| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The theories of A.T. Fomenko are allowed here!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The theories of A.T. Fomenko are allowed here!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 02:33
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

And, I do not want to send you away to "link land", but merely ask that if you are to be so adament about defending the "status quo", then it would not hurt either you or Graham nor drgonzaga, to actually read the three volumes or four, that are now available in somewhat broken English.

Perhaps it is up to you to "know your opponent?"

Perhaps none of you have ever actually read any of the Fomenko works, because you are afraid to, or you would feel dirty if you did so, or perhaps it is from lazyness?

I certainly cannot be expected to read it for you.

An education is a terrible thing to waste.

I would be happy to mail you my copy, if nothing else. But please wear gloves when reading it? I do not want it to become spoiled.

Oh! Also Seko, I wish to thank you for not using argumentum ad hominem in your posts as does drgonzaga.

I certainly dislike feeling I have to retort to his personal attacks with a personal attack of my own. Perhaps I should grow up and refuse to do so?

Regards,
Ronald


Yes, if we were to take this theory seriously then we would be better off reading his great work. However, from what we have seen or read so far from various summaries at Wiki or from pages that evaluate his work, Fomenko or his apostles are not to be taken seriously.

I can only vouch for myself. I would rather let you or Anton teach me about Fomenko's theories than spend hours going over the New Chronology especially since A) it would take more time then I care to give it, B) from what I read so far the guy has serious delusions or even dementia and C) you brought this topic into our little corner of the web. I've been all ears for ya.

Lastly, no! Do not send me more toilet paper. I just went shopping and have plenty around.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 02:36
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Seko, I did not expect such a quick reply, but I did add these words to my last post.

"Oh! Also Seko, I wish to thank you for not using argumentum ad hominem in your posts as does drgonzaga.

I certainly dislike feeling I have to retort to his personal attacks with a personal attack of my own. Perhaps I should grow up and refuse to do so?

Regards,
Ronald"

Again thanks for at least being human.

I shall return later to respond to your last posting found above.

But, as a preliminary, I feel the need to respond to at least this point your made above;

"Other than Fomenko himself or G. V. Nosovskij I am starting to wonder who really is a reliable source. Not that alternative history is reliable to start with. You have issues with the word 'lurid" I suspect. Yet all the other did was tell his readers that this is an English translation of his opus (his words not mine). You left out the rest of the sentence you quoted. Let me add that here: he published a 29,000-word summary of his findings online. This opus, written with G. V. Nosovskij, is grandly titled "New Chronology and New Concept of the English History: British Empire as a Direct Successor of the Byzantine-Roman Empire," and it commits as great an assault on the English language as it does on English history."

Yes, indeed this is a 29,000-word summary of what is really just a small bend into English history. It is certain that when proposing such a revision of currently accepted thought that the group felt the need to concern itself throughly in the revision of English history, since it is one of those items that is considered most revered by English speaking people around the world.

But, to consider this small side-piece of the entirety of the FG's works, e.g. 8 volumes (and dozens of smaller and earlier versions), then the above piece is more like arguing about one paragraph/stanza in the Iliad, and forgetting the rest of them, all the while disparaging the work as a whole.

Regards,
Ronald





You are welcome. You as a person are still to be valued. Your writings may get my dander up though. You are right in that it is shallow to just make a judgement without being fully indoctrinated. I presume you will forgive me.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 12:04
Somewhat related to the topic. History of historical revisionism:
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/ancient.htm
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 14:26
Well Anton, is not your link but a variant of the "same old, same old"? Further when Historians speak of Revisionism, they are not challenging the stuctural constructs but the intepretation given known and recognized events. To quote from an organization not likely to appear in the CV of any serious scholar, "instability in the cosmos" as the catalyst for chronological error is quite a whopper to swallow and the claims made in your link are "reasonable" solely to those entirely uninformed upon the subject at hand. I am particularly fond on the passage on Newton that esssentially becomes the res judicata for all shennanigans: Since Newton was a genius in [terrestrial] physics he must perforce also be a genius in Old Testament exegesis. What can one say other than that's quite a poisoned apple to bite.
 
