The real history of Thor

Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Paganism, Taoism etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: The real history of Thor

#241  Postby Nevets » Mar 15, 2020 8:19 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
So what reason do i have to believe the Anglos were anything but Norsemen, appart from mythology? For me to believe they were anything else, would be an unsupported belief.


Spearthrower wrote:For you to believe they were Norse would be an unsupported belief.


But what supports the belief they were Germanic?

Spearthrower wrote:Its also a belief we can track you deciding to believe when you were shown wrong on other topics.


What method was used to prove i was wrong?

Spearthrower wrote:We can also point to the numerous references that have said, in no uncertain terms, that the Angles were Germanic people, speaking Germanic languages, and worshiping Germanic gods - so the supposed 'unsupported' belief that they were not Norse has actually already been shown very clearly and you've offered not a single jot of evidence against this idea.


I said this? :lol:


Nevets wrote:I mean, what supports the belief that anglos were not Norse? is there evidence for this? Is there even a historian that makes this claim?


Spearthrower wrote:Fuck off with your trolling. Every single citation provided in this thread and in the thread before shows that the Anglos were Germanic peoples of the Suebi tribe.


Really? wow..could you show me this reference once more?

Spearthrower wrote:Your refusal to accept facts doesn't make that facts questionable - it makes your motivation bizarre.


What are the facts that i dont accept?


Nevets wrote:Also just read my own link. And at the end, it says, the Jutes, assimilated (in britain) with the settling Danes. This does not even mention Saxons.


So?


Nevets wrote:I think you would be struggling to find any authentic proof whatsoever, that angles were the same people as Saxons, or that Saxons, were Danish.


Spearthrower wrote:No one has claimed that the Saxons are the same people as the Angles - that's why they've got different names.


So if the angles and the Saxons are not the same people, what are the differences?

Spearthrower wrote:Similarly, no one has said that the Saxons were Danish.


Who said anyone said Saxons were Danish?

Spearthrower wrote:So fuck off with your strawmen.


Who are my strawmen?


Nevets wrote:And therefore i win this debate, as you brought to the table a counter argument, that you would not possibly be able to back up with proof, as it is an argument not supported by any academic


Spearthrower wrote:Fuck off with your vapid trolling.


You like that word dont you.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The real history of Thor

#242  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:21 am

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nevets wrote:

I have made a thread just for you.

Since I did not ask you to, no-one will be fooled by yet another attempt to run away from a thread where your arse water has been soundly refuted, to go down another rabbit hole. :naughty:

Why do you still struggle with the basic quote function on this site? :roll:

Nevets wrote:
You I continuously misunderstand.

FIFY. Stop projecting Nevets. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:You are I keep going down the Rabbit holes.

FIFY. Stop projecting Nevets.

Nevets wrote:
You are Latinised.
But what you truelly are, is Hellenised.
You will defend Hermes, the Greek God of Language, by trying to remove any connection with Indo-europeans, in order to promote the lie that the Greek Gods gave you your language.

You do this automatically. Without even realising you are doing it.

You will even default to just blindly "assuming" that if it was not recorded in writing, then it must have been passed from generation to generation via oral tradition, because it certainly was not the Norse people that gave the great Greek philisophers, and writers of the Old Testament, their language. Those drunken barbarians. And you will spout this belief blindly, without any citation whatsoever.
Yet, i assume you are probably a Celt. Your belief is one of a conquered Celt.
Belief in Jesus and God is irrelevant.

I don't care to figure in your masturbatory fantasies, much less hear about them Nevets. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#243  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:22 am

Nevets wrote:
Fallible wrote:What’s upodated? What’s druring? We say ‘had given them’ or ‘gave them’, not ‘had gave them’. What’s truelly? What’s philisophers?

https://www.dictionary.com/

Those words cannot be found in the dictionary Nevets. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#244  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:25 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
And a lovely map it is too. (Take note of the title: Anglo-Saxon Migration 5th century) It shows an area labelled "Anglia" and an area marked "Saxon Coast". That would be where the Angles and the Saxons lived round about the fifth century. But where is your argument that the Saxons were descended from Norse-men and the Anglos (sic), were still very much Norse? If Tacitus is correct the Angles came from the east somewhere between 100 and 400 AD. The Norse, Danes, Vikings, or whatever you want to call them, came from the north starting around 700 BC. Your attempt to connect the Angles with the Norse fails due to a geographical as well as a timing problem, which is what the post you should have replied to was all about.

Viking invasions, AD 700-1000
Image


Ahrenburg culture

Has fuck all to do with Angles, Saxons, Norse or Danes. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
But this has been explained blindly asserted about 20 times now.

FIFY. Stop lying Nevets.

Nevets wrote:
Is getting impossible.

Because you keep refusing to deal with the facts and instead resort to ever more elaborate fantasies that are not reflected by the Wiki pages you quote from. :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#245  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:28 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:What’s upodated? What’s druring? We say ‘had given them’ or ‘gave them’, not ‘had gave them’. What’s truelly? What’s philisophers?
https://www.dictionary.com/
Fallible was not inquiring about the meanings of those words. She was wondering why your posts contain so many typographical errors. I too wonder about them. Are you dyslexic or do you type with your elbows?


Have i accused you of being bald, or autistic?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? :coffee:

Nevets wrote:Deal in facts please.

Physician heal thyself.

Nevets wrote:
I'm not getting personal, and am not judging you.

Blatant lie.


Nevets wrote:
Spelling errors will happen however when you type as fast as i have too.

Except no-one's forcing you to type that fast. :crazy:

Nevets wrote:
I dont have the luxury of being a 5 worder that can spell check those five words

More gibberish.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#246  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:29 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
3) Fuck off


Now that is how an Academic wins a debate!

Blatant quote-mine detected. :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#247  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:31 am

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.

The problem is that you're still imagining a debate in this thread where you keep winning.
In reality, there is no debate, just a discussion and you've repeatedly been shown to be ignorant, overconfident and trolling.

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

Your responses have been thoroughly refuted Nevets.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The real history of Thor

#248  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:33 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote: last one because you've already replied to posts by others? You can't have it both ways.


But what else can i do? I have already shown counter-factually asserted that the Ahrensburg culture came from the North and spread out from there.

FIFY. Stop lying Nevets. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
What else can i do to support it? Nothing.

That tends to be the case when your claims are not only bullshit, but contrary to established facts as well.
The solution is to stop bullshitting, not mindlessly repeating the same nonsense over and over. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#249  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:37 am

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.

If your argument is composed of nothing but fantasy and counterfactual claims, there's no need to argue against it. :coffee:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#250  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:38 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
But what else can i do?
Well, to start with, you could reply to specific objections I have made.

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.


The thread has been trolled.

By your own hand. :naughty:

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

FIFY. Stop lying Nevets. :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#251  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:39 am

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

Still not interested in your fantasies, nor will I be in the future, Nevets. :coffee:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#252  Postby Nevets » Mar 15, 2020 8:39 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:

But my argument is not that it was Danish culture, it is that Nordic culture was evident in the land that is now referred to as Denmark,...


As I have already shown and you acknowledged: the land is now called "Germany".


Denmark is now called Germany, really?


Spearthrower wrote:Denmark is not called Germany. I clearly did not say that Denmark is called Germany. Fuck off with your trolling.


So what did you say then?



Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:You have repeatedly tried to claim that the Angles were Scandinavian.


What were the Angles then?


Spearthrower wrote:Germanic as all the links have shown - even your own links have shown this.


Oh, Can you show may one link i provided that shows the Anglos were Germanic?


Nevets wrote:
What does Nordic culture mean then?


Spearthrower wrote:In terms of the relevant period, there's a map showing you exactly what Nordic Culture means, plus I've already explained to you what the term 'culture' means in these respects.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... e#p2737042

Spearthrower wrote:I expect you don't realize this, but the term 'culture' in these contexts doesn't refer to the standard usage of it as is commonly used... rather, it specifically means an identifiable, specific method of creating particular implements, tools, and objects - a material culture. When we go back to the ancient world and prehistoric periods, we know very little about the people because they tended to use materials which decompose, they had no written words, made no monuments, and so left no archaeological remains - the only thing we get to see is the objects they made from durable materials, typically tools, and the style and method of making those tools is labeled with a name like "Hamburg" (typically based on a region in which it's first found, or sometimes a particular style as with 'Corded Ware Culture') to denote that process of manufacturing. As ideas like this can spread between socially and culturally different groups of people, there's no implication that all the people using Hamburg Culture, for example, were the same cultural group of people in that they spoke the same language, had the same religious beliefs, or organized themselves similarly - all it shows and all we can know is that they made specific types of tools in specific types of ways, and we can track the spread of those production methods.


Ok, do you have any reason to believe that those cultures were anything other than Norse? Or do you think they were Slavic? Or Latin? And is it not true that Germania was just the Roman name for europe mainland?

Spearthrower wrote:This tells us nothing at all about the ethnicity of the people, their genetic distinctiveness, their beliefs, their language etc.


What is the ethnic difference between a Germanic and a Scandinavian?

Spearthrower wrote:So "Nordic" in these terms is just a label used to differentiate it from the other material cultures present, and in this case because it included both southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, and whoever decided to label it so chose to call it 'Nordic'.


Was it not the Romans that labelled it? Why do you say "whoever decided"?


Nevets wrote:
Nevets wrote: meaning, that if the Scandinavians conquered Denmark, which is geographically in Europe mainland, they did so in 1800BC.


Spearthrower wrote:That is so far removed from reason, there's nothing else to say but 'wrong'.


So, who were the peoples that inhabited Denmark 1800BC?


Spearthrower wrote:We know very little about who they were if you mean to ask in terms of how they were distinct genetically from their neighbours, only that they were the successors of the Corded Ware and Pitted Ware culture and consequently were likely an admixture of whatever people were living there when the PIE speakers spread there.


Who is we?


Nevets wrote:
So what people set up the Ahrensburg culture?


Spearthrower wrote:What does that mean?


Well, was it the Latins? Was it the Indians? Was it the Slavs?

Spearthrower wrote:Culture, as I've told you, is a method of manufacturing tools. It's not a 'culture' in the sense of customs and social organization of a particular discrete group. As any people can use tools, the existence of a material culture tells us nothing about the social cultural side. For that, you need to look at the evidence they left behind which may indicate traditions of burial, beliefs and social practices, or genetics where available to see how they were related to other groups.


So based upon those practises you are well familiar with, what conclusions did we draw?

Spearthrower wrote:As the Ahrensburg culture is a Palaeolithic grouping, there's no written record at all, so we can't know what language they spoke, but we can know it wasn't PIE or anything derived from PIE.


How can we know it was not PIE? if we do not know?

Spearthrower wrote:What you don't realize is that populations of different people flooded into Europe over and over again over the course of 10 millennia, nearly all hunter-gatherers until a wave of agriculturalists from the Middle East started locking down the land into more discrete tribal groups. After that, the PIE invaders came and either conquered, subjugated or interbred with resident peoples, or perhaps just traded with them, and spread their language and practices throughout Europe.


Oh wow... Thats amazing. Do you know who these people were? what language they spoke? Where they came from? Where did you get this information from?

Spearthrower wrote:So little is actually known about many of these people that they tend to be grouped together under collective names, like Western Hunter Gatherers who inhabited an area stretching from the British Isles to the Carpathians. It's unlikely they spoke the same language as they would have been isolated from each other for much of their lives, it's also unlikely they all used the same material culture when different resources were available


Its a shame we seem to not know much. If anything. Who is we btw?

Spearthrower wrote:So I'm afraid I can't grossly simplify this for you as it's just complicated. That's a fundamental truth about knowledge - the harder you look, the more complex it becomes. Simplicity is a product of simplistic analysis.


You seem very wise.
Thank you for clarifying all those things, and how little we know.
And thanks for the wise words about knowledge.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#253  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:41 am

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.

Blind counterfactual assertion #4562345

Nevets wrote: Your response, is the "exact" same response as the others earlier in the thread.

Because you keep mindlessly regurgitating PRATTs.

QED the rest of your post. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#254  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:42 am

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

FIFY, stop lying and projecting Nevets.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#255  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:45 am

Nevets wrote:
Are you crazy? Do you expect me to deal with all this trash?

It's not trash and if you had a shred of intellectual honesty you would deal with it. :coffee:

Nevets wrote:Please. Condense your counter arguments to one major claim at a time.

He's under no obligation to do so. Even-less so when you don't do that.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The real history of Thor

#256  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:46 am

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

Again, you don't know what a debate is. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#257  Postby Nevets » Mar 15, 2020 8:47 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:You're so confused as usual. Greeks colonized Pontus around 800 BC.


And the Persians didn't?



What has this got to do with anything at all?


Oh, sorry, is there no connection between europe and the Persians?
I just thought there might have been, with Persian also being derived from Indo-european,
But am i wrong?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#258  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:48 am

Spearthrower wrote:
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.

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#259  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:52 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote: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.


But i will provide a better answer, than my last one. There is no record in history of Saxons invading what is now Denmark.

Straw-man #6357354

Nevets wrote:
So what reason do i have to believe the Anglos were anything but Norsemen, appart from mythology?

Mythology also doesn't claim they are Norsemen. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
I mean, what supports the belief that anglos were not Norse?

Nothing.

Nevets wrote: is there evidence for this? Is there even a historian that makes this claim?

No and no.

Nevets wrote:
Also just read my own link. And at the end, it says, the Jutes, assimilated (in britain) with the settling Danes. This does not even mention Saxons.

Or Angles, nor does it take place in Scandinavia. Meaning this snippet, like so many you post, is completely irrelevant. :coffee:

Nevets wrote:
I think you would be struggling to find any authentic proof whatsoever, that angles were the same people as Saxons, or that Saxons, were Danish.

Straw-man #679679

Nevets wrote:
And therefore i win this debate, as you brought to the table a counter argument, that you would not possibly be able to back up with proof, as it is an argument not supported by any academic

A bunch of fantastical straw-men and fantasies does not lead to a victory Nevets. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#260  Postby Nevets » Mar 15, 2020 8:54 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:]You're so confused as usual. Greeks colonized Pontus around 800 BC.


Spearthrower wrote:Your claim is easily debunked. Quite simply. Pontus is of Persian origin.
The Kingdom of Pontus or Pontic Empire (Ancient Greek: Βασιλεία του Πόντου, Basileía tou Póntou) was a Hellenistic-era kingdom, centered in the historical region of Pontus and ruled by the Mithridatic dynasty of Persian originhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language


That's fucking stupid as usual.

The name 'Pontus' might be of Persian origin - that doesn't mean that Greeks didn't fucking settle that region, does it? :doh:


Silly me.
I forgot the debate was about Greece settling the region, and not about the fact that Greece got their language from Pontus.,mm


Nevets wrote:And Persian is indo-european :grin:
Persian (/ˈpɜːrʒən, -ʃən/), also known by its endonym Farsi (فارسی, fārsi, [fɒːɾˈsiː] (About this soundlisten)), is a Western Iranian language belonging to the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian subdivision of the Indo-European languages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language


Spearthrower wrote:Thick as shit.


Do you have any rational reason to come to the conclusion that thick as shit is a valid or legitimate response to something so self explanatory?

Nevets wrote:See, you're an amatuer.
If you were a real Pro, you would start at the beginning.
Not at 800BC :drunk:

Easy peasy japaneasy :lol:


You are a complete cock.

Shove your vapid trolling back up your arse and fuck off.


Hmm, nice
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Other Religions & Belief Systems

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest