|
Culture & Politics » soc.culture.china » Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45649] |
Sa, 25 Juni 2005 11:42 |
|
I don't think it's a new phenomenon.
Have you ever noticed that John Lennon might have been a descendent of a Hun
Korean who conquered Europe especially German and England in the fourth
century AD?
I think "Sax" in Saxon came from the Korean word SSAKS meaning "sprout".
Look carefully the eyes of John Lennon, it's a typical Korean eyes. His
relatively low nose and flat facial profile can be found abundantly in
Korea.
No wonder he found a Japanese lady for his spouse.
You can tell he was loner, perhaps coming from his abnormally Asian look
different from his peers.
The Star Trek captain actor "Patrick Stewart" is also a Hun. His piercing
slanted eyes makes him look like an alien, but basically he is a Hun Korean
descendent. His commanding and domineering attitude is also that of a
typical Hun.
"Jongseon SHIN" <pioidSP [at] Mhanmail.net> wrote in message
news:d7s3pq$204$1 [at] news.kreonet.re.kr...
> <grunt262 [at] verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1117487008.274516.122000 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I am confused. Just because few TV soap opera, films and few
>> products are hit in local markets, here we go with Han ryu talk.
>
> The growth of Korean pop culture in this not-that-small local
> market has been exponential. In this "local" phenomena, some
> koreans see the potential of a global korean culture and business.
>
> I'm not sure if this kind of trend can be ignited in western world.
> But some korean directors are already well recognized by europeans
> and americans. If some westerns can enjoy japanese and chinese
> pop culture, why not still-underestimated korean pop culture?
> Koreans may hope? Shouldn't we?
>
>> Now, if I watch Korean TV (coming thru satellite), I get that
>> much of Korean pop culture seen in TV is American stuff. Even
>> language is so much permeated with transliterated English words,
>> even a person like myself (with limited knowledge ) get to wonder
>> why do they choose to use transliterated English words when
>> there are Korean words.
>
> I agree and disagree. What culture under the sky is absolutely
> NEW? Culture is copied and modified and mutated.
> What is language? Do you invent all the words you are saying?
> Language is by its nature a mimicry. Do you think Korean is not
> pure, is being day by day comtaminated? I enjoy that comtaminated
> AND therefore richer language. Is it a colonization? No, I don't
> think so. Korean is being seasoned with English, and becoming
> more tasty.
>
> --
> SHIN
>
>>
>> Call me myopic, I was just watching news about Iraq, about
>> rocket attach against Zaitun troops in Northern Iraq. Lettering
>> displayed on TV screen used le-doo (red) allert in apparent
>> reference to red allert. Mind set and reference point is shifted
>> so much so that pa'al- ga'an (red in Korea) does not make
>> sense to Koreans? That, that seems like complete cultural
>> colonization. This is self-imposed colonization.
>>
>> What is Han ryu anyhow.
>>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45700 ] |
Sa, 25 Juni 2005 17:39 |
|
"Supertech" <jones2 [at] global.com> wrote in message
news:9G9ve.1837$5w3.1000 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> I don't think it's a new phenomenon.
>
> Have you ever noticed that John Lennon might have been a descendent of a
Hun
> Korean who conquered Europe especially German and England in the fourth
> century AD?
Interesting theory. But how much of him do you think is korean?
Let's say one of his ancsester was korean, and during about 1600 years
no other hun blood was mixed into his family. 1600 years is roughly
50 (1600/30) generations. We can guess that about 1/(2^50) = 1/1000000000
of his blood is korean. Quiet impressive figure for a Hun Korean, huh?
>
> I think "Sax" in Saxon came from the Korean word SSAKS meaning "sprout".
Interesting, but too brave theory I think.
>
> Look carefully the eyes of John Lennon, it's a typical Korean eyes. His
> relatively low nose and flat facial profile can be found abundantly in
> Korea.
>
> No wonder he found a Japanese lady for his spouse.
>
> You can tell he was loner, perhaps coming from his abnormally Asian look
> different from his peers.
>
> The Star Trek captain actor "Patrick Stewart" is also a Hun. His piercing
> slanted eyes makes him look like an alien, but basically he is a Hun
Korean
> descendent. His commanding and domineering attitude is also that of a
> typical Hun.
>
I've read your postings, and for I'm a korean, I appreciate your
love for the korean people, race and the culture. But your theory
is too brave. : Every good is Korean, in your term, of the Hun Korean.
I think it's a different demonstration of your orientalism. Though
you are saying the (y)our race is the greatest, you feel that your
race is inferior to others. So you want to prove a absurdity.
It's very possible and ,I think is, true that the culture of korea is
relatively deprciated and underestimated than its greatness. Your
posting only makes a barrier for other to really understand (y)our
culture.
Hope you can prove your hypothetical theory by writing papers
and not by posting on SCK. Here are not many who can review
your theory.
----
SHIN
>
>
>
>
> "Jongseon SHIN" <pioidSP [at] Mhanmail.net> wrote in message
> news:d7s3pq$204$1 [at] news.kreonet.re.kr...
> > <grunt262 [at] verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:1117487008.274516.122000 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> I am confused. Just because few TV soap opera, films and few
> >> products are hit in local markets, here we go with Han ryu talk.
> >
> > The growth of Korean pop culture in this not-that-small local
> > market has been exponential. In this "local" phenomena, some
> > koreans see the potential of a global korean culture and business.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this kind of trend can be ignited in western world.
> > But some korean directors are already well recognized by europeans
> > and americans. If some westerns can enjoy japanese and chinese
> > pop culture, why not still-underestimated korean pop culture?
> > Koreans may hope? Shouldn't we?
> >
> >> Now, if I watch Korean TV (coming thru satellite), I get that
> >> much of Korean pop culture seen in TV is American stuff. Even
> >> language is so much permeated with transliterated English words,
> >> even a person like myself (with limited knowledge ) get to wonder
> >> why do they choose to use transliterated English words when
> >> there are Korean words.
> >
> > I agree and disagree. What culture under the sky is absolutely
> > NEW? Culture is copied and modified and mutated.
> > What is language? Do you invent all the words you are saying?
> > Language is by its nature a mimicry. Do you think Korean is not
> > pure, is being day by day comtaminated? I enjoy that comtaminated
> > AND therefore richer language. Is it a colonization? No, I don't
> > think so. Korean is being seasoned with English, and becoming
> > more tasty.
> >
> > --
> > SHIN
> >
> >>
> >> Call me myopic, I was just watching news about Iraq, about
> >> rocket attach against Zaitun troops in Northern Iraq. Lettering
> >> displayed on TV screen used le-doo (red) allert in apparent
> >> reference to red allert. Mind set and reference point is shifted
> >> so much so that pa'al- ga'an (red in Korea) does not make
> >> sense to Koreans? That, that seems like complete cultural
> >> colonization. This is self-imposed colonization.
> >>
> >> What is Han ryu anyhow.
> >>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45705 ] |
Sa, 25 Juni 2005 18:21 |
|
In article <9G9ve.1837$5w3.1000 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> I don't think it's a new phenomenon.
>
> Have you ever noticed that John Lennon might have been a descendent of a Hun
> Korean who conquered Europe especially German and England in the fourth
> century AD?
>
> I think "Sax" in Saxon came from the Korean word SSAKS meaning "sprout".
Really? I heard that the sax in saxophone came from the Korean word for
"blowhard"!
>
> Look carefully the eyes of John Lennon, it's a typical Korean eyes. His
> relatively low nose and flat facial profile can be found abundantly in
> Korea.
BWAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!
You're at it AGAIN! More nonsensical speculation! And I thought you
hated that??? BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
You got your ass kicked around the block the last time you spouted off
with all this hun bullshit! Give it a rest! There may be a few new
people here who don't already know you're an idiot! Keep your trap shut
and maybe you can salvage a shred of credibility!
>
> No wonder he found a Japanese lady for his spouse.
>
> You can tell he was loner, perhaps coming from his abnormally Asian look
> different from his peers.
>
> The Star Trek captain actor "Patrick Stewart" is also a Hun. His piercing
> slanted eyes makes him look like an alien, but basically he is a Hun Korean
> descendent. His commanding and domineering attitude is also that of a
> typical Hun.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAA! You stupid dolt! That is ACTING!!!
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
I guess Christopher Walken must be a Hun too, right? He looks like an
alien, too! Say, maybe all aliens are Huns, or maybe all Huns are
aliens! Did they come from another planet?? BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAA!
And Charles Bronson! Definitely a Hun! BWAAHAAHAAHA! How about Bill
Clinton?? He looks like a Hun, too! And Hillary has those Hun looks,
too!
And maybe Donald Rumsfeld? That pained look on his face is probably
from excess intestinal gas from eating bad cabbage! Clearly a HUN!!!!
And how about Madonna? Definitely! No question about it! A real
Hunney! And Condoleeza Rice? I'll bet she's also a Hun! Look at that
large brain cavity!! Definitely!! And a glare that will kill you if she
decides to do so!
Say, I think almost EVERYONE looks like a Hun!
Ah, yes, the Huns are everywhere . . . at least everyone you can
imagine!
BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!
Verno
--
"BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
(The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical
speculators.)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45811 ] |
So, 26 Juni 2005 19:48 |
|
Do you know the difference between the Irish and the English people?