Origin narratives within the constructs of the theological are not History proper and if you set about to prove them so you have already muddied the waters and rendered your capacity for observation ridiculous.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 14:37
Its  a good summary on what different chronology revisionists claim, isn't it?
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 15:25
Thanks for the link Anton. It sure does show the inner workings of revisionists. As expected competing theories seek to abrogate existing chronologies. That by itself is not a crime and is something we should always welcome. Dating methods can always improve. Discoveries can always be dug up. Granted I only skimmed parts of this long paper. The caution I've noted by most on this thread, and myself supported, is that any 'winning' theory has to be sound and carry profound evidence. 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 19:16
And Seko, you wrote some "profound" words when you wrote this sentence above;

"..any 'winning' theory has to be sound and carry profound evidence."

But, you also wrote something that is up for debate or contridiction, that is, just what is acceptable as being regarded as "evidence?"

Within the pages of Vol's I and II, you will be given numerous examples of events and personages, etc., that seem to mirror ancient events after the passing of about 1,800 years (that figure might sometimes manifest itself after 1,778 years or 1,800 years, or 1,810 years, which is not a really large span.

Plato re. Plethon is but one of these occurances. While one would not be thought strange (remember we have always been told that "History tends to repeat itself), but ten or more would or should be considered as "impossible."

Perhaps I should mention that the close to 1,800 year setback, is but one of numerous similar setbacks that the Fomenko Group claims to have discovered.

I will see if can make a list of these potential setbacks and list them here. But, it seems that each of them tends to follow a certain repetitious theme.   
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 20:45
Ok then let's play ball Opus. Present a few examples of setbacks: A) an ancient event, B) a coinciding medieval event that is similar in kind. We will be the judge of their efficacy. 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 21:06
Dear Seko, I thought the the Plato/Pletho was just such an analogy?

Did not you?

But, I will post more.

I am now involved in a discussion with the "Doctor!"

Regards,
Ronald

Edited by opuslola - 18 Apr 2011 at 21:06
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 21:11
take your time. I realize we have reviewed the Plato/Plethon example and now want more. Afterall you did write that you would make a list of potential setbacks.

But let me get to another point. By presenting profound evidence you are actually giving us an event that, beyond a reasonable doubt, is verifiable.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 21:22
My dear Seko, is there indeed any event, that happened before the advent of the mass use of the printing press, that is "verifiable, beyond a reasonable doubt?"

If you know of one, (or two), then please inform all of us?

What is "resonable" is also a problem, especially amongst some people.

"Profound" is, of course, a different problem.

Regards,
Ronald



Edited by opuslola - 18 Apr 2011 at 21:23
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2011 at 19:54
A few quick examples of a 1053 year shift.

The famous eruption of 79 CE, and the reported eruption of 1138-39 CE, adding 1053 to 79, equals 1132 CE, which is quite close to 1138 CE.

After a shift of (about) 1053 years, the time of the famous Tarquinian War is compared and contrasted with the Gothic War, which reportedly occurred during the Sixth century CE. Full information can be found in Chapter two of History: Fiction or Science", beginning on page 92.

The great General Belisarius is also compared to the great Warlord named Valerius.

More general information related to the Fomenko Theory can be found here, where a related book, entitled "The Medieval Empire of the Israelites", is also discussed.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28896

I hope this is enough information to begin with?

Ron

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2011 at 01:04
Yes, gentlemen and ladies, there also exists a set-back that is close to 1,000 years, sorry to disappoint you gcle-2003! And within the words of the Fomenko Group, which can be now found upon the net, y'all might well be able to follow it without my help?

Since most of you are experienced voyagers upon the "net", then I should not have to lead you by the nose, to that point, should I?

Most all of it is there, you merely have to "follow me" to find it.

Just why should I do the work for most of you? The old saying is, "if it is not hard, it is not worth it?" Or some words resembling those.

Just how hard could it be?

But, of course some of you just have to be "Hand fed!" chuckle

If some of you ever had "speed reading" classes, as did I in the fifth grade, perhaps you might get ahead of us slow readers and give us an indication of other potential Fomemko setbacks?

But, it seems I wasted all of my "speed reading" talents reading Sci-Fi for thirty or so years. Reading real history is only one of the last of my reading challenges.

Regards,
Ron

Edited by opuslola - 20 May 2011 at 01:06
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2011 at 03:21
Your claim that you are "reading 'real' history" is little more than a pretentious label for the crappy fantasies foisted by charlatans. That you wish to direct insult at individuals who immediately recognize the purpose behind your antics is nothing more than the expected behavior characteristic of the Internet Trolls whose cause d'etre is nothing more than to antagonize so as to feed a perverted narcissism. So why don't you go back to wasting your time on your own dime and stop wasting ours!

Edited by drgonzaga - 20 May 2011 at 15:18
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2011 at 12:03
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Yes, gentlemen and ladies, there also exists a set-back that is close to 1,000 years, sorry to disappoint you gcle-2003! And within the words of the Fomenko Group, which can be now found upon the net, y'all might well be able to follow it without my help?

Since most of you are experienced voyagers upon the "net", then I should not have to lead you by the nose, to that point, should I?
If you've got a link and an argument then provide it. Otherwise nobody's going to waste the time trying to find out what you are babbling about.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 11:55
Dear sir, I thought I'd given you some examples to peruse when I made this post above.

A few quick examples of a 1053 year shift.

The famous eruption of 79 CE, and the reported eruption of 1138-39 CE, adding 1053 to 79, equals 1132 CE, which is quite close to 1138 CE.

After a shift of (about) 1053 years, the time of the famous Tarquinian War is compared and contrasted with the Gothic War, which reportedly occurred during the Sixth century CE. Full information can be found in Chapter two of History: Fiction or Science", beginning on page 92.

The great General Belisarius is also compared to the great Warlord named Valerius.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 13:28
If prime sources are unreliable, how come you believe there were eruptions in 1138 and 79? And why is 'about' 1053 good enough? Surely if you are going to make claims about the mystic siginifcance of 1053 years it has to be 1053 years, not just 'about' 1053? Why not 'about 1050' while you're at it?
 
Saladin was born in 1138. Who of importance was born in 79? Josephus had a son that year, but you can't make much out of that, since he never ruled over anything. Vespasian died in 79 though, and gave way to Titus, so maybe you can make something out of that.
 
Incidentally, in discussing the eruption of 1138 Fomenko spends a great deal of reliance on the written reports of the occasion. None of those written reports actually survive in written form, so accoring to you and Fomenko they're not worth the paper they're not written on. So how come you waste time talking about them?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 03:13
gcle2003, wrote above;

"Incidentally, in discussing the eruption of 1138 Fomenko spends a great deal of reliance on the written reports of the occasion. None of those written reports actually survive in written form, so accoring to you and Fomenko they're not worth the paper they're not written on. So how come you waste time talking about them?"

Well I am so glad that you asked that particular question, are you sure you have not read the Fomenko volumes? The reason is that the Fomenko Group (the FG) does not place a lot of value in those very same reports. You have, it seems, really hit the nail on the head this time, thanks.

The FG, would place a lot more reality to the reported eruption of 1500 CE, or even more they might well place the 1631 C.E. event, above all of the rest. They believe that "real" history only began to be legimate in the 17th century CE. I believe this information can be found in the Fomenko Chron 1, on page 64, as well as in Chron 2, chapter two, pages 205-206.

You also made a big point of my stating a shift of about 1,053 years instead of exactly 1,053 years. Surprisingly in Chron 2, chapter two, you will find numerous examples wherin the shift is exactly 1,053 years.

It is certainly easier when you suggest some of the most important Fomenko points rather than me.

Regards,
Ron

Edited by opuslola - 22 May 2011 at 03:25
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 11:14
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

gcle2003, wrote above;

"Incidentally, in discussing the eruption of 1138 Fomenko spends a great deal of reliance on the written reports of the occasion. None of those written reports actually survive in written form, so accoring to you and Fomenko they're not worth the paper they're not written on. So how come you waste time talking about them?"

Well I am so glad that you asked that particular question, are you sure you have not read the Fomenko volumes?
Try pae 204 of volume 2 of History: Fiction or Science? 
Quote
The reason is that the Fomenko Group (the FG) does not place a lot of value in those very same reports. You have, it seems, really hit the nail on the head this time, thanks.

The FG, would place a lot more reality to the reported eruption of 1500 CE, or even more they might well place the 1631 C.E. event, above all of the rest. They believe that "real" history only began to be legimate in the 17th century CE. I believe this information can be found in the Fomenko Chron 1, on page 64, as well as in Chron 2, chapter two, pages 205-206.

You also made a big point of my stating a shift of about 1,053 years instead of exactly 1,053 years. Surprisingly in Chron 2, chapter two, you will find numerous examples wherin the shift is exactly 1,053 years.
Since the whole point is that it is dead easy to find examples of virtually any shift if you look hard enough and use loose approximations, that's hardly surprising. 
Quote
It is certainly easier when you suggest some of the most important Fomenko points rather than me.
But these are points that destroy Fomenko. I agree you make them all the time, but you don't see the significancs of what you are saying.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 11:55
Please stop saying that I make "points"...all the time." It is the FG that makes the points, and not me, I merely attempt "all of the time" to point them out to you so you can read about them yourself. There is little need for me to keep pointing out chapter and verse when the books are available from the library, or via the Net.

You continue to ask me to present these "points" and then you disregard them without reading a single one yourself. And, then you use the "fact" that the points exist, to denigrate them, by stating that these "are points that destroy Fomenko." And, then asserting that I am too stupid to understand the "significance (SIC) of what (I) am saying."

You are speaking in double-speak or in a manner to imply that no matter what is presented, it is wrong. It is as though you are stating that 5+5+5=15 shows the correct method and answer but is still wrong anyway.

Regards,
Ron
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 13:41
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Please stop saying that I make "points"...all the time." It is the FG that makes the points, and not me, I merely attempt "all of the time" to point them out to you so you can read about them yourself. There is little need for me to keep pointing out chapter and verse when the books are available from the library, or via the Net.
I'm not going to waste time on arrant nonsense without any kind of justification for it beforehand. I've pointed out to you the fallacious arguments involved in this farrago of metaphysical and numerological mumbo-jumbo, and you have no answer to them except 'read it in the holy book'. Fomeknko picks and chooses what he wants to consider authentic sources, and disregards anything that cannot be twisetd to suit his message.
Quote
You continue to ask me to present these "points" and then you disregard them without reading a single one yourself.
I just quoted you one passage I read for myself.  And personally I don't 'continue to ask' you to present any points whatsoever. If you shut up that's fine with me.
 
Yes the theoris of Fomenko can be discussed here. Just don't expect them to be treated with respect.
Quote
And, then you use the "fact" that the points exist, to denigrate them, by stating that these "are points that destroy Fomenko." And, then asserting that I am too stupid to understand the "significance (SIC) of what (I) am saying."

You are speaking in double-speak or in a manner to imply that no matter what is presented, it is wrong. It is as though you are stating that 5+5+5=15 shows the correct method and answer but is still wrong anyway.
What Fomenko does is point out that 75 -72 = 3 and 65-62 = 3 and therefore there's some esoteric significance to the difference 3 (because each time the other two numbers end in 5 and 2).
 
There are zillions of pairs of events in history separated by 1053 years. That a few of them may have some kind of resemblance demonstrates nothing whatsoever no matter how many examples you give. 
Read some Popper.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 22:36
The great gcle2003, wrote above these kind words;

"There are zillions of pairs of events in history separated by 1053 years. That a few of them may have some kind of resemblance demonstrates nothing whatsoever no matter how many examples you give."

And just how many examples, comparable to those of the FG, can you give? It is merely a simple challenge, and one that you as an expert in most all of the history of the world, should have not problem presenting, especially in "long form!"

You also asked me to read;

"Read some Popper."

Is that Dr. Popper? LOL

If you really demand I read something then give me the site and the sources, etc.? And a sufficent synopsis so I can determine if I really should consider the source as sufficent to support your arguments?

But I am still happy that you have read almost enough of the Fomenko works to be able, finally, to help me explain it to others!

You have demanded no less from me.

Regards,

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 22 May 2011 at 22:39
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2011 at 22:58
Absent substance there is always recourse to contentious cacophony as found above. If we must be assailed by Foaming Fomenkoists then it would behoove the raver to at least have a passing familiarity with Sir Karl Raimund Popper and the fundamentals of critical rationalism! To blather on about History and scientific method and be totally unawares of Karl Popper simply underscores but one thing: ignoble ignorance.
 
Oh, you said you wanted a source...here is a monumental one:
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 23 May 2011 at 05:09
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 03:39
Well thank you both so much! It was if I were back in Deutschland again!

What moments, what food, what beer, etc.! Thanks! By the way this is a "munumental" memory! Uh? "munmental?", perhaps again Doctor, my dictionary does not at all compare to yours? But, we do now both agree upon the spelling of "agriprop", do we not?

Oh! It seems Doctor, that you, unlike gcle2003 have not really read any of the Fomenko works, so you have been unable to help me in my quest, as has gcle2003!

Ron

Oh! By the way, this is your post above copy and pasted here;

"Absent substance there is always recourse to contentious cacophony as found above. If we must be assailed by Foaming Fomenkoists then it would behoove the raver to at least have a passing familiarity with Sir Karl Raimund Popper and the fundamentals of critical rationalism! To blather on about History and scientific method and be totally unawares of Karl Popper simply underscores but one thing: ignoble ignorance.

Oh, you said you wanted a source...here is a munumental one:

http://ub.uni-klu.ac.at/cms/sondersammlungen/karl-popper-sammlung/bibliographie/"


So, from my few resources I would suppose that above you really meant to write "Monumental?" Ha, ha! I now understand.

Perhaps you have as well been lax in your reading of sources, for you to have made two such "Mumumental" mistakes in some of your last few postings.

But, as you know, "To err is human, to forgive is Divine!"

So, being so humane that I am, I will take the "Divine" road (totally ignoring the Andy Devine road) and forgive someone as perfect, as you imply you are, by your own words!

That is it is OK to make a mistake sometimes! You are only human, aren't you?

But perhaps your mistake above was but a result of your "ignoble ignorance?" Could you please show us your "Noble" brilliance?

So, if you would oblige me, Sir, as I am your most humble student, then please translate the German to English, so most of us on this site, which is supposed to be made in English, according to the rules, as I have read them, will be able to read!

I await your translation with a beaded brow!

Yes, I do wear "beads" in my brows! LOL

Ron

The Doc's word for today; "cacophony"!

I can certainly see myself using the above word in the morning to my fellows! They will certainly be impressed.

thanks!

Edited by opuslola - 23 May 2011 at 03:51
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 05:12
Only a total arse would drop turds over a typo. However given the character of your posts the propensity to flatulence has long been on display.
 
Take your porta-potty elsewhere before the EPA takes action.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2011 at 21:10
But sir, you are the one that continues to mispell "agitprop" at every opportunity! But I would never drop a turd upon you for it, I would merely, as a niceity, inform you of your careless mistake.

Are you now preparing the English translation? Don't rush it though, I have been eating a lot of corned beef and cabbage, so there is a lot of flatulence to go thru until you complete it.

This entire thread has really been a "gas!"

Look, some of my corned beef is tough, do you, sir, have a knife I might borrow?

Thanks for your your consideration sir!

Sorry I have to go now, my favorite movie "Gunfight at the OK Corral" is about to start!

Edited by opuslola - 23 May 2011 at 21:14
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 11:34
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Let's do this. How about someone jot down a few of his interpretations regarding historical events (time line and all) and we could evaluate them on our own. Right here. 
 
 
Now just look what you did.
 
A couple of years later, and Opus has driven almost everybody on two different forums crazy with his postings on the Fomenko perspective of history.
 
It seems that he has no supporters.
 
Opus tends to have a couple of drinks, and then unleash his Fomenko based theories about anything and everything.
 
He's been suspended heaps of times and even banned from this forum.
 
But he never gives up.  LOL
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.090 seconds.