Mod for BC 2.4 - Broader Roman Recruitment (BRR)

[wudang_clown]

I don't think you're first question is legitimate.

I seriously have no idea how in your opinion that was relevant to the discussion and I'd really appreciate if you could explain it.

re: Your second statement. Why do you think what you think? Are you of the belief that it is a conjunction meaning down by the sea?

First of all, I don't think it's a belief, which would be more obvious for anyone having a bit more than any knowledge about Slavic languages. Secondly, that's not a conjunction, but a noun composed of prefix which happens to be also a preposition (attested in numerous other, not only Polish, toponyms, including few toponyms of other historical regions), meaning "by" among others, and a noun, not only Polish, meaning "sea".

Of course, that could be only one of possible etymologies, but if I may ask you: what was it that made Pomorze worthy to be called a fruit of a region that is far off few thousand kilometers? There was nothing there, maybe except amber. So how could be a densely forested area with no significant settlements a fruit of a region with already great history? What is a reason for such etymology of yours, except alleged linguistic links. Where's that Ockham's razor?

[Sarisophoros]

Any chance that someone puts up a working download link?

[Vanguard13]

Any chance that someone puts up a working download link?

They took Kim Dotcom down Goodbye MegaUpload

I have a new hardrive, and lost all my work.

I expect to be working concurrently until the release of BC 3.0.

Until or unless I know which elements of v 2.3 or 2.4 will be unchanged and/or compatible in 3.0, it is really futile to work on anything except the Map and the physical roster.

This is because we will have scripted events for BRR 1.0 which include the Battle of Manzikurt, all 4 Crusades, and the 1453 taking of Constanbul by Mohmet II.

Maybe someone else can give some clues or direction? Wudang maybe?

If anyone has a copy of beta version BRR 0.96 or below, it is compatible with BC 2.3.2

[Vanguard13]

I seriously have no idea how in your opinion that was relevant to the discussion and I'd really appreciate if you could explain it.

If you honestly have no idea, I'm a little surprised. Forgive my reluctance to take this question seriously. Asking two times, though is a charm. I am re-producing a lot of material of considerable weight from my own files and my own recollection.

I hope you understand that your simple, often almost flippant, one-line 'nahs' which require in turn my onerous and often times lengthy explanations does start to feel to me like a less than fair use of your established role as moderator. A sort of almost 'reverse trolling' in which your community respect is all that is needed to counter years of my own research.

Forgive that I am a relative new-comer to the TWC. I'm personally biased against 'National uniqueness' theories. I see them being attached to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia and most subsequent intra-European wars. That is my bias.

We all have biases, and when we pretend not to, we are being psychologically and intellectually dishonest. What is your bias?

The issue of the infamous Polish Bottle Blondes is a complex issue which involves sensitive self identification issues. It is sensitive because it involves a disparity between what we think we are, and what we actually are - what we are expected to be perceived as, and what our grandparents looked like. Below in the spoiler is a list of THE top Polish models and personalities, ALL of whom are - yes - Polish Bottle Blondes

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. Iga Wyrwał

2. Doda

3. Ewa Pacuła

4. Ola Jordan

5. Joanna Liszowska

6. Magda Mołek

7. Monika Sewioło

8. Izabella Scorupco

9. Anna Samusionek

10. Magda Modra

11. Julia Pietrucha

12. Magdalena Mielcarz

13. Agnieszka Wagner

14. Aneta Kręglicka

15. Joanna Brodzik

16. Pola Raksa

17. Agnieszka Cegielska

18. Ewa Wachowicz

19. Katarzyna Figura

20. Joanna Trzepiecińska

21. Izabela Janachowska

22. Hanna Lis

23. Weronika Książkiewicz

24. Bogumiła Wander

25. Agnieszka Popielewicz

26. Joania Krupa

27. Bogna Sworowska

28. Małgorzata Foremniak

29. Irena Karel

This to do with the disparity between actual haplogroups, and European self-identity socio-politics of the early-mid 20th century - which continue on to this very day. The Fisher-Salier (sp? forgive its been a while) scale is a co-determinant when factoring the A-J range of blonde hue.

Poles are predominantly 'R1a'. 'R1a' or 'Eu19' is the pan-Skythian haplogroup. 'I' is the Germanic-Dinaric, with 'I1' which correlates highly. See table below

It is the trans-pontic haplogroups which extends in high density into Iran, Pakistan, India. 'R1b' or 'Eu19', is the Western European haplogroup. It is higher in Armenia than it is in Poland - Armenians have more of the blood found in Western Europe than do Poles.

