3 ms·

> Note that your responses also actually don't contain any historically usable arguments. Correct. I'm saying you have no significant evidence for your claim o

by olavk 9y ago

> Note that your responses also actually don't contain any historically usable arguments. Correct. I'm saying you have no significant evidence for your claim outside of pure speculation. I'm not making any particular counterclaim, since we simply don't have enough evidence either way. As a self-proclaimed atheist you might understand how this works. > But I surely can imagine you having the "feeling" that I'm wrong. I'm not sure if this is trolling, or you just don't see the irony of that statement?

acqq 9y ago
> since we simple don't have enough evidence either way. We do have much more for my claim than for yours, as presented: the specific evidence for my claim is even in the original article. Your claim is just completely content-free "we don't have enough." Not enough for you, but it's still many indications in the context pointing in one specific direction, and one specific claim. That's how the history works. > a self-proclaimed atheist Why did you feel the need to use "self-proclaimed"? It's not something I wasn't ready to admit. An atheist I am, and I don't see any problem with that. It's not a "dirty word" for me. It is true that it would get me probably officially killed in some countries regulated by the "perfect" law of their god. Or by some religious people taking the specific words of their god seriously. That is a good reason I prefer remaining anonymous.
- olavk 9y ago
  This article http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-of-sappho.html http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-... (from the same source) suggest her works were lost because the language simple wasn't understood in medieval times. This sounds more plausible than deliberate destruction.
- dang 9y ago
  If you ignore our requests to stop taking HN into religious flamewar again, we will ban you. I'm not doing that yet out of appreciation for your many positive contributions to HN. But these other ones are not ok.

by olavk 9y ago

acqq 9y ago

> since we simple don't have enough evidence either way. We do have much more for my claim than for yours, as presented: the specific evidence for my claim is even in the original article. Your claim is just completely content-free "we don't have enough." Not enough for you, but it's still many indications in the context pointing in one specific direction, and one specific claim. That's how the history works. > a self-proclaimed atheist Why did you feel the need to use "self-proclaimed"? It's not something I wasn't ready to admit. An atheist I am, and I don't see any problem with that. It's not a "dirty word" for me. It is true that it would get me probably officially killed in some countries regulated by the "perfect" law of their god. Or by some religious people taking the specific words of their god seriously. That is a good reason I prefer remaining anonymous.

olavk 9y ago
This article http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-of-sappho.html http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/07/the-mystery-... (from the same source) suggest her works were lost because the language simple wasn't understood in medieval times. This sounds more plausible than deliberate destruction.
dang 9y ago
If you ignore our requests to stop taking HN into religious flamewar again, we will ban you. I'm not doing that yet out of appreciation for your many positive contributions to HN. But these other ones are not ok.