| Revision as of 06:16, 17 August 2006 editWIN (talk | contribs)1,025 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:10, 17 August 2006 edit undoDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Siting this website is not written as some evidence by me. Your words as wrong & mis-leading in totality. There are many points which goes against AIT / AMT. Why I don't find any comment on that ? Because you are just negating valid against points , mine or any `against AIT/AMT theory' scholars. Why don't you write instead and not skip that against points in talk pages of AIT and AMT. ] 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | Siting this website is not written as some evidence by me. Your words as wrong & mis-leading in totality. There are many points which goes against AIT / AMT. Why I don't find any comment on that ? Because you are just negating valid against points , mine or any `against AIT/AMT theory' scholars. Why don't you write instead and not skip that against points in talk pages of AIT and AMT. ] 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :your words do not even ''parse'' WIN, far from making any sort of point beyond spreading an aura of surrealism. ] <small>]</small> 08:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:10, 17 August 2006
Can we link http://www.indoeurohome.com/ or is that over the top? It's a beautiful specimen of kookery, the man is even proudly displaying a letter from Jan Puhvel politely returning his 'material' calling his stuff 'erudite esoterica' :o)
- The relationship between the Cypriot script and early Chinese phonitics and radicals points to some parts of this script having been formed before the exodus of the Indus Valley (link to that page below). The sign that started me to look at the Ecliptic stars is the sign next to zo it is the the same sign used today for Aquarius.
This chap is a riot, there can be no doubt he could decipher a 3-years-old's doodles as Vedic Sanskrit dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah yes, this is WIN's latest bit of "evidence" isn't it. I had a quick look at it the other day, but it seemed barely decipherable! I'll add it to external links. Paul B 10:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- only if we add this to Category:Pseudoscience -- I realize the 19th century proposals were perfectly defensible, and we need to take care to distinguish between serious but obsolete theories and this sort of hilarious quackery :) dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Siting this website is not written as some evidence by me. Your words as wrong & mis-leading in totality. There are many points which goes against AIT / AMT. Why I don't find any comment on that ? Because you are just negating valid against points , mine or any `against AIT/AMT theory' scholars. Why don't you write instead and not skip that against points in talk pages of AIT and AMT. WIN 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- your words do not even parse WIN, far from making any sort of point beyond spreading an aura of surrealism. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)