Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Renovation Blog Condo for rent or lease Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog Truck for Sale Reconstruction Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Culture & Politics » soc.culture.china » Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu
Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #51126 ] Fr, 08 Juli 2005 21:03
supertech  
How do I know all those things I said?

Because I was there, Moron.

Have you ever heard about the past life recollection?

I don't expect your limited brain to know these things though.

The bottom line is Huns finished conquering the world from Japan to England
around the 5th century AD.

Basically the whole entire world.

All those countries have become the powerful industrialized nations in the
modern world as you see them today.

But unfortunately, No Huns bothered to do a book keeping on that. Huns are
notoriously sloppy in keeping and leaving their achievements in writing in
history.

As I said before they are brittle people. They chip out of the main
congregation and do the things that the main society could not be informed
of.

No one has consistently collected and recorded where their own blooded Huns
go and did what.

But in the modern world of information society, we can trace where all of
them have gone and did what. And the grand conclusion is that they finished
conquering the world in the 5th century AD. Japan claims 1500 years of
history and 5th AD is about the time Yamato went to Japan and conquered and
unified them, which is basically the same time Attila the Hun conquered
Europe.

After 800 years later, Hun Mongols tried and did the same again except that
this time, they could not go into Japan because of the Typhoon.

If the history had been kept consistently and known to the people all over
the world, all these Huns would not have fought each other in those horrible
World Wars.

Knowledge is power. We are all brothers. You can not change the history.

You can only try to learn it correctly.




