Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Hinduism and Aryan


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#46    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 26 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 26 November 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

About Aryans/Indo-Europeans in India. This quote puts then appearing approximately 1 500 BC
"According to earlier research, India’s initial settlers arrived around 60,000 years ago. Speakers of Dravidian languages arrived roughly 5,000 years ago, followed by Indo-European speakers approximately 3,500 years ago. If the new analysis holds up, these early populations wouldn’t have contributed to modern mainland India’s genetic makeup. And founding populations of today’s Indian groups wouldn’t have reached South Asia until well after Indo-European speakers"

Link to the source of quote
http://www.usnews.co...ronged-ancestry

Which means that the Aryans (genetically) have nothing to do with the modern Indians who came after them. Since we know what genetic groups were involved in early India, both the indigenous as well as the inward migrating groups, this still invalidates the AIT.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#47    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 26 November 2012 - 08:44 PM

View Postme-wonders, on 26 November 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

But your facts are limited, and you are ignoring some facts. Last night I began listening to college lectures about conversation, and one studied indicated that men are more apt to lead conversations with women, because women pay attention to what the man is saying, and respond to what he is saying. While men will do what you are doing. Fail to pick on what is being said, and remain narrowly focused. This forum is not a serious one, and you are being overly serious, like a religious fanatic! It is like you think found a stick you can beat me with, and are thumbing on your bible of right facts. I did something that justifies your behavior? Come on, when you first objected to the gene research, I acknowledge the disagreement about Aryans. It is now time to move on, and I question why you are having a problem with that? What is your intent?

You are behaving like a young male, or a fanatical old one, and this is not the best behavior for these forums. Stop ignoring the rest of the discussion if you are sincerely interesting in the subject. You remind me of a oung man who caused me to leave another forum. His avatar was of man pointing a gun, clearly announcing his intent to find victims and shot to kill. That appears to be what you are doing, cruising the forums for some logic you can attack, and treating these discussion as win/loose events. Generally the moderators are also males who agree with this challenge to logic and are insensitive to the insults, but this is not a science forum. Unexplained Mysteries invites discussions that are speculative and not hard science, and your behavior ruins the fun. It may be fun for you to win the argument, but it is no fun for anyone else. You have dominated this thread and I don't see other posters engaging in the discussion. The arguing has been unpleasant. Yes, there are arguments against the Aryan theory and there are arguments supporting the Aryan theory and this is what makes a mystery. We are here to explore these mysteries, not to insult people and attack them. Male domination has its benefits and its draw backs, and if you insisting on fighting, I will continue to point out the problems with your behavior, and hopefully a more mature and educated male will step in and provide some desirable leadership.

What facts? The Aryan Invasion theory has been proven to be wrong, no matter how many times you claim it's still debatable. There is no radioactivity at Mohenjo Daro nor are there radioactive skeletons strewn throughout the streets there.

Where genetics is concerned, there is no disagreement about the AIT. Except by die-hard believers who wouldn't believe the sun is up even if they were staring straight at it.

What discussion? You started out with a faulty premise to begin with and have taken exception to the fact that it's faulty. You've presented no actual facts while claiming, repeatedly, that the AIT is a matter of debate. It's not, it's defunct. As well as presenting other known fabrications, concerning Mohenjo Daro and radioactive skeletons, as if they have any merit when they don't. Do you have something to show that the AIT actually IS valid and that there actually were radioactive skeletons at Mohenjo Daro?

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#48    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:57 PM

Okay here are some facts.  Please read them.



