posted
Credit to Charlie Bass for sending me the entire manuscript of Brace's new study. Shame on all the others for continuing to distort by treating tentative conclusions as fact and ignoring most of the actual data. Of course, the study does NOT support their Afrocentric fantasies. Here's some of what they conveniently overlooked.
Inadequacy of the Natufian sample:
quote:The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (33) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. [...] The generally high D2 values for the Natufian sample in Table 3 are almost certainly a reflection of the very small sample size.
Resulting qualifier that nullifies conclusion:
quote:This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians -- the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic -- although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples.
Niger-Congo Blacks are isolated from the other samples:
quote:The three Niger-Congo speaking groups -- the Congo from Gabon, the Dahomey from Benin, and the Haya from Tanzania -- cluster together away from most of the other samples. [...] When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear.
NE Africans have only minor Sub-Saharan admixture:
quote:They [Niger-Congo speaking groups] do show a somewhat more distant link to the Nubians and the Nubian Bronze Age who are so close to each other that they were combined for subsequent analyses. [...] As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component.
Unexplained discrepancies between the two mapping systems:
quote:That [sub-Saharan African component] was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic sample.
The maps that the Afronuts tried to hide:
quote:FIG. 1 - Natufians distant from Sub-Saharan Africans:
FIG. 2 - Sub-Saharan Africans distant from all other samples:
FIG. 4 - Pre-historic/Modern samples closely related and distant from Sub-Saharan Africans:
posted
Who are the "algerians" and "Berbers" in that study? does the study give the town/city/area of where these people are from?
Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They [Niger-Congo speaking groups] do show a somewhat more distant link to the Nubians and the Nubian Bronze Age who are so close to each other that they were combined for subsequent analyses. [...] As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component.
Since when are only Niger-Congo speakers Sub-Saharan?!! Somalis are sub-saharan too idiot?!
You talk about others distorting when Brace knows all these people are sub-Saharan!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: Credit to Charlie Bass for sending me the entire manuscript of Brace's new study. Shame on all the others for continuing to distort by treating tentative conclusions as fact and ignoring most of the actual data. Of course, the study does NOT support their Afrocentric fantasies. Here's some of what they conveniently overlooked.
Inadequacy of the Natufian sample:
quote:The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (33) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East. [...] The generally high D2 values for the Natufian sample in Table 3 are almost certainly a reflection of the very small sample size.
Resulting qualifier that nullifies conclusion:
quote:This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians -- the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic -- although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples.
Niger-Congo Blacks are isolated from the other samples:
quote:The three Niger-Congo speaking groups -- the Congo from Gabon, the Dahomey from Benin, and the Haya from Tanzania -- cluster together away from most of the other samples. [...] When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear.
NE Africans have only minor Sub-Saharan admixture:
quote:They [Niger-Congo speaking groups] do show a somewhat more distant link to the Nubians and the Nubian Bronze Age who are so close to each other that they were combined for subsequent analyses. [...] As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component.
Unexplained discrepancies between the two mapping systems:
quote:That [sub-Saharan African component] was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic sample.
The maps that the Afronuts tried to hide:
quote:FIG. 1 - Natufians distant from Sub-Saharan Africans:
FIG. 2 - Sub-Saharan Africans distant from all other samples:
FIG. 4 - Pre-historic/Modern samples closely related and distant from Sub-Saharan Africans:
Apparently someone here is too dense to properly read and interpret a study so let me do it for you. Natufians cluster with Neolithic French[who in turn do not cluster with modern Europeans] on one map but Brace's overall conclusion at the end is that the Natufian sample despite its small size shows sub-Saharan influence. Brace's “sub-Saharan Niger-Congo” cluster does not include Sahelian Africans nor Khoisan, so do not overstate the meaning of “sub-Saharan” in this study.
NE Africans don't show “minor sub-Saharan mixture”, from the data above from Brace he is not sugggesting any mixture just a relative similarity which is expected for the reason that NE Africans do not fall out of the sub-Saharan sphere of morphology.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evil Euro ever the opportunistic distorter leaves out this quote:
“In dendrograms such as Fig. 1, the little Natufian sample clusters with the Mesolithic of France, the North African Epipalaeolithic and the European Upper Palaeolithic, but the length of each of these twigs shows that the relationships are comparatively remote.”
Why do you continue to use patchwork citations to distort Brace's words?
quote:Originally posted by Charles Rigaud: Brace's overall conclusion at the end is that the Natufian sample despite its small size shows sub-Saharan influence.
No, his overall conclusion is INCONCLUSIVE:
"This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians -- the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic -- although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples."
quote:Evil Euro ever the opportunistic distorter leaves out this quote:
“In dendrograms such as Fig. 1, the little Natufian sample clusters with the Mesolithic of France, the North African Epipalaeolithic and the European Upper Palaeolithic, but the length of each of these twigs shows that the relationships are comparatively remote.”
Go ahead and include it, moron. It just further weakens your case that pre-historic peoples had Sub-Saharan affinities. Posts: 906 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>>>>No, his overall conclusion is INCONCLUSIVE:
No, you just can't read. From the *CONCLUSIONS* section of Brace's paper at the end:
Conclusions
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11-15). If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Thats not inconclusive, thats about as conclusive as it gets. Check your brain for reading comprehension disorder.
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: >>>>>No, his overall conclusion is INCONCLUSIVE:
No, you just can't read. From the *CONCLUSIONS* section of Brace's paper at the end:
Conclusions
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11-15). If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Thats not inconclusive, thats about as conclusive as it gets. Check your brain for reading comprehension disorder.
LOL @ the illiterate canine! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone send me links to this research? It helps to have everyting in context.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The results of a study are located in the data, not in some sweeping statement tacked on to the end.
Then why does the "sweeping statement" exist? As I recall, the statement's job is to interpret the evidence.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How come evil euro never emails brace to see if brace will agree with anything he says?
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone have access to the whole article or not? Maybe Euro is correct and that the conclusion is actually inconclusive based on the data (yeah right). I would like to read the whole thing anyways. From what I have read it seems to be in line with what I expect - African admixture in Greeks.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, and this has been answered before, you would have to join Charles African study group.
I'm not sure why Charles allows notorious racist distortion junkies like Erroneous Euro to have access, but it's his group and his call. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: No, you just can't read. From the *CONCLUSIONS* section of Brace's paper at the end:
The results of a study are located in the data, not in some sweeping statement tacked on to the end.
You're just plain old stupid and refuse to accept whats written so I will post it again:
Conclusions
If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
How long will you continue to play people in here for stupid over this statement and say its inconclusive when its written in the Conclusions section at the end?
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Babbling Ape: Brace has utterly refuted my nonsense so...to h#ll with him.
Indeed he has utterly refuted your nonsense and distortion, which is why you have no answers for anything in the parent post.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: From what I have read it seems to be in line with what I expect - African admixture in Greeks.
Well then you must be as illiterate as you are stupid, because the paper doesn't say any such thing.
Will when I read a statement like this:
"This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians." <- sounds alotlike Angel to me but then Nubians are not Sub-Saharan but thats a minor technicality.
I am somewhat inclined to agree with the Afrocentric position. However, I have not completely ruled your position out. I would just like access to the article and read the whole thing.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion, you were one of the few to take note with genuine insight, of the fact that the Brace skull-map Erroneous Euro kept spamming showed Neolithic Greek intermediacy between modern East Africans and other modern Europeans.
You correctly noted that this was in complete contradiction to the intended purpose of displaying the graph.
It is really this older finding that Brace is following up on, quite logically, and to the same ends.
Brace is simply being more explicit in noting the obvious.
From Brace latest study:
When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups show that they are closely related to each other ranging all the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to sub-Saharan Africa. - CL Brace
So Osirion, in a sense the issue is less about your 'concurring' with 'the afrocentrics', and more that Brace agrees with your assessment, keenly observed from his earlier works. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: You're just plain old stupid and refuse to accept whats written so I will post it again:
You can post it as many times as you want, but it won't change the fact that the word "clearly" contradicts Brace's own conclusions from the body of the paper:
"The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (33) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East.
