Spearthrower wrote:

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

You're so confused as usual. Greeks colonized Pontus around 800 BC.

The original PIE speakers spread into Europe over 3000 years prior to that.

Pontic Greek isn't a language, it's a dialect of Greek, and the people are ethnic Greeks who settled there in 800BC.

Greek is an Indo-European sub-group.

Indo-European, "does not" derive from Greek.

Greek derives from Indo-european, some 3.500 years ago

Once again, you are trying to tell me stuff that a) you know fuck all about and b) that I know a lot about.

So the idea that Greek is an Indo-European sub-group is wrong. It's an Indo-European language.

The idea that Indo-European derives from Greek is not something I or anyone else said - it's your incomprehension about language families yet again.

Finally, you repeat what I just told you although you'd been claiming the opposite.

It's really obvious Nevets.

Nevets wrote:

Greek (Modern Greek: ελληνικά, elliniká) is an independent branch of the Indo-European family of languages, native to Greece, Cyprus, Albania and other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It has the longest documented history of any living Indo-European language, spanning at least 3,500 years of written records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language

Indo-european was introduce to Norway 1500 years before it was introduced to Greece

The break-through occurred between 2900 and 2500 BC, when oats, barley, pigs, cattle, sheep and goats became common and spread as far north as Alta. This period also saw the arrival of the Corded Ware culture, which brought new weapons, tools and an Indo-European dialect, from which the Norwegian language developed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... Prehistory

As usual, you make up assertions that you don't support.

As usual, you don't understand the difference between language and script.

Nevets wrote:Now, as you can see, it is the corded ware culture that brought Indo-European to Scandinavia

How did the Corded Ware culture enter into Scandinvia, Nevets?

Nevets wrote:But this culture, had earlier been referred to as a reindeer hunting Arhenburg Culture

No, that's completely false and clueless.

Nevets wrote:

The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian (c. 12,900 to 11,700 BP[1]) was a late Upper Paleolithic nomadic hunter culture (or technocomplex) in north-central Europe during the Younger Dryas, the last spell of cold at the end of the Weichsel glaciation resulting in deforestation and the formation of a tundra with bushy arctic white birch and rowan. The most important prey was the wild reindeer. The earliest definite finds of arrow and bow date to this culture, though these weapons might have been invented earlier. The Ahrensburgian was preceded by the Hamburg and Federmesser cultures and superseded by the Maglemosian and Swiderian cultures. Ahrensburgian finds were made in southern and western Scandinavia, the North German plain and western Poland. The Ahrensburgian area also included vast stretches of land now at the bottom of the North and Baltic Sea, since during the Younger Dryas the coastline took a much more northern course than today.

The culture is named after a tunnel valley near the village of Ahrensburg, 25 km (16 mi) northeast of Hamburg in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, where Ahrensburg find layers were excavated in Meiendorf, Stellmoor and Borneck. While these as well as the majority of other find sites date to the Young Dryas, the Ahrensburgian find layer in Alt Duvenstedt has been dated to the very late Allerød, thus possibly representing an early stage of Ahrensburgian which might have corresponded to the Bromme culture in the north. Artefacts with tanged points are found associated with both the Bromme and the Ahrensburg cultures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture

Your citation contains zero support for your claim that Corded Ware Culture was referred to as the Ahrenburg culture, and instead shows exactly the opposite - they weren't the same culture at all, and that is the entire point of this.

Nevets wrote:And i "repeat", ALL Germanic languages derive from Scandinavia, as ALL Germanic languages are a branch of Indo-european.

You can repeat it as much as you like, you remain wrong because you don't understand anything relevant. Like I said: you might as well call Scandinavian languages Pontic according to your nonsensical argument employing exactly the same 'logic'.

Nevets wrote:
And ALL Germanic languages, derive from Iron-age Scandinavia

No, not from only Scandinavia, also from northern Germany.

Nevets wrote:
The Proto bit, being Indo.

No, that's not what it means.

Nevets wrote:It became Indo-european when it reached Scandinavia.

No, that's not what it means or refers to.

Nevets wrote:But Indo only received its European blessing from the Ayran invasion, around 2000bc

That's typical gibberish.

Nevets wrote:Which means Hitlers blue eyed Norse-men had already spread Aryan to other peoples, that then spread it to India

This is probably what's motivating you into this crazy bullshit sham - something must be, and it seems likely that this is really what you're all about.

Aryan isn't a thing you 'spread'.

The Norse were not relevant to the Aryan conquest of Northern India because the Norse did not exist when this occurred.

You are trolling. Most of what you attribute to me saying, i never even said.

Nevets wrote:Which part of modern day europe and ancient day Germania, do people not understand?

Which people?

You? Then all of it.

Nevets wrote:Indo-european, was in those days, Indo-Germanic

No it wasn't - you're making up bullshit again.

Nevets wrote:
You are trolling. Most of what you attribute to me saying, i never even said.

You're lying - I quoted each and every instance.

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

That is just ignorence. The word "Nordic" refers to Northerner

Wrong. Your reading skills are appauling.

Appauling!

Spearthrower wrote:

You're so confused as usual. Greeks colonized Pontus around 800 BC.

The original PIE speakers spread into Europe over 3000 years prior to that.

Pontic Greek isn't a language, it's a dialect of Greek, and the people are ethnic Greeks who settled there in 800BC.

Greek is an Indo-European sub-group.

Indo-European, "does not" derive from Greek.

Greek derives from Indo-european, some 3.500 years ago[/quote]

Once again, you are trying to tell me stuff that a) you know fuck all about and b) that I know a lot about.

So the idea that Greek is an Indo-European sub-group is wrong. It's an Indo-European language.

The idea that Indo-European derives from Greek is not something I or anyone else said - it's your incomprehension about language families yet again.

Finally, you repeat what I just told you although you'd been claiming the opposite.

It's really obvious Nevets.

Nevets wrote:

Greek (Modern Greek: ελληνικά, elliniká) is an independent branch of the Indo-European family of languages, native to Greece, Cyprus, Albania and other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It has the longest documented history of any living Indo-European language, spanning at least 3,500 years of written records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language

Indo-european was introduce to Norway 1500 years before it was introduced to Greece

The break-through occurred between 2900 and 2500 BC, when oats, barley, pigs, cattle, sheep and goats became common and spread as far north as Alta. This period also saw the arrival of the Corded Ware culture, which brought new weapons, tools and an Indo-European dialect, from which the Norwegian language developed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... Prehistory

As usual, you make up assertions that you don't support.

As usual, you don't understand the difference between language and script.

Nevets wrote:Now, as you can see, it is the corded ware culture that brought Indo-European to Scandinavia

How did the Corded Ware culture enter into Scandinvia, Nevets?

Nevets wrote:But this culture, had earlier been referred to as a reindeer hunting Arhenburg Culture

No, that's completely false and clueless.

Nevets wrote:

The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian (c. 12,900 to 11,700 BP[1]) was a late Upper Paleolithic nomadic hunter culture (or technocomplex) in north-central Europe during the Younger Dryas, the last spell of cold at the end of the Weichsel glaciation resulting in deforestation and the formation of a tundra with bushy arctic white birch and rowan. The most important prey was the wild reindeer. The earliest definite finds of arrow and bow date to this culture, though these weapons might have been invented earlier. The Ahrensburgian was preceded by the Hamburg and Federmesser cultures and superseded by the Maglemosian and Swiderian cultures. Ahrensburgian finds were made in southern and western Scandinavia, the North German plain and western Poland. The Ahrensburgian area also included vast stretches of land now at the bottom of the North and Baltic Sea, since during the Younger Dryas the coastline took a much more northern course than today.

The culture is named after a tunnel valley near the village of Ahrensburg, 25 km (16 mi) northeast of Hamburg in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, where Ahrensburg find layers were excavated in Meiendorf, Stellmoor and Borneck. While these as well as the majority of other find sites date to the Young Dryas, the Ahrensburgian find layer in Alt Duvenstedt has been dated to the very late Allerød, thus possibly representing an early stage of Ahrensburgian which might have corresponded to the Bromme culture in the north. Artefacts with tanged points are found associated with both the Bromme and the Ahrensburg cultures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture

Your citation contains zero support for your claim that Corded Ware Culture was referred to as the Ahrenburg culture, and instead shows exactly the opposite - they weren't the same culture at all, and that is the entire point of this.

Nevets wrote:And i "repeat", ALL Germanic languages derive from Scandinavia, as ALL Germanic languages are a branch of Indo-european.

You can repeat it as much as you like, you remain wrong because you don't understand anything relevant. Like I said: you might as well call Scandinavian languages Pontic according to your nonsensical argument employing exactly the same 'logic'.

Nevets wrote:
And ALL Germanic languages, derive from Iron-age Scandinavia

No, not from only Scandinavia, also from northern Germany.

Nevets wrote:
The Proto bit, being Indo.

No, that's not what it means.

Nevets wrote:It became Indo-european when it reached Scandinavia.

No, that's not what it means or refers to.

Nevets wrote:But Indo only received its European blessing from the Ayran invasion, around 2000bc

That's typical gibberish.

Nevets wrote:Which means Hitlers blue eyed Norse-men had already spread Aryan to other peoples, that then spread it to India

This is probably what's motivating you into this crazy bullshit sham - something must be, and it seems likely that this is really what you're all about.

Aryan isn't a thing you 'spread'.

The Norse were not relevant to the Aryan conquest of Northern India because the Norse did not exist when this occurred[/quote]

Are you crazy? Do you expect me to deal with all this trash?
Please. Condense your counter arguments to one major claim at a time.
I cant deal with "all that".

Cite your main counterclaim

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/relig ... l#p2737361

Nevets wrote:
That is just ignorence. The word "Nordic" refers to Northerner

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/relig ... l#p2737381

Nevets wrote:Wrong. Your reading skills are appauling.

If you wanted as clear an example as is imaginable that this guy is both clueless and trolling, you can't really ask for a better object example.

Nevets asserts X.
Nevets then misquotes someone else as saying X.
Nevets then calls his own assertion of X wrong.

Nevets wrote:
Now that is how an Academic wins a debate!

1) You snipped out the other parts.
2) You once again randomly capitalized 'academic'.
3) It's how anyone responds to obvious trolling: fuck off.

Nevets wrote:

Hermit wrote:
3) Fuck off
Now that is how an Academic wins a debate!
Quote mining is frowned upon in this forum, but just speaking for myself only, I'm getting used to you ignoring almost everything I write.

The problem is, what you are debating, has already been debated by others, and i have already responded.

Responding doesn't mean you're right - your responses are dire.

Nevets wrote:If you are not also reading the conversations i am having with others, i cannot keep on continuing to have the same argument over and over with each individual.

That's tough titties for you, isn't it?

Nevets wrote:The answers to your queries are already mentioned in the thread.
If you choose not to look for them, no probs.

Feel free to cite them if you want to appeal to them, otherwise answer Hermit's post or fail to answer Hermit's post. Your choice.

Ok. No chance of having a debate with Hermit.

Nevets wrote:
But what else can i do? I have already shown that the Ahrensburg culture came from the North and spread out from there.
What else can i do to support it? Nothing.
All i can do then, is try and debunk it.
So let us go to prehistoric known history of europe.
And it says during the Neolithic period that european civilisation spread from Greece to the North around 7000BC.
So this would support an argument against myself.
As Ahrensburg culture begins in the North, 15,000BC and works its way South.

Nearly all of this is wrong.

Nevets wrote:

The European Neolithic period—marked by the cultivation of crops and the raising of livestock, increased numbers of settlements and the widespread use of pottery—began around 7000 BC in Greece and the Balkans, probably influenced by earlier farming practices in Anatolia and the Near East.[50] It spread from the Balkans along the valleys of the Danube and the Rhine (Linear Pottery culture) and along the Mediterranean coast (Cardial culture). Between 4500 and 3000 BC, these central European neolithic cultures developed further to the west and the north https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Prehistory

This contradicts your claims.

Nevets wrote:Do you have any better sources yourself? Because i am now arguing your counter argument for you.

As I've informed you before - the fact that you make assertions in the absence of support means no one is obliged to go looking for sources: they can just dismiss your assertions with the same support you offered, i.e. nothing.

Nevets wrote:Ok. No chance of having a debate with Hermit.
If this childish nonsense is the best that can be done as a rational debate, then i win, due the behaviour of my opponents.

He says engaging in childish behavior.

Nevets wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:...or more commonly known as trolling like a boss.

RS

Well no.
I am testing the method of arguing against my own claim to see which one stands up best.
I was hoping others on the forum could play the part of the counter argument.
But none was given.
Apparently i am just a dyslexic wife beater that should fuck off.

As usual, you've failed to grasp many thing, but I'll educate you about one of them as it's new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed

This was back when you tried to use a loaded question, and someone responded with 'Do you still beat your wife?' meaning - you're using a loaded question.

Nevets wrote:What i willl say, is stricltly speaking, european prehistory is not Scandinavian pre-history, as Scandinavia is a seperate sub-continent, not covered by European pre-history.

That's got nothing to do with anything at all and even insofar as it has some meaning, it contradicts a swathe of your assertions.

Nevets wrote:
The thread has been trolled.

This thread is trolling from start to finish.

Nevets wrote:But i can assure you, that it has already been established.
But i will do so again, just for you.

No, it hasn't been established - you keep citing one line excerpts from Wikipedia that don't support your arguments.

Nevets wrote:

Historically, the name can also refer to a larger region, containing both present-day Schleswig-Holstein and the former South Jutland County (Northern Schleswig; now part of the Region of Southern Denmark) in Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-Holstein

Like this: completely irrelevant to everything.

Nevets wrote:I do not see how anyone can have any problem with Schleswig being very much Danish. Just look.

At the relevant time to the invasion of the British Isles, it was populated by a Germanic tribe - the Angles, speaking a Germanic language, worshiping Germanic gods.

You've attempted all manner of nonsense to assert that the Angles were Scandinavian, from claiming that something which occurred 15,000 years prior was relevant, to leaping into a time long after the relevant time period to talking about the region being under the sway of the Danish throne which is obviously irrelevant for the time.

But no one is confused by your deranged non-sequiturs, Nevets. Everyone can see that the only relevant fact is that the Angles were a Germanic tribe, so you were wrong in trying to claim that they were Scandinavian, and a whole bunch of sundry bollocks that you also asserted vaguely connected to that.

Nevets wrote:
Schleswig had "never" had anything to do with Germany at-all, until 1864

Not "Germany" - Germanic. Go look up the word 'anachronism'.

Nothing had anything to do with 'Germany' prior to the existence of a country with that name.

However, one can talk about the region the current day Germany holds and then use that as a referent to aid understanding of the past. That's why we say things like 'X people lived in current-day Y' - no one's saying that Y existed at that time, quite the contrary.

Again though, this is all a red herring because all that's relevant is that the Angles were a Germanic people, speaking a Germanic language, worshiping Germanic gods - and as this was the original false claim you made that spun off into all these silly diversions, you were wrong.

Nevets wrote:Now, whilst the article does mention the Saxon name for this area, one must remember. ALL Germanic languages, which would "include" West Germanic, take root from Iron-age Scandinavia

That's irrelevant. That doesn't make the people Scandinavian, that doesn't make their language Scandinavian, that doesn't make their culture Scandinavian.

Nevets wrote:Now, before i get accused of my article not saying this, i will copy and paste the article below this post, so if anyone has any objections, they can site exactly what contradicts what i quoted

Your article doesn't support your argument.

Nevets wrote:Schlewig Holstein History, if anyone objects to what i quoted above

You then proceed to copy and paste the entire body of a Wikipedia page that has fuck all to do with anything, it all being about the modern period, and none of it being about the relevant period of the 6th century C.E., i.e. more than a thousand years prior to anything in your quote.

This inability of yours to process different time periods and to simply lift irrelevant factoids from one period to assert claims about an entirely different period ensures you will remain forever confused. Your arrogance will not let you acknowledge your ignorance.

Nevets wrote:Ok, so now that the debate is down to me being hit with a claim, then me tackling that claim, then the thread being trolled, and someone else coming along highlighting same claim, then thread being trolled, then someone else coming along and citing same claim, unless anyone else has anything else to object, i think we can safely say another sound victory for me.

Therefore, i am claiming victory, again, unless there are any valid objections, or any farther counter arguments that have not already been successfully countered

You are childish.

This isn't a formal debate; this is a discussion forum with existing rules that you don't get to make up just because you came and took a dump on it.

You keep claiming victory because it's the only way you can pretend to yourself you're doing well. In reality, you're being shown up time and time and time again as being abjectly fucking clueless - way beyond your actual knowledge or ability.

Nevets wrote:

Hermit wrote:
For instance, I have noted in several posts now that the Angles have moved to what became known as Schleswig-Holstein from the east rather than the north, and were therefore not related to the Norse/Nordic/Danes/Vikings you claim them to be. You have yet to address that specifically.

Another example: I have repeatedly written that references to cultures who lived anywhere between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago (e.g. Ahrensburg Cordware) are irrelevant. You have yet to comment on that too.

Schleswig was neither Danish nor German at the time the Angles lived there. It was known as Anglia. That's because the land was inhabited by the Angles. Weird, huh?

And you have once again failed to address how the Angles can be related to the Norse/Nordic/Danes/Vikings when they arrived in what was then called Anglia from the east-southeast somewhere between 100 and 400 AD while the Norse/Nordic/Danes/Vikings arrived in Anglia some time after 700 AD. Congratulations.

No, i have not failed to address anything.

Your explanation why the Angles can be related to the Norse/Nordic/Danes/Vikings despite the fact that they arrived in what was then called Anglia from the east-southeast somewhere between 100 and 400 AD while the Norse/Nordic/Danes/Vikings arrived in Anglia some time after 700 AD, must be well hidden. I can't find it anywhere.

In case you're thinking that references to cultures who lived anywhere between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago (e.g. Ahrensburg and Cordware) or to proto-Germanic or Indo-European languages do the trick, no, they don't cut the mustard. It would be like claiming that the Tesla Roadster is a development of the Patentwagen. True, but the difference between them is so great that what they still have in common (both are horseless carriages) pales into insignificance.

Nevets wrote:
No, i have not failed to address anything. Your response, is the "exact" same response as the others earlier in the thread.

Hermit's response is the same because he's drawing from the same reality as the rest of us.

It's you who appears to believe that their rabid confusion and make-believe dictates facts.

Nevets wrote:Go to history of Denmark.

Denmark has been populated by Nordic peoples since at least 1800BC, according to Nordic Bronze age findings

We're talking about the Angles, you start referring to Denmark - ergo, before you even start, you're already confused and wrong.

The Kingdom of Denmark is an anachronism with respect to the Angles. During the time of the Angles, there was no Denmark.

So what could it mean to talk about Denmark with respect to the Angles? Well, we could be talking about the geographical area of Denmark, and if we did that, we'd presumably be using the modern day geographical area of Denmark. The place the Angles inhabited prior to the existence of Denmark is largely south of modern day Denmark - the northern part of it is in present-day Denmark, but the majority of it is in Northern Germany.

Trying to find some time when that piece of land was in the contemporary Denmark is an exercise in anachronism because it just doesn't matter. It will not establish that the Angles were Danish, Scandinavian, or Norse. The Angles were Germanic - end of story. Germanic peoples were not Danish, Scandinavian or Norse. End of story.

Nevets wrote:
Now there is no reason to associate Denmark with Nordic, because Denmark is actually part of european mainland, and not geographically consistent with Nordic territory, so Nordic Bronze age is not the samething as Bronze age.

Wut?

Nevets wrote:And i would not usually explain what Nordic peoples are, as usually it would not need to be explained, but i suspect the next argument will be, what does Nordics have to do with Norse people, so i will tell you.

We all know what you mean: you don't know anything relevant at all, but you're going to pretend it's other people who don't understand rather than you, and you're going to go cite some section from Wikipedia to pretend you know what you're talking about, only it's going to be irrelevant and thus show you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, we've seen that a couple of hundred times already.

Nevets wrote:Nordic countries.

The Nordic countries, or the Nordics,[2] are a geographical and cultural region in Northern Europe and the North Atlantic, where they are most commonly known as Norden (literally "the North").[3] The term includes Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands—which are both part of the Kingdom of Denmark—and the Åland Islands (Finland) as well as Jan Mayen and Svalbard archipelagos that belong to Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries

Thank you. You just claimed you'd explain what 'Nordic people' are, and you've instead cited an excerpt called 'Nordic countries'.

Nevets wrote:But does it matter?

No, of course it doesn't as we've consistently told you. It's a shell game you're playing. Your ridiculous diversion arose because you claimed that the Angles were Scandinavian, Danish, Norse etc. when they absolutely weren't and your claims were false, anachronistic, and contradicted by your own sources.

Nevets wrote: Is it not enough that the Ahrensburg culture that arrived around 15000bc, spread out over europe? I think the Norse people have had great influence on European mainland.

Ahrensburg culture is not 'Norse', so it's irrelevant and crazily anachronistic.

They also didn't "spread out across Europe" - they were nomadic hunter-gatherers centred in the region of Northern Germany.

They had no lasting impact whatsoever on the European mainland. Waves and waves of incoming people obliterated them, their material culture, and their way of life.


Ahrensburg cultureAnd they still have a stronghold, even today, in Denmark, even though Denmark is not in the subcontinent of Scandinavia. Geographically it is european mainland. But politically it is Scandinavai[/quote]

No, they do not have a 'stronghold' anywhere - this is insane. And you've ended with some counter-factual bollocks that you think is clever enough to prove you right even though it's an admission that you're completely wrong.

Nevets wrote:Are you crazy? Do you expect me to deal with all this trash?
Please. Condense your counter arguments to one major claim at a time.
I cant deal with "all that".

Cite your main counterclaim

What a pig's ear you made of that post, eh Nevets?

The trash contained therein is wholly yours - you 'expect' us to deal with the volume of vomit you keep spewing here.

I'll post how I like - you are not going to tell me how to post. If your claims are random, illegible, incoherent, then necessarily the responses will be obliged to jump with wilful abandon around with your epileptic offerings.

I don't care if you can or can't deal with it - but if I was being as childish as you, then according to your own arguments - I've won, right?

Main counterclaim: you're talking shit.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2737487

Nevets wrote:Ok. No chance of having a debate with Hermit.

Again this was edited long after it was posted.

This time, however, I managed to quote it prior to it being edited:

Nevets cut this line:

Nevets wrote:If this childish nonsense is the best that can be done as a rational debate, then i win, due the behaviour of my opponents.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/old-a ... t-t76.html

Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to:

1.2. not

k. edit your posts substantially if others have responded to them.

Hermit wrote:
Your explanation why the Angles can be related to the Norse/Nordic/Danes/Vikings despite the fact that they arrived in what was then called Anglia from the east-southeast somewhere between 100 and 400 AD while the Norse/Nordic/Danes/Vikings arrived in Anglia some time after 700 AD, must be well hidden. I can't find it anywhere.

In case you're thinking that references to cultures who lived anywhere between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago (e.g. Ahrensburg and Cordware) or to proto-Germanic or Indo-European languages do the trick, no, they don't cut the mustard. It would be like claiming that the Tesla Roadster is a development of the Patentwagen. True, but the difference between them is so great that what they still have in common (both are horseless carriages) pales into insignificance.

Congratulations Hermit: you won the shell game.