Chinese Bones

[voidisyinyang]

Dear K. E. Eduljee: Thank again for editing your previous error and please correct your false claim about an early Aryan trade in blue stone: 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SxXz1ipGI8MJ:languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/%3Fp%3D33410&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0

 

  Quote

Archaeological evidence suggests that Middle Bronze Age Andronovo descendants of the Early Bronze Age horse-based, pastoralist and chariot-using Sintashta culture, located in the grasslands and river valleys to the east of the Southern Ural Mountains and likely speaking a proto-Indo-Iranian language, probably expanded east and south into Central Asia by ~3.8 ka.

 

3.8 ka = 1800 BCE which is the 2nd millennium BCE not 3rd millennium.

  Quote

Archaeological evidence suggests that Middle Bronze Age Andronovo descendants of the Early Bronze Age horse-based, pastoralist and chariot-using Sintashta culture, located in the grasslands and river valleys to the east of the Southern Ural Mountains and likely speaking a proto-Indo-Iranian language, probably expanded east and south into Central Asia by ~3.8 ka.

 

3.8 ka = 1800 BCE which is the 2nd millennium BCE not 3rd millennium.

[voidisyinyang]

On 7/8/2017 at 2:39 AM, Nungali said:

and that  .... is one reason why I choose to use the more modern term ' Proto Indo Iranian '    (as I earlier pointed out ) , over PIE Proto Indo European.  The 'Aryans' were but a part of many dynamics and were only active in certain areas .  To use PIE , to me, is incorrect as some  can think  they are the source of 'European people ' . 

 

 

Movements of peoples and intermixing and 'going in and out and back again' to different other localities has been going on a loooong time . 

 

 

 

So are you still sticking to this false claim that "proto Indo Iranians" are the "source of 'European people' and that PIE is "not" the source of European people?

 

Quote

To use PIE , to me, is incorrect as some  can think  they are the source of 'European people '

. 

Because you realize that your Pan-Aryan fantasy is just that - a total B.S. fantasy that happens to be what Neo-Nazis also think as well? haha.

 

Do you really think that "Proto-Indo-Iranians" (i.e. Aryans" are the "source" of European people and NOT PIE?

 

Or are you gonna "edit" that error as well? haha.

 

Quote

the old  Aryan  'Empire'    that stretched  from  (now ) western China to (now ) Turkey  ,

 

OP Error.

 

Quote

Europeans 'Aryans' 

 

OP Error on July 3rd.

Edited July 16, 2017 by voidisyinyang

[Apech]

Still with the big fonts after you were asked nicely not to do that.  It comes across as the equivalent of shouting loudly in the other person's face.

[thelerner]

22 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Arguments can be made without being obnoxious.  voidisyinyang- using GIANT FONT is not persuasive and throws off arguments.  Perhaps underline or bold would make it seem less like shouting.  Cause shouting tends to turn honest debate into angry argument. 

 

You both have good points.  This is an interesting discussion.  For both parties please be mindful to keep the argument civil.  It started out charged due to the word Aryan, but it shouldn't stay that way. 

 

Thank you.

 

 

**To a lesser degree I'd add very long multi-paragraph quotes tend to be left unread.  Often a synopsis and adding the long quote in smaller font at the bottom works better. 

 

[voidisyinyang]

13 minutes ago, thelerner said:

 

 

How do I make ad hominem emoticons and graphics if I can't use the large font?

 

Please explain the formatting options to me. I will not use large font if you explain in detail how to embed ad hominem graphics and emoticons to me.

 

I'll be waiting.

 

Until then I will copy and paste the examples of ad hominem graphics and emoticons replied to me.

The ad hominems started on July 3rd by the OP:

Quote

some people   here  will read that and hallucinate their own meanings into it .  

 

Ad hominem emoticons are o.k. but using large font without ad hominems is not o.k.?

Edited July 16, 2017 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

Dear K. E. Eduljee: 

Strabo in Geographia 11.8.2 states: "But the best known of the nomads (Saka) are those who took away Bactriana from the Greeks, I mean the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari (Tarim basin, Khotan),
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/saka/saka4.htm
But that is not what Strabo stated - he made no reference to the Tarim Basin as the Tochari he referred to lived in Bactria.
 

These people were called "Tocharian" by late-19th century scholars who identified them with the Tókharoi described by ancient Greek sources as inhabiting Bactria.

Please correct this error,
thanks,
drew hempel, M.A.

 

Now "corrected"?

Aryan Saka, Scythia & Scythians - Zoroastrian Heritage

www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/saka/saka4.htm

Strabo in Geographia 11.8.2 states (translation by Jones, our notes in []): "But the best known of the nomads [Saka] are those who took away Bactriana from the Greeks, I mean the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari [commonly thought as originating in Tarim Basin, Khotan], and Sacarauli [see Sarikoli, the language spoken in Tashkurgan ...

 

Nope - still not corrected.

 

Nope it's still not corrected:

File:Afanasevo provisional.png

The geographic area the Afanasevo culture covered

J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair argue that the Tocharian languages were introduced to the Tarim and Turpan basins from the Afanasevo culture to their immediate north. The Afanasevo culture (c. 3500 – 2500 BC) displays cultural and genetic connections with the Indo-European-associated cultures of the Central Asian steppe yet predates the specifically Indo-Iranian-associated Andronovo culture (c. 2000 – 900 BC) enough to isolate the Tocharian languages from Indo-Iranian linguistic innovations like satemization.^[8][9]
 
http://infogalactic.com/info/Tocharians

Notice how I used 72 font in the original - I am quoting from earlier info in the thread.

 

I emailed the above to the false Pan-Aryan website with the original 72 font.

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

 

embedding large vids as ad hominems by the OP is o.k.?

 

But not using large font as NO AD HOMINEMS is not o.k.?

 

More ad hominems:

On 7/9/2017 at 9:37 PM, Brian said:

I'm convinced.  Please stop.

 

Wait...

 

Do you have a master's degree?

 

Nugali:

 

Posted July 10 · Report post

On 7/9/2017 at 9:37 PM, Brian said:

I'm convinced.  Please stop.

 

Wait...

 

Do you have a master's degree?

 

No But I have an M A   ( McDonald's Apprentice  .....     in long distance woman orgasm causing  via  Qi  )   

No But I have an M A   ( McDonald's Apprentice  .....     in long distance woman orgasm causing  via  Qi  )

Edited July 16, 2017 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

Dear K.E. Eduljee: Your "correction" still makes a claim that is not only not proven but has strong evidence against it:

 

 

File:Afanasevo provisional.png

The geographic area the Afanasevo culture covered

J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair argue that the Tocharian languages were introduced to the Tarim and Turpan basins from the Afanasevo culture to their immediate north. The Afanasevo culture (c. 3500 – 2500 BC) displays cultural and genetic connections with the Indo-European-associated cultures of the Central Asian steppe yet predates the specifically Indo-Iranian-associated Andronovo culture (c. 2000 – 900 BC) enough to isolate the Tocharian languages from Indo-Iranian linguistic innovations like satemization.^[8][9]

 

http://infogalactic.com/info/Tocharians

 

Quote

haha. You're the one confused - the source you keep relying on did not even know that Strabo referred to the Tocharians in Bactria!!  

 

 

Quote

 

Nungali:

Not anymore it doesn't .... it's been edited     

 

 

Yep - edited but still wrong! haha. The Pan-Aryan fantasy just doesn't listen does it?

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

On 7/9/2017 at 6:54 PM, Marblehead said:

Well, I guess using the large font is better than getting all emotional in our words.

 

 

 

Exactly! Large font is an option of the formatting here. Ad hominems are wrong content. Period.

 

 

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

Exactly! Large font is an option of the formatting here. Ad hominems are wrong content. Period.

 

 

 

 

You are right ad hominems are strictly not ok.  But I have seen them on both sides.  As feedback you would communicate a lot better without the large font.  It's just off putting - and what's the point of it anyway.

[voidisyinyang]

 

Quote

 

Posted July 10 · Report post

 

 

On 7/10/2017 at 1:37 AM, voidisyinyang said:

 

http://www.aryanunity.com/arun7.html

 

Dang - this is hilarious!

 

 

 

Quote

 

Sure is !  Are you now trying to claim that I have written the  ARYAN UNITY BULLETIN 
No.7 - November 2001 ?   

 

Have you had today's  meds yet ?  

 

 

 

 

 

Another ad hominem by the OP.

 

All that should have been flagged by the "mods" earlier on.

[voidisyinyang]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

 

You are right ad hominems are strictly not ok.  But I have seen them on both sides.  As feedback you would communicate a lot better without the large font.  It's just off putting - and what's the point of it anyway.

 

You see them on both sides? Show me one ad hominem that I wrote.

 

 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another ad hominem by the OP.

 

All that should have been flagged by the "mods" earlier on.

 

Mods do not flag things - we have to report them.

 

[voidisyinyang]

Just now, Apech said:

 

Mods do not flag things - we have to report them.

 

 

yep I reported you for an ad hominem.

 

So now let's see the "ad hominems" that I made.

 

You are now making a false claim that I made "ad hominems."

 

Evidence please.

[Apech]

1 minute ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

You see them on both sides? Show me one ad hominem that I wrote.

 

 

 

In your very first post you accused Nungali of lifting bs from a neo-nazi site.  I can't be bothered to reread any of the rest.

[Apech]

1 minute ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

yep I reported you for an ad hominem.

 

So now let's see the "ad hominems" that I made.

 

You are now making a false claim that I made "ad hominems."

 

Evidence please.

 

 

Ok I await the mods.

 

 

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

 

Ok I await the mods.

 

 

Don't hold your breath too long.

 

 

[Marblehead]

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Mods do not flag things - we have to report them.

 

I reported myself once.  Do you remember that?

 

[Marblehead]

Members picking bones with one another is still pretty on topic with Chinese bones.  

 

As long as our neck bone isn't connected to our hip bone.

 

[Apech]

17 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I reported myself once.  Do you remember that?

 

 

Yes.

[voidisyinyang]

 

So the OP erroneously claims an "old Aryan empire" that includes the Tarim basin mummies.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/44553-chinese-bones/

Quote

 the old  Aryan  'Empire'    that stretched  from  (now ) western China to (now ) Turkey  ,  'Caucasian Chinese mummies '

But the Tarim basin mummies are definitely not Aryan!

 

(notice I didn't enlarge the font - for extra emphasis I kept the font normal size).

 

 

 

Now notice the Indo-Iranian (i.e. Aryan) is way down on the bottom while Tocharian is way up on the top.

 

If you raid Victor Mair's pdf - I'll link it

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwifhoKzuY7VAhXGzlQKHZAsAz4QFgh3MA4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsino-platonic.org%2Fcomplete%2Fspp259_tocharian_origins.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH-ruGF4sLDg3JgpNwD6MjG3BlfAg

 

So he says any Iranian (Aryan) influence with the Tarim Basin would not have been until 1000 BCE whereas the Tarim Basim - as the image shows - goes back to 3300 BCE.

 

So look at this image - it shows how Iranian (Aryan) is a later (I chose the format option of italicization instead of enlargement, I hope that is o.k. with the mods) "encirclement" of the Tokharians of the Tarim Basin.

 

Quote

The critical element here is that there seems to be one issue that does receive widespread linguisitic support: Tocharian is in no way closely related to the languages of its geographical neighbors, Indo-Iranian (Meillet 1914; Pinault 2002, 244).

 

I'm quoting Victor Mair's pdf

 

Emphasis of changing the font and bolding it is not in the original - so please don't harp on me mods for making that formatting change.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by voidisyinyang

[Marblehead]

You done good.  No obscenely large fonts.

 

The reason Germanic appears so late is because we remained well hidden.

 

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

i watched that film with leonardo de Caprio where he gets mauled by a bear.  In this film there are nice indians who help him and nasty ones who attack and kill everyone.  When I researched the 'nice' tribe I found out they practiced human sacrifice.   Because they were the victims of near genocide we tend to look back with fondness - but the noble savage is a myth.

 

 

 

 

Wait !    Doesnt Aryan mean  noble  ?   

 

Spoiler

 

[Apech]

12 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

Wait !    Doesnt Aryan mean  noble  ?   

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

It does!

 

Actually I read somewhere that the Vedic people distinguished on language and included Dravidians provided they spoke Sanskrit (or a Prakrit presumably).  I don't think these distinction are ethnic so much as cultural.

 

 

[Nungali]

9 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Well, maybe, but the term 'noble savage' is from Rousseau and is a kind of reverse racism.  It is as if we are saying genocide (or near genocide) was bad because these people were noble savages.  While actually even if they were, as I believe, like all humans something of a mixture of good and bad and indifferent - well, still genocide is wrong.  They were/are no better or worse than we are - which is fine, they are human the same as us.  Otherwise you fall into the intersectionalist view that 'whiteness' = bad and 'people of colour' = good.

 

 

 

Its interesting to see the French ( Rousseau  was french wasn't he ?)  reports of their first contact with the Australian Aboriginals as opposed to the 'official  British view ' .    The French praise them, their good and healthy physique  , their lifestyle .... their 'noble'  demeanour , etc .  The British view was, officially to see them as little ore than clever apes that wandered the countryside *    . 

 

But the interesting thing is , in Captain Cook's  diary , who actually  met many of them, especially at Cooktown, where the men got off the boat and campped out with them (they stayed on the boat at Botany Bay, and had little interaction ) he praises them like the French did. He also notes they have a fantastic lifestyle, no class distinction, no "Lord over them' they are 'free men', they want for nothing, nothing the British offered them was of use to them, they had everything they needed, he said they would smile and nod and then walk away and leave gifts and wonderful new things they tried to give them on the ground. Cook seemed amazed and impressed. 

 

Of course this went down terribly with the established order .... free men ... with no Lord over them ?   Those sections were removed from Cooks diaries and he was punished for that. 

 

Of course, all people can be both good and bad .     When I would go and stay with my Aboriginal friends, boy did they look after me and treat me well , some of the  the nicest people I have ever met .   Well .... there was this time they caved a guy's skull in with a stone axe a couple of years back  ..... but they didnt   like him .  .  .