Robert Tulip

I will respond to Zwaarddijk at his blog as he has requested, and perhaps report summaries here.

Robert Price has written a blog: Robert M. Price: What I think of Acharya S/D.M. Murdock . I think this more usefully helps understanding than getting down in the weeds regarding precise interpretation of factual statements that in some cases could be more clearly stated. But there is still much to learn among the weeds, although I am not sure vitriol is helpful.

spin

Calling something vitriol because you don't like the content is just so understandable. And your tactical withdrawal without dealing with anything is only to be expected. Apology not accepted.

Robert Tulip

No I am not planning to withdraw from this discussion. I just think Zwaarddijk's tedious mass of detail (which mostly proves to be irrelevant or misunderstood on examination) is more appropriate to his blog than to this site.

You are such a master of logic spin - vitriol is not about content, it is about unjustified emotional conclusions, such as being totally incorrect in calling work "pseudoscience". I have myself made some emotional comments in this debate, but I do not think that spleen venting is helpful for understanding. While I would class your comments such as "without dealing with anything" (bolded above) as more worthy of a barrister than a scholar, and teetering on the edge of vitriol, such wrong language does not surprise me after all your outbursts in this thread.

I have found Zwaarddijk's comments on linguistics interesting, but remain convinced he tries to get the discipline of linguistics to shoulder a far bigger burden than it really can, for example in the relation between Christianity and India, and as a result he entirely fails to see the purpose of Acharya's use of the older texts. For example, could the Indo-Europeans have migrated from the steppe to India, and then from India to Israel after the collapse of the Saraswati River in 1900 BC? That seems quite plausible to me, but as ever, I remain open to the evidence.

Zwaarddijk's logic remains very flawed: mine the text for some small comment that can be questioned on technical detail (eg Polynesians sailed the open sea before they got to Polynesia), and use that to construct a farrago of calumny for reasons the reader can only guess at.

Incidentally, while I assume the correctness of Professor Stephen Oppenheimer's Journey of Mankind presented at the Bradshaw Foundation, it seems there is some academic questioning of human travel in the Pacific. BBC, The Telegraph, Cosmos, Discover and others have reported on research on early links between Australia and the Americas. Adopting a scoffing know-it-all tone is not the right approach to such matters.

Zwaarddijk

"Tedious mass"? tell that to Acharya. Further, it turns out you twist things out of context to make them seem ok. . . Apparently, I have to write long justifications for reading things *in context* now. Your love for obfuscation knows no bounds.

Dave31

Zwaarddijk's dishonesty has been exposed in this thread

stephan huller

and exceeds that of your master (or more correctly your mistress)? I find that hard to believe

Zwaarddijk

... wow, this Dave/Freethinkaluva/whatelse? is quite the peculiar person. I wonder why he won't use the same name on every forum? Maybe he is too much of a chicken to use his real name?

Also, I think every reasonable reader can see who has the facts on his side here. The quote-mine in favour of making my claim about Acharya seem to be misleading is pretty neat, too bad a full quote of Acharya's book makes it clear she supports the hypothesis I said she supports.

I hope this Freethinkaluva/Dave/whatever? looks up "hypocrite" in a dictionary.

tanya

Why is it so difficult to believe, stephan?
If "vitriol" is not an acceptable term, to apply to this garbage which Zwaarddijk has spewed out, here, on this forum, what word would you prefer, spin? Learned opinion? Fact driven hypotheses? Revolutionary conceptual novelty? I find vitriol much too tame, myself. VOMIT is a better choice.

And, just how, senor, did YOU "deal with anything"? No. You "withdrew", claiming that the discussion on polynesia was cluttered, chaotic, or unkempt. Why? unclutter it, spin. Show us the data to refute the notion that Easter Island had been accessed from Polynesia, (and therefore, perhaps, South America as well, given the proximity between the two---hence, the possibility of a link between the temples of the new world, and the pyramids of the old.)

If Acharya has erred, spin & stephan, then SHOW US THE BEEF. It is so childish for the two of you to write in the same fashion as abe and zwardick. What do you two accomplish by adding to their nonsense? If either of you have some data, refuting the notion that Homo was a distinct genus 2.5 million years ago, SPEAK UP. If not, then, devote your energy to ridiculing the guy who blames her for writing that Homo existed that far back in archaeological history.

I suppose that if one accepts the bible as having some kind of historical accuracy, then perhaps there is some reason to oppose the spectrometric data, as derived from Satan's evil hand.....

:devil1:

Zwaarddijk

Tanya, learn what the fuck "burden of evidence" means. It's quite important wrt most of the claims Acharya makes.

Toto

Everyone - cool it. Don't make me close this thread.