"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3856418b01d42098a1fd [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <1Xcze.1586$Ae.1252 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>>
>> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d35c6a6135f91c498a1fa [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <bUTye.1110$Ku6.297 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> > [at] global.com speculated nonsensically, saying ...
>> >>
>> >> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.1d34610a5ab42d9698a1f8 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> >> > In article <XAxye.1114$Ae.19 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> >> > [at] global.com says...
>> >> >> You seem to want to believe Saxons are not Huns.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I don't "WANT" or "NOT WANT" to believe it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I simply look at the available evidence.
>> >>
>> >> There is no evidence Saxons were not Huns.
>> >
>> > Yes there is. I have provided it.
>> >
>> > Ptolemy wrote of their existence and identified the territory they
>> > controlled 300 years before the Huns came to modern Germany. Funny how
>> > his writings agree with other historical records, isn't it?
>>
>>
>> Ptolemy didn't even know where the Huns have come from.
>
> BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>
> Writing about Europe in the 2nd century, 300 year before the Huns
> invaded, IT'S NOT SURPRISING HE DIDN'T MENTION HUNS!!!
>
> What a moron!
>>
>> He is one of your ignorant historians.
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAHAHAAAA!
>
> And which historians do YOU favour?
>
> Please list them and their works . . . . . .
>
>
>>
>> Use your common sense instead of pony historian's records.
>>
>> Explain why Saxons waited 300 years to invade Roman territory in the year
>> around 450 AD if they existed before.
>
> See my post earlier today. It shows your version is wrong.
>
>> They did plundered Roman territory
>> only as Vandals. They were not an organized army until Huns ruled them
>> and
>> trained them.
>
> This is pure speculation, unsupported by ANY references.
>
> What historical works have YOU used to back up your imagination?
>
> None, I'll bet.
>
>> It means the same indigenous people changed it's cloth from
>> Vandals to Saxons because of Huns rule.
>
> "It means"????
>
> Says who?????
>
> Is this your made-up version, or do you have a REFERENCE to support it?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>> Is that so hard for you to
>> understand? Explain also where have these Vandals gone after the year
>> around
>> 450 AD?
>>
>> Did they fight against Huns or with them?
>>
>> They should have lived somewhere with the same name. But they are gone
>> after
>> the year on and around 450 AD.
>>
>> Vandals and Goth became Saxons as soon as they had Huns as their rulers.
>
> And you have found this "fact" where, exactly?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why do you suppose that is??
>> >
>> > The record shows that the Saxons controlled a territory that was
>> > OUTSIDE
>> > the Hun empire.
>>
>>
>> Because Attila the Hun promised his Generals to be the Kings of the land
>> they conquer.
>
> And how do you know this?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>>
>> But Attila the Hun can not share his own kingship with his generals. That
>> shouldn't be so hard for you to understand.
>
> And how do you know this?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>>
>> Where then did they go?
>>
>> Where the Vandals and Goth were.
>>
>> The Generals who are now forming monarchs by themselves didn't have to
>> call
>> the region Hun territory because it would confuse with the territory of
>> Attila the Hun himself who were their King.
>
> And how do you know this?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > And there is NO evidence that they WERE Huns. Is there?? Of course,
>> > you
>> > continue to make the claim but can't produce EVIDENCE -- only your
>> > fantastic speculation without any evidentiary support.
>> >
>> > Any sensible person confronted with this information would arrive at
>> > the
>> > conclusion that they were NOT Huns.
>> >>
>> >> It's only in your wishful imagination.
>> >>
>> >> Hun was a King of East Anglia.
>> >
>> > I see you've stopped claiming Beorna was a Hun.
>>
>> Berona was a Hun. You are not paying attention.
>>
>> I said all the Saxon monarch's kings were Huns.
>
> YOU SAID???
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAAAA! YOU????
>
> And how do you know this?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Good. You admit you were wrong.
>> >>
>> >> That's a positive proof that Saxons were Huns.
>> >
>> > BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!
>> >
>> > That is proof positive of only one thing -- that there was a King of
>> > East Anglia named Hun. If you think it is "proof positive" of his
>> > ethnic origin, you should look up "proof" in the dictionary. You've
>> > got
>> > it wrong . . . AGAIN!
>>
>> There you go again with the nonsense.
>>
>> Hun is not a Hun.
>
> And how do you know he WAS a Hun?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>>
>> Hun is a Hun because all the English monarch Kings were Huns and also
>> because Saxons are formed by Attila the Hun's Generals.
>
> And how do you know this?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > It suggests that Saxons were NOT Huns.
>>
>>
>> Nothing suggets that Saxons were not Huns.
>
> Take my references and read them.
>
> Find other references that shows they are wrong.
>
> Until you do, you're just another ignoramus who clings to beliefs in the
> face of contrary evidence.
>>
>>
>> >> No evidence suggests that Saxons were not Huns.
>> >>
>> >> Ptolemy? What about it? What he said proves Saxons were not Huns?
>> >
>> > You previously argued that Saxons were synonymous with Huns, and that
>> > there WERE no Saxons before the Huns arrived.
>>
>> I said Saxons were formed and ruled by Attila the Hun's Generals.
>>
> And how do YOU know this?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>
>>
>> > I have provided strong evidence that you are WRONG.
>>
>> No, you didn't.
>
>
> Find other references that shows my references are wrong.
>
> Until you do, you're just another ignoramus who clings to beliefs in the
> face of contrary evidence.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > You argued that Saxons came from Germany, saying that since the Huns