Quote

http://tanmoy.tripod...ngal/races.html

In India, from anthropometric studies, one used to find traces of seven races of humans who intermixed to create the Indian race. Modern studies within regional contexts are still rare; so one mostly has to look back to the global genetic studies. Northwest India shares with west Asia and eastern Europe (and pockets in Africa and South East Asia) the maximum heterozygosity known among world populations, with means between 0.35 and 0.37; and the rest of India (and Europe) is only slightly lower: 0.33 to 0.35. This shows the vast amount of admixture that has gone on in these regions: to be contrasted against Australia which has a homozygosity of less than 0.25. It is currently accepted that at least four strata are visible in the populations in different parts of India.
  • An australoid-veddoid substratum.
  • A migration from the east of Austrasiatic and sino-tibetan language speaking groups.
  • Neolithic migrations from western Iran, probably proto-Dravidian.
  • The aryan expansion from north of Caspian sea via Turkmenia and Northern Iran.
Thus, for example, some researchers have concluded that the most likely synsthesis of different lines of evidence is that
  • the Austric language speakers came to India c. 50–65 Ka BP from the northeast
  • the Dravidian speakers c. 8–4000 BC from the mideast with knowledge of wheat cultivation and cattle, sheep, and goat domestication (all middle eastern developments around 8000 BC),
  • the Indo-europeans in several waves since 4000–1500 BC with horses (domesticated c. 4000 BC around Ukraine; appears to move from northwest India in about 1900 BC to southeast India in 100 BC) and/or iron (used around 3000 BC in Anatolia; also appears to move from North West India in 900 BC to South East India in 400 BC; iron and horses were almost certainly distinct cultural traits which were not associated with one another), they had distinctive burial styles and may have performed cremation, the painted grey ware pottery associated with these people fits the iron users more than the horse riders;
  • and in this mix, the Sino-Tibetans joined in in several waves since 8–6 Ka years BP bringing in rice cultivation (if it is not of separate origin in the Indian region, it may have started in south-east Asia around 8 Ka BP).



Edited by me-wonders, 27 November 2012 - 04:00 PM.


#49    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:17 PM

View Postme-wonders, on 27 November 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Okay here are some facts.  Please read them.

Most of this is what I've been saying from the start. This, however, is known to be wrong and shouldn't have been included:

Quote

4.  The aryan expansion from north of Caspian sea via Turkmenia and Northern Iran.

Sounds like whomever wrote this is just can't let go of a dead premise. The rest is pretty solid.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#50    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:02 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 26 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

What facts? The Aryan Invasion theory has been proven to be wrong, no matter how many times you claim it's still debatable. There is no radioactivity at Mohenjo Daro nor are there radioactive skeletons strewn throughout the streets there.

Where genetics is concerned, there is no disagreement about the AIT. Except by die-hard believers who wouldn't believe the sun is up even if they were staring straight at it.

What discussion? You started out with a faulty premise to begin with and have taken exception to the fact that it's faulty. You've presented no actual facts while claiming, repeatedly, that the AIT is a matter of debate. It's not, it's defunct. As well as presenting other known fabrications, concerning Mohenjo Daro and radioactive skeletons, as if they have any merit when they don't. Do you have something to show that the AIT actually IS valid and that there actually were radioactive skeletons at Mohenjo Daro?

cormac

You are sounding like a record stuck in a grove.  I have a child to watch and have to sign out, but here is an explanation of genetics and the caste system that might meet your standards?  At least everyone else can see there is disagreement with the position you have taken.   http://genome.cshlp....t/11/6/994.full


#51    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:21 PM

View Postme-wonders, on 27 November 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

You are sounding like a record stuck in a grove.  I have a child to watch and have to sign out, but here is an explanation of genetics and the caste system that might meet your standards?  At least everyone else can see there is disagreement with the position you have taken.   http://genome.cshlp....t/11/6/994.full

From your own link:

Quote

A comparison of haplogroup-M haplotypes from East Africa and India has suggested that this southern route may have been one of the original dispersal pathways of anatomically modern humans out of Africa (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999a). Together, these data support our previous suggestion (Kivisild et al. 1999) that India may have been inhabited by at least two successive late Pleistocene migrations, consistent with the hypothesis of Lahr and Foley (1994). It also adds to the growing evidence that the subcontinent of India has been a major corridor for the migration of people between Africa, Western Asia, and Southeast Asia (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

None of this validates the Aryan Invasion Theory, the original claim of which deals with a (north) Central Asian origin.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#52    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,382 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:31 AM

View Postme-wonders, on 27 November 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Okay here are some facts.  Please read them.

Just a note or two on your "facts".

1) The author of your source would appear to be rather anonymous.

2) From a bioanthropological perspective, the concept of "race" is somewhat outdated. We are all of the human race. Will defer from further elaboration due to time constraints. That said, and generally for the purposes of such aspects as law enforcement identification, certain morphological characteristics that have (in the past) evolved amongst certain large population groups are utilized. These fall into the rather commonly conceived categories of Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. Within these categories there is enough individual skeletal variation to lay rest to the concept of "race". Am quite unaware of any credible source that would propose the concept of seven "races" on a global and/or a regional level.

3) From your "reference":

At this stage of this project, I do not provide references to the original articles as I am concentrating more on finishing an overview. This lack of verifiable references to the original sources means one should not take these pags as serious historical writing, just my musings on the origins and development of a culture and a people. (Emphasis added).

http://tanmoy.tripod...ngal/index.html

Thus, one may wish to be a bit more circumspect in regards to their sources of data.

.


#53    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,785 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:44 AM

I think a nation does not have to be genetically changed in order to be Invaded. Look at the English in 1066. Their noble population changed, but not the commoner/peasent population. Yet, the language was changed immensely.

Also Japan, post WW2. There is very little genetic change amoung the Japanese, yet their culture changed tremendously from Eastern agricultural to Western industrial almost overnight. That was an influence of the conquoring of Japan by the Allies.

So couldn't the Arayan Invasion of India be an invasion of philosophy and leadership, rather then a horde of barbarians?

I've read that the Castes of India have genetic traits that are caste dominant. So that each caste is kind of a tribe that stays to themselves genetically. One theory on the Aryans is that the Brahmans are the decendants of the invaders. And supposedly they are even more genetically distinct then the other castes, and have more in common with the nations to their west then any other group in India.

Food for discussion...

Edited by DieChecker, 28 November 2012 - 01:44 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#54    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:34 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 28 November 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

I think a nation does not have to be genetically changed in order to be Invaded. Look at the English in 1066. Their noble population changed, but not the commoner/peasent population. Yet, the language was changed immensely.

Also Japan, post WW2. There is very little genetic change amoung the Japanese, yet their culture changed tremendously from Eastern agricultural to Western industrial almost overnight. That was an influence of the conquoring of Japan by the Allies.

So couldn't the Arayan Invasion of India be an invasion of philosophy and leadership, rather then a horde of barbarians?

I've read that the Castes of India have genetic traits that are caste dominant. So that each caste is kind of a tribe that stays to themselves genetically. One theory on the Aryans is that the Brahmans are the decendants of the invaders. And supposedly they are even more genetically distinct then the other castes, and have more in common with the nations to their west then any other group in India.

Food for discussion...

That's not really the same thing DieChecker, since the various peoples in and around England and vicinity shared many of the same haplogroups/subgroups anyway due to closeness in geography. This would not be true of the Aryan Invasion Theory, particularly since it's presented as originating from Central Asia. We know, with a decent degree of accuracy, what groups that would have involved yet they do not show up in the genetics of India. The closest to the AIT that one could get, outside of the Indus Valley Civilization or India, is a genetic relationship with Persia or the Middle East.

We're not talking about over some 67 years though, but over a timeframe of some 3500 years. One wouldn't find a genetic difference over the former, but would over the latter, particularly if there was a male dominated invasion involved which is the basis of the AIT.

And that's the crux of the problem with the AIT, they have more in common with the nations of the west meaning Persia and the Middle East. This again doesn't support the AIT as presented, neither in time nor location of origin. Which as I said earlier makes the Aryan Invasion Theory meaningless.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#55    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,785 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:50 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 November 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

That's not really the same thing DieChecker, since the various peoples in and around England and vicinity shared many of the same haplogroups/subgroups anyway due to closeness in geography.
Just pointing out that an Invasion does not necessarily mean a tidalwave of soldiers and settlers. It can be philosophical, religous or technological. One topic that is used to support an Aryan Invasion is the introduction of the Chariot. Supposedly the northern nations/tribes had the chariot and its use spread into India around the time of the AIT. Just because there is no Genetic markers indicating a great migration does not mean that the existing society was not "invaded" and radically changed during the timeframe in question.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#56    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 03:02 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 28 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

Just pointing out that an Invasion does not necessarily mean a tidalwave of soldiers and settlers. It can be philosophical, religous or technological. One topic that is used to support an Aryan Invasion is the introduction of the Chariot. Supposedly the northern nations/tribes had the chariot and its use spread into India around the time of the AIT. Just because there is no Genetic markers indicating a great migration does not mean that the existing society was not "invaded" and radically changed during the timeframe in question.

Doesn't necessarily have to be military, but still would constitute a large influx of peoples over a short time. And where the AIT is being used to supposedly substantiate the Vedic Texts concerning wars and such then yes, genetics would be involved. What you're talking about is really a migration and not an invasion, which is still not evidenced c.1500 BC which is the specific date given for the AIT. The theory pretty much does itself in without any outside help, since we see migrations into India both a good deal before this date as well as long after this date.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#57    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,529 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 28 November 2012 - 03:21 AM

View Postme-wonders, on 23 November 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

I considered buy the Daily Life lectures.  Are they worth the price?  Not that it matters as I spent my budget plus some.  Sometimes I really like the lectures, and sometimes I am disappointed and wish I made other choices.

