Subject: Re: The Dead Sea Scrolls
From: Marc Line
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 23:09:50 +0000
snipped the wonderful work of my dear friend and valued colleague, the
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
(Oklahoma) which a critic repeated in full, in order to add:
>>>What is the point of all this drivel?
>>>Not funny. Not informative.
Life! Ah, that fleeting moment of animate, manifest mortality betwixt
the full breasts of darkness. Humour! That sweet flow of nectar which
when taken at full florescence doth both sate and frustrate in measure
equal to desire. That such a quaff should be considered a luxury which
enervates and destroys nations*, is as an arrow to my very heart. Not I
going quietly into that dark night. Not I the languorous descent into
the arms of nihility. Drink hearty mon brave and harbour narry a regard
to dreflian. Let not thy flood be stemmed by such a dam. Fool! I may
be, aye, but a happy fool.
What, when all the balls have been kicked and all the fish have been
sniffed, is the point of anything? Cast off thine L plate and drive,
drive, drive full speed into the heart of Morpheus.
I remain, your flumble hunky
Mr. Byafew Minitz (Prof.) M.A. R.C.Li N.E.
*Henry David Thoreau
Subject: Re: Phoenicians and Greeks: was: Sanskrit: was: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:39:28 GMT
In article <57kgv6$91l@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>That does not prove that (say) Greek is derived from Phoenician,
>>which you had once claimed.
>So it shows there were interactions of a nature which helped
>spread language.
>I have said several things about the relationship of the Greeks
>with the Phoenicians. I think their languages may have had some
>common ties, but that is at least partially because:
[...]
So what? Why not study Greek and Hebrew some time and see how
much (or little :-) they have in common structurally? Though Greek does
have some Semitic borrowings, like the word for "camel", that's about it.
Mr. Whittet, as I have pointed out before, if you spend 1/10 the
time you spend on archeology on comparative and historical linguistics,
you'd be learning a heck of a lot and you would *not* be making such
childish blunders.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Linguistics-grammatical rules, norms, mores, conventions, laws...
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:56:31 GMT
In article <57ka1q$91l@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>> Ignoring phonology and grammar. Just to give one example, Old
>>English preserves much of the more basic vocabulary of English, but its
>>phonology and grammar are different enough to make it a foreign language
>>for modern-English speakers.
>What you are talking about is the same sort of rules which govern
>other human behavior.
>There are different levels of consensus as to what the rules are.
>Most societies would differentiate rules, norms, mores, conventions,
>laws...as requiring different levels of obedience.
>Is the same true in the formation of a pre historic grammar?
How are these remarks supposed to be relevant? And why don't you
actually *study* the structures of a lot of languages some time? Armchair
"reasoning" does not prove a damn thing.
>Pre historic society is not organized into states. It is organized
>into households. In some cases a few households might live near
>enough and be closely enough related to funtion as a clan.
>
>A tribal organization is an ethic group it needs more and better
>defined norms, mores, conventions, laws..than a clan or family.
>
>Could prehistoric language be similarly emergent from smallar
>formations to larger clusters, so that the formation of a PIE
>is equivalent to the formation of a state?
>
>Could this apply to the grammars of households, clans and tribes?
Again, pure armchair "reasoning". Why not actually *study* the
features of a lot of New World languages or Australian languages or other
languages of people who had been discovered by literate peoples to have
been at a Neolithic or Paleolithic level of technology? You'll be
surprised at how complicated the grammars of the languages of "primitive"
peoples can get.
>Current Anthropological models show that Homo Sapiens evolved from
>Homo Erectus independently in more than one place. Essentially
>Homo Erectus reached a threshold as a Species from which Homo Sapiens
>could evolve anywhere, both China and Africa for example.
That's the multiregional model, which is seriously disputed (I
personally find it genetically implausible).
>Can you point to any given point in prehistory where this is
>unlikely to be the case? Is there a point where the evidence
>suggests language was better organized than society as a whole?
You're waving your hands around, Mr. Whittet.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: OJ innocent, christians guilty (Barrabas & Jesus)
From: Smoltz@tallships.istar.ca (Dr. VonSmoltz Jr.)
Date: 29 Nov 1996 03:29:28 GMT
In article <329C3847.4521@Hell.org>, YourGodSucks@Hell.org says...
>
>Elijah wrote:
>>
>> > "*He* and *his* other *lesbian* kind?!?
