names you cited, but C. Gordon, have
> > > proposed one !...
> > > As for Yves Duhoux, his "opinion" cannot be taken very seriously : In
> > > 1979, he wrote that the Phaistos Disk's text was "probably written in
> > > an IE-Language, possibly GREEK", but facing the contrary opinions of
> > > Grumach and co, he chose to "follow the leader" and in 1983 - USING
> > > THE SAME "METHOD" as in 1979 !!!- he CONCLUDED to the CONTRARY !....
> > > No comments are needed : "Birds of same feather flock together"
> > > !!!!!!!
> >
> > It would be more convincing if Faucounau would discuss there
> > arguments.
>
> He has !.. But apparently, you want to IGNORE that ALSO !...
> As for the OPINION that the text "would not be Greek", BASED UPON SOME
> DUBIOUS considerations about the so-called "PREFIXES", ii BECOMES
> RIDICULOUS once a GREEK SOLUTION has been given, which cannot be
> CRITICIZED on any point (Direction of reading, phonetics, grammatical
> characteristics).

Interesting. Please demonstrate for our education the grammatical
characteristics of the Phaistos Disk and compare them with Greek.

> It's acting like these scholars who "demonstrated"
> c.1800 that a man could not survive in a train if the speed was more
> than 50 km/h !.. And these DOGMATICS were not deterred writing that,
> at a time when some trains HAD ALREADY REACHED THAT SPEED... They just
> said : "Well, wait a few months !.. The drivers will soon die !..."
> DOGMATICS believe THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT, whatever the PROOFS that they
> are WRONG !!!!!

Unfortunately you are the one, how says that "the earth is flat".

> > > > That means that I have won
> > > > your little contest.
> > >
> > > That means that ONCE MORE, you DID TRY to CHANGE THE QUESTION !...
> >
> > Wrong. I have only a different opinion as you.
>
> And DOGMATICS' opinion is ALWAYS THE TRUTH, right ?..

It's on you to convince with arguments. But unfortunately you have no
good arguments. Therefore you need to write in capitals.

> > >
> > > RIDICULOUS !... I use the DECIPHERMENT - BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PROVED !-
> > > to CONFIRM that the PROBABILISTIC CONSIDERATIONS, which have INITIALLY
> > > led to the CHOICE of GREEK, WERE CORRECT !..
> > > You are trying to pretend that there is a "circular arguments" were
> > > there is NONE !...
> >
> > ==>"which have INITIALLY led to the CHOICE of GREEK, WERE CORRECT" <==
> > You argue in a circle if you use the decipherment to determine the
> > language.
> >
> > > Because there cannot be a "circular argument"
> > > WHEN the *PROOFS* DO EXIST !... These *PROOFS* that you want to
> > > IGNORE !...
> >
> > Give one proof that the language used on the Phaistos Disk is Greek or
> > be quiet.
>
> The PROOF of the cake is in the eating !... If the decipherment IS
> PROVEN, every PART of it BECOMES TRUE !.... You don't need a "specific
> proof" for the direction of reading, the language, the script's
> characteristics, etc.
> Is THIS so difficult to UNDERSTAND for you ?????

Yes because by this way you can only show that a Greek solution is
thinkable. But it was also thinkable that the earth is flat. As
usually you didn't understand the difference between "can be" and
"definitely true". Anyway there are to much explanations needed in
Faucounaus try.

qakare

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wikipedia & Music Theory
    ... reading by using the references, google, and my intelligence (such as ... reference to Wiki gives it more credibility than it earns. ... I don't necessarily come here to collect facts ... because usenet is a place where opinion is rife and fact hard to come ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: OT - Tell Bush: "Dont blame Hurricane victims, help them!"
    ... In reality all you did was say that, in your opinion, I was wrong. ... > You claim Bush didn't know about the hurricane because he was "on ... you decided but before you had the facts. ... Because true conservatives don't have liberal friends. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: "Fold Equity" ...definition and example please
    ... It appears to me that you are capable of maintaining a certain level of maturity and decorum as long as the other person is not expressing an opinion you disagree with. ... When confronted with facts about the reduction of R&D, well documented, you condemn 'lying drug companies'. ... This notion that insurance companies and drug companies are these benevolent deserving entities is the biggest fallacy you present. ... They make profits, lots of profits ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Do you have a Knowledge Officer?
    ... opinion, unless he supports it with verifiable facts and credible ... Sure, it's more accurate, but debates don't turn on the accuracy of facts, ... programmers are generalists having control over the ... is actually the opposite - it means that you have an intermittent bug ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Wikipedia & Music Theory
    ... reading by using the references, google, and my intelligence (such as ... reference to Wiki gives it more credibility than it earns. ... I don't necessarily come here to collect facts ... because usenet is a place where opinion is rife and fact hard to come ...
    (rec.music.theory)
Quantcast