[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ad Yurii Gloriam (Was Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated)
For the people that may be coming late to this endless repetition of arguments
my Mr Yuri Kuchinsky, I will paste, at the end of this note, a couple of
former Mr Kuchinsky's postings regarding this very issue, so you can
understand why so many of us are tired of his tirades, delusions, circular
arguments, rationalizations and the whole barrage of rhetorical ammunition he
throws around evry time his strong-held *beliefs* are questioned.
His style is to read one difussionist book, and throw article by article to
this patient forum, changing articles as the beating gets too tough. The he
denies that he said anything before, and begins all over again.
For the rest of Mr Kuchinsky's... er... "bibliography", I recommend DejaNews
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Domingo Martinez (email@example.com) wrote:
>: You fill your mouth with words like "scholarly" and
>"academic", and then you : want to resolve the whole issue with a survey
>of people in the streets : looking at pictures.
>You really did not understand what I was trying to say there, did you?
>What I was trying to say was that these arguments will never be settled
>merely by discussing the similarities between the carvings and maize.
>Impossible... AND YET, I firmly believe that these arguments WILL BE
>SETTLED eventually. How will this happen? Well, these are just some
Mr Kuchinsky wrote, the 27th of December, exactly the following words:
>I have followed the maize, and other likely plants, diffusion discussions
>for a while. I cannot think of any evidence that is stronger than
>Johannessen's in demonstrating transpacific contacts. This is definitely
>the "smoking gun". It is so, because, and I guarantee you that, if you
>ask 10 "men in the street" to look at these photos and to identify these
>plants, 10 of them -- without any doubt -- will say, This is maize. And
>this is good enough for me.
This followed a posting in which he made the following lyric and
earth-shaking announcement of the day before:
>Nevertheless, up to now, I've not been able to identify a real
>"Smoking Gun". Such real "Smoking Gun" would need to be something
>preferably not too complex to evaluate that, if considered by an
>impartial observer, will _leave no doubt_ in the mind of the
>observer that these ancient transoceanic contacts _existed for
>sure_. But now, it seems, I have it! What a moment...
(I almost cried at the sight of these last words!)
>The best parts for a layman are the photographs. Yes, this is the
>"Smoking Gun", no doubt about it... The stone carvings are
>_extremely intricate_ and realistic -- and well preserved. No
>mistake about it. Every little grain of corn is portrayed
>painstakingly. _Little doubt_ can remain that corn was definitely in
>India very early on!
>a) As Johannessen's research indicates that maize was a staple crop in
>that area, these cob fossils shouldn't really be that difficult to turn up
>in excavations. Is anyone looking for them?
Yes. <SARCASM> CIMMYT has set up a special task force, and it is looking...
They have earmarked (pun intended) a significant amount of their dollars just
to look for cobs so Mr Kuchinsky can help Mr Johannessen's case and become
famous as the Knight Of Indian Maize.</SARCASM>
>b) The evidence from studying maize genetic liniages alone can tell us
>when maize arrived to India. This work is being done now.
And...? Should not we wait until the experts publish their results before
writing our self-fulfilling poems?
>c) Our ability to find and analyse ancient plant pollen is constantly
>So THIS IS where the final confirmation will come from, I believe. The
>carvings are merely a strong indication that maize was in India
>pre-Columbus. They should point us towards further research.
>Do you understand my point now? I should hope so...
No, because I do not know through which personality stage you are going
through (see the paragraphs pasted above). I doubt that the concept of "now"
you use coincides with mine.
>"I do not intend to go back to the question of whether the word _kumara_
>[signifying sweet potato, _Ipomoea_], which has reflexes in most
>Polynesian langauges, is of South American Indian origin. The case for it
>has been proven beyond doubt (Yen 1974)" (p. 98)
A new thread, Yuri? True to your style, huh? Another "beyond doubt" thingy?
>So how about you try this one on for size, Domingo?
No thanks, not interested. My interest is not to disprove theories. Get it?
>And do I really need to explain to you that the case for the
>human-assisted diffusion of potato west from America pre-Columbus
>significantly strengthens the case for the similar diffusion of maize? I
Me too. :-)
>: And do not expect for people in these forums to be able to disprove
>stuff that : you put forward, because "disproving" cannot be done, as
>people have : repeatedly said here.
>Well, I can disprove to you right now that I'm not Anasthasia, the heir to
>the Russian throne.
Do not tempt me, Anasthasia, don't do it. You have chosen another bad
example, because nobody knows what happened with you after 1917. It is very
hard to disprove that (even though I do not know why it would be necessary: if
you want to be Anasthasia, or Nostradamus, go ahead: I will not complain).
>Or that you are not Napoleon...
In that we agree, and I do not know anybody else interested in
probing, let alone proving, such a ridiculous thing.
>certainly can be disproved through finding new evidence. Perhaps you
>should brush up on these theoretical considerations...
Yes master, please teach us... NOT!
>Yes, but on the other hand, we can prove that technology existing at the
>time was sufficient for constructing it.
What for? That does not help us with our alien hypotheses. <SARCASM>
Actually, is anybody looking seriously into the alien-built mounds along the
Mississippi and Ohio valleys? Why not? </SARCASM>
Now I go away to become whole after having sinned.