|
|
Post by DmitrySlavist on Jul 31, 2005 14:03:56 GMT -5
They used to call Indo-Europeans "Indo-Germanics"!!!! As if the Germanics had anything to do with antique civilization (a lot more with its collapse actually).  The Germanics weren't described well by Tacitus, the best source on them. Of course, he couldnt tell an actual Germanic tribe frokm a Slavic one. One good expression from 19th century West gave the world: "Whatever happens, we have got, The Maxim gun and they have not." -A popular jingle quite popular with the imperialists in the late 19th and early 20th Century. (Quoted by Isaac Asimov in "Asimov's New Guide to Science", Penguin Books 1987, page 495) >>>In other words: we are the civilized people and everyone must bow down. We do lip service to democracy and civilizing the "heathen" but if there's dissent, we can always shoot them. The colonials and "protectorate people" (Slavs, Arabs, Mexicans, etc.)have learned this lesson well. |
|
|
|
Post by Danik on Aug 8, 2005 3:12:22 GMT -5
"Well first of all I'm not trying to be extreme. I'm just writing what is a fact. Austrian has Slavic genes, but he doesn't consider himself Slavic nor he respects any Slavic way, so screw him. I just told you what genetic studies have proven."
Well its been proven that Serbs have very diferent genes as russians, and serbs are the most diferent from russians (15% do our genes look alike or somthing like that) but still they are our dearest cuzins.
And people nobody said that the 19 century version is the truth. I said and many others said that it is a FRAUD but still what brumi claims is interesting but hangs on a lose information.
Start reading posts before you guys reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by DmitrySlavist on Aug 8, 2005 13:34:10 GMT -5
Well, I agree that there are still many loose ends here, but it is still valid and should be collected like pieces of a puzzle.
Once again, this is theory is supported by many professors, unfortunately most of them are Slovenian, I think.
I dont mean this in a bad way. Its just that it could be that some of them might want to create a Slovenian supremacy legend or something.
But of course, they did much research and comparison and that shouldnt be discounted.
What I mean is that this theory will be pushed on international academics arena, and sooner or later, other Slavic and Western scientists will be working on it.
Frankly, I dont need a Western "blessing" here. All I need is for Slavic academics to agree on this theory, and then all doubts will be removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Aug 8, 2005 14:39:17 GMT -5
Well, skepticism sometimes payoff. Couple years ago I read an interview with a Russian antropologist - or somthing similar - and he also claimed almost all ancient European Civilisations were Russian. True crazy talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boris Sarafov on Aug 8, 2005 15:11:43 GMT -5
Well, skepticism sometimes payoff. Couple years ago I read an interview with a Russian antropologist - or somthing similar - and he also claimed almost all ancient European Civilisations were Russian. True crazy talk. Im suprised you didnt believe it |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Aug 8, 2005 15:14:46 GMT -5
Well, skepticism sometimes payoff. Couple years ago I read an interview with a Russian antropologist - or somthing similar - and he also claimed almost all ancient European Civilisations were Russian. True crazy talk. Im suprised you didnt believe it Differently from some people I am not a schizophrenic egomaniac. |
|
|
|
Post by Boris Sarafov on Aug 8, 2005 15:30:44 GMT -5
Im suprised you didnt believe it Differently from some people I am not a schizophrenic egomaniac. ARe you sure  |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Aug 8, 2005 15:41:05 GMT -5
Differently from some people I am not a schizophrenic egomaniac. ARe you sure As much as I know you are, on the other hand. |
|
|
|
Post by brumi on Aug 8, 2005 16:47:41 GMT -5
If I told you that there is firm evidence, 100% assurance that something in ancient past happened and people can prove it, yet you have heard it only for 5 minutes, not overlooked the evidence and didn't even try to think about it because you have been taught differently since school, how can you be sure it is not true? Because it sounds crazy? Nah, nah… until you sit down take about 20 or was it 30 books, I can’t remember, and read them, then spend 6 to 8 months extensively thinking about, meaning no going out, no parties. Just sit down and think about it from every aspect. Then go to a museum every day and observe the findings which are mentioned in the book and have a decent conversation with the author of the book, if he is not dead already, then maybe you could say that his conclusions are inaccurate. I know I spend my life with the description above. Youch! In other words, to say it is lunacy you have to be a lunatic. So please, no insults?  ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Argumentum ad ignorantium" - the fallacy of argument from ignorance. An argument that says something is true because nobody has proved it false, or that something is false because nobody has proved it true. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- That is what I avoid at all cost. |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Aug 8, 2005 19:22:27 GMT -5
If I told you that there is firm evidence, 100% assurance that something in ancient past happened and people can prove it, yet you have heard it only for 5 minutes, not overlooked the evidence and didn't even try to think about it because you have been taught differently since school, how can you be sure it is not true? Because it sounds crazy? Nah, nah… until you sit down take about 20 or was it 30 books, I can’t remember, and read them, then spend 6 to 8 months extensively thinking about, meaning no going out, no parties. Just sit down and think about it from every aspect. Then go to a museum every day and observe the findings which are mentioned in the book and have a decent conversation with the author of the book, if he is not dead already, then maybe you could say that his conclusions are inaccurate. I know I spend my life with the description above. Youch! In other words, to say it is lunacy you have to be a lunatic. So please, no insults? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Argumentum ad ignorantium" - the fallacy of argument from ignorance. An argument that says something is true because nobody has proved it false, or that something is false because nobody has proved it true. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- That is what I avoid at all cost. What is your problem? You dont have to be overly sensitive. I was just mentioning this interview I read with a Russian scholar, which sounded pretty crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Boris Sarafov on Aug 8, 2005 19:28:36 GMT -5
If I told you that there is firm evidence, 100% assurance that something in ancient past happened and people can prove it, yet you have heard it only for 5 minutes, not overlooked the evidence and didn't even try to think about it because you have been taught differently since school, how can you be sure it is not true? Because it sounds crazy? Nah, nah… until you sit down take about 20 or was it 30 books, I can’t remember, and read them, then spend 6 to 8 months extensively thinking about, meaning no going out, no parties. Just sit down and think about it from every aspect. Then go to a museum every day and observe the findings which are mentioned in the book and have a decent conversation with the author of the book, if he is not dead already, then maybe you could say that his conclusions are inaccurate. I know I spend my life with the description above. Youch! In other words, to say it is lunacy you have to be a lunatic. So please, no insults? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Argumentum ad ignorantium" - the fallacy of argument from ignorance. An argument that says something is true because nobody has proved it false, or that something is false because nobody has proved it true. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- That is what I avoid at all cost. What is your problem? You dont have to be overly sensitive. I was just mentioning this interview I read with a Russian scholar, which sounded pretty crazy. Better stop trolling. |
|
|
|
Post by brumi on Aug 9, 2005 5:47:39 GMT -5
Well ok then. But next say it like this: "It sounded crazy to me". It is like saying chicken tastes bad, but everyone knows it's good. Only because you don't like it doesn't mean we don't. A simple matter of wording. And trust me many problems arose because people misunderstood what as written. Many times even I write something completely different than I intended.  |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Aug 9, 2005 10:12:49 GMT -5
Well ok then. But next say it like this: "It sounded crazy to me". It is like saying chicken tastes bad, but everyone knows it's good. Only because you don't like it doesn't mean we don't. A simple matter of wording. And trust me many problems arose because people misunderstood what as written. Many times even I write something completely different than I intended. Who is everybody? Lighten up! No one took that Russian seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Boris Sarafov on Aug 9, 2005 11:12:07 GMT -5
HA!!
Im trolling, Im just straightening the facts, here. You accuse everyone of Lunacy, if they dont belive what you believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Aug 9, 2005 11:31:57 GMT -5
HA!! Im trolling, Im just straightening the facts, here. You accuse everyone of Lunacy, if they dont belive what you believe. All these theories are pure lunacy. I read the interview, I know what I am talking about. Yes, you keep trolling, mostly by calling other retards, idiots, etc. I will not keep warning you forever. |
|
