From mnemonician@hotmail.com Sun Sep 30 15:58:41 2001
Received: from mailscan2.cac.washington.edu (mailscan2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.33.16])
	by lists.u.washington.edu (8.11.6+UW01.08/8.11.6+UW01.08) with SMTP id f8UMweN19748
	for <classics@lists.u.washington.edu>; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:58:40 -0700
Received: FROM mxu2.u.washington.edu BY mailscan2.cac.washington.edu ; Sun Sep 30 15:58:39 2001 -0700
Received: from hotmail.com (f107.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.107])
	by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.11.6+UW01.08/8.11.6+UW01.08) with ESMTP id f8UMwdu03068
	for <classics@u.washington.edu>; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:58:39 -0700
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:58:36 -0700
Received: from 172.156.89.164 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:58:36 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [172.156.89.164]
From: "S S" <mnemonician@hotmail.com>
To: classics@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: On ... (sigh)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:58:36 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F107uJIadjFmSC6Lidd0000bef1@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2001 22:58:36.0516 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FDC7240:01C14A03]

>From: Helma Dik <helmadik@midway.uchicago.edu>
>Reply-To: classics@u.washington.edu
>To: classics@u.washington.edu
>Subject: On  ... (sigh)
>Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:46:52 -0500
>
>Sadly, recent events seem to have led to a kind of amnesty for the
>more trivial pests of our existence.
>
>>
>>BTW, where did the Phoenicians take "their" writing system from?
>>Has anyone done a "rigorous" study?
>>
>
>The deal is that if you want to be part of civilized discussion, you
>engage existing theory, you don't just say that you don't believe it.

Yes, you and Debra Hamel (of the f**k off comment) are good examples of 
"civilized discussion".

>That is,
>If you don't "believe" in gravity, evolution, or Indo-European, you
>can come up with arguments for rejecting those theories in favor of
>other, stronger hypotheses, or you can just shut up, since nothing
>you have to say is likely to be of interest to many others.

"Garvity" and Indo-European are hardly the same type of "theory".  BTW, at 
least you do admit that Indo-European *is only a theoy*... some teach it as 
gospel.

>Alternatively, you simply find your own sect of believers in an
>alternative universe, and be happy.  Leave the classics list out of
>it. We're a conservative bunch, who tend to prefer evidence and
>argument to your blather.  Please go re-invent the wheel elsewhere.

I'm sure you might speak for yourself and a dozen or so others, but that's 
about it.  Please don't take it upon yourself to spek for the entire 
classics list.

>(resetting my filters)

Of course, you needed to announce this...  ;-)

SS

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

.