Irish people do not have the slanted eyed people in them, although there may
be few who are later mixed with the English.
The point is that the Hun ruled English has dominated Irish to this day,
why?
Because Huns are superior. Even a drop of a blood of a Hun can make you
strong mentally and physically.
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2724c2fd269f4e98a1be [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <9G9ve.1837$5w3.1000 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>> I don't think it's a new phenomenon.
>>
>> Have you ever noticed that John Lennon might have been a descendent of a
>> Hun
>> Korean who conquered Europe especially German and England in the fourth
>> century AD?
>>
>> I think "Sax" in Saxon came from the Korean word SSAKS meaning "sprout".
>
> Really? I heard that the sax in saxophone came from the Korean word for
> "blowhard"!
>>
>> Look carefully the eyes of John Lennon, it's a typical Korean eyes. His
>> relatively low nose and flat facial profile can be found abundantly in
>> Korea.
>
> BWAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!
>
> You're at it AGAIN! More nonsensical speculation! And I thought you
> hated that??? BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>
> You got your ass kicked around the block the last time you spouted off
> with all this hun bullshit! Give it a rest! There may be a few new
> people here who don't already know you're an idiot! Keep your trap shut
> and maybe you can salvage a shred of credibility!
>>
>> No wonder he found a Japanese lady for his spouse.
>>
>> You can tell he was loner, perhaps coming from his abnormally Asian look
>> different from his peers.
>>
>> The Star Trek captain actor "Patrick Stewart" is also a Hun. His piercing
>> slanted eyes makes him look like an alien, but basically he is a Hun
>> Korean
>> descendent. His commanding and domineering attitude is also that of a
>> typical Hun.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAA! You stupid dolt! That is ACTING!!!
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
>
> I guess Christopher Walken must be a Hun too, right? He looks like an
> alien, too! Say, maybe all aliens are Huns, or maybe all Huns are
> aliens! Did they come from another planet?? BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAA!
>
> And Charles Bronson! Definitely a Hun! BWAAHAAHAAHA! How about Bill
> Clinton?? He looks like a Hun, too! And Hillary has those Hun looks,
> too!
>
> And maybe Donald Rumsfeld? That pained look on his face is probably
> from excess intestinal gas from eating bad cabbage! Clearly a HUN!!!!
>
> And how about Madonna? Definitely! No question about it! A real
> Hunney! And Condoleeza Rice? I'll bet she's also a Hun! Look at that
> large brain cavity!! Definitely!! And a glare that will kill you if she
> decides to do so!
>
> Say, I think almost EVERYONE looks like a Hun!
>
> Ah, yes, the Huns are everywhere . . . at least everyone you can
> imagine!
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!
>
> Verno
> --
> "BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
> (The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical
> speculators.)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45814 ] |
So, 26 Juni 2005 19:58 |
|
Of course, that doesn't mean that I tolerate the brutality exercised by the
English in the process.
"Supertech" <jones2 [at] global.com> wrote in message
news:OTBve.49$Ox3.46 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Do you know the difference between the Irish and the English people?
>
> Irish people do not have the slanted eyed people in them, although there
> may be few who are later mixed with the English.
>
> The point is that the Hun ruled English has dominated Irish to this day,
> why?
>
> Because Huns are superior. Even a drop of a blood of a Hun can make you
> strong mentally and physically.
>
>
>
>
> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d2724c2fd269f4e98a1be [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> In article <9G9ve.1837$5w3.1000 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> [at] global.com says...
>>> I don't think it's a new phenomenon.
>>>
>>> Have you ever noticed that John Lennon might have been a descendent of a
>>> Hun
>>> Korean who conquered Europe especially German and England in the fourth
>>> century AD?
>>>
>>> I think "Sax" in Saxon came from the Korean word SSAKS meaning "sprout".
>>
>> Really? I heard that the sax in saxophone came from the Korean word for
>> "blowhard"!
>>>
>>> Look carefully the eyes of John Lennon, it's a typical Korean eyes. His
>>> relatively low nose and flat facial profile can be found abundantly in
>>> Korea.
>>
>> BWAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!
>>
>> You're at it AGAIN! More nonsensical speculation! And I thought you
>> hated that??? BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>>
>> You got your ass kicked around the block the last time you spouted off
>> with all this hun bullshit! Give it a rest! There may be a few new
>> people here who don't already know you're an idiot! Keep your trap shut
>> and maybe you can salvage a shred of credibility!
>>>
>>> No wonder he found a Japanese lady for his spouse.
>>>
>>> You can tell he was loner, perhaps coming from his abnormally Asian look
>>> different from his peers.
>>>
>>> The Star Trek captain actor "Patrick Stewart" is also a Hun. His
>>> piercing
>>> slanted eyes makes him look like an alien, but basically he is a Hun
>>> Korean
>>> descendent. His commanding and domineering attitude is also that of a
>>> typical Hun.
>>
>> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAA! You stupid dolt! That is ACTING!!!
>> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
>>
>> I guess Christopher Walken must be a Hun too, right? He looks like an
>> alien, too! Say, maybe all aliens are Huns, or maybe all Huns are
>> aliens! Did they come from another planet?? BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAA!
>>
>> And Charles Bronson! Definitely a Hun! BWAAHAAHAAHA! How about Bill
>> Clinton?? He looks like a Hun, too! And Hillary has those Hun looks,
>> too!
>>
>> And maybe Donald Rumsfeld? That pained look on his face is probably
>> from excess intestinal gas from eating bad cabbage! Clearly a HUN!!!!
>>
>> And how about Madonna? Definitely! No question about it! A real
>> Hunney! And Condoleeza Rice? I'll bet she's also a Hun! Look at that
>> large brain cavity!! Definitely!! And a glare that will kill you if she
>> decides to do so!
>>
>> Say, I think almost EVERYONE looks like a Hun!
>>
>> Ah, yes, the Huns are everywhere . . . at least everyone you can
>> imagine!
>>
>> BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!
>>
>> Verno
>> --
>> "BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
>> (The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical
>> speculators.)
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45816 ] |
So, 26 Juni 2005 20:00 |
|
There is a Korean-Russian pop superstar at the time of Soviet-Afghanistan
war era, who died of a car accident.
Example goes on and on.
Condoleezza Rice?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA..
Are you so desperate?
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2724c2fd269f4e98a1be [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <9G9ve.1837$5w3.1000 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>> I don't think it's a new phenomenon.
>>
>> Have you ever noticed that John Lennon might have been a descendent of a
>> Hun
>> Korean who conquered Europe especially German and England in the fourth
>> century AD?
>>
>> I think "Sax" in Saxon came from the Korean word SSAKS meaning "sprout".
>
> Really? I heard that the sax in saxophone came from the Korean word for
> "blowhard"!
>>
>> Look carefully the eyes of John Lennon, it's a typical Korean eyes. His
>> relatively low nose and flat facial profile can be found abundantly in
>> Korea.
>
> BWAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!
>
> You're at it AGAIN! More nonsensical speculation! And I thought you
> hated that??? BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>
> You got your ass kicked around the block the last time you spouted off
> with all this hun bullshit! Give it a rest! There may be a few new
> people here who don't already know you're an idiot! Keep your trap shut
> and maybe you can salvage a shred of credibility!
>>
>> No wonder he found a Japanese lady for his spouse.
>>
>> You can tell he was loner, perhaps coming from his abnormally Asian look
>> different from his peers.
>>
>> The Star Trek captain actor "Patrick Stewart" is also a Hun. His piercing
>> slanted eyes makes him look like an alien, but basically he is a Hun
>> Korean
>> descendent. His commanding and domineering attitude is also that of a
>> typical Hun.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAA! You stupid dolt! That is ACTING!!!
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
>
> I guess Christopher Walken must be a Hun too, right? He looks like an
> alien, too! Say, maybe all aliens are Huns, or maybe all Huns are
> aliens! Did they come from another planet?? BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAA!
>
> And Charles Bronson! Definitely a Hun! BWAAHAAHAAHA! How about Bill
> Clinton?? He looks like a Hun, too! And Hillary has those Hun looks,
> too!
>
> And maybe Donald Rumsfeld? That pained look on his face is probably
> from excess intestinal gas from eating bad cabbage! Clearly a HUN!!!!
>
> And how about Madonna? Definitely! No question about it! A real
> Hunney! And Condoleeza Rice? I'll bet she's also a Hun! Look at that
> large brain cavity!! Definitely!! And a glare that will kill you if she
> decides to do so!
>
> Say, I think almost EVERYONE looks like a Hun!
>
> Ah, yes, the Huns are everywhere . . . at least everyone you can
> imagine!
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!
>
> Verno
> --
> "BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
> (The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical
> speculators.)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45822 ] |
So, 26 Juni 2005 21:29 |
|
In article <OTBve.49$Ox3.46 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> Do you know the difference between the Irish and the English people?
>
> Irish people do not have the slanted eyed people in them, although there may
> be few who are later mixed with the English.
>
> The point is that the Hun ruled English has dominated Irish to this day
Hun ruled English???
Bullshit. Absolute, unadulterated bullshit. You had your ass kicked on
this issue previously. Shall I repost it complete with your feeble
responses?
,
> why?
Simple. Mongolian super grass! That's it!
BWAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAH!
