Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Fri 17 Oct 2008 15:51 Post subject:
Egmond Codfried wrote:
So you will not only be famous for The Colorline, Second Life and what not, but finding something of interest with the European Nobility too! The intermarriage is the very cornerstone of the Nobility. They took this Blue blood thing most seriously. Incidently I have been reading about books bound in human leather in many great libraries. There could be just the random DNA you are talking about.
Let's don't get the cart ahead of the horse just yet.
You must realize any anthropological theories in today's day and age that have to do with race need to be backed up by DNA evidence, if not it will be summarily dismissed.
I understand your interest and excitement on this issue, as I am interested in the DNA contributions of the Taino indians on the Dominican Republic population, but without DNA evidence there is no future for these hypothesis, no matter how compelling they might seem to be.
These charlatans who promote these type of things apparently can't see that they have a big "agenda" printed on their forehead.
I myself am a history and cultural anthropology fan but would never compromise the truth in order to prove an objective, even I somehow had something to benefit it.
I'm not a charlatan, a charlatan is a bad person, and it’s hurtful to be included in 'These charlatans.'
What is this 'big agenda' I'm supposed to have, what does it say, based on which of my postings?
Where did I 'compromise the truth,' which I take to meaning that I consciously lied to prove a objective.
Where did I lie? How do I benefit from lying over here?
By answering these reasonable questions you might make me mend my evil ways and approach my research in a better way.
Not that I want to rush you or anything, but could you please attent to these questions, mr Sweet. Doing so will permit me to learn more about fairness.
Not that I want to rush you or anything, but could you please attent to these questions, mr Sweet.
I do not know the answers to your questions. You need to ask those questions of Chip, who may or may not choose to answer them. If you want my honest opinion as to whether you are a "crank," just ask.
Crank: An eccentric person, especially one who is unduly zealous; a whimsically eccentric person; one given to fantastic or impracticable projects; one whose judgment is perverted in respect to a particular matter.
Not that I want to rush you or anything, but could you please attent to these questions, mr Sweet.
I do not know the answers to your questions. You need to ask those questions of Chip, who may or may not choose to answer them. If you want my honest opinion as to whether you are a "crank," just ask.
Crank: An eccentric person, especially one who is unduly zealous; a whimsically eccentric person; one given to fantastic or impracticable projects; one whose judgment is perverted in respect to a particular matter.
This is the funniest thing! You have just written down my own more benign view of you. In general I believe that when people, totally uncalled for, launch into statements like these they are actually describing themselves. When somebody who does not know you calls you a charlatan, well there you have a real charlatan just in front of you, Yessirree! However these days it occurs to me that most of the posting are Rules related, not scientific discourse. So we come of sounding like Pharisees (in the colloquial meaning). Regarding science I look up to Mr. Edison who invented the light bulb, he did not go and buy it at the dry goods counter. He invented it, saw its uses, and then presented it to the public. So now we have light bulbs all over the place. It was really not the other way around.
Quote:
Because of this, the experts of the law set about "hedging" the Mosaic law with precepts so as to make its violation almost impossible. They also added to these laws and precepts, customs which had been handed down through the years. They took these precepts to such extremes that the original intent of the written law was often lost, having been made of no effect by the oral laws and traditions which they had brought in.
H. L. Ellison says,
"All these developments together with thirty one customs of 'immemorial usage' formed the 'oral law'."
To the Pharisee, keeping the law (both written and oral) was everything. The condition of a person's heart towards God was unimportant. Because of their strict adherence to levitical laws of purity, they kept themselves separate from gentile 'sinners' (on whom they looked down), for fear of being defiled.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