[...]
"This suggests that there may have been a sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians -- the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic -- although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples."
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I am somewhat inclined to agree with the Afrocentric position.
Nowhere in the study does Brace claim that Greeks have Sub-Saharan affinities. The alleged Natufian affinities of pre-historic Europeans are wide-ranging and tenuous at best:
"In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman -- the Mongolian Bronze Age sample -- and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic."
Greeks are not even mentioned.
Posts: 906 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Next the Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Neolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were COMBINED to make a “Prehistoric Mediterranean” twig..... When all these are run in a single neighbor-joining dendrogram, the results can be seen in Fig. 3. {shown below}
^^ Providing the CONTEXT^
CL Brace continues:
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion.
If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
This picture of a MIXTURE between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone, but this is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.
Brace speaks for himself.
Do yourself a favor and don't try and "interpret".
quote:"As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic sample."
That means that the placement of Somalis, Naqada and Algerians in the plot (green) shows them to LACK Sub-Saharan affinities. Now note that none of the four Greek samples (red) is any farther to the right than those three groups, meaning that Greeks also lack Sub-Saharan affinities:
Brace et al. 2005 says:
quote:"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants."
But it doesn't say that they're not related at all. And in fact, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Modern Europeans are all more related to one another than any are to Sub-Saharan Africans:
Brace et al. 1993 says:
quote:"When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin."
[...]
"As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa."
Nowhere does Brace assert "Neolithic Greek intermediacy between modern East Africans and other modern Europeans". It's the modern East Africans who are located intermediately between Europeans (including Greeks) and Sub-Saharan Africans:
Conclusion: Afronut fantasies are NOT supported by Brace's data.
Posts: 906 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Your idiotic babblement is irrelevant to both your lies and Brace's conclusions, which you are trying and failing to run away from.
Keep running....
quote:EuroLoser: Greeks are not even mentioned.
Conclusion: You lied, again, and you're busted....again.
Next the Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Neolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were COMBINED to make a “Prehistoric Mediterranean” twig..... When all these are run in a single neighbor-joining dendrogram, the results can be seen in Fig. 3. {shown below}
^^ Providing the CONTEXT^
CL Brace continues:
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion.
If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
This picture of a MIXTURE between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone, but this is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.
Brace speaks for himself.
You merely squeal like a pig in the slaughterhouse.
quote:Brace hammers home his conclusion: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants.
quote:Desperate Euro meekly grasps at straws: B, bu, bu......but..... it doesn't say that they're not related at all.
Idiot. Of course modern Euros are "related" to their MIXED and African influenced Neolithic ancestors,that's Brace whole point.
there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that.....the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it.
The I N T E R B R E E D I N G of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the sub-Saharan traces.
This picture of a MIXTURE between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone, but this is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared. - CL Brace.
Brace is very exacting on how modern Europe is related to the sub-saharan influenced Neolithic *introduced* into Europe via admixture. Sorry.
So don't try and dispute or distort Euroloser, and don't start any more threads dedicated to how stupid and pathetic you can be, grasping at straws with your back against the wall.
Instead grow a brain and learn to read.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No MORE SQUARMING FOR THAT RATE EVIL-E. IT IS OVER. LOST, DONE, OVER and OUT!!!
You obviously don't know the imbecile that well! His stubborness is infinite! He will be back again with more stupidity!! The fool has been going at it for 11 months already, why not a year or 10 years?!! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how he can possibly recovery from that diagramm. But I am sure it will be entertaining. Come on Evil-E, lets see what you have to say about Natufians being closely related to Niger/Congo (things are just going from Black to Blacker for you).
Put EvilE on suicide watch.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA".
And now Brace's diagramm:
And Brace's own words:
If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Squarm boy Squarm.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never really thought much of Black Athena but this is rather intriguing stuff.
So Hor and Evil, what on Earth do you guys have to say now?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Squarm boy Squarm.
Yeap. Virtually anybody who can 'read' will understand that statement!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It went from bad to worse for Evil Euro and hore they have nothing to say.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: It went from bad to worse for Evil Euro and hore they have nothing to say.
Believe me, the stupid troll is silent now, but he will begin his stupid and insane rant again!
It is like clockwork. Everytime stupid-euro gets humiliated in one thread, he will start another thread or re-open an old thread of his stupidity. There is no end to his madness! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Drowning Ape: Conclusion: You lied, again, and you're busted....again.
Desperate nitpicking nigger, did I say Greeks weren't mentioned anywhere in the study? No, I didn't. I said they weren't mentioned in the specific passage about Natufians that I quoted. Reposting your bullsh*t from yesterday isn't going to save you from the evidence I've presented in this thread, for which you still have no answers.
quote:Brace is very exacting on how modern Europe is related to the sub-saharan influenced Neolithic
posted
I just don't get it. Hor, we are talking about the Natufians. Just look at the Diagramm that Evil-E so nicely posted. Where are the Natufians? Rather close to the Niger/Congo group wouldn't you say?
Why don't you go and read something about the Natufians - YOU MIGHT LEARN something about the real origins of Western civilization.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Natufian culture existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant. It was an Epipalaeolithic culture, but unusual in that it established permanent settlements even before the introduction of agriculture. The Natufians are likely to have been the ancestors of the builders of the first Neolithic settlements of the region, which may have been the earliest in the world. There is also evidence that the Natufians themselves had already begun deliberate cultivation of cereals. They were certainly making use of wild grasses. The Natufians chose central places to stay so that the wild cereals could be harvested in all three zones. However, due to climate changes, which produced drier climate, the Natufians were forced to stay in areas with permanent water. Evidence for the storage of the grain can also be seen at some sites. The Natufians hunted gazelles as well as wild grasses. They are also responsible for the domestication of dogs.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion, At least I would be able to understand what I was reading. I also would not read it looking for points to back up an already predetermined point of view on Egypt. The origins of western civilization are very well documented already.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I'm concerned this board needs to get rid of both Evil Euro and Horemheb.
Euro's debates have gone beyond the level of degenerate to the point where he and Rasol make stupid pet names for each other and slur each other.
I'm actually about done with this whole board because of certain idiots it has become overwhlemingly redundant. What good does updating the software do when you keep the morons who degrade dicsussions?
Sensible, civil debates on internet message boards can only exist where there are enough guidelines, moderation and security to make it so. We should all move to Nile Valley Forums or some place more reliable where discussion can advance and low class trolls will not be tolerated.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or in other word Mansa , when the posters will conceed to your positions. Why don't you leave?
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: As far as I'm concerned this board needs to get rid of both Evil Euro and Horemheb.
Euro's debates have gone beyond the level of degenerate to the point where he and Rasol make stupid pet names for each other and slur each other.
I'm actually about done with this whole board because of certain idiots it has become overwhlemingly redundant. What good does updating the software do when you keep the morons who degrade dicsussions?
Sensible, civil debates on internet message boards can only exist where there are enough guidelines, moderation and security to make it so. We should all move to Nile Valley Forums or some place more reliable where discussion can advance and low class trolls will not be tolerated.
I cosign 100%, Evil Euro needs to be banned or have his posts erased that contain racial slurs. Evil Euro is a joke at debating because he thinks he can take published data and twist it to whatever he wants it to be and pushes it as fact.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:EmabarrassedEuro recants: I said they weren't mentioned in the specific passage about Natufians that I quoted.
Rephrasing a lie won't help you, the whole study and its passages, are about the African affinities of neolithic Europe including Greece, and the distinction between African influenced neolithic Europe and modern Europe, if anything, the Greeks are over-represented in terms of Brace data.
You can run, and being a coward you will....but you can't hide. So come back tomorrow with a less ridiculous excuse, since everyone's laughing at your current ones.
quote:Frustrated Euro writes: Reposting your bullsh*t
The only thing we are reposting is CL BRACE himself, and we will keep reposting it, because you sure don't have any answers. That's why you're reduced to profanity and racist rantings which can't save you.
quote:Brace is very exacting on how modern Europe is related to the sub-saharan influenced Neolithic
quote:EuroMonkey writes: Too bad his data tells a different story
^^ You retarded clown, that map shows the same Natufian/African affiliations and lack of continuity between Neolithic and modern Europe as the one below. It's just a different layout.
CL Brace himself, and not EuroMonkey sums up either or both maps, take your pick:
If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Brace conclusions = Larry Angel's earlier conclusions: “ one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians"
lol. Scholars like Brace and Angel interpret their own data.
Bitter monkeys like Erroneous Euro, just make incoherent noises and provide the comedy. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This board is becoming something of a headache, from Horemheb's stupidity in denying the existence of Eurocentrism to Evil Euro dismissing the words of Wilson et tal that were held through personal communication. This forum would be far better off without those two.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Or in other word Mansa , when the posters will coceed to your positions. Why don't you leave?
Horemheb, you and Stupid-Euro are trolls who have lost your debates and offer up nothing for discussion. You're circus clowns runnning your same routine over and over and over again. For Christ's sake Euro is talking about the same crap he's been ranting about on this forum all year and possibly years if memory serves me correctly.
I don't give a damn about your position, Hore, there is no reasoning with people like you. Your ilk is not welcome here. Why don't I leave? I'm not the one going off on a tirade about demented leftist conspiracy theories on a goddamn board about Egyptology! That's you. I'm also not the scumbag posting his stupid maps, mixing in his homosexual pet names with racial slurs and pretending the "real" reason he is here is because he has something to offer up for debate. Seriously, it is quite clear that the REAL reason Evil Euro is here is because he wants to suck Rasol's dick.
He gets off on calling him a Babbling Ape and he gets off even more when Rasol returns calling him a Gutless Ginny and a Euro-Wop Monkey or whatever the hell he calls him, either way he is egging him on perhaps not even realizing the guy has a crush on him.
The point is I don't care. Euro needs to just shut the hell up, private message Rasol on his own time and ask him for his number or something because such behavior is inappropiate for a discussion forum. It has simply gone on for far too long. It is above and beyond redundant and so are your antics, Hore.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Osirion, At least I would be able to understand what I was reading. I also would not read it looking for points to back up an already predetermined point of view on Egypt. The origins of western civilization are very well documented already.
Yes and it includes the Natufians. Which means that it includes a substantial Sub-Saharan element. Which is the point that you cannot accept and live in denial about.
Why don't you go back to your easy Eurocentric world of Columbus discovered American simplicity. This stuff is far too complex for your whitewashed mind to infuse. I think you might be causing yourself some emotional imbalance by thinking outside of your racial and nationalistic model of thinking. Your new world order concept is not flexible enough - and if it cannot flex with change it will break.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.
Evil-E has actually moderated his tone quite a bit in the last few months. Besides, I occassionally see reverse-racist statements being made.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.
The probem with Evil Euro is his arrogance and stubborness to admit he's wrong even in the face of overwhelmíng evidence because in his mind everyone here is an "afronut" without any credibility so he automatically assumes his position is more credible. I've even emailed geneticists and anthropologists and he still would not accept the interpretations they offered concerning th very same studies that Evil Euro's is supporting his position. In other words, Evil Euro thinks he's better at interpreting the studies than those who actually wrote them, is tatment of Brace and Wilson's studies attested to his stubbor refusals to accept. People like that do not need to be here because they're just baiting, not debating. His entire tactic is to run around in circles to the point of wearing an opponent down until they've had enough.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: I think Horemheb should not be banned. Even though most people don't agree with what he says he is needed for a different view point. As for Evil Euro, he just needs to stop the racial attacks. What he says does not make much sense but it is good to have a different view point just to compare the truth to garbage.
Evil-E has actually moderated his tone quite a bit in the last few months. Besides, I occassionally see reverse-racist statements being made.
No such thing as reverse racism, but I see where you're coming from but maybe the anti-Italian slurs are due to Evil Euro's constant anti-black slurs.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic