Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales

On Aug 19, 2:52 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If that's true, then it's a valid factor to be considered.

Why didn't you say so the first time? instead of maiming
my argument?

You're
whining about ideas being rejected for no reason, just because they're
new ideas. Or are you under the impression that all new ideas should be
blindly accepted, without regard to their validity?

They should be discussed by means of scientific
arguments. Neither by rating or by ad hominems
nor by escaping to meta-levels, which is your
favorite way of discussing. Kooks always escape
to meta-levels. You always escape to meta-levels.
Apparently because you are a kook yourself.

Which has nothing to do with the rejection of new ideas.

Of course. Solar energy was rejected for twenty years
or longer for not being efficient enough. It could be
made efficient. Brilliant researchers got no funds
and no encouragement on the basis of that wrong
argument. Because powerful lobbies bush and bull
the other way.

Your words are exactly where you put them: in your message. They do not
have to be repeated in every single message the follows it, and they
*shouldn't* be kept by people who aren't planning to address them,
because it makes each subsequent message harder and harder to work with
and obscures the *new* material being added.

It is one of your foul tactics to maim and mutilate
my arguments and thus forcing me to repeat them
over and over again until I am tired and exhausted
and become sloppy and then you can hang me.
I am fed up with this way of discussing. The topic
of this thread is the etymology of bear. Contribute
to this question, or keep away from me.
.