As for having too much faith in a professor's knowledge, I had a psychology professor who told the whole class women who are raped, want to be raped.  Not exactly what a professor should be saying to a room full of young men, barely able to control their hormonal urges.  I could list several other outrageous things professors have said.  Don't worry, I do not have undying faith in what professors say.  I mentioned the professor to argue my argument was not based on an outdated, fringe web site, but an up to date, highly respected professor's lectures.  This professor never mentioned gene research but cultural change.  I posted several links, all saying different things, and I am not arguing any of them is God's truth.   So what if the gene link is wrong.  I think I posted the argument against it.   Okay, lets move on.

Almost every lecture set I've purchased from TTC has been worth the price. I stress "almost" because a couple of them failed to engage my interest from start to finish. That's hardly an indictment of TTC, however, when you consider I've purchased 28 different lecture sets from them and am bound to purchase more. I'm about a third of the way through the Daily Life lectures and am enjoying them a lot. Yes, I consider them worth the expense. Just the same, I have never purchased a lecture set at its full price. TTC runs sales all the time, so if there's a particular set in which you're interested, it's bound to be on sale sooner rather than later. Also, I exclusively purchase the audio downloads as m4b files for my iPod, and this tends to be less expensive than alternatives like the DVDs.

The experience with this professor of yours is regrettable. I would've gotten up and walked out of the room. No one is saying professors are infallible, and indeed every field or profession has its share of nut cases, but they're the exception to the rule. I've personally worked with a number of Egyptologists, anthropologists, and other specialists, and while I'd consider a couple of them to be eccentric, they're all terrific people.

Quote

As for archeological evidence of a nuclear war, I hope I posted that, so I don't have to go to a lot of work finding it again.  May be I should be very, very, very sure that any link I post is the absolute, unquestioned truth, (if there is such a thing) and come to these forums with the seriousness a of professional who is afraid her career will be destroyed, if I post something that is doesn't meet the highest standards?  Nah, if I have to be that up tight in these discussions, I will stop coming because you don't pay me enough for all that stress. :lol:   What does "alternative history" mean?  I thought it meant something that is more speculative and light hearted rather than the intense of arguments of professional historians.   If I am wrong, well I will stop posting here, okay?   Just clarify the standard of "alternative history".   I want fun, not a lot of stress and everything else that goes with being a professional.

This may be nonsense, but it is presented as archeological evidence of a nuclear war.  If you want to give alternative explanations for those radio active bodies, in a respectful way, that is playing this game in a fun way.  If you want to rip into me for giving bad information, I am out of here.   http://theextinction...civilizations   It is not just information that is important, but if you are fun to be with or not.

I know you're being kind of tongue-in-cheek here, but you're likely not going to like my response: Yes, you need to be careful with your sources. My own view is that the internet is extremely limited as a legitimate research tool, and in my experience, for every website representing sound and reliable research, there must be twenty or more that range between rather questionable and outright junk. That's why I've always preferred books, papers, and articles written by vetted and respected professional historians: their names carry a certain weight, and their work is properly researched, peer-reviewed, and cited. So when we look closer at the issue of nuclear war in ancient India, we see it sourced by the likes of Erich von Däniken and Ancient Aliens. When we look at professionally researched analyses, however, we see absolutely no agreement with ancient nuclear war in India.

No one is telling you to stop posting, me-wonders. Just because folks like cormac and I might hold your feet to the fire when you post certain information, does not mean we're targeting you as an individual. We're targeting only your information. What I'm seeing is that you seem to be taking a lot of this personally, which you should not. I admit I made the same mistake when I was new at UM and encountered some particularly poorly informed, aggressive fringe posters. When I learned to brush it off, not take it personally, and just stick to my own strengths, it no longer bothered me. I confess some fringe posters still know how to push my buttons and I tend to lose my cool on occasion, but it doesn't happen much.

So remember: no one here is making this personal against you. However, if you post something with which cormac or I or someone else disagrees, we're going to stand up and reply. That is the nature of UM and other message boards like it, as I mentioned to you in an earlier post. Without that give and play and the spirit of debate, message boards would be pointless.

As for "alternative history," it is merely a descriptor for a hypothesis that lies outside conventional historical explanations. David Rohl and his manipulation of timelines in the ancient Near East is a classic example. Extreme examples are Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Däniken. I suppose the term is interchangeable with "fringe." I tend to use both terms, myself. The idea of nuclear war in ancient India is a very good example of alternative history.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#58    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,529 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 28 November 2012 - 03:32 AM

View Postme-wonders, on 25 November 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

You know I would really enjoy this discussion if you spoke in a different tone of voice.  Post should not about the posters but, I think you are attacking, and being insensitive, so that is what I am going to address.  

I love chasing after facts.  We can assume whoever comes here loves a mystery and digging into the facts.  It is one thing to question the facts, and another to put people on defensive.  If we all question the facts together, things are fun and exciting.  On the other hand if we start insulting people, nothing good can come out of this.  Your approach reminds me of the NAZI's and this is far worse than having the wrong information.   Your intolerance and arrogance makes this thread an unpleasant experience.  That would be true for me, no matter who you were correcting.   If we do not want to go the way Germany went, we have to be conscious of how it went it that way.  Intolerance and pushing when someone says stop, is not healthy.  

Secondly, this is the alternative history thread.  What does that mean?  What does "alternative" mean?  Doesn't it  mean an alternative to actually happened?  We might want to correct in what we say, but that is not the requirement of alternative history.   Go do whatever you do to lighten up and lighten up.

View Postme-wonders, on 26 November 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

But your facts are limited, and you are ignoring some facts.  Last night I began listening to college lectures about conversation, and one studied indicated that men are more apt to lead conversations with women, because women pay attention to what the man is saying, and respond to what he is saying.  While men will do what you are doing.  Fail to pick on what is being said, and remain narrowly focused.  This forum is not a serious one, and you are being overly serious, like a religious fanatic!  It is like you think found a stick you can beat me with, and are thumbing on your bible of right facts.  I did something that justifies your behavior?  Come on, when you first objected to the gene research, I acknowledge the disagreement about Aryans.  It is now time to move on, and I question why you are having a problem with that?  What is your intent?  

You are behaving like a young male, or a fanatical old one,  and this is not the best behavior for these forums.  Stop ignoring the rest of the discussion if you are sincerely interesting in the subject..  You remind me of a oung man who caused me to leave another forum.  His avatar was of man pointing a gun, clearly announcing his intent to find victims and shot to kill.  That appears to be what you are doing, cruising the forums for some logic you can attack, and treating these discussion as win/loose events.  Generally the moderators are also males who agree with this challenge to logic and are insensitive to the insults, but this is not a science forum.  Unexplained Mysteries invites discussions that are speculative and not hard science, and your behavior ruins the fun.  It may be fun for you to win the argument, but it is no fun for anyone else.  You have dominated this thread and I don't see other posters engaging in the discussion.  The arguing has been unpleasant. Yes, there are arguments against the Aryan theory and there are arguments supporting the Aryan theory and this is what makes a mystery.   We are here to explore these mysteries, not to insult people and attack them.  Male domination has its benefits and its draw backs, and if you insisting on fighting, I will continue to point out the problems with your behavior, and hopefully a more mature and educated male will step in and provide some desirable leadership.

These two posts give me some degree of concern, me-wonders. It's clear you and cormac disagree on most issues under discussion here, but cormac is not attacking you personally. He is targeting specific information in your posts.

But in the first reply above you liken cormac's approach to Nazi Germany and in the second...well, I'm not quite sure. Male chuavinist? An abuser? I don't know, but I consider both replies to border on inappropriate. My first inclination was to remove them but I'll let them stand. Address the points cormac is making and avoid making this personal.

If you find debate to be unpleasant, then perhaps this isn't the place for you. UM is a place for debate, plain and simple. That will not change. I'm hoping you'll discover the spirit of debate because believe it or not, it is fun for people like cormac and me. You keep mentioning having fun—it comes in all sorts of packages.

You made a remark about the Mods here at UM. Several of them are women. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#59    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:22 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 28 November 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

These two posts give me some degree of concern, me-wonders. It's clear you and cormac disagree on most issues under discussion here, but cormac is not attacking you personally. He is targeting specific information in your posts.

But in the first reply above you liken cormac's approach to Nazi Germany and in the second...well, I'm not quite sure. Male chuavinist? An abuser? I don't know, but I consider both replies to border on inappropriate. My first inclination was to remove them but I'll let them stand. Address the points cormac is making and avoid making this personal.

If you find debate to be unpleasant, then perhaps this isn't the place for you. UM is a place for debate, plain and simple. That will not change. I'm hoping you'll discover the spirit of debate because believe it or not, it is fun for people like cormac and me. You keep mentioning having fun—it comes in all sorts of packages.

You made a remark about the Mods here at UM. Several of them are women. Gender has nothing to do with it.

View Postkmt_sesh, on 28 November 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

Almost every lecture set I've purchased from TTC has been worth the price. I stress "almost" because a couple of them failed to engage my interest from start to finish. That's hardly an indictment of TTC, however, when you consider I've purchased 28 different lecture sets from them and am bound to purchase more. I'm about a third of the way through the Daily Life lectures and am enjoying them a lot. Yes, I consider them worth the expense. Just the same, I have never purchased a lecture set at its full price. TTC runs sales all the time, so if there's a particular set in which you're interested, it's bound to be on sale sooner rather than later. Also, I exclusively purchase the audio downloads as m4b files for my iPod, and this tends to be less expensive than alternatives like the DVDs.

The experience with this professor of yours is regrettable. I would've gotten up and walked out of the room. No one is saying professors are infallible, and indeed every field or profession has its share of nut cases, but they're the exception to the rule. I've personally worked with a number of Egyptologists, anthropologists, and other specialists, and while I'd consider a couple of them to be eccentric, they're all terrific people.



I know you're being kind of tongue-in-cheek here, but you're likely not going to like my response: Yes, you need to be careful with your sources. My own view is that the internet is extremely limited as a legitimate research tool, and in my experience, for every website representing sound and reliable research, there must be twenty or more that range between rather questionable and outright junk. That's why I've always preferred books, papers, and articles written by vetted and respected professional historians: their names carry a certain weight, and their work is properly researched, peer-reviewed, and cited. So when we look closer at the issue of nuclear war in ancient India, we see it sourced by the likes of Erich von Däniken and Ancient Aliens. When we look at professionally researched analyses, however, we see absolutely no agreement with ancient nuclear war in India.

No one is telling you to stop posting, me-wonders. Just because folks like cormac and I might hold your feet to the fire when you post certain information, does not mean we're targeting you as an individual. We're targeting only your information. What I'm seeing is that you seem to be taking a lot of this personally, which you should not. I admit I made the same mistake when I was new at UM and encountered some particularly poorly informed, aggressive fringe posters. When I learned to brush it off, not take it personally, and just stick to my own strengths, it no longer bothered me. I confess some fringe posters still know how to push my buttons and I tend to lose my cool on occasion, but it doesn't happen much.

So remember: no one here is making this personal against you. However, if you post something with which cormac or I or someone else disagrees, we're going to stand up and reply. That is the nature of UM and other message boards like it, as I mentioned to you in an earlier post. Without that give and play and the spirit of debate, message boards would be pointless.

As for "alternative history," it is merely a descriptor for a hypothesis that lies outside conventional historical explanations. David Rohl and his manipulation of timelines in the ancient Near East is a classic example. Extreme examples are Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Däniken. I suppose the term is interchangeable with "fringe." I tend to use both terms, myself. The idea of nuclear war in ancient India is a very good example of alternative history.

Okay, I am out of here.  At least for awhile, you do not pay me enough to take things seriously.

Quote

Genome Research is an international, continuously published, peer-reviewed journal that features outstanding original research providing novel insights into the genome biology of all organisms, including significant advances in genomic medicine. The journal also provides high-quality reviews and perspectives written by respected leaders in the field and reports cutting-edge computational biology and high-throughput methodologies

I think it is quite clear no one here is an authority on this subject, especially when good sources are not recognized.

Edited by me-wonders, 28 November 2012 - 04:41 PM.


#60    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,529 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

View Postme-wonders, on 28 November 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Okay, I am out of here.  At least for awhile, you do not pay me enough to take things seriously.

I'm sorry to hear that, me-wonders. No one is telling, asking, implying, or suggesting that you leave, so this is entirely your choice. I'm just concerned that other posters might see your choice as the fault of others, which it is not. Frankly I enjoy discussing topics with you, but you really do take all of this too personally.

If you post a topic at UM, the discussion of it will be taken seriously (unless it's obviously meant for humor's sake, which happens on occasion). Why post a topic otherwise? In any case, I hope you come back soon.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users