>>
>> > Elijah...here's a crash course on homosexual terminology:
>> > Gay = Male (usually)
>> > Lesbian = Female (exclusively)
>> > Hope this helps for future posts.
>>
>> Xina is a lesbian who has joined August in following my posts
>> to make a reply to all of them. As if it is their job to undo
>> everything I say.
>>
>> And they expect no sources from OJ to be innocent,
>> they slam the alegations of the acusers rather than him.
>> while with christians they push the alegations as true
>> saying guilty until sources prove innocent.K.Churchill, J.J.Hancock wrote:
>
>Ok, here's the diffrence. In court it's the state's job to prove O.J's
>guilty. Now, here you're trying to get us to change our opinion, thus
>you must prove yourself. This isn't a court. O.J is innocent untill
>proven guilty, your posts are dogma untill proven fact.
>--
>
>Yes, at one time god tried to guide me, but through the bright light I
>could not see where he was leading. Then I became one with the darkness.
>It helped me to filter out the light, to see past the light, to see
>where I was being guided, it was then that I saw the light was trying to
>lead me off a cliff.
>Email: llinux@gwbbs.northeast.net
Hopefully, the darkness is leading you off of a higher cliff....
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:48:15 -0600
In article <57l55v$r9m@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer
Vidal) wrote:
>joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein) wrote:
>
>>The howling fact remains that archaeological evidence *refuses* to line up
>>with the linguists' concerns.
>
>This is not only a problem in India, but practically everywhere else.
>Archaeology just doesn't tell us a lot about language, and linguistics
>doesn't tell us a lot about material culture.
Um, still, we're supposedly able to tell some things about the Aryans by
virtue of the ancestral I-E words, yes? This is presumably linguistics
speaking about material culture. Contrariwise, were you to find a
material culture matching that set of nouns (with enough picky details),
you'd presumably be looking at archaeology telling you "this language or a
relative was here", no?
Here I'm going by pretty standard stuff in the study of ancient South
Asia. And if this is all wet, I'm at a loss to understand what the point
of cross-posting protohistoric discussion could *possibly* be...
[snip]
>>His position contradicts most of what we know of linguistics. Mine, as I
>>understand it, contradicts most of what we know (archaeologically
>>speaking) of language change.
>
>What *do* we know, archaeologically speaking, of language change?
>Renfrew in "Archaeology and Language" gives the following models:
>
>1. initial colonization
>2. continuous development
>3. language replacement - 3a. demography/subsistence ("wave of advance")
> 3b. elite dominance
> 3c. system collapse
>
>Archaeologically, the clues are:
>1. no human remains before a certain time (of course, older remains can
>always unexpectedly turn up).
>2. archaeological continuity, without signs of external intrusions.
>3a. external introduction of new subsistance techniques (e.g. farming)
>3b. destructions, changes in material culture afterwards.
>3c. abandonment of large population centers, gradual influx of foreign
>material culture (often "more primitive" in nature).
>
>In the case of India,
Watch it there...
The rest of your post is talking about the Indus Valley civilisation,
which is mainly in Pakistan.
When it comes to India, and *my* interests, the Ganga-Yamuna region and
Malwa, in India proper, are of much greater importance. And the whole
picture changes dramatically...
>we can rule out 1., and we can concentrate on
>distinguishing between 2. and 3.
[snip]
>The origins of the Indus Valley Civilization seem to lie in a 3a. event:
>the introduction of agriculture (initially from the West: wheat, barley,
>sheep, goats). But even here, the linguistic consequences are not
>clear:
It's been argued that the Indus Valley civilisation's *fall* was a 3a.
event. By this notion, rice cultivation in the Ganga valley being
practical meant people just no longer had any reason to live in big
crowds. I believe either Meadow or Kennedy is the reference on that; at
any rate, the paper in question is in a volume edited by Kenoyer,
something like "Old Problems and New Perspectives..."
I find this idea stunningly attractive. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to
match what's known of the first settlers in the main Doab region. On the
other hand, I'm not sure how much new land it would really take to
depopulate the north near Harappa; and it's pretty easy to ascribe the
population explosion in Gujarat to a depopulation (possibly separate in
cause) in Mohenjo-daro's region.
Oops. That leaves out the whole densely-populated Sarasvati valley
question, doesn't it? Sigh...
>The change from the Harappan phase to the Vedic phase can be seen as a
>case of continuous development (2: "Out of India"), elite dominance (2b:
>the "Aryan invasion") or system collapse (2c: Harappan civilization
>collapses, the Aryans walk in, mix with the locals, but eventually
>become the dominant factor, at least linguistically).
Well, sure.
But here's the kicker:
What explains the presence of Indo-European languages, evidently long
before 500 BC (the Buddha's time), in Bihar?
Let's go back through the list, for now flatly rejecting "out of India".
1) No good, there are settlers back to the early 2nd millennium, maybe earlier.
2) This is the "out of India" position which we've just agreed to reject.
3a) Nope, Bihar had rice etc. (and iron to cut down those trees!) before
the Punjab, right?
3b) An invasion? No sign archaeologically...
3c) There's no collapse either. Kausambi, e.g., not very far upstream
from Bihar, is a central place way, way back in the pottery sequence.
(Does anybody know, by the way, whether anyone at all has followed up in
northern India on the settlement archaeology of Makkhan Lal at Kanpur and
George Erdosy at Kausambi?)
Having rejected 3a), 3c) and 1) conclusively from evidence, we are forced
back to 3b) with no visible sign (my oft-stated view) or 2) ("out of
India").
And I repeat,
>>And there it stands until there's enough research done in the Punjab to
>>give us a great deal more to work with.
>
>Yes.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer, banker, bookseller joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself alone http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
But...co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now back under
discussion in news.groups!
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:48:15 -0600
In article <57l55v$r9m@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer
Vidal) wrote:
>joe@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein) wrote:
>
>>The howling fact remains that archaeological evidence *refuses* to line up
>>with the linguists' concerns.
>
>This is not only a problem in India, but practically everywhere else.
>Archaeology just doesn't tell us a lot about language, and linguistics
>doesn't tell us a lot about material culture.
Um, still, we're supposedly able to tell some things about the Aryans by
virtue of the ancestral I-E words, yes? This is presumably linguistics
speaking about material culture. Contrariwise, were you to find a
material culture matching that set of nouns (with enough picky details),
you'd presumably be looking at archaeology telling you "this language or a
relative was here", no?
Here I'm going by pretty standard stuff in the study of ancient South
Asia. And if this is all wet, I'm at a loss to understand what the point
of cross-posting protohistoric discussion could *possibly* be...
[snip]
>>His position contradicts most of what we know of linguistics. Mine, as I
>>understand it, contradicts most of what we know (archaeologically
>>speaking) of language change.
>
>What *do* we know, archaeologically speaking, of language change?
>Renfrew in "Archaeology and Language" gives the following models:
>
>1. initial colonization
>2. continuous development
>3. language replacement - 3a. demography/subsistence ("wave of advance")
> 3b. elite dominance
> 3c. system collapse
>
>Archaeologically, the clues are:
>1. no human remains before a certain time (of course, older remains can
>always unexpectedly turn up).
>2. archaeological continuity, without signs of external intrusions.
>3a. external introduction of new subsistance techniques (e.g. farming)
>3b. destructions, changes in material culture afterwards.
>3c. abandonment of large population centers, gradual influx of foreign
>material culture (often "more primitive" in nature).
>
>In the case of India,
Watch it there...
The rest of your post is talking about the Indus Valley civilisation,
which is mainly in Pakistan.
When it comes to India, and *my* interests, the Ganga-Yamuna region and
Malwa, in India proper, are of much greater importance. And the whole
picture changes dramatically...
>we can rule out 1., and we can concentrate on
>distinguishing between 2. and 3.
[snip]
>The origins of the Indus Valley Civilization seem to lie in a 3a. event:
>the introduction of agriculture (initially from the West: wheat, barley,
>sheep, goats). But even here, the linguistic consequences are not
>clear:
It's been argued that the Indus Valley civilisation's *fall* was a 3a.
event. By this notion, rice cultivation in the Ganga valley being
practical meant people just no longer had any reason to live in big
crowds. I believe either Meadow or Kennedy is the reference on that; at
any rate, the paper in question is in a volume edited by Kenoyer,
something like "Old Problems and New Perspectives..."
I find this idea stunningly attractive. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to
match what's known of the first settlers in the main Doab region. On the
other hand, I'm not sure how much new land it would really take to
depopulate the north near Harappa; and it's pretty easy to ascribe the
population explosion in Gujarat to a depopulation (possibly separate in
cause) in Mohenjo-daro's region.
Oops. That leaves out the whole densely-populated Sarasvati valley
question, doesn't it? Sigh...
>The change from the Harappan phase to the Vedic phase can be seen as a
>case of continuous development (2: "Out of India"), elite dominance (2b:
>the "Aryan invasion") or system collapse (2c: Harappan civilization
>collapses, the Aryans walk in, mix with the locals, but eventually
>become the dominant factor, at least linguistically).
Well, sure.
But here's the kicker:
What explains the presence of Indo-European languages, evidently long
before 500 BC (the Buddha's time), in Bihar?
Let's go back through the list, for now flatly rejecting "out of India".
1) No good, there are settlers back to the early 2nd millennium, maybe earlier.
2) This is the "out of India" position which we've just agreed to reject.
3a) Nope, Bihar had rice etc. (and iron to cut down those trees!) before
the Punjab, right?
3b) An invasion? No sign archaeologically...
3c) There's no collapse either. Kausambi, e.g., not very far upstream
from Bihar, is a central place way, way back in the pottery sequence.
(Does anybody know, by the way, whether anyone at all has followed up in
northern India on the settlement archaeology of Makkhan Lal at Kanpur and
George Erdosy at Kausambi?)
Having rejected 3a), 3c) and 1) conclusively from evidence, we are forced
back to 3b) with no visible sign (my oft-stated view) or 2) ("out of
India").
And I repeat,
>>And there it stands until there's enough research done in the Punjab to
>>give us a great deal more to work with.
>
>Yes.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer, banker, bookseller joe@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself alone http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
But...co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now back under
discussion in news.groups!
Subject: Re: DID PHARAOH RUN ON RAILS?
From: ME@HERE.OR.THERE (Mr. Pink)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 06:39:47 GMT
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:53:33 AST, tsimms@nbnet.nb.ca (Thomas M. Simms)
wrote:
All said anddone....I heard of the theory that the Romans ended up
with the 4' ish measuremnt from discoveries that a wider wheel base
caused their horses to become exhausted faster. Now the exact doc or
program this came from is long gone from my mind, but I do remember
that tests were preformed and there was some type of calculation to
prove that 4' 8.4" is the most effeceint wheel base...
-miles
>The beginning of the following comes from Jon Maxwell:
>
>The U.S. Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4
>feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that
>gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and
>the U.S. railroads were built by English expatriates.
>
>Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail
>lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways,
>and that's the gauge they used. Why did *they* use that gauge then?
>Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools
>that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
>
>Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they
>tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old,
>long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts.
>
>So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in
>Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions.
>The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? The initial ruts,
>which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons,
>were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made
>for or by Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel
>spacing.
>
>Thus, we have the answer to the original question. The United State
>standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the
>original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot.
>
>Specs and Bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are
>handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it,
>you may be exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman chariots were
>made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back-ends of two war
>horses.
> ***
>
>*** The preceding courtesy of Jon Maxwell to which, I, Tom Simms, will
>add:
>
>Just in case you thought the Romans did this, you must go back further:
>I dug out Nicholas Reeves' new book on King Tut and looked at the
>figures for Tut's chariots. Lo and Behold, I thought I saw a difficul-
>ty. The axles were 2.3 m/ or 7' 6 1/2". This seemed much wider, that
>Tut's workers had built low slung wide Chrysler style e-e-equipment.
>But the wheels seemed to have exceptionally long hubs and the ends of
>the axles pushed out even more. Aha, how, without further data, could I
>check this?
>
>Projective Geometry to the rescue! I traced the picture of Tut's
>hunting chariot on p. 172, the stripped down version, photographed in
>the text nearly head on, so it was possible to have lines tracing the
>axle, the centre of wheel rotation and the point of wheel contact. They
>were not parallel. Aha, we had an exercise in perspective. Then it was
>possible to find what fraction of the axle extended beyond the point of
>wheel rotation. It worked out to be a slightly strong 11 3/4", maybe 11
>7/8"? Doubled to 23 1/2" (this is all easier to work out with a sexa-
>gesimal rather than a decimal system) or 24", leaves me with an estimate
>of 4' 9" or maybe 4' 8 1/2". Mighty close for doing it by eye!
>
>The Shasu or Desert People, likely forerunners of Scythians from the
>Steppes of what is now Siberia, brought the Chariot into Egypt. The
>premise that it matches two horses' arses is still alive! However, I'll
>bet they weren't Percherons. They were bred in the Middle Ages, SIU
>(So I Understand)
>
>Russia used Broad Guage. Does this reflect the use of Troikas?
>
>There's another way of looking at the Egyptian question. The tread
>imperative (4' 8 1/2" - 1.44 m) did not adjust to the Egyptian cubit,
>Royal or Common. The correct tread was neither three Royal Cubits (each
>0.525 m or 20.66" for a total of 1.575 m or 62.0" ) of seven palms (each
>0.075 m or 2.95") of four fingers (each 0.01875 m or 0.738") nor three
>Common Cubits (each 0.45 m or 17.72" for a total of 1.35 m or 53.15") of
>six palms of four fingers each of the same size as in the Royal Cubit.
>The latter is close but no bullseye, UNLESS my projective geometry is
>out. The difference between three common cubits and the Roman chariot
>tread is 1.44 - 1.35 = 0.09 m. Just about one finger! (Inside the ball
>park, maybe???)
>
>Is that close enough for Sargon of Akkad a millennium or so earlier?
>
>Tom Simms
>
Subject: Re: The State of sci.archaeology
From: grenvill@iafrica.com (Keith Grenville)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 05:57:33 GMT
On 28/11/1996 05:03, in message <57ivdl$oan@news.nyu.edu>, Paul J. Gans
wrote:
> Yes, I've been away. A chance encounter with the last
> several hundred posts to sci.archaeology has made me
> grin. I note that several well-known net-nuts have
> made their way to sci.archaeology and a number of you
> good folks have spent time trying to deal with them.
>
> Most of you have now realized that you cannot deal with
> them. This is not the first newsgroup they have invaded,
> nor will it be the last.
>
> The world is populated with many weird and wonderful people.
> The net has given many of us an opportunity to meet a number
> of them. This has increased our appreciation for the wide
> degree in variation in human myth and misconception, so it
> has not been a total loss.
>
> What many of you do not seem to realize is that you are
> infected with the complementary disease to theirs. You
> somehow feel that you *must* answer and you *must* try
> to counter their clearly odd views.
>
> This only encourages them to post again. Which, in turn,
> only causes more folks to attempt to counter them.
>
> There is only one cure and it is a hard one.
>
> Ignore them.
>
> Do not yield to the temptation to cudgel some understanding
> into their heads. You can't. Nobody has been able to do so
> before in other newsgroups, and some very very sane and
> competent folks have tried.
>
> If you feel that you simply *must* take on somebody with
> a world view quite different than your own, take on one of
> the indigenous weird people. Some of them show occasional
> signs of sanity, hard to detect though they may be.
>
> Cheers to all.
>
> ------- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
>
Thank you! I heartily endorse your comments!
--
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa
Telephone/Fax (021) 72 9471
Subject: Re: The State of sci.archaeology
From: grenvill@iafrica.com (Keith Grenville)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 05:53:22 GMT
On 28/11/1996 05:03, in message <57ivdl$oan@news.nyu.edu>, Paul J. Gans
wrote:
> Yes, I've been away. A chance encounter with the last
> several hundred posts to sci.archaeology has made me
> grin. I note that several well-known net-nuts have
> made their way to sci.archaeology and a number of you
> good folks have spent time trying to deal with them.
>
> Most of you have now realized that you cannot deal with
> them. This is not the first newsgroup they have invaded,
> nor will it be the last.
>
> The world is populated with many weird and wonderful people.
> The net has given many of us an opportunity to meet a number
> of them. This has increased our appreciation for the wide
> degree in variation in human myth and misconception, so it
> has not been a total loss.
>
> What many of you do not seem to realize is that you are
> infected with the complementary disease to theirs. You
> somehow feel that you *must* answer and you *must* try
> to counter their clearly odd views.
>
> This only encourages them to post again. Which, in turn,
> only causes more folks to attempt to counter them.
>
> There is only one cure and it is a hard one.
>
> Ignore them.
>
> Do not yield to the temptation to cudgel some understanding
> into their heads. You can't. Nobody has been able to do so
> before in other newsgroups, and some very very sane and
> competent folks have tried.
>
> If you feel that you simply *must* take on somebody with
> a world view quite different than your own, take on one of
> the indigenous weird people. Some of them show occasional
> signs of sanity, hard to detect though they may be.
>
> Cheers to all.
>
> ------- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
>
Thank you! I heartily endorse your comments!
--
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa
Telephone/Fax (021) 72 9471
Subject: Re: The State of sci.archaeology
From: grenvill@iafrica.com (Keith Grenville)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 05:54:20 GMT
On 28/11/1996 05:03, in message <57ivdl$oan@news.nyu.edu>, Paul J. Gans
wrote:
> Yes, I've been away. A chance encounter with the last
> several hundred posts to sci.archaeology has made me
> grin. I note that several well-known net-nuts have
> made their way to sci.archaeology and a number of you
> good folks have spent time trying to deal with them.
>
> Most of you have now realized that you cannot deal with
> them. This is not the first newsgroup they have invaded,
> nor will it be the last.
>
> The world is populated with many weird and wonderful people.
> The net has given many of us an opportunity to meet a number
> of them. This has increased our appreciation for the wide
> degree in variation in human myth and misconception, so it
> has not been a total loss.
>
> What many of you do not seem to realize is that you are
> infected with the complementary disease to theirs. You
> somehow feel that you *must* answer and you *must* try
> to counter their clearly odd views.
>
> This only encourages them to post again. Which, in turn,
> only causes more folks to attempt to counter them.
>
> There is only one cure and it is a hard one.
>
> Ignore them.
>
> Do not yield to the temptation to cudgel some understanding
> into their heads. You can't. Nobody has been able to do so
> before in other newsgroups, and some very very sane and
> competent folks have tried.
>
> If you feel that you simply *must* take on somebody with
> a world view quite different than your own, take on one of
> the indigenous weird people. Some of them show occasional
> signs of sanity, hard to detect though they may be.
>
> Cheers to all.
>
> ------- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
>
Thank you! I heartily endorse your comments!
--
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa
Telephone/Fax (021) 72 9471
Subject: Re: Please Read This.
From: "Victor V, Tischuk"
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 23:05:59 -0800
OK, Tami, let's see a little proof that this isn't a ripoff, such as
your transcripts, your career goals, and an essay on why you chose
sci.life-extension as one of your posts.
Scorpio wrote:
>
> Hi,
> My name is Tami and I have been going to college in Texas for two
> years now, but I've run into some trouble. I don't have enough money to
> finish my school. My parents dis-owned me when I posed for some
> provacative pictures in a magazine that somehow got back to them. I
> learned my lesson. I work as a waitress, but I can't afford my rent,
> insurance and tuition for next year. I am a new to the newsgroups. I
> hope you can help me. Every dollar will help a lot.
>
> I'm a smart business woman but I'm desperate.
> PLEASE HELP ME!
>
> Scorpio
> PO Box# 118785
> Carrollton, Tx.75011-8785
>
> I have attached a picture below for you to think about it.
>
> Thank you, Tami (Scorpio)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Subject: SAVIGNY ABBEY FRAGMENTS
From: YVES GODDE
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 09:03:19 -0800
I work as information officer at the Gadagne Museum, Historical City
museum and
International Museum of pupets. We were recently ordered a retrieve by
Mrs Hoffet who is
trying to build a catalogue of the worlwide spread fragments of the
medieval benedictine
Abbey of Savigny (close to Lyon). This work is going to constitute a part
of her thesis.
My request could be formulated as this :
Is there any fragments of Savigny Abbey in the US or in any other part of
the world ?
If so what and where are they ?
We would be very pleased if you could kindly send us any kind of
information about it in order
to enable us to get a bit further towards identification of the so called
fragments.
Best regards,
Y.G.
Contact :
e-mail : blazy@Lyon.asi.fr
address :
Yves GODDE (Information officer)
or
Mrs S.Blazy (Curator)
MUSEE GADAGNE
14, rue Gadagne F-69005 LYON
Je suis responsable de l'informatisation des collections du mus�e
historique de la ville de
Lyon (Mus�e
Gadagne). Dans ce cadre, je recherche des informations concernant les
fragments de l'ancienne Abbaye de Savigny en Lyonnais. Mme Hoffet,
historienne de l'art, qui a command� cette recherche suppose que de
nombreux fragments ont �t� diss�min�s dans le monde entier. Elle souhaite
en faire un catalogue.Cette recherche est men�e dans le cadre de travaux
de fin d'�tudes et
ses r�sultats sont destin�s � �tre publi�s.
Je vous serais vraiement reconnaissant de bien vouloir orienter ma
recherche en me fournissant tout type d'information (adresses postales,
e-mail, news-group,
sites web, etc.)
Par avance, je vous remercie de votre aide.
Y.G.
Contact :
e-mail : blazy@Lyon.asi.fr
address :
Yves GODDE (Charg� d'informatisation des Collections)
or
Mrs S.Blazy (Conservateur)
MUSEE GADAGNE
14, rue Gadagne
F-69005 LYON(Charg� d'infomatisation des collections)
