GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081094951


From: "Richard Smith" <>
Subject: Re: POSSIBLE GATEWAY: FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:09:11 -0500
References: <c57e4f24.0403141731.5b931209@posting.google.com> <7004aa4b.0403311402.37df8950@posting.google.com> <BAIac.30928$0d.25045@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> <7004aa4b.0404010237.6708eb70@posting.google.com> <406BE67B.1020104@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404011411.797b638@posting.google.com> <406C9A90.B64BDFE0@scs.uiuc.edu> <7004aa4b.0404021653.cd38565@posting.google.com> <406E4EAD.4020207@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404031410.37aa9a31@posting.google.com> <406F48A7.9030007@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404040251.583cbad0@posting.google.com> <008801c41a36$76003de0$8a0c0043@hppav>


Ford,

As one of the "certain few others" who "can return to lurking, sniping and
attempted character assassination," I have followed the discussion laid out
in this thread. Amused that so many intelligent researchers with sound
creditials and a solid record of good, productive work would exert so much
effort discussing the possibility of the Ethopian connection with out first
examining the question of whether Solomon existed, I did some searching. I
can find no contemporary record that gives evidence that Solomon did exsist.

Richard Smith




----- Original Message -----
From: "~Ford~" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: POSSIBLE GATEWAY: FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE


> Basta! Can an agreement to disagree be reached? A number of us have
tried
> to explain terms to Mr. Potter; yet he seems not to be swayed by
> definitions, nor examples. Evidently he chooses not to be. I propose
that
> he continue in his desire for words from TAF that will not be forthcoming,
> (because Todd sees no grounds for admission of error, [when he sees no
> error], nor for apology). Mr. Potter can persist in his acceptance of the
> Solomonic claim of the Ethiopian Imperial family; and the rest of us can
> consider him wrong and/or misguided. Then we might all get back to work
on
> real genealogy, and due consideration of sources. And a certain few
others
> can return to lurking, sniping and attempted character assassination, as
is
> their wont.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shawn Potter" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, 04 April, 2004 05:51
> Subject: Re: POSSIBLE GATEWAY: FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE
>
>
> > "Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message
> news:<>...
> >
> > >
> > > You might want to read what I wrote again, as your summary bears
> > > no resemblance to it. I am saying just the opposite - that you
> > > reach (and can only reach) conclusions based on the information
> > > at hand, not on some hypothetical source yet to be discovered.
> > > This is not without implications. First, all genealogical
> > > conclusions are tentative, being based on the information
> > > currently available and subject to ammendment, alteration or
> > > rejection as a result of new discoveries. (This is not unique to
> > > genealogy - it applies to virtually all research.) Second,
> > > because this is always the case, it is silly to demand a
> > > disclaimer to this effect when someone reaches a conclusion you
> > > don't like.
> >
> >
> > I don't demand a disclaimer because I dislike your conclusion.
> > Accuracy demands a disclaimer, because it seems that you stated your
> > opinion as if it were a fact.
> >
> >
> > > > If you really believe that, why do you spend time on the
> > > > subject.
> > >
> > > If you prefer to be led by what you want to be true, rather than
> > > what is supported by evidence, then why do you spend time on
> > > genealogy, when literary fiction would seem to fulfill the same
> > > desire?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Why do you attack my motives rather than admit your error? What does
> > that say about your intellectual honesty?
> >
> >
> > > > Wouldn't a more rational--and honest--approach be to avoid
> > > > making unsupportable declarations?
> > >
> > > I did support the statement that I made. I gave the reasoning
> > > behind it and cited an author of the same opinion. I have asked
> > > you why you think this support fails, why you think it is an
> > > inaccurate analysis, but all you have done is stick your fingers
> > > in your ears and shout, "No!" Do you have a point, other than to
> > > express the offence that you appear to have taken at my having
> > > questioned a 1200-year descent without any names in between and
> > > without a single shred of supporting evidence?
> > >
> > > taf
> >
> >
> > The information you have provided so far does not support your extreme
> > statement. You did not merely question the descent. You declaired
> > that it was "...of identical nature to the numerous claims of descent
> > from Biblical
> > figures (House of David, Noah), heroic figures (Priam, Hengist) and
> > gods (Jupiter, Odin);" and now you are offended when someone asks you
> > to defend your assertion.
> >
> > Shawn
> >
>
>


This thread: