Re: International Conference on the Phaistos Disk

On Oct 8, 6:04 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



So long as they are testable.

Aha. Is PIE testable? No? So it ain't scientific?

Of course it is. When Tocharian was discovered, did the existing PIE
model fit it perfectly? No. So the model was altered to deal with the
new data.

The only test I know of is the Tiryns disc as
deciphered by Derk Ohlenroth, revealing the
Middle Helladic name of Zeus as Sseyr,
nothing like PIE *dieus. PIE failed this test,
and what does our own Peter T. Daniels do?
Our Peter T. Daniels found every silly excuse
for not even laying a glass eye on Derk Ohlenroth's
book, and this for years and years. The book

I assure you, if I had the slightest interest in the PD, I would read
DO's book.

But I don't, so I won't.

by Derk Ohlenroth is scholarly by each and every
standard of academe - far more scholarly than
all you ever published and will ever publish in
your next five lives -, but you just say, no, you
won't read it, you won't even have a look it,
and still you judge the book and declare it
worthless, because you _know_ that the discs
can't be deciphered. You are just in the know,
no, in the Know.

There are several dozen crackpots fulminating about the PD at any one
time. If DO's book is the answer, why does the fulmination continue?
(Similarly, of course, for the books of the two monomaniacs who
constantly post on it here.)

Richard Herring: can't a scientific theory be
summarized in a statement, as in a formula?
Don't get nitpicking on me, there are enough
bores around already, Barren Minds Inc., led
by Panu Petteri Höglund, hoo got nothing to
say, and this in thousands of messages.

Pot, kettle, black. You have no business complaining about _anyone's_
quantity of posting.
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast