Re: A new definition of the word "content"

On Jul 19, 2:36 pm, "graph...@xxxxxxx" <graph...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:03 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jul 19, 3:14 pm, "graph...@xxxxxxx" <graph...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 19, 8:39 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 19, 11:55 am, "graph...@xxxxxxx" <graph...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 19, 4:05 pm, Ivar Rosquist <IRosqu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:01:01 -0700, graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jul 19, 3:11 am, Ivar Rosquist <IRosqu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:48:05 -0700, graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jul 18, 9:12 pm, Ivar Rosquist <IRosqu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:51:13 -0700, graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jul 18, 7:58 pm, "graph...@xxxxxxx" <graph...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:42 pm, Ivar Rosquist <IRosqu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:35:29 -0700, graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jul 17, 10:25 pm, Ivar Rosquist <IRosqu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:09:00 -0700, graph...@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jul 17, 8:15 pm, Ivar Rosquist <IRosqu...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
        So, that would imply that the majority of the
        linguistics
community does not accept this decipherment, right?

Yes, but the main reason is to be found in the BIAISED
review made by Yves Duhoux in 2000, which has been largely
publicized, when at the same time a reply correcting the
FALSE accusations made by the reviewer was CENSORED by the
A.J.A. MOST of the scholars who read this review have
concluded that this solution was "not better than the
others",

        Who are the persons that endorse this
        decipherment? Can you
provide their names, together with the references where they
issue their endorsements?

Yes, I can provide their names, but I will not do it without
their consent.

        May I insist? How long do you think it will take
        you to obtain
their consent?

As long as it will take to the A.J.A. Directors to recognize that
they acted in a NON-SCIENTIFIC way by REFUSING to print a
"Correction to Yves Duhoux' false statements"!..

grapheus

Why are you insisting so much for knowing the names of the
scholars who personally told me about their deep interest in the
"Proto-Ionic Solution" ?

        I would like the names of those scholars who endorse the
        1975
decipherment of the Phaistos disk, because such claims must be
independently corroborated. So far I only have your word, and I do
not know who you are.

This is correct, but you have to understand that it is THEIR
business, not mine, to make public what they think about the
Proto-Ionic Solution, and mre generally about the "Proto-Ionian
Theory". I don't want to look as if I was forcing them.. But you may
conduct an enquiry your-self, with TWO questions : 1)- Have you READ
YOURSELF (not just heard of...!!!) the four books J. Faucounau has
dedicated to his "Proto-Ionian Theory" ?.. 2)- What do you think
about this theory ? You will be surprised by the number of scholars,
who having answered YES to Question # 1, will say about Question # 2
: "Well, I find it very interesting and worth of being more
thoroughly explored!". My own count : 100% !..

        I am by no means an expert on these things. I don't have
        the
necessary qualifications to understand such works. That's why the
endorsement by experts would be so important to me. I am sure that you
will agree that accepting the opinion of a single individual of unknown
expertise in the field is not a sensible option, right?

RIGHT ! Mainly when this "expertise" has been BIASED, like the Yves
Duhoux'  review in the A.J.A., and that the CORRECTION of it has BEEN
CENSORED !!!!

        Which, if true, is yet another reason why we need the input from
other experts to support the 1975 decryption.

        Are you therefore going to try and get their permission to have
reveal their names revealed in this forum? Until you do, the only
supporting evidence that we have is your word.

I REALLY DON'T CARE whether you believe me or not !..  My AIM is to
make known a "good Theory", not publicized by his author, who has
always declined interviews or lectures. If people are interested, they
have to go back to the original publications, not to take my words as
granted... If they don't, it's THEIR problem, not mine !...

When have you ever provided references to these "original
publications," other than to the book itself, that you want people to
"go back to"?

OK. Do you want really SERIOULY study the "Proto-Ionian Theory" ????
If yes, here is my advice :
Go to an Universitarian Library and ask
1)- First for "Les Proto-Ioniens: Histoire d'un peuple oublié". This
book is the best introduction to J.F. work.

Happily, the New York Public Library owns three books by Faucounau,
from 1999, 2001, and 2003. (Only the first is immediately available;
the others would have to be requested several days in advance.)

Well, it's better to begin with the second, in my opinion.



2)- Once you have read it, get the link :
<http://www.anistor.gr/english/index.htm>
and click on "View Points"- Vol.6/2002, VO13

Actually it's vol. 5/2001, and it has nothing to do with the PD; it's
a contentless argument against your personal bugaboo the "Risch-
Chadwick Theory." It's written in English, and M. Faucounau's English-
language quirks are remarkably identical to your own.

Yes, I know.. And we both are using CAPITALS to insist on one
word ...
A VERY VERY VERY STRANGE habit for the would-be-inspector-
Colombo !!!!!!

Actually, not only the capitals. Also, the stylistic identity,
articulated in more than a dozen counts of rare quirks, has been
analyzed and documented well enough by Budelberger, on the net
anytime.

You know it. Your not even mentioning it confirms that you are a slimy
jerk.


It appears that you hate the "Risch-Chadwick Theory" only because it
renders it impossible for the PD to be in Greek.

NO. Just because it is FALSE (as shown by the "proto-ionisms in the
Mycenaean Tablets!).

These "proto-Ionisms" which have nothing to do with Ionian are listed
even in Wikipedia, fercyinoutloud. You have arbitrarily defined them
so.


Yes, and if you change "IE" into "proto-IE in a kretschmerian sense",

No need to do that. That "sense" is your own reading of some
Kretschmer theories that today almost no one relies on. Not in the
text. And this is in good German, not in Diskish, where you can read
anything you want.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A new definition of the word "content"
    ... A.J.A. MOST of the scholars who read this review have ... "Correction to Yves Duhoux' false statements"!.. ... decipherment of the Phaistos disk, ... have to go back to the original publications, not to take my words as ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: A new definition of the word "content"
    ... community does not accept this decipherment, ... A.J.A. MOST of the scholars who read this review have ... "Correction to Yves Duhoux' false statements"!.. ... have to go back to the original publications, not to take my words as ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: A new definition of the word "content"
    ... A.J.A. MOST of the scholars who read this review have ... "Correction to Yves Duhoux' false statements"!.. ... YOURSELF the four books J. Faucounau has ... have to go back to the original publications, not to take my words as ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: A new definition of the word "content"
    ... A.J.A. MOST of the scholars who read this review have ... "Correction to Yves Duhoux' false statements"!.. ... have to go back to the original publications, not to take my words as ... Happily, the New York Public Library owns three books by Faucounau, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • [Nanobacteria--microbiological characteristics]
    ... We have reviewed recent publications regarding the microbiological ... Nanobacteria, detected in bovine/human blood, kidney cyst fluid, urine ... Review, Tutorial ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)