>> > controlled Germany, that they must have been Huns.
>>
>>
>> There was no Germany when Saxons existed, moron.
>>
>> You are making the same nonsense as Ptolemy did.
>
> In an earlier post you stated:
>
> "But we know for sure that Saxon's moved from Germany to England by the
> method of an invasion."
>
> There was no Germany when Saxons existed, moron!
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAHAAAA!
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I have provided good evidence that they came from Denmark, Holland and
>> > a
>> > part of Germany, ALL OF WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY CONTROLLED BY
>> > THE HUNS.
>>
>> They were all part of either Saxons or ruled by any Hun officials.
>
> And how do YOU know this?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
>
>> How many
>> Generals and Colonels(if they ranked it that way) would you need to lead
>> a
>> 100,000 army of soldiers?
>>
>> More than hundreds if not thousands.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As usual.
>> >
>> > Only your speculation, totally unsupported by evidence.
>> >
>> > You do know the difference between evidence and speculation, don't you?
>>
>>
>> I can speculate many things that are 100% correct. I showed you an
>> example.
>> Do you want me to repeat?
>
> Any fool can speculate on the obvious.
>
> And only a fool would consider his speculation on matters that happened
> thousands of years ago to be 100% correct WHEN HE CANNOT PROVIDE
> EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSIONS.
>
> You are just such a fool.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Saxons made a tactical move only after Attila the Hun conquered
>> >> Europe.
>> >
>> > The Saxons made their tactical move after the Romans could no longer
>> > defend Britain.
>> >
>> > The Saxon lands were NEVER CONTROLLED BY HUNS. I have posted references
>> > and maps to prove this point.
>>
>> You are talking about Hun territory of Attila the Hun.
>
>
> No, I am not. I have provided links to maps supporting my version.
>
> You have provided NOTHING but your stupid speculation.
>
>
>
>> You are ignoring the
>> whole group of Generals who were waiting to be kings and made themselves
>> to
>> be kings.
>
> And how do YOU know this?
>
> FIND EVIDENCE, MORON.
>
> Attila was driven out of Gaul very quickly. He never established control
> of Gaul. He never controlled the lands occupied by the Saxons.
>
> I have provided links supporting my conclusions. You have provided
> nothing but your ignorant speculation.
>>
>>
>> > You have ignored it. Too "inconvenient" for your theory?
>> >>
>> >> Old people lived in the area were called Saxon by mistake by this
>> >> idiot
>> >> Ptolemy like many people call indegenous people lived in the area
>> >> German
>> >> these days. People even call those people lived 1700 years ago as
>> >> German
>> >> by
>> >> mistake these days. 300 hundred years? It sounds like a big deal,
>> >> while
>> >> it's
>> >> simply a big pile of bullshit.
>> >
>> > BWAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>> >
>> > With no references to back you up, you wave your hands and dismiss
>> > Ptolemy! BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAA!
>>
>> Ptolemy didn't even know where the Huns are coming from.
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAAHAAA! What a moron!!
>
> He was writing 300 years before the Hun invasion of Europe. Why should
> he write about the Huns?? He wasn't Nostradamus.
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHA!
>
>
>>
>> Why should I believe any of his bullshit?
>>
>> He is your historian not mine.
>>
> So, tell us.
>
> Who is YOUR historian??
>
> I think I know . . . .
>
> It's YOU!
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAAHAHAAHAAHAAAAHAAAHAAHAAAA!
>>
>>
>> > Ooooooooh! You're so clever!
>> >
>> > BWAAAHAAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAA!
>> >
>> > And you claim one of your ancestors was a famous scholar, 33
>> > generations
>> > ago?
>> >
>> > You are just more evidence that genes get watered down . . . . down,
>> > down, down!
>> >
>> > BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>> >
>> > There isn't milligram of scholarship in your soul, stupidtech.
>> >
>> > BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > How about you? Have YOU seen any credible evidence that Saxons were
>> >> > Huns?
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you?
>> >>
>> >> All evidence suggests that Saxons were Huns or Hun ruled monarchs.
>> >
>> > Wrong. See previous posts. I've provided plenty of evidence to the
>> > contrary, and you have offered ZERO evidence to back up your point.
>> > None!
>>
>> I don't think you showed any evidence Saxons were not Huns.
>>
>> You have to explain why any Saxon monarch would have a King whose name
>> was
>> Hun.
>
> I have. You forgot already??
>>
>> Give me a good shot.
>>
>> Just a reasonable common sense explanation that every body can understand
>> would be enough, no mumbo jumbos please.
>
> And no history, right??
>
> BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAHAAAAA!
>>
>> No pony historian bullshit.
>>
>> No more who said what nonsense.
>
> BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAHAAA!
>>
>> Aristotle said the Earth was flat and the Sun rotates around the Earth.
>>
>> So much for Aristotle. So much for Ptolemy.
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAA!
>
> "George said the earth was flat. So much for Bill."
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAA!
>
> Are you THAT stupid??????
>>
>> You are a moron.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, you deliberately erased the important part of my post regarding
>> someone being your ancestor and your being one of his/her descendents.
>
> Show us how much you know about genetics, moron.
>
>
> What proportion of a child's genes come from his mother, and what
> proportion come from his father?
>
> What is (0.5)^^32?
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAHA!
>
>
>>
>> You are the most despicable slimy racist I have ever seen all the while
>> pretending you were not.
>>
> I am a racist because I attack your racial superiority theories?????
>
> This shows what a mental midget you are!
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAHAAAAAA!
>
>
> Verno
Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #51127 ] Fr, 08 Juli 2005 21:27
supertech  
It's easy. Because after Hun became the name of the old Germany all those
Vandals and Goth were gone from the history.

No one tried to see it consistently and that's why you do not know.

Look, Verno, you have to be able to see the big picture of the things.
The large flow of the events in history. You can figure out the tiny little
details out of the big picture not the other way around. It's like a
millions of magnet aligned all in the same direction.

If you see one of the magnets are oppositely oriented, you can tell that
can't happen. But if that single magnet was oriented correctly, you can tell
the whole magnets must have been aligned in the same direction as the tiny
little one.

If I say I know because I'm more intelligent than you, you will be offended.

But unfortunately, my explanations do not contradict any of the history,
records and the events that actually happened.

Try to give your version of the story on how the name Hun got in the list of
the kings of East Anglia first.

I would like to hear that and we can start from that point if you want to
continue.

Your story should be consistent and should leave no questions that
contradict common sense.

Do it like a story teller does to their kids.





"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d384f0bb7096def98a1fc [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <g5cze.1583$Ae.889 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>>
>> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d35c6c4c90821e698a1fb [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <8uTye.1104$Ku6.76 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> > [at] global.com says...
>> >> Moron, power vacuum has been filled and cleared out by the Huns.
>> >> That's
>> >> why
>> >> the old Germany was called Hun. Other wise, it should have been called
>> >> Goth
>> >> or Vandals.
>> >>
>> >> BWAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>> >
>> > No references to back up your imagination yet, huh?
>>
>> What reference? Was old Germany called the name of their country Goth?
>>
>> Vandal is a the name that has contributed to the origination of the word
>> vandalism.
>>
>> Before Hun invaded Europe, Vandals were basically leaderless scattered
>> tribes plundering Roman territory as the word indicates itself.
>>
>> These unorganized people began to get organized and started to have
>> tactical
>> power at the same time Attila the Hun invaded Europe. What does that say,
>> Moron?
>>
>> What more reference do you need to understand?
>
> I need REFERENCES.
>
> A REFERENCE is NOT your recitation of the flawed information contained
> in your faulty memory.
>
> A REFERENCE is NOT your opinion.
>
> A REFERENCE is NOT your fanciful speculation about what "must have"
> been.
>
> A REFERENCE is a source of information compiled by others.
>
> A GOOD REFERENCE is a source of information compiled by others through
> sound scholarly research, in which all evidence is backed up by
> citations divulging the source.
>
> You have not provided REFERENCES for virtually ANYTHING.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Ptolemy didn't know a thing about how Saxons have started.
>> >
>> > So, now you think Ptolemy was Nostradamus?? BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>> >
>> > Did he dream up the existence of the Saxons 300 years before you
>> > believe
>> > they existed?
>>
>> Saxons didn't exist before 450 AD until Huns named it that way after they
>> established monarchs in the territory.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!
>
> Did you read this somewhere? IF so, where?
>
> If you didn't, then you MADE IT UP.
>
> So, which is it? Taken from some other source, or made up by you?
>
> By the way, you may find these two maps from the time BEFORE the Huns
> came to Europe enlightening. They both show that SAXONS EXISTED BEFORE
> THE HUNS.
>
> Now, do you have REFERENCES that conflict with this?
>
> Produce them, or admit you MADE IT UP.
>
> http://www.allempires.com/empires/byzantine1/rome1a.gif
>
> http://www.allempires.com/empires/byzantine1/rome2a.gif
>>
>> There were indigenous people living there but they were not Saxons.
>>
>> They were called Vandals.
>>
>> There was no specific area that Vandals inhabited. Leaderless tribes
>> plundering Roman territory were all collectively called Vandals.
>
> And you base this on what?
>
> REFERENCE or imagination?
>
> See the maps on the links above.
>
> The world was NOT the way you imagine it.
>>
>> Ptolemy is referring to the people lived in the territory as Saxons
>> exactly
>> like you would call the people of 5th century lived there Germans, which
>> is
>> wrong.
>
> And you base this on what?
>
> REFERENCE or imagination?
>>
>>
>>
>> > BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAA! That shows what a liar you are!
>> > And you're they person who wrote" "I'M NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING BUT
>> > THE TRUTH"???? BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!
>> >
>> > Ptolemy's writings are the best kind of historical reference. They
>> > were
>> > written AT THE TIME, and by someone who published a huge volume of
>> > material that displayed consistent objectivity and a superior mind.
>> >
>> > As I have previously said, I'll trust Ptolemy's writings over your
>> > "nonsensical speculation" any day.
>>
>> Moron, your "Historians" didn't even know there was Gokuryo nor the vast
>> area of Hun kingdom in the far east.
>
> Irrelevant. He wasn't writing about that, moron.
>>
>> Huns physically has shown up in your nose and still didn't have faintest
>> idea where they are coming from.
>
> I DO know that Huns have invaded my nose, but I discharge them as often
> as possible. Why, just this morning I looked at the Kleenex and said to
> myself "Hey, isn't that stupidtech"?
>>
>> Your "Historians" were totally at the loss.
>>
>> Is that enough reason to trust your so called "historians"? I don't.
>
> In other words, the best way to understand what happened thousands of
> years ago is to dream what the Huns did based on your emotional need to
> feel less inferior?
>
> BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAAAA!
>
> You're a very "special" case, stupidtech.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> The crucial evidence of Saxons being Hun is the king of East Anglia,
>> >> Hun.
>> >> That's how all your bullshit defense has started.
>> >
>> > This shows how poor your reasoning ability is. This is NOT "crucial
>> > evidence".
>>
>>
>> I'll tell you why it's a crucial evidence.
>>
>> You are denying the reality.
>>
>> If Huns were not in power, any Huns would not be able to be a king of any
>> part of monarch in England.
>
> Exactly. And the Huns were not in power.
>
> Provide EVIDENCE that the Huns were in power.
>
> EVIDENCE. REFERENCES.
>
> Not your warped imagination.
>>
>> So, Huns were in charge of all Saxon monarchs.
>
> You have based your reasoning on a foregone conclusion. You have NO
> REFERENCES to back up your conclusion.
>
> I have provided references undermining your chain of logic. But you
> reject them because they don't support the conclusion you NEED to feel
> less inferior.
>>
>> Is that so hard for you to understand?
>
> IT is very easy to understand. You are an unreasoning moron who is
> sticking with a flawed conclusion despite all available evidence.
>>
>> And if Huns were in charge, all the kings of Saxon monarch must be ethnic
>> Huns also.
>
> The Huns weren't in charge, and the Saxons monarchs were not Huns.
>
> I have provided evidence supporting my conclusion.
>
> You have provided nothing but empty speculation, unsupported by anything
> solid.
>>
>> Huns would not give inheritance of their kingship to anyone who do not
>> have
>> any Hun blood.
>
> Irrelevant. Huns had nothing to do with it.
>>
>> Because Huns were the Royal blood.
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAAHAAAA!
>>
>> That's another reason why the monarchs frequently arranged marriages
>> among
>> themselves.
>>
>>
>> > You don't understand the difference between INFERENCE and FACT.
>> >
>> > Your "conclusion" that Hun was an ethnic Hun is an INFERENCE. It is
>> > NOT
>> > a fact.
>>
>>
>> It's a fact. Like the fact that your mom and dad had sex even if no one
>> has
>> seen or observed it.
>
> BWAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAA!
>
> It is NOT a fact. It is speculation based on the flimsiest of logic.
> Yours. BWAAAAHAAAHAHAAHAAA!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Look up the difference. Maybe you'll learn something -- although I've
>> > not seen you learn anything from your mistakes yet.
>> >
>> > Your entire case is based on two inferences.
>> >
>> > 1. That Saxons were Huns.
>> >
>> > 2. That the minor King named "Hun" was an ethnic Hun.
>> >
>> > I have provided plenty of evidence suggesting your first inference is
>> > wrong. To summarize, the Saxons predated the Huns, and the evidence I
>> > have found shows that the Huns occupied territory that was NOT part of
>> > the Hun empire.
>>
>>
>> Learn to make distinction between the indigenous people and the same
>> people
>> who acquired their leaders.
>>
>> I already told you Saxons were ruled by Attila the Hun's Generals. Why
>> should they be in the same territory as that ruled by Attila the Hun to
>> be
>> Huns?
>
> YOU told me?
>
> How do YOU know? Your imagination is NOT a reliable source of EVIDENCE.
>>
>> You are an absolute moron.
>
> If so, you're once again being outsmarted by an absolute moron. What
> does that make you? BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > You have offered only nonsensical speculation in
>> > return. No references. No evidence. No links. No sense. Just an
>> > illogical inference.
>> >
>> > Your second inference depends on the first. If Saxons were NOT Huns,
>> > there is very little chance that Hun was an ethnic Hun.
>> >
>> > I presume this is why you have tried so hard to pooh-pooh the writings
>> > of Ptolemy, who noted the existence of the Saxons, and the territory
>> > they controlled, 300 YEARS BEFORE ATTILA.
>>
>>
>> Saxons as monarch name didn't exist until they made their tactical move.
>> Their existence was inconsequential until they started to invade adjacent
>> territories. In other words, the indigenous people lived in the region
>> were
>> not called Saxon at the time until Huns conquered them and started to
>> make
>> TACTICAL move.
>
> Saxons predated the Huns in Europe.
>
> I have provided several independent references to support this
> conclusion.
>
> You have provided NO REFERENCES to contradict it.
>
> What does that tell you about your ability to THINK?
>>
>> Use your tiny brain to explain, WHY THE HELL the Saxons started to make
>> tactical move to the Roman territory from and around the year 450 AD,
>> which
>> is exactly the time Attila the Hun conquered Europe.
>>
>> Mere coincidence?
>
> I have already explained it.
>
> But I shall do so again. Read it this time.
>
> From the History of the The Early Byzantine Empire, 330-602
>
> "The empire faced two main problems in this period: the external threat of
> the
> Sassanid empire, and later on of the barbaric tribes which were forced
> to flee inside the empire's territory by the Huns."
>
> I read English. Let me explain for you.
>
> The Huns invaded Europe. This forced the tribes listed on the map I've
> linked to above to move westward.
>
> This reference goes on to state:
>
> "The Sassanid Persians were a constant threat for the emperors of the
> IV-VI century, and the mass migration of the Germanic tribes that, under
> the pressure of the Huns, asked to settle on the empire's lands and
> then, after the vexation of roman governors, invaded the western part
> of the empire, led to the fall of the western roman empire in 475 and
> to the creation of independent kingdoms in Italy, France, Spain and
> North Africa."
>
> Read it here.
>
> http://www.allempires.com/empires/byzantine1/byzantine1.htm
>
>
> From an article in allempires on the Hun empire:
>
> "To Western Europe, the Huns failed to achieve any effect other than a
> rearrangement of barbarian power, the relocation of the Goths westward,
> and the founding of Venice by those who fled the Huns in Northern Italy.
> Thus, in western history the Huns are best remembered as one of the
> barbarian groups that contributed to the collapse of Rome."
>
> http://www.allempires.com/empires/huns/huns1.htm
>
> From another reference:
>
> "Anglo-Saxons, name given to the Germanic-speaking peoples who settled
> in England after the decline of Roman rule there. They were first
> invited by the Celtic King Vortigern, who needed help fighting the Picts
> and Scots. The Angles (Lat. Angli), who are mentioned in Tacitus'
> Germania, seem to have come from what is now Schleswig in the later
> decades of the 5th cent. Their settlements in the eastern, central, and
> northern portions of the country were the foundations for the later
> kingdoms known as East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria. The Saxons, a
> Germanic tribe who had been continental neighbors of the Angles, also
> settled in England in the late 5th cent. after earlier marauding forays
> there. The later kingdoms of Sussex, Wessex, and Essex were the
> outgrowths of their settlements. The Jutes, a tribe about whom very
> little is known except that they probably came from the area around the
> mouths of the Rhine, settled in Kent (see Kent, kingdom of) and the Isle
> of Wight. The Anglo-Saxons eventually formed seven separate kingdoms
> known as the heptarchy."
>
> http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=8rerntngmjnm?method=4
> &dsid=2222&dekey=Anglo-Saxons&gwp=8&curtab=2 222_1
> &sbid=lc01a&linktext=Anglo-Saxons
>
> Other references show that Saxons were used by the Romans as mercenaries
> to defend Roman Britain from the northern tribes (Picts and Scots)
> between 410 and 450, BEFORE THE HUN INVASION OF MODERN GERMANY.
>
> One reference states:
>
> "The earliest Germanic inhabitants in Wessex appear on the upper Thames.
> By the late fifth century much of the Thames valley was settled by the
> English. Romano-Saxon pottery evidence indicates there were Germanic
> troops at Abingdon and Oxford before 410 and the defense system around
> Roman Silchester was expanded between 410 and 450.81 This area was
> settled well before Cerdic and Cynric are said to have landed in the
> Southhampton waters in 495."
>
> It goes on to state:
>
> "The earliest Germanic settlements in East Anglia seem to have been on
> an orderly and cooperative federate basis. Caister-by-Norwich, Roman
> Venta Icenorum, was originally built to Romanize the Iceni after
> Boudicca's revolution in 61 A.D. About the beginning of the fourth
> century, an area southwest of the city began to be used for an Anglo-
> Saxon cremation cemetery. At this time, pottery evidence indicates a
> mostly Saxon mercenary population living in cooperation with the British
> citizens in the city."
>
> And more:
>
> "A significant population of Germanic people of mixed tribal background
> was built up in cooperation with the Roman and British authorities
> during the fourth and the first half of the fifth centuries. These
> settlements appear to have supported the Saxon Shore defense system that
> was constructed during the fourth century."
>
> See: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/vikings/asinv.html
>
> Let me summarize for you.
>
> The Romans had used Germanic (including Saxon) mercenaries to help
> defend their territory in Britain for MANY YEARS BEFORE THE HUN
> INVASION.
>
> Rome stopped supporting its British territory around 410 and left it
> largely undefended.
>
> When the Huns forced the Germanic tribes west around ~ 450 AD, some
> travelled to the undefended Britain. They were not HUNS.
>
> And recent DNA evidence from Britain makes no mention of HUNS in the
> genetic makeup of Britain.
>
> http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/15930
>
>
> Of course, I know you will never agree because you are NOT someone who
> is "only interested in the truth".
>
> You're only interested in YOUR "truth" -- the Huns were superior,
> dominated Europe for centuries, and are firmly embedded in the gene pool
> of Europe.
>
> But you're wrong.
>
> You have nothing to offer in support of this except your own twisted
> "logic", totally unsupported by evidence or facts.
>
> No matter how many times you repeat a stupid statement, it does not
> become more true.
>
> It's time you started demonstrating the pitiful, watered down genetic
> link to your distant ancestor, the famous Korean scholar.
>
> Try applying a little bit of scholarship.
>
> FACTS AND EVIDENCE from reliable sources will help to make your case.
> Fanciful speculation just makes you look like a fool.
>
>>
>> Moron, Huns conquered Europe and England.
>>
>> Prove they didn't.
>
> I have.
>
>> That's a historical fact.
>
> That's your wishful thinking.
>>
>> Deny if you can. Why don't you deny it flatly? I'll walk away if you do.
>
> To state it as a certainty without absolute proof is ignorant. But the
> evidence against your version is very strong, and you have provided
> NOTHING except speculation unsupported by facts to back up your opinion.
>>
>> I'll repeat it million times if that's what you like to hear.
>>
>> You seem to enjoy hearing that historical facts over and over to remind
>> you
>> of Caucasian inferiority.
>>
>> Caucasian became stronger only after they got mixed with Huns and have
>> them
>> as their rulers.
>>
>> Present Europeans are not a pure bred Caucasians, they are hybrids of
>> Huns.
>>
>> I can tell you are a most creepy form of hypocritical racist contrary to
>> your denial in the past.
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAHAAAA!
>
> A purveyor of a crackpot Hun and Korean superiority theory, who has
> NEVER provided evidence to back any of it, calls me a hypocritical
> racist????
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAHAAHAAHAAAAAHAAAA!
>
> Your "reasoning" in support of your "theory" is akin to the "aryan
> superiority" theories spread by Nazi propogandists of WWII.
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAAAAAA!
>
> Heil stupidtech!
>
> BWAAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAAAAAA! BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!
>
>>
>>
>> Youseem to think repeating bullshit is winning.
>
> No, I think advancing EVIDENCE and RESEARCH helps to find the truth.
> You have advanced nothing but unsupported speculation.
>
> You are clearly too stupid and uneducated to understand this.
>
> Go back to school, stupidtech.
>
> Verno
SUPERTECH GOES NUTSO! [message #51139 ] Fr, 08 Juli 2005 23:25
Vernon North  
I knew sooner or later you'd pull a rabbit out of your hat to make it
look like your ass isn't getting kicked.

But this is even lamer than anything I imagined you might do.

BWAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

You're a fucking nutjob!

By the way, how does this explain the lack of Hun genetic markers among
modern Brits?

Verno
--
"I was there, Moron."
Supertech

In article <_5Aze.2474$Ku6.1155 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> How do I know all those things I said?
>
> Because I was there, Moron.
>
> Have you ever heard about the past life recollection?
>
> I don't expect your limited brain to know these things though.
>
> The bottom line is Huns finished conquering the world from Japan to England
> around the 5th century AD.
>
> Basically the whole entire world.
>
> All those countries have become the powerful industrialized nations in the
> modern world as you see them today.
>
> But unfortunately, No Huns bothered to do a book keeping on that. Huns are
> notoriously sloppy in keeping and leaving their achievements in writing in
> history.
>
> As I said before they are brittle people. They chip out of the main
> congregation and do the things that the main society could not be informed
> of.
>
> No one has consistently collected and recorded where their own blooded Huns
> go and did what.
>
> But in the modern world of information society, we can trace where all of
> them have gone and did what. And the grand conclusion is that they finished
> conquering the world in the 5th century AD. Japan claims 1500 years of
> history and 5th AD is about the time Yamato went to Japan and conquered and
> unified them, which is basically the same time Attila the Hun conquered
> Europe.
>
> After 800 years later, Hun Mongols tried and did the same again except that
> this time, they could not go into Japan because of the Typhoon.
>
> If the history had been kept consistently and known to the people all over
> the world, all these Huns would not have fought each other in those horrible
> World Wars.
>
> Knowledge is power. We are all brothers. You can not change the history.
>
> You can only try to learn it correctly.
>
PAST LIVES OF SUPERTECH AND VERNO [message #51140 ] Fr, 08 Juli 2005 23:46
Vernon North  
In article <vsAze.2478$Ku6.70 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> It's easy. Because after Hun became the name of the old Germany all those
> Vandals and Goth were gone from the history.
>
> No one tried to see it consistently and that's why you do not know.
>
> Look, Verno, you have to be able to see the big picture of the things.
> The large flow of the events in history. You can figure out the tiny little
> details out of the big picture not the other way around. It's like a
> millions of magnet aligned all in the same direction.
>
> If you see one of the magnets are oppositely oriented, you can tell that
> can't happen. But if that single magnet was oriented correctly, you can tell
> the whole magnets must have been aligned in the same direction as the tiny
> little one.
>
> If I say I know because I'm more intelligent than you, you will be offended.
>
> But unfortunately, my explanations do not contradict any of the history,
> records and the events that actually happened.
>
> Try to give your version of the story on how the name Hun got in the list of
> the kings of East Anglia first.
>
> I would like to hear that and we can start from that point if you want to
> continue.
>
> Your story should be consistent and should leave no questions that
> contradict common sense.
>
> Do it like a story teller does to their kids.
>
>
Like you, I also have past life recollection.

I know Hun was not an ethnic Hun because I WAS HUN'S FATHER! He had blue
eyes and blond hair, just like me. His mother was a Celtic maiden of
exquisite beauty, with green eyes and red hair.

Hun was not a Hun. Now you have it on the highest authority.

BWAAHAAAHAHAAHAAAHAA!

Verno
--
I LOVE the "past life recollection" argument!
It can't be proven wrong!

BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
Vorheriges Thema:MY MISERABLE STORY (7/2/2005)
Nächstes Thema:Congress Demands Pentagon Report on China
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: So Mai 20 14:45:23 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07953 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered