88 replies to this topic

[TheSearcher]

Theresa Lee Clark, on 04 February 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

There are to many misconceptions here to even take this conversation seriously. Please make friends with and talk to some people of the "race/races" you discuss before trying to become an authority on them. By the way I am Inupiaq.

Well mate, we all know L to often run with an idea and just go with what he knows, although sometimes his sources are a bit sketchy, we do like him here he isn't a bad sort.
Maybe you'd want to point out some of the misconceptions and educate him (we've all done so at one time or another I'm sure, innit L?). I certainly would like to hear more from an actual Inupiaq. I do find your culture very interesting but I admit I know precious little about it other than the general things and I'm sure most of it is a misconception.

And also, welcome to UM!

[jaylemurph]

Theresa Lee Clark, on 04 February 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

There are to many misconceptions here to even take this conversation seriously. Please make friends with and talk to some people of the "race/races" you discuss before trying to become an authority on them. By the way I am Inupiaq.

'Eskimo' isn't the favoured terms for your people, is it? I was under the impression the polite term to use was Inuit, since "eskimo" was a slur used by another First Nations group and means something like "Eater of Raw Meat."

From what I've seen recently, The L has some... solipsistic (at best) views about history and culture, and like others, that gives him the ability to ponitificate without the necessity of knowing what he's talking about. So I'm glad who does was able to come in and provide some widsom. :0)

--Jaylemurph

[the L]

jaylemurph, on 07 February 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

From what I've seen recently, The L has some... solipsistic (at best) views about history and culture, and like others, that gives him the ability to ponitificate without the necessity of knowing what he's talking about. So I'm glad who does was able to come in and provide some widsom. :0)

--Jaylemurph

Tells a person who even doesnt knoe what history is.

jaylemurph, on 31 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

History isn't a science or a rational subject. It's a study of humans and human actions.

--Jaylemurph

Jay, you seems like smart person. If you want to use word history you might first learn what does it mean and what actually history is.
Also to participate in alternative history debate you must first know what is history to spoke about alternatives.
As one said before you must first know sided of the box to talk about out of box. Which obviously you dont know.

Well, allow me to educate you. History is science.
And if you ever want developed lecture I will be here to help you about it.
Dont take this as insult.

[TheSearcher]

the L, on 07 February 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Tells a person who even doesnt knoe what history is.

Jay, you seems like smart person. If you want to use word history you might first learn what does it mean and what actually history is.
Also to participate in alternative history debate you must first know what is history to spoke about alternatives.
As one said before you must first know sided of the box to talk about out of box. Which obviously you dont know.

Well, allow me to educate you. History is science.
And if you ever want developed lecture I will be here to help you about it.
Dont take this as insult.

L, to be honest Jayle has shown more insight and knowledge about science and history than most people here, including you and me both, so that was uncalled for and rather a silly comment to make.

And don't take this as an insult, but your sourcing often is sometimes rather sketchy and you do tend to go on and on about things, even though enough people try to tell you what's BS and what's not, or as you so delightfully put it, to "educate" you.

[the L]

TheSearcher, on 06 February 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Well mate, we all know L to often run with an idea and just go with what he knows, although sometimes his sources are a bit sketchy, we do like him here he isn't a bad sort.
Maybe you'd want to point out some of the misconceptions and educate him (we've all done so at one time or another I'm sure, innit L?). I certainly would like to hear more from an actual Inupiaq. I do find your culture very interesting but I admit I know precious little about it other than the general things and I'm sure most of it is a misconception.

I doubt that Theresa Lee Clark will ever show up because obviously she realized that there is no misconceptions here.

[the L]

TheSearcher, on 07 February 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

L, to be honest Jayle has shown more insight and knowledge about science and in particular history than most people here, including you and me both, so that was uncalled for and rather a silly comment to make.

And don't take this as an insult, but your sourcing often is sometimes rather sketchy and you do tend to go on and on about things, even though enough people try to tell you what's BS and what's not, or as you so delightfully put it, to "educate" you.

There you go. I correct your post.
To be honest with you Searcher, Jayle doesnt know what he is talking about. His insights and knowledge about science and history (lol) migth be greater then mine. Which I doubt.
I dont know what of my sourcing you find sketchy. You never asked. Maybe you are affraid to see truth. If you do I would proove you different. Or admiting I was wrong.
Also no offence but I realy dont know who are those people who tells me what BS and whats not.
Yes I delightfully put it word "educate." Because its obvious that Jay need lecture about whats history. Because he doesnt know it. And if you knew better ( not an insult,just a recognition ) you would click like button on my post and keep your mouth shut in respect to your mate. But thats virtue. To protect yours mate back even if he is utterly wrong.

Please read again yours mate post then stop and think for a second:

History isn't a science or a rational subject.



Allow me to be one who will tell you whats BS and what isnt.
This Jay line is bunch of BS. And sure isnt rational.
And if you agree with it thats goes for you aswell.

And someone mention wisdom here...
If I was malicious I would used it as redicule signature. Because it is one of the greatest loony/fringe hypothesis I heard.
Although I like to discuss fringe theories a lot.

Edited by the L, 07 February 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[TheSearcher]

Well L, lets agree to disagree, because you telling me to shut my mouth and like your post, when I obviously disagree with your post and the rather arrogant way you just answered, just cost you a lot of respect in my book.

[redhen]

There's nothing romantic about these stunted, stone age societies.

According to census data for Canadian Inuit populations from 1900 to 1932, the ratio was heavily skewed, with 173 boys per 100 girls (Smith&Smith,1994). Early explorers reported female infanticide as customary, with one expedition in 1931 reporting a female infanticide rate of 66 percent (Smith&Smith,1994). This practice is no longer evidenced, and anthropologists have surmised that the Inuit practice of female infanticide subsided as western technology and industry replaced traditional hunting.

Smith, E., Smith,S. (1994) Inuit Sex-Ratio Variation
Current Anthropology 35: 595-624

[wolfknight]

Thank you for sharing a great story on the Eskimo. I found it a very interresting read,

[the L]

I apologized Searcher because my post look arogant. You know how much I respect you and how much I like reading your posts. Well maybe you dont know but I do. Some of your posts I soaked. You are smart and clever. Well of knowledge. But you protecting a man who is obviously utterly wrong. Nothing wrong being wrong.
Its process of learning. But Jay show low qualities. He attacks me on personal level. Several times. He dont attack arguments. He fight people. Obviously thats because his lack of knowledge. No matter who you see him. Jay maybe know some parts of history but Jay simply doesnt know what history is.
Jay gives lectures about history yet this guy doesnt even know what history is. Isnt that irony? But hey I knew how is to be wrong. Im often wrong. And when someone prooves me that Im wrong I admit it. You spoke how my sources are sketchy. Well I asked you to show me? Yet you didnt.

I didnt said you that you keep yours mouth shut in general conversation. Im usualy that guy. Who reads you. But in this case, you should know that history is science and that Im here right. So instead protecting your mate you should know better and do what any objective person would do.
He is utterly wrong. And he is arogant. And anyone who is on his side deserves same as he. Which is hard core facts. Sorry again if you find this disturbing in anyway. And yes I agree we dont agree. But may I ask you what do you think science is? What do you think history is? If not science.



Im humble,calm person. I act like student. In fact recently I become student. And if Jay wants to learn something he must act like student too. If he wants to be lecturer then he must be able to defend his view and answer on all students questions.

Edit: Im confident. Maybe you replace that for arogance. Maybe my negative vibe toward Jay gone unrightously to you.

Edited by the L, 07 February 2013 - 02:11 PM.

[the L]

wolfknight, on 07 February 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Thank you for sharing a great story on the Eskimo. I found it a very interresting read,

Thanks a lot.

[jaylemurph]

the L, on 07 February 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Tells a person who even doesnt knoe what history is.




Jay, you seems like smart person. If you want to use word history you might first learn what does it mean and what actually history is.
Also to participate in alternative history debate you must first know what is history to spoke about alternatives.
As one said before you must first know sided of the box to talk about out of box. Which obviously you dont know.

Well, allow me to educate you. History is science.
And if you ever want developed lecture I will be here to help you about it.
Dont take this as insult.

No offense, L, but as to the nature of history, I'm going to trust the academic historians I know, work with, and were taught by over you. Feel free to look up my credentials, which appear elsewhere on this site, but telling me I don't know what history is the very soul of the sort of arrogance you decry.

--Jaylemurph

[Abramelin]

The "Oera Linda Book" thread is about language and etymology, and that for several years now.

You stay away deliberately, right?

Why?

.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 February 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[the L]

jaylemurph, on 08 February 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

I'm going to trust the academic historians I know.

Same here. Obviously only NY historians have diffrent view then rest of the world. I personally know several historians who teach me that is science.
But you dont need academics to tell you that. Use logic and common sense. What is science? Organized knowledge. If history isnt organized then I dont know what is.
History is science and therefore is self correcting. You might think its not because there is no white uniforms and lab. Allow me to inform you that history is best lab we have. Its only lab where you can test idea. Or as Etienne Gilson said "History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought."
I dont know how do you call it in your country but in my country we call it Humanistic science. And if you want to study history you go to college of Humanistic science.
Same thing in Germany (historical science) and so on. Also when historians gather to discuss open things its called Congress of historical science.
I realy think that maybe its US thing. I remember Shadowsot claimed once that history is method. Whatever that means.

[Everdred]

the L, on 08 February 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

Same here. Obviously only NY historians have diffrent view then rest of the world. I personally know several historians who teach me that is science.
But you dont need academics to tell you that. Use logic and common sense. What is science? Organized knowledge. If history isnt organized then I dont know what is.
History is science and therefore is self correcting. You might think its not because there is no white uniforms and lab. Allow me to inform you that history is best lab we have. Its only lab where you can test idea. Or as Etienne Gilson said "History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought."
I dont know how do you call it in your country but in my country we call it Humanistic science. And if you want to study history you go to college of Humanistic science.
Same thing in Germany (historical science) and so on. Also when historians gather to discuss open things its called Congress of historical science.
I realy think that maybe its US thing. I remember Shadowsot claimed once that history is method. Whatever that means.

Science is the application of the scientific method.  You can't apply the scientific method to history, ergo history is not science.

History is the study of the written records of mankind.  Modern historians do indeed apply critical methodology to examining and synthesizing texts, and do indeed draw on archaeology (especially for older periods) in addition to written records, but that's not enough to make it scientific.