This connects to Visi-Goth and Ostro-Goth theories of European and 'pre-Keltic'. Being pre-Cyrillic Glatogolitic writers. Origins: Both R1a and R1b eurotypes appear to move from East TO west. A more complex analysis, than is allowable here, that takes into account BOTH recombination AND distinction would be necessary to tie this all up. Sorry I cannot explain further here without more agreement on premise. It would make no sense to you or to me. Otherwise, as they say, its just pearls before swine (swine being the murky lack of agreement, not you as a person.)

by R1b ascending:

Tadjiks: Eu 74% (R1b 4%, R1a 68%, I1 2%), Neu 26%

Iran: Eu 62% (R1b 8%, R1a 20%, I1 33%), Neu 38%

Polish: Eu 96% (R1b 16%, R1a 56%, I1 24%), Neu 4%

Armenians: Eu 62% (R1b25%, R1a 6%, I1 31%), Neu 38%

Turks: Eu 47% (R1b 31%, R1a 13%, I1 3%), Neu 53%

Germans: Eu 95%, (R1b 50%, R1a 6%, I1 38%), Neu 5%

England: Eu 98% (R1b 56%, R1a 9%, I1 30%), Neu 2%

----------------------------
by R1a ascending:

Germans: Eu 95%, (R1b 50%, R1a 6%, I1 38%), Neu 5%

Armenians: Eu 62% (R1b25%, R1a 6%, I1 31%), Neu 38%

England: Eu 98% (R1b 56%, R1a 9%, I1 30%), Neu 2%

Turks: Eu 47% (R1b 31%, R1a 13%, I1 3%), Neu 53%

Iran: Eu 62% (R1b 8%, R1a 20%, I1 33%), Neu 38%

Polish: Eu 96% (R1b 16%, R1a 56%, I1 24%), Neu 4%

Tadjiks: Eu 74% (R1b 4%, R1a 68%, I1 2%), Neu 26%

--------------------

by I1 ascending:

Tadjiks: Eu 74% (R1b 4%, R1a 68%, I1 2%), Neu 26%

Turks: Eu 47% (R1b 31%, R1a 13%, I1 3%) , Neu 53%

Polish: Eu 96% (R1b 16%, R1a 56%, I1 24%), Neu 4%

England: Eu 98% (R1b 56%, R1a 9%, I1 30%), Neu 2%

Armenians: Eu 62% (R1b25%, R1a 6%, I1 31%), Neu 38%

Iran: Eu 62% (R1b 8%, R1a 20%, I1 33%), Neu 38%

Germans: Eu 95%, (R1b 50%, R1a 6%, I1 38%), Neu 5%

We then must perform a regression analysis of Poland's genetic median and then mean placement. We would also take into account linguistics and historical chronology, and all other elements of culture including dress and food, and 'founder' mythologies. But visually its already there for anyone, spelled out.

These figures corroborate completely all of the 'Pan-Iranian' theories I've put forward in all prior posts.

We are dealing with populations as they exist today. Keep in mind that recombination and distinction issues which may arise over the course of the last 3000 years are not my problem.

I am suggesting that today's data would be quite relevant precisely because they reflect events which took place over the course of only the last 1200 years, starting in about 800AD - or in more illustrative terms - the upwards lifespans of a mere 14 individuals in chronological order

re: Okham's razor

This requires encompassing all of the related data. Failure to account for certain data for the sake of a vulgarized version of the razor e.g 'the simplest', is going to yield different results. Okham's razor's application will vary from study to study depending on the recognized data set. If are not recognizing the same data set, then our premises therein are different. With different premises, we apply this razor differently.

Again, without agreement on premise forming facts, we will not agree on what Okham's razor should cut out. No point in arguing about the number of angels fitting on the head of a pin.

We are quickly moving backwards to the very foundations of science, ontology and epistemology. We are quickly moving towards a discussion of Classical Education vs. Liberal Education. This is going to be problematic because our methodologies and ways of thinking are appearing to be quite divergent.

So I think the 'pom'fulness of this data swap is coming to a close. Thank you, however, for inspiring in me a revisiting of a handful of the ideas I've come across in my 1500 hours of 'post-post' graduate research on these related subjects.

Regards,

XF

[Vanguard13]

Dear AnthionusII,

Re: Herodotus

- I will only briefly summarize the following about Herodotus.

He is called the greatest liar in history - but I think it is his 'discoverer' Lorenzo Vall who is to blame. I'm not sure he was even a person. A single page manuscript from the 10th Century AD is all that can be independently verified as a work titled 'HERO DOTUS'.

There are then 8 additional single page works that have been, until recently, considered a part of this work, from the 11th-12th Centuries AD because they are written in a similar "fragments" or 'box prose' style. However its already been long established that this style was used by a number of tellers of Hero-ic legends: Diodorus (alleged 49 BC), Strabo (alleged 15 AD), Photius (alleged "897" AD).

The original script of Agatharchides, often has three widely varying readings or "fragments". This is instructive because Photius, who lived in the alleged "900" AD (the same time as the oldest manuscript of Herodotus) greatly changed. There were additional significant embellishments replete with his own comments of Agatharchides words when compared to the older versions of Diodorus and Strabo. Of course none of the three agree and indeed contain many differences, and this is connected to the Renaissance 'Humanist' dilemma in verifying the authenticity of Diodorus and Strabo as well.

'Photius' seems to stand as the only independently verified, circa 900 Ad historical source for works associated as that of 'Photius' - but the 900ad date is likely off by an order of 100-200 years due to feudal-property distortions made upon year-dates.

All the works originate from modern-day central Turkey aka Anatolia, Asia Minor.

The expanded work of Herodotus is a 15th century Italian Forgery. It was written by the infamous forger and late Renaissance 'Humanist' Lorenzo Valla.

Lorenzo Valla was a hired gun, a 'court historian' for the Piccolomini family. When the Piccolomini family encountered another wealthy/powerful family, and the claim over disputed Fiefs had to be argued before a Magistrate, Mr. Valla would miraculously 'discover' documents that were allegedly hundreds of years old which 'inserted' another patriarch or two of the Piccolomini family. This process when repeated a few times alone added about 100 years to 'Italian' history. Many families did this, all had their own court historians, and Italian history was thusly expanded several hundreds of years artificially.

The entire work of 'Herodotus' too was ordered by the Piccolomini family, based entirely on fiction outside the totally tattered and weather worn 'one page' HERO DOTUS from the alleged year 900ad, possibly by the actual 'Photius'. Photius, or Fotos I, was also the 'half' Cesaro-Pope of Synarchic rule in Constantinople and was a 'Khazar face' as most dark colored Serbs and Bulgarians and Greeks are, and was said to be of Armenian extraction, as were many other 'Roman' emperors.

The use of the round number date '900 AD' also raises questions. The additional 8 pages/parts considered part of Hero-dotus are interdependently established to be from the 11th and 12th centuries - or during the 1st - 3rd Crusades. Taken together with a real lack of any account of a 'Herodotus' before the 10th century AD, this relates to the proposition, once again, that the Peloponnesian Wars were in fact the Medieval Crusades.

Cardinal Francesco (Frankish) Todeschini (German) Piccolomini required this work to -among other things - establish Valla as a real historian, so that other of Valla's claims necessary to then present day Piccolomini claims to other people's lands would be considered legitimate in the eyes of the ruling Magistrate. Significantly, however, was the broader need to significantly lengthen the 'look and feel' of Italian history itself - in connection with the fictionalized 'Roman Empire' of the [A]Ittilic peninsula. The earliest independently verifiable 'Roman Empire' of the Attlic peninsula in my opinion places us in the period of Attila and/or Otto I and the proto-Holy Roman Empire of cis-trans-Alpine central Europe.

It was of such importance that the creation of this forgery was demanded upon Lorenzo Valla by none other than Pope Pius II. Pius II was hardly pious, and was himself a member of the Piccolomini 'mafia'. His infamously litigious nephew was the Cardinal Franesco Todeschini Piccolomini himself.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

XF Vanguard Trece

[AnthoniusII]

Young man...You re-write history...
HERO DOTUS found his master.
ToS is not allow me to give the proper advices to you my friend but where ever you live on the globe DO NOT say in public what you wrote about HERO-DOTUS...The results wont be what you will expect.
My finall conclusion is that a dicusion obout history with you is not worth the trouble.
I wont say more..
In you mind you can believe what ever you want (even that Superman exists if you like) but please do not expose your self by trying to convice others about such opinions..

[Harith]

so for the submod, we wont have it unless u have info about BC 3.0?? If so, I am pretty sure u can ask the team

[Hobbes]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dear AnthionusII,

Re: Herodotus

- I will only briefly summarize the following about Herodotus.

He is called the greatest liar in history - but I think it is his 'discoverer' Lorenzo Vall who is to blame. I'm not sure he was even a person. A single page manuscript from the 10th Century AD is all that can be independently verified as a work titled 'HERO DOTUS'.

There are then 8 additional single page works that have been, until recently, considered a part of this work, from the 11th-12th Centuries AD because they are written in a similar "fragments" or 'box prose' style. However its already been long established that this style was used by a number of tellers of Hero-ic legends: Diodorus (alleged 49 BC), Strabo (alleged 15 AD), Photius (alleged "897" AD).

The original script of Agatharchides, often has three widely varying readings or "fragments". This is instructive because Photius, who lived in the alleged "900" AD (the same time as the oldest manuscript of Herodotus) greatly changed. There were additional significant embellishments replete with his own comments of Agatharchides words when compared to the older versions of Diodorus and Strabo. Of course none of the three agree and indeed contain many differences, and this is connected to the Renaissance 'Humanist' dilemma in verifying the authenticity of Diodorus and Strabo as well.

'Photius' seems to stand as the only independently verified, circa 900 Ad historical source for works associated as that of 'Photius' - but the 900ad date is likely off by an order of 100-200 years due to feudal-property distortions made upon year-dates.

All the works originate from modern-day central Turkey aka Anatolia, Asia Minor.

The expanded work of Herodotus is a 15th century Italian Forgery. It was written by the infamous forger and late Renaissance 'Humanist' Lorenzo Valla.

Lorenzo Valla was a hired gun, a 'court historian' for the Piccolomini family. When the Piccolomini family encountered another wealthy/powerful family, and the claim over disputed Fiefs had to be argued before a Magistrate, Mr. Valla would miraculously 'discover' documents that were allegedly hundreds of years old which 'inserted' another patriarch or two of the Piccolomini family. This process when repeated a few times alone added about 100 years to 'Italian' history. Many families did this, all had their own court historians, and Italian history was thusly expanded several hundreds of years artificially.

The entire work of 'Herodotus' too was ordered by the Piccolomini family, based entirely on fiction outside the totally tattered and weather worn 'one page' HERO DOTUS from the alleged year 900ad, possibly by the actual 'Photius'. Photius, or Fotos I, was also the 'half' Cesaro-Pope of Synarchic rule in Constantinople and was a 'Khazar face' as most dark colored Serbs and Bulgarians and Greeks are, and was said to be of Armenian extraction, as were many other 'Roman' emperors.

The use of the round number date '900 AD' also raises questions. The additional 8 pages/parts considered part of Hero-dotus are interdependently established to be from the 11th and 12th centuries - or during the 1st - 3rd Crusades. Taken together with a real lack of any account of a 'Herodotus' before the 10th century AD, this relates to the proposition, once again, that the Peloponnesian Wars were in fact the Medieval Crusades.

Cardinal Francesco (Frankish) Todeschini (German) Piccolomini required this work to -among other things - establish Valla as a real historian, so that other of Valla's claims necessary to then present day Piccolomini claims to other people's lands would be considered legitimate in the eyes of the ruling Magistrate. Significantly, however, was the broader need to significantly lengthen the 'look and feel' of Italian history itself - in connection with the fictionalized 'Roman Empire' of the [A]Ittilic peninsula. The earliest independently verifiable 'Roman Empire' of the Attlic peninsula in my opinion places us in the period of Attila and/or Otto I and the proto-Holy Roman Empire of cis-trans-Alpine central Europe.

It was of such importance that the creation of this forgery was demanded upon Lorenzo Valla by none other than Pope Pius II. Pius II was hardly pious, and was himself a member of the Piccolomini 'mafia'. His infamously litigious nephew was the Cardinal Franesco Todeschini Piccolomini himself.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

XF Vanguard Trece

The in this post is so much that I can smell it through my screen.

the Peloponnesian Wars were in fact the Medieval Crusades.

[Savoyard]

Since when Iranians are blond?

I'm sorry, but I have to hit this nail on the head even harder, but I think an Arab historian said something to the effect of: "The Arabs went to Merv (Or somewhere in Transoxiana that is filled with Iranians) with black hair and came back blonde."

[AnthoniusII]

I'm sorry, but I have to hit this nail on the head even harder, but I think an Arab historian said something to the effect of: "The Arabs went to Merv (Or somewhere in Transoxiana that is filled with Iranians) with black hair and came back blonde."

Read the key words in your post...
They went...with black hair
..they came back blond.
That is what happens to any empire that expands to far.
According to ancient Greeks of the 6th cent BC the world was like this


Scythae and Sauromatae were blond and after long wars some of their tribes became part of the Persian empire.
So blond people could be part of the population after marriages.
But according to ancient historians Persians and Medoi (modern Iranians)
looked very much like the Greeks but only like Greeks.
There was a myth in the ancient Greece that said that Persians and Greeks had the same blood because Perseus left europe (greece) and create a new nation.
This myth was propably a political attempt to "force" greeks and persians to a peace but what Greeks could not ignore was that Persians were also "white skined with dark hair" like this lady.
Greeks were also white skined with dark hair the same time that aramaic tribes (arabs) had darker skin.
Today you can find blond or red haired Greeks but in ancient times blond hair was so rare that was considered devine sign or that only Gods had such hair. But in the centuries that followed the part of the world that greeks live had many "visitors" that left their racial traces.
In around the world this is the main rule.
Iranians could not be the exeption..

[Savoyard]

Read the key words in your post...
They went...with black hair
..they came back blond.
That is what happens to any empire that expands to far.

If you mean, "They intermarried with the native Iranians" then yes (Of course that historian believed physical traits stemmed from geography, but genetics didn't really exist back then).

[Vanguard13]

If you mean, "They intermarried with the native Iranians" then yes (Of course that historian believed physical traits stemmed from geography, but genetics didn't really exist back then).

Savoyard,

No matter how clear you are, some here are determined not to be straight with it. You have my sympathies, good man. I think you should see that you have established corroborating historical evidence for Blonde Iranians - as my sampling of a dozen photos of blonde Iranians earlier in this thread already has. There are always some who will look straight at reality and insist that it isn't there. Soldier forward ...

Regards,

Vanguard13

[Vanguard13]

Young man...You re-write history...
HERO DOTUS found his master.
ToS is not allow me to give the proper advices to you my friend but where ever you live on the globe DO NOT say in public what you wrote about HERO-DOTUS...The results wont be what you will expect.
My finall conclusion is that a dicusion obout history with you is not worth the trouble.
I wont say more..
In you mind you can believe what ever you want (even that Superman exists if you like) but please do not expose your self by trying to convice others about such opinions.
I do not know where are you from but you can lawsuit your teachers if that history they tought you.

My Dear AnthoniusII,

Me a young man! You you flatter me! Truly you know the way to a man's heart

Sweet Morn of Life! All hail! Ye hours of ease! ...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When blooms the cheek with roseate varying dies,
When modest grace exerts each power to please,
And streaming lustre radiates in the eyes.
Thy past hours, innocent; thy present, gay;
Thy future, halcyon Hope depicts without allay.

Day-spring of Life! Oh stay thy fleeting hours!
Thou fairy-reign of ev'ry pleasant thought!
Fancy, to cheer thy path, strews all her flowers,
And in her loom thy plan of years is wrought.
By thee for goodness is each heart carest;
The world, untried, is judg'd by that within thy breast.

Sweet state of Youth! O harmony of Soul!
Now chearful dawns the day; noon brightly beams;
And evening comes serene, nor cares controul;
And night approaches with soft infant dreams.
Circling the morn beholds th' accustom'd round,
Life's smiling charities awake, and joys abound.

Season of hope, and peace, and virtues! stay!
And, for my bliss — with inexperience rest!
For what can prudent foresight's beam display?—
Why — the barbed arrow pointed at my breast!—
Teach to suspect the heart I guileless trust!
And, ere I am betrayed, to think a friend unjust.

Thou candid Age! with ardent Friendship fraught,
That fearless confidence to none denies:
Better sometimes deceiv'd — and artless, taught
By thine own griefs, the wisdom of the wise.
When sad Experience with sorrowing breath,
Sheds, weeping sheds, the pristine roses in Hope's wreath.

Season belov'd! Ah, doom'd to pass away!
With all thy freshness, all thy flatt'ring joys,
With blooming Beauty's envied, powerful sway,
With laughing hours the future ne'er annoys.
Ah! be thou spent as Vertue bids thee spend!
Then — though I wish thy stay, no sighs thy reign shall end.

You will recall that from the outset, and in every post,
I have said specifically that I attempt to convince no one.
I already had to tell you the parable regarding the economics of ideas (it is a positive sum game,
not zero sum as you imagine).
We have each traded, and yet both of us have come away with more!

As for I? I have no problem with you imagining Herodotus walking around
an ancient marble white alleged 5th Century BC Athens, giving a lecture in
a bright outdoor ancient Odium, with the gently swaying olive trees in the background.
It is Spring ... no, Summer! And now enters Herodotus, thinking to himself "Ahh Antiquity!",
as he straightens out his pure white toga, and pulls an ancient pebble from
the bottom of his ancient open toed leather sandals.
His white hair brushed over a balding head, an ancient crown
of laurels holds it all in place ... He glances down upon his ancient scroll
of papyrus, the quiet grouping around him leans forward from their
ancient white marble benches and Herodotus begins to speak ..
"My fellow Greeks ... THIS is History!"


You don't dispute that the earliest HERO DOTUS is from 10th century AD Turkey.
You don't dispute that the expanded works are the work of the
15th century AD Italian, Lorenzo Valla. Rather, you have a little tantrum.
This is quite darling. I'm truly charmed, truly.

You showed a picture of a typical looking Armen-Iranian woman, and you
believe this demonstrates something? Did anyone say that dark hair was
not predominant in Iran? No, you said there were NO blonde Iranians.
And you shown yourself a fool for this. For Iranians are known for their
blondes, my good man. Still I prefer mine brunette.

I invite you to take a walk down Valiasr Avenue in Tehran, and spend some time
at a cafe, watching the pedestrian traffic. Or you can look at the dozen photos
of blonde Iranians I already submitted. Not a word from you about that.
I wonder why this is?

The Greeks and the Iranians have the same blood, this much has been chronicled.
The Anatolians as well provide a great link. You admit as much.
Because this is not convenient to you, you ascribe it to political expediency of the day.
At least we agree that political expedience of the day affects the telling and
retelling of history. Only you are peculiarly discriminate regarding whence it applies.

I showed about a dozen pictures of red haired, blonde haired, and green and blue eyed Iranians.
Both men and women, military and civilians, rich and poor, young and middle aged.
No comment on you from that, but I sense your shame from miles away.

The map you present is based at least from the 18th and 19th century Academy of Philology,
Sorbonne. It is rife with problems - mostly because they have nothing to do with Antiquity,
and are allegedly based (you failed to mention, but I know this map all too well!) on -
HERO DOTUS whom I've already found to be dated incorrectly by 1500 - 2000 years.
You almost made it look like the map existed outside of the mind of the alleged Herodotus.
Almost!

The 'map' is based on the expanded work of of 15th century creation, drawn from Lorenzo Valla's
forgery. You see, the tattered one page of the 10th Century AD text only work do not give us any
idea of the map later drawn. The map is similar to 11th century depictions of Europe as well.
It is the 'Orbis Herodotus' because it includes its own rounded distortion where the rest of
Africa an Asia - known already by the 16th century - is simply left out.

See here, a grown-up version of your fraudulent cartoon, from my own research data base.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And yes, what an ugly and stupid idea that I have - that across Eurasia there exists practically
a single race of humanity, with variations across the Eu18 and Eu19 spectrum - connecting all peoples
of all ethnicities and faiths. Yes, that too reminds
me of ugly totalitarian ideas of the past.
But probably different ones than from which you imagine ...

Where do I live? Should I flag this? Are you being friendly?

Loving Regards,

X.Fiore

[Vanguard13]

The in this post is so much that I can smell it through my screen.

Beautiful refutation, Hobbes. Thank you for presenting your findings to us.

[Vanguard13]

The in this post is so much that I can smell it through my screen.

Friends,

Thank you Hobbes for giving us an example of a criticism made within the bounds of the TOS. This from Hobbes is, in my opinion, an example of criticizing the post, without criticizing the poster. This is the sort of thing that is allowed here, as I understand it. Forgive me if I have misread the TOS, but Hobbes is doing precisely what is allowable as I understand it.

What he's saying here is perfectly understandable. He isn't saying' Vanguard13 is . He's saying the post itself is. That is critiquing the post and not the person writing it.

While I've felt the need to report two individuals for attacking my personhood instead of the post's contents, including one - AnthoniusII - who made implicit threats, made reference to my personal abode in that context, and gave offensive orders; it isn't how I would like to proceed.

No doubt AnthoniusII is a popular fellow in the TWC, and I'm not making any friends by pointing out what I believe are violations of TOS.

I realize I am touching on controversial subject matter. But I am attacking subject matter, not TWC members themselves. There is a serious line between a person and their ideas. That line is called 'personal'.

There was no need for AnthoniusII to make things personal. In today's world of ISP tracking, stalkers, social-networking induced suicides, message board rage killings, and all sorts of who knows what, there certainly can't be room in a community such as this, for attacks such as those.

At least I hope not - and that is why I have appealed to moderation for review of that post. I hope it is read in the context previous posts, where time and time again I attempted to extend the olive branch.

It is really truly very offensive and worrisome to have these things directed at me.

I put over 80+ hours of work into the BRR sub-mod. It is frustrating enough that Megaupload was taken down, and that this work was lost.

I am awaiting either the release of BC 3.0 so that I can rework BRR in a manner compatible, or gain some information from the BC modding team about what files could be worked on from BC 2.3 that would more or less, or with little alteration, be compatible with BC 3.0. Then I could expedite the work.

I have other work and personal matters to attend to, as many of us do, and the last few days of engaging in a data swap with multiple persons simultaneously is something I don't regret.

I realize that in text, the tone or meaning of words can be taken out of context. But while I was born at night, I wasn't born last night - and I know personal attacks, threats, insinuations, etc. when I read them.

It had been a long time since I looked at some of this stuff. I was happy to be able to review it, and to also explore with other fellow TWC'ers in an open and reflective way - like with Wudang - the origin of the word 'Slav', for example. He presented some findings on the word's root I hadn't considered before, given his expertise in Slavic language, especially Polish. I felt like I was actually working with someone there. It was a good feeling.

He pressed me on a few things - not my personhood, but my rationale. He inspired me to work on connecting Deutsche to Hayer, for example. Now, he may not have thought I was successful there, but I know I got a lot from it, and if there were any nuggets he found useful in there - any at all - he was and is free to pick and choose from that basket. That's how its supposed to work, right?

Nevertheless, I refuse to engage if its only going to illicit insinuations that I am stupid, confused, mal-educated ... I refuse to data swap if certain people believe that knowledge is a zero sum game or that it is about 'winning' and 'losing'.

I refuse to innocuously share information and ideas if I will be met with the hostility of 'watch your back' type of threats or 'i can find out where you live' insinuations. I mean, really.

If certain people know what they believe or believe what they know so well, then there is no psychological reason to react with such prejudice against my very personhood for having ideas which are not in accordance with their own.

I will never fully understand why some people react this way. Such is life.

I will return ironing out my ideas and happily accepting feedback and criticism regarding either the sub-mod or its underlying presentation of ideas, once 3.0 is near completion.

Until then we are closer to BC 3.0's release, farewell and goodluck my fellow TWCers.

Respectfully,

XF

[wudang_clown]

I've been thinking about a response, but my work has been overwhelming, so now I'm not sure when I will be able to post something decent. I'd like to do it, though.

[m_1512]

@Anthonius
Reported Post


Please criticize the post without targeting the poster. When you do not agree with what someone posts, there is a better way to criticize it. No matter how much should it make your blood boil, personal comments are never the solution.

[wudang_clown]

The issue of the infamous Polish Bottle Blondes is a complex issue which involves sensitive self identification issues. It is sensitive because it involves a disparity between what we think we are, and what we actually are - what we are expected to be perceived as, and what our grandparents looked like. Below in the spoiler is a list of THE top Polish models and personalities, ALL of whom are - yes - Polish Bottle Blondes

This is first time in my life I've ever heard about any "Polish Bottle Blondes issue". That's probably because such an issue doesn't actually exist. I'm afraid your anti-"nationalistic" bias makes you to see things that are not there and thus some of your interpretations are quite a miss.

That's exactly like with Polerania, a name you mention in one of your post which is supposed to be related to Pomerania - it doesn't even exist in any sources, and you've simply made it up only to fit it to your "Pomerania - alleged "fruit of Iran"" theory. Maybe you've done that with best intention of bringing more light to the subject. The subject has received pretty much of scholar attention, though, and the picture can't be really improved with ignorance of the subject. Polerania is simply not attested anywhere else except your post. You've done this with total disregard of Polish or Slavic studies in this matter, and that only because you - as it seems - a priori consider those studies to be nationalistically biased. And what kind of logical error is that (as you are very good in poiting errors in reasoning)? That's my only bias in this discussion. If so called "Liberal education" is supposed to be based on non-existent data or non-existent issues or problems, then thank you very much, but how is it better than so called "Classical education", huh?

What are those 40 bottle blondes supposed to prove, actually? That women in Poland dye hair because they are unable to accept their racial origin, that they are in fact of Armenoid stock, or something? Did I claim Poles are pure Nordics, all blonde hair and blue eyes? I've never mentioned such crap, and I see no reason for you to preach to the converts. It is well-known that anthropological type currently present in Poland, also called as "subnordic", is unsurprisingly described as "typological dump". It is estimated that 20-25% of Poles are blondes and that c. 50% have light hair and that c. 70% have light eyes. Estimates can be lower, but who cares? Women here, like in other countries, dye hair in 150 different colours. So? Do they also use colour contact lenses? Excuse me, but this is silly.

We share R1a with Tajiks - this is extremely interesting, and I knew that already. So? Does it make us closer to your theory of Armenian-founded Poland? According to the data you presented - no. Seriously - I've found a study that claims I haplogroup was present only in 4% of Armenians. That in Armenians R1b is more frequent than in Poles - so? It is still only half of the value in Germans. Also, you cite 16% in Poles, while Wikipedia claims certain subclade of that haplogroup is present at frequency of 20% here... Moreover, reportedly there is no purely "Iranic" haplogroup, if we are talking about any Pan-Iranian group of people. Now, given R1a1a is more frequent in certain subgroups of Tajiks that in Slavs - are Slavs Iranians or are Iranian Tajiks in fact Slavs? You can say that Slavs are Iranians, but that's bollock, as "Slavs" and "Iranians" do not refer to genetics only and not even foremostly, but to ethnicity, which is also culture.

Also, allechtonic genesis of R1a1a in nowadays Polish land is only one of theories, never sufficiently backed up. There is another one, authochtonic (actually it brings down to placing migrations in much earlier times), which claims people with R1a1a appeared in Europe few thousands years earlier. I think earliest remains are dated on 9600 BC and were found in Balkans. Recently, a grave in Germany was found with remains of bearers of R1a1a dated on c. 2700 BC. It seems Central and Eastern Europe was populated by people with R1a1a quite a long time before Christ.

Now, how those people are called, that's a different matter. If you want to claim that Germans are Armenians and that Germans-Armenians founded Poland (which is not true, if only because Poland is relatively modern notion, and in fact Polonia and Polanie appeared in sources in XI c., earlier only Sklavenoi are used to refer to the dwellers of nowadays Poland, what makes some historians to conclude that there were no Polanie at all and that both names were made up in Rome), then you would also have to claim that they founded any other state in Central and Eastern Europe, because Europeans share some haplogroups with Armenians. Secondly, there would have to be quite a lot of Germans-Armenians to populate and re-populate said regions in different times. Thirdly, you would have to explain why classic authors do not identify Germanic people and Slavic people and Sakae and so on and so forth as the same ethno-cultural group.

I think that there is no reason to join Armenians with Germans, because in times where they possible shared the same haplogroup (no variants, no mutations), they were neither Armenians nor Germans (those names possibly didn't exist then, no one used them), and later there were too many differences between them to make it possible to notice that they are of the same blood. Well, not the same, because haplogroups do mutate. Lastly, who could talk about haplogroups back then?

In Caucasus and in so called Nuristan there are villages, dwellers of which have their own languages, and they don't want to be related to their closest neighbours, although they share genetic origins, so why do you want to somewhat forcefully join groups that, although related, differ (culturally) at least that much as they are similar?

[Vanguard13]

Wudang,
On Numerous occasions I have pointed out where your posts have misunderstood or apparently misrepresented my posts points. At other times, your posts impressions were just completely off the mark. Not once has your posts reflected that it has looked at my responses for times that my posts have pointed those out. Not once have you retracted those and said anything like 'ah, thanks for the clarification'. In my opinion, your posts are pointlessly argumentative.

This last post, while containing lots of good information and reflecting some degree of thought on your part, is still riddled with misunderstandings of my points or the context in which certain words (e.g. bottle blondes, polerania) were used. Your post has tacitly misrepresented what a reader would otherwise gather from that, and so on.

For example - I had already demonstrated that Turco-Pole meant (from the Greek: Τουρκόπουλοι, "sons of Turks"). Hence Poles means sons in Greek. Also in the Balkans, 'Pom' means fruit. I pointed to a possible connection there in light of other surrounding established facts, such as both Croatians and Serbians have an already academically established theory connecting them to living first in Poland. There is further Academic literature connecting Serbians and Croatians to Iran prior to Poland. I cannot connect the dots for a thinking person any further. I have never claimed beyond any argument that anything must necessarily be true. That is not my approach, nor is it intellectually honest. In academia such claims are also rarely made as absolute. There would be no such thing as research today if what we thought was true was written in stone. That is the basis of all historical work today, that is the basis of historical revisionism and its the only intellectually acceptable way. Nevertheless, your posts reflect continual "No's" where you just as easily could have said 'Yes possibly' or even 'Yes'. It's really not that hard to be engaging, and my belief is that the problem with your posts is in its psychological dimension.

These are NOT my ideas, I have almost never conducted independent research, except under the guidance of a university urogram, and only in a limited scope commensurate with a master's program. I never said there was a word 'Polerania'.

I suggested that Pomerania could be a corruption of Polerania for reasons having to do with the letters L and M as they appear in calligraphy. I explained how those two letters are nearly identical in calligraphy. In essence, I have about three different contemplative reasons why Pomerania and Polandia refer to the same region.

Now I'm just repeating myself. That's why this conversation is fruitless, and, well over.

In short, your posts 'good' information isn't at odds with my own posts' information. You have not presented any irreconcilable facts or opinions in your posts.

Everyone has biases. I am academically honest enough to share that in my opinion, the political histories of European national state since the Treaty of Westphalia are greatly skewed. Thus, my bias is anti-national. I see this as a corrective bias, which while suffering the dilemmas that all bias's contain, as at least self-aware. It nevertheless sheds different light on long held beliefs. I arrived at that bias, and did not start with it. Everyone has biases. I have confessed to mine. Will you confess to yours?

Rather than taking this honesty of mine as a point of example, where you could come clean with your biases, your post manipulates this honesty into some polemical discourse.

Still when you say essentially that people living next to each other typically don't want anything to do with each-other - that is an opinion steeped in your own posts apparent nationalistic bias. That is neither historically true, nor even true today. It may be true in the view of some Poles nationalists, I don't know. It is certainly your view, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was the view of your surrounding community, however defined.

You continue, in my view, to present in your post the haughty 'objective' view from nowhere. Yes, that is 'liberal education', in my humble opinion, at its worst. We are all subjects. Our views are thus subjective inherently. You may not agree with that opinion. But your failing to respect my opinion makes it impossible for me to respect your opinions. See how that works?

Finally, the things I have said which I believe were the most solid and the most compelling, have never been addressed by your posts. They have not been refuted, and whatever technical detailed 'tit for tat' sort of responses you've cobbled together, do not take into account all of the good information I have provided.

In short, your post has not deserved, in my opinion, a specific response. I know why I believe what I believe, and had the underlying concepts been really addressed by yourself in any real way, it would have been a wonderful and mutually enlightening conversation to have. I would have been, as they say, 'all over that'.

In my opinion, your posts reflect a general lack of genuine approach. A person can always invent a thousand or a million reasons to say 'no'. I know when I am dealing with people who's posts reflect genuine academic curiosity and engagement. Yours, unfortunately, do not.

I will return to working on the relevant parts of Broader Roman Recruitment until the release of BC 3.0, where I will be able to work on modding those parts which I cannot yet predict compatibility for.

Best of Luck,

X Fiore

[wudang_clown]

[...]
Rather than taking this honesty of mine as a point of example, where you could come clean with your biases, your post manipulates this honesty into some polemical discourse.
[...]
In my opinion, your posts reflect a general lack of genuine approach. A person can always invent a thousand or a million reasons to say 'no'. I know when I am dealing with people who's posts reflect genuine academic curiosity and engagement. Yours, unfortunately, do not.

Yeah, of course.

Good luck.