What a moron! You're still clinging to this myth of Hun superiority! I
can't believe you're so stupid!
>
> Because Huns are superior. Even a drop of a blood of a Hun can make you
> strong mentally and physically.
It has done just the opposite for you, illogical one!
BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAAAA! BWAAHAAHAAHAHAAA! What an idiot!!
Verno
--
"I've got one word for you.
Are you ready? Hold onto your hat.
.. . . . Breeding! That's it!
That's what makes Koreans superior
to all other races!
And I don't need to prove it! It's obvious!"
Ed Jones II, Expert on Korean Superiority.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAHA!
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45823 ] |
So, 26 Juni 2005 21:32 |
|
In article <N2Cve.53$Ox3.49 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> There is a Korean-Russian pop superstar at the time of Soviet-Afghanistan
> war era, who died of a car accident.
So what? There are many pop superstars who died at various times over
the past 50 years. What percentage of them are Koreans???????
>
> Example goes on and on.
Bullshit goes on and on!
>
> Condoleezza Rice?
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA..
>
> Are you so desperate?
John Lennon?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..
You ARE so desperate!!!!
BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAA!
Verno
--
"I've got one word for you.
Are you ready? Hold onto your hat.
.. . . . Breeding! That's it!
That's what makes Koreans superior
to all other races!
And I don't need to prove it! It's obvious!"
Ed Jones II, Expert on Korean Superiority.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAHA!
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #45880 ] |
Mo, 27 Juni 2005 11:03 |
|
Check it out if Saxon existed before the 4th century.
You didn't prove anything moron, other than repeated bullshitting circular
nonsense.
Hun, Beorna became the King of England as shown in history.
Even if there were three individuals shared the kingship, how is it possible
for someone of a name of Hun can become the king of England in today's
mentality?
You have to understand that the society at the time was totally different,
not only Hun was a favorable name but also it was a noble enough name to be
a King of England.
To make your tiny moronic brain to understand, imagine someone of the name
of Mohamed become the president of the United State.
It is impossible. WHY?
It is just a name isn't it? And then, why not? But everybody knows it is not
possible. Because it is politically incorrect.
You still don't get it, do you?
But Huns were the rulers of the Europe at the time. That's why it was
possible. And they still are. They just dressed up with Caucasian look as
their body cloth.
It was politically (perfectly) correct at the time to have the name Hun and
become the King of England.
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d28a25a4b82162398a1c9 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <OTBve.49$Ox3.46 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>> Do you know the difference between the Irish and the English people?
>>
>> Irish people do not have the slanted eyed people in them, although there
>> may
>> be few who are later mixed with the English.
>>
>> The point is that the Hun ruled English has dominated Irish to this day
>
> Hun ruled English???
>
> Bullshit. Absolute, unadulterated bullshit. You had your ass kicked on
> this issue previously. Shall I repost it complete with your feeble
> responses?
>
> ,
>> why?
>
> Simple. Mongolian super grass! That's it!
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAH!
>
> What a moron! You're still clinging to this myth of Hun superiority! I
> can't believe you're so stupid!
>>
>> Because Huns are superior. Even a drop of a blood of a Hun can make you
>> strong mentally and physically.
>
> It has done just the opposite for you, illogical one!
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAAAA! BWAAHAAHAAHAHAAA! What an idiot!!
>
> Verno
>
> --
> "I've got one word for you.
> Are you ready? Hold onto your hat.
>
> . . . . Breeding! That's it!
>
> That's what makes Koreans superior
> to all other races!
>
> And I don't need to prove it! It's obvious!"
>
> Ed Jones II, Expert on Korean Superiority.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAHA!
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46448 ] |
Mo, 27 Juni 2005 18:54 |
|
Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume the name
of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of bullshit.
It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means that the
Hun King of England was a real Hun.
If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80 percent of
the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
Remember it was since 4th century AD.
It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed by now.
The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be enormous.
Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be produced by the
initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers in 1600
years, which is a very conservative number.
"Supertech" <jones2 [at] global.com> wrote in message
news:FhPve.168$Ox3.21 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Check it out if Saxon existed before the 4th century.
>
> You didn't prove anything moron, other than repeated bullshitting circular
> nonsense.
>
> Hun, Beorna became the King of England as shown in history.
>
> Even if there were three individuals shared the kingship, how is it
> possible for someone of a name of Hun can become the king of England in
> today's mentality?
>
> You have to understand that the society at the time was totally different,
> not only Hun was a favorable name but also it was a noble enough name to
> be a King of England.
>
> To make your tiny moronic brain to understand, imagine someone of the name
> of Mohamed become the president of the United State.
>
> It is impossible. WHY?
>
> It is just a name isn't it? And then, why not? But everybody knows it is
> not possible. Because it is politically incorrect.
>
> You still don't get it, do you?
>
> But Huns were the rulers of the Europe at the time. That's why it was
> possible. And they still are. They just dressed up with Caucasian look as
> their body cloth.
>
> It was politically (perfectly) correct at the time to have the name Hun
> and become the King of England.
>
>
>
>
> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d28a25a4b82162398a1c9 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> In article <OTBve.49$Ox3.46 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> [at] global.com says...
>>> Do you know the difference between the Irish and the English people?
>>>
>>> Irish people do not have the slanted eyed people in them, although there
>>> may
>>> be few who are later mixed with the English.
>>>
>>> The point is that the Hun ruled English has dominated Irish to this day
>>
>> Hun ruled English???
>>
>> Bullshit. Absolute, unadulterated bullshit. You had your ass kicked on
>> this issue previously. Shall I repost it complete with your feeble
>> responses?
>>
>> ,
>>> why?
>>
>> Simple. Mongolian super grass! That's it!
>>
>> BWAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAH!
>>
>> What a moron! You're still clinging to this myth of Hun superiority! I
>> can't believe you're so stupid!
>>>
>>> Because Huns are superior. Even a drop of a blood of a Hun can make you
>>> strong mentally and physically.
>>
>> It has done just the opposite for you, illogical one!
>>
>> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAAAA! BWAAHAAHAAHAHAAA! What an idiot!!
>>
>> Verno
>>
>> --
>> "I've got one word for you.
>> Are you ready? Hold onto your hat.
>>
>> . . . . Breeding! That's it!
>>
>> That's what makes Koreans superior
>> to all other races!
>>
>> And I don't need to prove it! It's obvious!"
>>
>> Ed Jones II, Expert on Korean Superiority.
>>
>> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAHA!
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46460 ] |
Mo, 27 Juni 2005 21:24 |
|
In article <FhPve.168$Ox3.21 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> Check it out if Saxon existed before the 4th century.
>
> You didn't prove anything moron, other than repeated bullshitting circular
> nonsense.
>
> Hun, Beorna became the King of England as shown in history.
Bullshit.
First, Beorna was not a hun.
Second, Beorna was not "the King of England". He was King of East
Anglia. That is NOT England.
>
> Even if there were three individuals shared the kingship, how is it possible
> for someone of a name of Hun can become the king of England in today's
> mentality?
Repeat -- Beorna was not a Hun. Repeat -- Beorna was not the King of
England.
You have forgotten how stupid you looked the last time you made this
claim.
>
> You have to understand that the society at the time was totally different,
> not only Hun was a favorable name but also it was a noble enough name to be
> a King of England.
>
> To make your tiny moronic brain to understand, imagine someone of the name
> of Mohamed become the president of the United State.
>
> It is impossible. WHY?
>
> It is just a name isn't it? And then, why not? But everybody knows it is not
> possible. Because it is politically incorrect.
>
> You still don't get it, do you?
I get it perfectly. You have an inferiority complex the size of Texas
(imagine that!) and you make stupid claims about Huns being superior,
and about Koreans being Huns, to make yourself feel better. It's
obvious, Ed. Mongolian super grass! Breeding! Bwaaahaah! Snort!
>
> But Huns were the rulers of the Europe at the time. That's why it was
> possible. And they still are. They just dressed up with Caucasian look as
> their body cloth.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAA!
>
> It was politically (perfectly) correct at the time to have the name Hun and
> become the King of England.
Now you're REALLY getting confused.
Previously, you claimed Beorna was a Hun.
But that was shown to be FALSE. "Beorna, Hun" were the names of 2
kings, "Beorna" and "Hun".
You seem to agree! You are now saying "Hun" was the name of a King of
England!! Good! This is progress!
But you are ALSO still claiming Beorna WAS A HUN!
You can't have it both ways, Ed. Which is it? Was Beorna a Hun, or was
a person named "Hun" a minor King of East Anglia?
Verno
--
Ho, Ho, Ho!
(Translated from ancient Turkic. It means:
"The Huns are one people,
We're No. 1,
This must be true because ONE rhymes with HUN!"
(Thanks, Supertech! We owe it all to you!)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46462 ] |
Mo, 27 Juni 2005 21:32 |
|
In article <XaWve.337$U61.334 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com answered his own post by saying:
> Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume the name
> of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of bullshit.
>
> It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means that the
> Hun King of England was a real Hun.
BULLSHIT, er, ah, "nonsensical speculation".
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! Clutching at straws again, Ed. Straws of Mongolian
super grass, I hope! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAA!
So, was Beorna a Hun, or was there a minor king of East Anglia named
"Hun"? Which was it?? It can't be both!
>
> If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80 percent of
> the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
How do you know, Ed?
"NONSENSICAL SPECULATION" -- that's how!
BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAAAHAA!
>
> Remember it was since 4th century AD.
>
> It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed by now.
>
> The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be enormous.
Really? How ENORMOUS? As enormous as your inferiority complex??
>
> Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be produced by the
> initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers in 1600
> years, which is a very conservative number.
You are a moron, no doubt about it.
What was the female population of Europe in 500 AD?
What percentage of all Hun warriors fathered children?
What other ethnic groups entered Europe between 500 AD and 2000 AD, and
how many individuals from these groups contributed to the European gene
pool?
Therefore, what is the genetic percentage of "hun" in the current
population of Europe?
Out of a possible 10 points. Show you work.
Verno
--
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHA! Mongolian super grass! BWAAAHAAAHAAHA!
Snort!
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46467 ] |
Mo, 27 Juni 2005 21:48 |
|
In article <XaWve.337$U61.334 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume the name
> of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of bullshit.
>
> It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means that the
> Hun King of England was a real Hun.
>
> If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80 percent of
> the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
>
> Remember it was since 4th century AD.
>
> It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed by now.
>
> The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be enormous.
>
> Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be produced by the
> initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers in 1600
> years, which is a very conservative number.
>
You may find this link illuminating.
http://tinyurl.com/7lkkg
Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46633 ] |
Di, 28 Juni 2005 11:13 |
|
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d29f286b07d495b98a1d1 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <FhPve.168$Ox3.21 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>> Check it out if Saxon existed before the 4th century.
>>
>> You didn't prove anything moron, other than repeated bullshitting
>> circular
>> nonsense.
>>
>> Hun, Beorna became the King of England as shown in history.
>
> Bullshit.
Have you checked if Saxon existed before the 4th century AD?
You are the one bullshitting without showing any reference.
For your ignorance, SSAK(S) in Korean is also used to indicate "growing new
children" as they are like new sprouts.
The hundred thousand of Huns produced a new breed of children in their
occupied land and the parents called them SSACK(S)(growing new children)
where the last S is not pronounced. So, the mystery of the word "Saxon"
resolved.
Does anyone have any better explanation?
> First, Beorna was not a hun.
>
> Second, Beorna was not "the King of England". He was King of East
> Anglia. That is NOT England.
>>
>> Even if there were three individuals shared the kingship, how is it
>> possible
>> for someone of a name of Hun can become the king of England in today's
>> mentality?
>
> Repeat -- Beorna was not a Hun. Repeat -- Beorna was not the King of
> England.
>
> You have forgotten how stupid you looked the last time you made this
> claim.
There is no proof Beorna was not a Hun. Attila the Hun posted all the major
royalties and other high official positions with his own people. It's so
natural.
There is a good chance that those three individuals who shared the kingship
of East Anglia were all Huns with different background and name. It is
inconceivable that there was only one Hun become the King in the midst of
the whole Huns occupying the Europe.
England was not united with one monarch at the time. But the record clearly
says Beorna emerged as the dominant monarch of the whole England. Enough
said.
>> You have to understand that the society at the time was totally
>> different,
>> not only Hun was a favorable name but also it was a noble enough name to
>> be
>> a King of England.
>>
>> To make your tiny moronic brain to understand, imagine someone of the
>> name
>> of Mohamed become the president of the United State.
>>
>> It is impossible. WHY?
>>
>> It is just a name isn't it? And then, why not? But everybody knows it is
>> not
>> possible. Because it is politically incorrect.
>>
>> You still don't get it, do you?
>
> I get it perfectly. You have an inferiority complex the size of Texas
> (imagine that!) and you make stupid claims about Huns being superior,
> and about Koreans being Huns, to make yourself feel better. It's
> obvious, Ed. Mongolian super grass! Breeding! Bwaaahaah! Snort!
>>
>> But Huns were the rulers of the Europe at the time. That's why it was
>> possible. And they still are. They just dressed up with Caucasian look as
>> their body cloth.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAA!
>>
>> It was politically (perfectly) correct at the time to have the name Hun
>> and
>> become the King of England.
>
> Now you're REALLY getting confused.
>
> Previously, you claimed Beorna was a Hun.
>
> But that was shown to be FALSE. "Beorna, Hun" were the names of 2
> kings, "Beorna" and "Hun".
>
> You seem to agree! You are now saying "Hun" was the name of a King of
> England!! Good! This is progress!
>
> But you are ALSO still claiming Beorna WAS A HUN!
There was about a hundred thousand Huns occupying Europe at the time. Do you
really believe that Attila the Hun was the only Hun? Are you that stupid?
There was a bunch of high officials and generals under Attila the Hun. No
one has seen the picture or a biography of Beorna. He must have been one of
the Attila's general's descendent or any one of the close relatives to share
the kingship of East Anglia.
If you believe that you have to have the name "Hun" to be a Hun, your IQ is
lower than that of a monkey.
> You can't have it both ways, Ed. Which is it? Was Beorna a Hun, or was
> a person named "Hun" a minor King of East Anglia?
>
Moron, Beorna was a descendent of a Hun also. Show the proof he was not. Do
you have any DNA proof?
The fact that an individual with the name Hun being the king of England
after 300 years of Attila the Hun's initial conquest of Europe means that
Huns have ruled Europe and England for 300 hundred years at the minimum.
But then there is no record the European Hun kingdom has ever been
challenged by anyone in history. It has never been overthrown.
That means that Hun kingdom has persisted to these day through Germany and
England until some of them become republic.
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46691 ] |
Di, 28 Juni 2005 20:14 |
|
Moron, I can tell you are being cornered.
Racial superiority nonsense is the idea of those Jews.
Not that of the Huns. Huns even do not have a book saying they are created
superior to other minions they conquered. They do not believe in any racial
superiority. That's why they go to a land they conquered and live there
peacefully with the natives without any problem.
It happened in China, Japan, and Europe and that's the amazing quality of
the Huns.
They conquer but they never brag about it to the degree to isolate
themselves into an
ideological castle. They mingled without trace.
But the only reason I'm telling this is because Huns have totally lost their
identity in the process and suffering the disadvantage. Especially the ones
that remained peacefully in their own hermit land.
Huns ruled Europe and they were the head if you are to make an analogy of
the whole country as a body. The general European population was the body.
And Jews came in as parasites like an appendix.
Europeans suffered appendicitis in the early 20 century created by these
Jews where the various problem and the accompanying pain has been growing
for centuries.
The whole body went along when the head decided that it's time for the major
surgery.
And they did it.
See if there were any racial issues in Europe and the whole world before the
Jews brought in the racially prejudiced Bible to the world.
Jews raked the crops of their own seeds they planted.
Moron, if you like to challenge my post, do it by reasoning. I'm not
interested in anything other than the truth. No innuendo, bullshit, maddened
yelling interest me.
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d29f85a51e10c1c98a1d3 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <XaWve.337$U61.334 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>> Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume the
>> name
>> of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of bullshit.
>>
>> It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means that the
>> Hun King of England was a real Hun.
>>
>> If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80 percent of
>> the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
>>
>> Remember it was since 4th century AD.
>>
>> It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed by
>> now.
>>
>> The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be enormous.
>>
>> Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be produced by
>> the
>> initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers in 1600
>> years, which is a very conservative number.
>>
>
> You may find this link illuminating.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7lkkg
>
> Verno
>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46696 ] |
Di, 28 Juni 2005 20:53 |
|
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d29f482ed8302ca98a1d2 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <XaWve.337$U61.334 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com answered his own post by saying:
>> Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume the
>> name
>> of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of bullshit.
>>
>> It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means that the
>> Hun King of England was a real Hun.
>
> BULLSHIT, er, ah, "nonsensical speculation".
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! Clutching at straws again, Ed. Straws of Mongolian
> super grass, I hope! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAA!
>
> So, was Beorna a Hun, or was there a minor king of East Anglia named
> "Hun"? Which was it?? It can't be both!
>>
>> If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80 percent of
>> the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
>
> How do you know, Ed?
>
> "NONSENSICAL SPECULATION" -- that's how!
>
> BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAAAHAA!
>>
>> Remember it was since 4th century AD.
>>
>> It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed by
>> now.
>>
>> The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be enormous.
>
> Really? How ENORMOUS? As enormous as your inferiority complex??
>
>>
>> Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be produced by
>> the
>> initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers in 1600
>> years, which is a very conservative number.
>
> You are a moron, no doubt about it.
>
> What was the female population of Europe in 500 AD?
>
> What percentage of all Hun warriors fathered children?
>
> What other ethnic groups entered Europe between 500 AD and 2000 AD, and
> how many individuals from these groups contributed to the European gene
> pool?
>
> Therefore, what is the genetic percentage of "hun" in the current
> population of Europe?
>
> Out of a possible 10 points. Show you work.
I don't know how you taught statistics to students with that brain.
What is the 80th power of 2?
Assuming only one couple produced two kids every 20 years.
But of course, then, there can at least be hundreds of couples who produced
out of that hundred thousands.
I think I should revise the 80 percent figure, I think now at least 90
percent of the present population in Europe must have at least some trace of
Hun linage. Some may have inherited the high intelligent brain(Beethoven)
and some the superior genes controlling the mind and body coordination
skills etc.
Contrary to the general scholastic treatment of this historical event, the
Hun's invasion of Europe was a monumental historical event that has changed
Europe permanently. I think, for the most part, for the better.
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46712 ] |
Di, 28 Juni 2005 23:23 |
|
In article <Lw8we.1259$cb6.1064 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
>
> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d29f286b07d495b98a1d1 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <FhPve.168$Ox3.21 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> > [at] global.com says...
> >> Check it out if Saxon existed before the 4th century.
> >>
> >> You didn't prove anything moron, other than repeated bullshitting
> >> circular
> >> nonsense.
> >>
> >> Hun, Beorna became the King of England as shown in history.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
>
> Have you checked if Saxon existed before the 4th century AD?
I don't care whether they did or not. It has nothing to do with Beorna,
Huns or Koreans . . . or Mongolian super grass, for that matter.
>
> You are the one bullshitting without showing any reference.
What statements of fact did I make for which you believe a reference is
required? Please be specific for a change.
>
> For your ignorance, SSAK(S) in Korean is also used to indicate "growing new
> children" as they are like new sprouts.
>
> The hundred thousand of Huns produced a new breed of children in their
> occupied land and the parents called them SSACK(S)(growing new children)
> where the last S is not pronounced. So, the mystery of the word "Saxon"
> resolved.
>
> Does anyone have any better explanation?
Who needs one? It's irrelevant.
Have you done your homework yet?
I'm still waiting for your calculations on the percentage of Hun genes
in today's European population . . . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > First, Beorna was not a hun.
> >
> > Second, Beorna was not "the King of England". He was King of East
> > Anglia. That is NOT England.
> >>
> >> Even if there were three individuals shared the kingship, how is it
> >> possible
> >> for someone of a name of Hun can become the king of England in today's
> >> mentality?
> >
> > Repeat -- Beorna was not a Hun. Repeat -- Beorna was not the King of
> > England.
> >
> > You have forgotten how stupid you looked the last time you made this
> > claim.
>
>
>
> There is no proof Beorna was not a Hun.
BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!
There is also no proof he was not an extra-terrestrial alien, is there?
Now, let me explain something to you again, oh moronic one with low
self-esteem.
You made the claim that Beorna was a Hun. It is up to you to prove it,
not for me to disprove it.
Remember? Just like Mongolian supergrass.
> Attila the Hun posted all the major
> royalties and other high official positions with his own people. It's so
> natural.
What the fuck are you talking about? Attila the Hun did not control
East Anglia.
>
> There is a good chance that those three individuals who shared the kingship
> of East Anglia were all Huns with different background and name.
Oh, bullshit -- or should I use YOUR term . . . "NONSENSICAL
SPECULATION".
> It is
> inconceivable that there was only one Hun become the King in the midst of
> the whole Huns occupying the Europe.
It is inconceivable to YOU because you need to believe it to make
yourself feel less inferior.
For others, EVIDENCE is required.
>
> England was not united with one monarch at the time. But the record clearly
> says Beorna emerged as the dominant monarch of the whole England. Enough
> said.
Oh, stop your bullshitting, you moron!
Here are the facts.
East Anglia was one of seven "kingdoms" in the Anglo Saxon heptarchy. It
is a tiny part of modern England. See the dark red portion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Anglia
Beorna was king of East Anglia approximately 749 to 758.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_East_Anglia
The Anglo Saxon heptarchy was not united into the "kingdom of England"
until the early 10th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy
Ergo, you're a bullshitting nonsensical speculator. And a liar, too.
BWAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAHAAAAAA!
See you you twist the facts when you NEED to believe something to
bolster your pitiful self-esteem? Basically, you can't be trusted
around facts. You're too ready to bend the facts to suit your agenda.
>
>
>
>
> >> You have to understand that the society at the time was totally
> >> different,
> >> not only Hun was a favorable name but also it was a noble enough name to
> >> be
> >> a King of England.
> >>
> >> To make your tiny moronic brain to understand, imagine someone of the
> >> name
> >> of Mohamed become the president of the United State.
> >>
> >> It is impossible. WHY?
> >>
> >> It is just a name isn't it? And then, why not? But everybody knows it is
> >> not
> >> possible. Because it is politically incorrect.
> >>
> >> You still don't get it, do you?
> >
> > I get it perfectly. You have an inferiority complex the size of Texas
> > (imagine that!) and you make stupid claims about Huns being superior,
> > and about Koreans being Huns, to make yourself feel better. It's
> > obvious, Ed. Mongolian super grass! Breeding! Bwaaahaah! Snort!
> >>
> >> But Huns were the rulers of the Europe at the time. That's why it was
> >> possible. And they still are. They just dressed up with Caucasian look as
> >> their body cloth.
> >
> > BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAA!
> >>
> >> It was politically (perfectly) correct at the time to have the name Hun
> >> and
> >> become the King of England.
> >
> > Now you're REALLY getting confused.
> >
> > Previously, you claimed Beorna was a Hun.
> >
> > But that was shown to be FALSE. "Beorna, Hun" were the names of 2
> > kings, "Beorna" and "Hun".
> >
> > You seem to agree! You are now saying "Hun" was the name of a King of
> > England!! Good! This is progress!
> >
> > But you are ALSO still claiming Beorna WAS A HUN!
>
>
> There was about a hundred thousand Huns occupying Europe at the time. Do you
> really believe that Attila the Hun was the only Hun? Are you that stupid?
>
> There was a bunch of high officials and generals under Attila the Hun.
So what?
He reigned over his empire for 19 years, from 434 to 453. That was 300
years BEFORE Beorna!
His empire stretched from Central Europe to the Black Sea and from the
Danube River to the Baltic. It did NOT include the British Isles or
France.
Moreover, after Attila died in 453, HIS EMPIRE DIED WITH HIM!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila
He left no remarkable legacy! His sons fought over his legacy, and
divided, were defeated and scattered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#Attila_in_the_west
After Attila's death, the Huns retired eastward leaving the tribes they
had dominated to pursue their own territorial ambitions.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/05/eue/ht05eue.htm
Warning: Supertech takes a leap of logic ahead. Danger, danger,
danger!
> No
> one has seen the picture or a biography of Beorna.
Really? That would make it very difficult to know anything about him,
wouldn't it. One would have to . . dare I say it . . . speculate??
> He must have been one of
> the Attila's general's descendent or any one of the close relatives to share
> the kingship of East Anglia.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT TT!!!
My bullshit detector was burnt out with that one! Or rather, my
"nonsensical speculation detector".
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!
He "must have been"?? MUST HAVE BEEN???? Why must he have been?
>
> If you believe that you have to have the name "Hun" to be a Hun, your IQ is
> lower than that of a monkey.
A monkey who has consistently outsmarted you, koko.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAA!
Where is your evidence that he was a Hun? There ISN'T any!
>
>
>
>
> > You can't have it both ways, Ed. Which is it? Was Beorna a Hun, or was
> > a person named "Hun" a minor King of East Anglia?
> >
>
>
> Moron, Beorna was a descendent of a Hun also. Show the proof he was not. Do
> you have any DNA proof?
I say he was a Navaho chief. Show proof he was not.
>
> The fact that an individual with the name Hun being the king of England
Wrong -- King of East Anglia -- a small part of modern England.
> after 300 years of Attila the Hun's initial conquest of Europe means that
> Huns have ruled Europe and England for 300 hundred years at the minimum.
Bullshit. Er, ah, "Nonsensical speculation".
It means nothing of the sort, you moron. You really DID fail logic,
didn't you.
Here are the facts.
Huns ruled only during Attila's time, and only in parts of Europe.
Attila's reign was 19 years. After his death, the Huns left.
>
> But then there is no record the European Hun kingdom has ever been
> challenged by anyone in history. It has never been overthrown.
>
> That means that Hun kingdom has persisted to these day through Germany and
> England until some of them become republic.
>
Dream on, stupidtech.
By the way, you're getting your ass kicked again.
How do you like it? I think you should slink away with your tail
between your legs, just like last time.
Verno
--
"BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
(The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical speculators.)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46717 ] |
Di, 28 Juni 2005 23:35 |
|
In article <z0hwe.544$Ox3.97 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
>
> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d29f482ed8302ca98a1d2 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <XaWve.337$U61.334 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> > [at] global.com answered his own post by saying:
> >> Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume the
> >> name
> >> of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of bullshit.
> >>
> >> It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means that the
> >> Hun King of England was a real Hun.
> >
> > BULLSHIT, er, ah, "nonsensical speculation".
> >
> > BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! Clutching at straws again, Ed. Straws of Mongolian
> > super grass, I hope! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAA!
> >
> > So, was Beorna a Hun, or was there a minor king of East Anglia named
> > "Hun"? Which was it?? It can't be both!
> >>
> >> If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80 percent of
> >> the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
> >
> > How do you know, Ed?
> >
> > "NONSENSICAL SPECULATION" -- that's how!
> >
> > BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAAAHAA!
> >>
> >> Remember it was since 4th century AD.
> >>
> >> It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed by
> >> now.
> >>
> >> The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be enormous.
> >
> > Really? How ENORMOUS? As enormous as your inferiority complex??
> >
> >>
> >> Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be produced by
> >> the
> >> initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers in 1600
> >> years, which is a very conservative number.
> >
> > You are a moron, no doubt about it.
> >
> > What was the female population of Europe in 500 AD?
> >
> > What percentage of all Hun warriors fathered children?
> >
> > What other ethnic groups entered Europe between 500 AD and 2000 AD, and
> > how many individuals from these groups contributed to the European gene
> > pool?
> >
> > Therefore, what is the genetic percentage of "hun" in the current
> > population of Europe?
> >
> > Out of a possible 10 points. Show you work.
>
>
> I don't know how you taught statistics to students with that brain.
>
> What is the 80th power of 2?
>
> Assuming only one couple produced two kids every 20 years.
>
> But of course, then, there can at least be hundreds of couples who produced
> out of that hundred thousands.
>
> I think I should revise the 80 percent figure, I think now at least 90
> percent of the present population in Europe must have at least some trace of
> Hun linage. Some may have inherited the high intelligent brain(Beethoven)
> and some the superior genes controlling the mind and body coordination
> skills etc.
>
> Contrary to the general scholastic treatment of this historical event, the
> Hun's invasion of Europe was a monumental historical event that has changed
> Europe permanently. I think, for the most part, for the better.
>
>
>
Failing mark. I give you ZERO out of 10.
Let me show you how to do the calculation.
What was the female population in Europe just before the Huns invaded?
Estimate: 25 million.
(That is 10% of the world's female population in 500 AD, estimated at
250,000,000, or half of the total population of 500 million.)
How many huns invaded?
Your estimate: 100,000
How many Huns were killed in action?
My estimate: 50%
How many huns lived and fathered children who were not immediately
killed by the families of the raped mothers?
I'll make the very generous estimate that 25,000 Hun offspring survived
in the 19 years Attila ruled Europe.
At that rate, the genetic percentage of Huns in the European genetic
pool was 0.1%.
No need to estimate how many additional migrants to Europe diluted this
further with non-Hun genes.
Estimate of Hun percentage in European gene pool: 1/10 of 1%. And in
Britain, a helluva lot less since the Huns NEVER MADE IT TO BRITAIN!
You're a moron, stupidtech.
Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46794 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 10:07 |
|
|
Then why is asian music today so unoriginal and inferior?
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #46795 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 10:07 |
|
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2b62d17aabc6e998a1d6 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <z0hwe.544$Ox3.97 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>>
>> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d29f482ed8302ca98a1d2 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <XaWve.337$U61.334 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> > [at] global.com answered his own post by saying:
>> >> Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume
>> >> the
>> >> name
>> >> of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of
>> >> bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means that
>> >> the
>> >> Hun King of England was a real Hun.
>> >
>> > BULLSHIT, er, ah, "nonsensical speculation".
>> >
>> > BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! Clutching at straws again, Ed. Straws of Mongolian
>> > super grass, I hope! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAA!
>> >
>> > So, was Beorna a Hun, or was there a minor king of East Anglia named
>> > "Hun"? Which was it?? It can't be both!
>> >>
>> >> If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80 percent
>> >> of
>> >> the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
>> >
>> > How do you know, Ed?
>> >
>> > "NONSENSICAL SPECULATION" -- that's how!
>> >
>> > BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAAAHAA!
>> >>
>> >> Remember it was since 4th century AD.
>> >>
>> >> It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed by
>> >> now.
>> >>
>> >> The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be enormous.
>> >
>> > Really? How ENORMOUS? As enormous as your inferiority complex??
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be produced
>> >> by
>> >> the
>> >> initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers in
>> >> 1600
>> >> years, which is a very conservative number.
>> >
>> > You are a moron, no doubt about it.
>> >
>> > What was the female population of Europe in 500 AD?
>> >
>> > What percentage of all Hun warriors fathered children?
>> >
>> > What other ethnic groups entered Europe between 500 AD and 2000 AD, and
>> > how many individuals from these groups contributed to the European gene
>> > pool?
>> >
>> > Therefore, what is the genetic percentage of "hun" in the current
>> > population of Europe?
>> >
>> > Out of a possible 10 points. Show you work.
>>
>>
>> I don't know how you taught statistics to students with that brain.
>>
>> What is the 80th power of 2?
>>
>> Assuming only one couple produced two kids every 20 years.
>>
>> But of course, then, there can at least be hundreds of couples who
>> produced
>> out of that hundred thousands.
>>
>> I think I should revise the 80 percent figure, I think now at least 90
>> percent of the present population in Europe must have at least some trace
>> of
>> Hun linage. Some may have inherited the high intelligent
>> brain(Beethoven)
>> and some the superior genes controlling the mind and body coordination
>> skills etc.
>>
>> Contrary to the general scholastic treatment of this historical event,
>> the
>> Hun's invasion of Europe was a monumental historical event that has
>> changed
>> Europe permanently. I think, for the most part, for the better.
>>
>>
>>
> Failing mark. I give you ZERO out of 10.
>
> Let me show you how to do the calculation.
>
> What was the female population in Europe just before the Huns invaded?
>
> Estimate: 25 million.
Bullshit. Maybe barely 5 million.
Are you saying 25 million people could not defend themselves from a merely
100,000 Hun soldiers?
What a bunch of crappy people are they!!!
>
> (That is 10% of the world's female population in 500 AD, estimated at
> 250,000,000, or half of the total population of 500 million.)
>
> How many huns invaded?
>
> Your estimate: 100,000
>
> How many Huns were killed in action?
>
> My estimate: 50%
Bullshit.
I think your estimate is totally off the mark.
If Huns had lost half of their soldiers, they can't claim they have
conquered Europe. That's a failure.
> How many huns lived and fathered children who were not immediately
> killed by the families of the raped mothers?
No, they were married in a perfectly normal way to the natives.
And they could have multiple children. If any of the subjugates killed Hun
soldiers, you know what would be the fate of them and their whole family.
People are much smarter than that.
Huns are known to be merciless to people who do not obey.
Furthermore, the situation must have been much more amicable than you
thought. There was no recorded revolt by the natives other than the fight
among the Hun generals themselves, which was basically a hegemony game by
the ruler themselves.
Hun lasted more than a thousands of years rule. If the natives did not love
them, it could have been impossible. I think they loved Huns rule because of
their impartiality. No kickbacks, no favoritism. No local thugs were allowed
to pest the people.
Huns ruled in a very precise way. You can tell that by the way Germans
behave in their culture. There was no cheating, lying allowed in their rule.
> I'll make the very generous estimate that 25,000 Hun offspring survived
> in the 19 years Attila ruled Europe.
That 25,000 would have produced 50,000 at the end of the 19 years rule. And
then every 20 years, the number would have been doubled. And in 1600 years
the number would have been doubled 80 times.
It's an astronomical number. In ancient time, there is no birth control,
unless the child dies of disease, the chance of survival would have been
great. Especially remember they are all
well to do government official's children.
> At that rate, the genetic percentage of Huns in the European genetic
> pool was 0.1%.
>
> No need to estimate how many additional migrants to Europe diluted this
> further with non-Hun genes.
>
> Estimate of Hun percentage in European gene pool: 1/10 of 1%. And in
> Britain, a helluva lot less since the Huns NEVER MADE IT TO BRITAIN!
Why the hell, then, Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia which is a
part of England moron?
Your statement directly contradict the historical record.
Either you are insane or totally deranged in fear of admitting the truth.
> You're a moron, stupidtech.
>
> Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47127 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 11:02 |
|
Moron, the fact remains that Hun became the king of East Anglia after the
death of Attila the Hun 300 hundred years later. Hun Kingdoms are supposed
to have disappeared by then. There supposed to be no more Huns ruling any
Kingdom in Europe or England. They are supposed to be all gone, aren't they?
They didn't. You are dead wrong.
It means that Attila the Hun's descendents thrived as a royal family for
three hundred years in Europe and England.
All those wishful distortion of historical truth by your so called
"historians" fails miserably on this smoking gun.
How the hell Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia who happened to
be a joint King and became the dominant monarch of England?
Why a Hun would want to be a joint King with a non Hun? Aren't they supposed
to fight against each other?
You miserable moron, I can see your rat dick size ego being shattered to
pieces.
The existence of Saxon before the 4th century would have proved your point
easily, but you couldn't, because they didn't exist before the 4th century.
And because they are basically formed by the descendents of Huns who came
out of Germany and formed the independent monarchs. Those seven monarchs of
Saxons are basically formed by the seven different generals of Attila the
Hun.
Afterall, that's what Attila the Hun should have promised to his generals
before the invasion of Europe, don't you think?
"I'll make all of you and your children to be the kings of the land we
conquer, if you help me on this mission"
Personally, I wouldn't risk my life to help Attila if such a guarantee is
not promised.
Sax(on) itself means growing children of offspring like sprouts in Korean.
Those monarchs would not have allowed anyone who do not have Hun heritage to
be their King. Politically, it should be obvious. Now it makes sense how and
why Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia.
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2b5fe629383c1c98a1d5 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <Lw8we.1259$cb6.1064 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>>
>> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d29f286b07d495b98a1d1 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <FhPve.168$Ox3.21 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> > [at] global.com says...
>> >> Check it out if Saxon existed before the 4th century.
>> >>
>> >> You didn't prove anything moron, other than repeated bullshitting
>> >> circular
>> >> nonsense.
>> >>
>> >> Hun, Beorna became the King of England as shown in history.
>> >
>> > Bullshit.
>>
>>
>> Have you checked if Saxon existed before the 4th century AD?
>
> I don't care whether they did or not. It has nothing to do with Beorna,
> Huns or Koreans . . . or Mongolian super grass, for that matter.
>>
>> You are the one bullshitting without showing any reference.
>
> What statements of fact did I make for which you believe a reference is
> required? Please be specific for a change.
>>
>> For your ignorance, SSAK(S) in Korean is also used to indicate "growing
>> new
>> children" as they are like new sprouts.
>>
>> The hundred thousand of Huns produced a new breed of children in their
>> occupied land and the parents called them SSACK(S)(growing new children)
>> where the last S is not pronounced. So, the mystery of the word "Saxon"
>> resolved.
>>
>> Does anyone have any better explanation?
>
> Who needs one? It's irrelevant.
>
> Have you done your homework yet?
>
> I'm still waiting for your calculations on the percentage of Hun genes
> in today's European population . . . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > First, Beorna was not a hun.
>> >
>> > Second, Beorna was not "the King of England". He was King of East
>> > Anglia. That is NOT England.
>> >>
>> >> Even if there were three individuals shared the kingship, how is it
>> >> possible
>> >> for someone of a name of Hun can become the king of England in today's
>> >> mentality?
>> >
>> > Repeat -- Beorna was not a Hun. Repeat -- Beorna was not the King of
>> > England.
>> >
>> > You have forgotten how stupid you looked the last time you made this
>> > claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no proof Beorna was not a Hun.
>
> BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!
>
> There is also no proof he was not an extra-terrestrial alien, is there?
>
> Now, let me explain something to you again, oh moronic one with low
> self-esteem.
>
> You made the claim that Beorna was a Hun. It is up to you to prove it,
> not for me to disprove it.
>
> Remember? Just like Mongolian supergrass.
>
>
>> Attila the Hun posted all the major
>> royalties and other high official positions with his own people. It's so
>> natural.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? Attila the Hun did not control
> East Anglia.
>>
>> There is a good chance that those three individuals who shared the
>> kingship
>> of East Anglia were all Huns with different background and name.
>
> Oh, bullshit -- or should I use YOUR term . . . "NONSENSICAL
> SPECULATION".
>
>> It is
>> inconceivable that there was only one Hun become the King in the midst of
>> the whole Huns occupying the Europe.
>
> It is inconceivable to YOU because you need to believe it to make
> yourself feel less inferior.
>
> For others, EVIDENCE is required.
>>
>> England was not united with one monarch at the time. But the record
>> clearly
>> says Beorna emerged as the dominant monarch of the whole England. Enough
>> said.
>
> Oh, stop your bullshitting, you moron!
>
> Here are the facts.
>
> East Anglia was one of seven "kingdoms" in the Anglo Saxon heptarchy. It
> is a tiny part of modern England. See the dark red portion here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Anglia
>
> Beorna was king of East Anglia approximately 749 to 758.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_East_Anglia
>
> The Anglo Saxon heptarchy was not united into the "kingdom of England"
> until the early 10th century.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy
>
> Ergo, you're a bullshitting nonsensical speculator. And a liar, too.
>
> BWAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAHAAAAAA!
>
> See you you twist the facts when you NEED to believe something to
> bolster your pitiful self-esteem? Basically, you can't be trusted
> around facts. You're too ready to bend the facts to suit your agenda.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You have to understand that the society at the time was totally
>> >> different,
>> >> not only Hun was a favorable name but also it was a noble enough name
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >> a King of England.
>> >>
>> >> To make your tiny moronic brain to understand, imagine someone of the
>> >> name
>> >> of Mohamed become the president of the United State.
>> >>
>> >> It is impossible. WHY?
>> >>
>> >> It is just a name isn't it? And then, why not? But everybody knows it
>> >> is
>> >> not
>> >> possible. Because it is politically incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> You still don't get it, do you?
>> >
>> > I get it perfectly. You have an inferiority complex the size of Texas
>> > (imagine that!) and you make stupid claims about Huns being superior,
>> > and about Koreans being Huns, to make yourself feel better. It's
>> > obvious, Ed. Mongolian super grass! Breeding! Bwaaahaah! Snort!
>> >>
>> >> But Huns were the rulers of the Europe at the time. That's why it was
>> >> possible. And they still are. They just dressed up with Caucasian look
>> >> as
>> >> their body cloth.
>> >
>> > BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAA!
>> >>
>> >> It was politically (perfectly) correct at the time to have the name
>> >> Hun
>> >> and
>> >> become the King of England.
>> >
>> > Now you're REALLY getting confused.
>> >
>> > Previously, you claimed Beorna was a Hun.
>> >
>> > But that was shown to be FALSE. "Beorna, Hun" were the names of 2
>> > kings, "Beorna" and "Hun".
>> >
>> > You seem to agree! You are now saying "Hun" was the name of a King of
>> > England!! Good! This is progress!
>> >
>> > But you are ALSO still claiming Beorna WAS A HUN!
>>
>>
>> There was about a hundred thousand Huns occupying Europe at the time. Do
>> you
>> really believe that Attila the Hun was the only Hun? Are you that stupid?
>>
>> There was a bunch of high officials and generals under Attila the Hun.
>
> So what?
>
> He reigned over his empire for 19 years, from 434 to 453. That was 300
> years BEFORE Beorna!
>
> His empire stretched from Central Europe to the Black Sea and from the
> Danube River to the Baltic. It did NOT include the British Isles or
> France.
>
> Moreover, after Attila died in 453, HIS EMPIRE DIED WITH HIM!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila
>
> He left no remarkable legacy! His sons fought over his legacy, and
> divided, were defeated and scattered.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#Attila_in_the_west
>
> After Attila's death, the Huns retired eastward leaving the tribes they
> had dominated to pursue their own territorial ambitions.
>
> http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/05/eue/ht05eue.htm
>
>
> Warning: Supertech takes a leap of logic ahead. Danger, danger,
> danger!
>
>> No
>> one has seen the picture or a biography of Beorna.
>
> Really? That would make it very difficult to know anything about him,
> wouldn't it. One would have to . . dare I say it . . . speculate??
>
>> He must have been one of
>> the Attila's general's descendent or any one of the close relatives to
>> share
>> the kingship of East Anglia.
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT TT!!!
>
> My bullshit detector was burnt out with that one! Or rather, my
> "nonsensical speculation detector".
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!
>
> He "must have been"?? MUST HAVE BEEN???? Why must he have been?
>>
>> If you believe that you have to have the name "Hun" to be a Hun, your IQ
>> is
>> lower than that of a monkey.
>
> A monkey who has consistently outsmarted you, koko.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAA!
>
> Where is your evidence that he was a Hun? There ISN'T any!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > You can't have it both ways, Ed. Which is it? Was Beorna a Hun, or
>> > was
>> > a person named "Hun" a minor King of East Anglia?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Moron, Beorna was a descendent of a Hun also. Show the proof he was not.
>> Do
>> you have any DNA proof?
>
> I say he was a Navaho chief. Show proof he was not.
>>
>> The fact that an individual with the name Hun being the king of England
>
> Wrong -- King of East Anglia -- a small part of modern England.
>
>> after 300 years of Attila the Hun's initial conquest of Europe means that
>> Huns have ruled Europe and England for 300 hundred years at the minimum.
>
> Bullshit. Er, ah, "Nonsensical speculation".
>
> It means nothing of the sort, you moron. You really DID fail logic,
> didn't you.
>
> Here are the facts.
>
> Huns ruled only during Attila's time, and only in parts of Europe.
> Attila's reign was 19 years. After his death, the Huns left.
>>
>> But then there is no record the European Hun kingdom has ever been
>> challenged by anyone in history. It has never been overthrown.
>>
>> That means that Hun kingdom has persisted to these day through Germany
>> and
>> England until some of them become republic.
>>
> Dream on, stupidtech.
>
> By the way, you're getting your ass kicked again.
>
> How do you like it? I think you should slink away with your tail
> between your legs, just like last time.
>
> Verno
> --
> "BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
> (The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical speculators.)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47129 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 11:05 |
|
By whose standard?
<tube6L6 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120032673.740730.171570 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Then why is asian music today so unoriginal and inferior?
>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47131 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 11:16 |
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:02:12 +0000, Supertech thought carefully and wrote:
> Moron, the fact remains that Hun became the king of East Anglia ...
I guess you really believe this. Or maybe you are a troll. Whatever:
A man named "Hun" was (according to legends) a "king" of part of a Anglia
(an area which is located inside the area that became modern England).
He was not the King of England.
He was not related to any Attila the Hun (except in the sense that all
people are related to each other).
--
Love, Jim
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47137 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 11:45 |
|
Would you believe, Mohamed(he is not directly related to "THE" Mohamed)
become the president of the United States, if it is written in history?
You wouldn't.
It is impossible. But if it were the truth, there must be a huge conspiracy
going on somewhere.
It doesn't matter if Hun and Beorna were directly related to Attila the Hun
or not. You don't understand the point.
If the record is true after 300 hundred years of the death of Attila the
Hun, there must have been a bunch of Attila admirer in the monarch cabinet.
Not only that, the whole country was ready to accept such a thing as Hun
become the King of a small monarch in England who became the dominant
monarch.
It also means that the other six Saxon monarchs were not surprised by it at
all. In today's mentality, the other six monarch would get upset and attack
East Anglia and destroy them immediately. It didn't happen.
Therefore, the whole seven monarch must have been actually the Hun monarchs
themselves.
It's either all or non situation as you must understand.
That's why the record is a big smoking gun and a very important document.
"Jim Walsh" <jiSPm_walAMsh_iii [at] oOKperamNOail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.29.09.16.51.477152 [at] oOKperamNOail.com...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:02:12 +0000, Supertech thought carefully and wrote:
>
>> Moron, the fact remains that Hun became the king of East Anglia ...
>
> I guess you really believe this. Or maybe you are a troll. Whatever:
>
> A man named "Hun" was (according to legends) a "king" of part of a Anglia
> (an area which is located inside the area that became modern England).
>
> He was not the King of England.
>
> He was not related to any Attila the Hun (except in the sense that all
> people are related to each other).
>
>
> --
>
> Love, Jim
>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47192 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 19:28 |
|
In article <MNswe.2198$cb6.317 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
>
> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d2b62d17aabc6e998a1d6 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <z0hwe.544$Ox3.97 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> > [at] global.com says...
> >>
> >> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1d29f482ed8302ca98a1d2 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> >> > In article <XaWve.337$U61.334 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> >> > [at] global.com answered his own post by saying:
> >> >> Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume
> >> >> the
> >> >> name
> >> >> of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of
> >> >> bullshit.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means that
> >> >> the
> >> >> Hun King of England was a real Hun.
> >> >
> >> > BULLSHIT, er, ah, "nonsensical speculation".
> >> >
> >> > BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! Clutching at straws again, Ed. Straws of Mongolian
> >> > super grass, I hope! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAA!
> >> >
> >> > So, was Beorna a Hun, or was there a minor king of East Anglia named
> >> > "Hun"? Which was it?? It can't be both!
> >> >>
> >> >> If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80 percent
> >> >> of
> >> >> the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
> >> >
> >> > How do you know, Ed?
> >> >
> >> > "NONSENSICAL SPECULATION" -- that's how!
> >> >
> >> > BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAAAHAA!
> >> >>
> >> >> Remember it was since 4th century AD.
> >> >>
> >> >> It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed by
> >> >> now.
> >> >>
> >> >> The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be enormous.
> >> >
> >> > Really? How ENORMOUS? As enormous as your inferiority complex??
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be produced
> >> >> by
> >> >> the
> >> >> initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers in
> >> >> 1600
> >> >> years, which is a very conservative number.
> >> >
> >> > You are a moron, no doubt about it.
> >> >
> >> > What was the female population of Europe in 500 AD?
> >> >
> >> > What percentage of all Hun warriors fathered children?
> >> >
> >> > What other ethnic groups entered Europe between 500 AD and 2000 AD, and
> >> > how many individuals from these groups contributed to the European gene
> >> > pool?
> >> >
> >> > Therefore, what is the genetic percentage of "hun" in the current
> >> > population of Europe?
> >> >
> >> > Out of a possible 10 points. Show you work.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't know how you taught statistics to students with that brain.
> >>
> >> What is the 80th power of 2?
> >>
> >> Assuming only one couple produced two kids every 20 years.
> >>
> >> But of course, then, there can at least be hundreds of couples who
> >> produced
> >> out of that hundred thousands.
> >>
> >> I think I should revise the 80 percent figure, I think now at least 90
> >> percent of the present population in Europe must have at least some trace
> >> of
> >> Hun linage. Some may have inherited the high intelligent
> >> brain(Beethoven)
> >> and some the superior genes controlling the mind and body coordination
> >> skills etc.
> >>
> >> Contrary to the general scholastic treatment of this historical event,
> >> the
> >> Hun's invasion of Europe was a monumental historical event that has
> >> changed
> >> Europe permanently. I think, for the most part, for the better.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Failing mark. I give you ZERO out of 10.
> >
> > Let me show you how to do the calculation.
> >
> > What was the female population in Europe just before the Huns invaded?
> >
> > Estimate: 25 million.
>
>
> Bullshit. Maybe barely 5 million.
There is a range of estimates of world's population in 500 AD. I have
cited one below that estimates it at ~ 400,000,000.
The population of the Roman Empire from Spain to Asia Minor was
estimated at 45,000,000 in 14 AD. I have extrapolated to 50,000,000 by
500 AD, of which 25 million were women. Close enough for government
work.
See: http://www.t21.ca/population/
>
> Are you saying 25 million people could not defend themselves from a merely
> 100,000 Hun soldiers?
>
> What a bunch of crappy people are they!!!
>
>
>
> >
> > (That is 10% of the world's female population in 500 AD, estimated at
> > 250,000,000, or half of the total population of 500 million.)
> >
> > How many huns invaded?
> >
> > Your estimate: 100,000
> >
> > How many Huns were killed in action?
> >
> > My estimate: 50%
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
> I think your estimate is totally off the mark.
>
> If Huns had lost half of their soldiers, they can't claim they have
> conquered Europe. That's a failure.
That is a loss of only 3% per year for 19 years. Do the math yourself.
So, you think the Huns went to war in Europe, and even natural deaths
from cancer, heart disease, bad food, accident, etc. didn't reduce their
force by 3% per year????
What is YOUR estimate, ED?
>
>
> > How many huns lived and fathered children who were not immediately
> > killed by the families of the raped mothers?
>
> No, they were married in a perfectly normal way to the natives.
You think they got married? MARRIED? BWAAAHAAAHAAHAA!
They were there for only 19 years! They were an invading force, riding
around Europe on military campaigns! They were a marauding army! They
didn't "move into the neighbourhood" and settle down!
They didn't speak the languages of the tribes they overcame!
And you think they got MARRIED AND SETTLED DOWN???
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAA! What a moron!!!!!!!
>
> And they could have multiple children.
The population of the world grew very slowly from ~1 A.D. to ~ 1650 A.D.
It expanded by only 66% over 1650 years.
http://www.t21.ca/population/
That is an increase of less than 1/10th of 1% per year!!!!!! That is
only a tiny fraction above the replacement rate!
Do you know what that means, Ed???
That means couples produced, on average, only 2 surviving children who
reached breeding age. ONLY TWO!!
Half-Hun (note -- they were HALF hun, not full hun) children that
survived would have been a very small proportion of the total.
> If any of the subjugates killed Hun
> soldiers, you know what would be the fate of them and their whole family.
> People are much smarter than that.
You seem to have forgotten that the Huns were a marauding army, on the
move, conquering tribes. 100,000 Huns wouldn't have been able to both
settle down AND tour Europe conquering tribes as they went!
>
> Huns are known to be merciless to people who do not obey.
You seem to have forgotten that the Huns were a marauding army, on the
move, conquering tribes.
>
> Furthermore, the situation must have been much more amicable than you
> thought. There was no recorded revolt by the natives other than the fight
> among the Hun generals themselves, which was basically a hegemony game by
> the ruler themselves.
>
> Hun lasted more than a thousands of years rule.
Bullshit. I have provided citations refuting your opinion. The Huns
retreated from Asia. They did not stay in Europe en mass.
Where is YOUR evidence to the contrary? Your infantile dreaming about
the "great Huns" is not evidence.
> If the natives did not love
> them, it could have been impossible.
BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Now you're romanticizing the Huns! Oh, what humanitarians they were!
A few lines ago you said they were merciless. Now you say they were
loved. Which was it? BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAA!
> I think they loved Huns rule because of
> their impartiality. No kickbacks, no favoritism. No local thugs were allowed
> to pest the people.
>
You THINK??????? I don't believe you EVER think!!! You simply engage in
nonsensical speculation!
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAA! BWAAAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAA!
> Huns ruled in a very precise way. You can tell that by the way Germans
> behave in their culture. There was no cheating, lying allowed in their rule.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAAAAA! With 0.1% hun genes in them, Germans were
transformed?? BWAAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAA! You're a
total moron!!! BWAAHAAAHAAHAHAAAHAA!
>
>
>
>
> > I'll make the very generous estimate that 25,000 Hun offspring survived
> > in the 19 years Attila ruled Europe.
>
> That 25,000 would have produced 50,000 at the end of the 19 years rule.
25,000 half Huns would produce 50,000 quarter Huns. These 50,000
quarter-huns would produce 100,000 1/8th Huns. These 100,000 1/8th Huns
would produce 200,000 1/16th Huns. I think even YOU can guess the next
few steps in the calculation.
THE HUN GENES GOT WATERED DOWN, ED! Huns were not breeding with Huns --
they were breeding with the locals. Watered down, Ed. Watered down.
How much do your vaunted hun genes need to be watered down before their
effect is zero? Your estimate, please.
> And
> then every 20 years, the number would have been doubled. And in 1600 years
> the number would have been doubled 80 times.
And the percentage of Hun gene would have been halved 80 times.
>
> It's an astronomical number.
And an astronomical fraction.
> In ancient time, there is no birth control,
> unless the child dies of disease, the chance of survival would have been
> great. Especially remember they are all
> well to do government official's children.
Bullshit. Look at the population growth for the entire world. The
birth rate was barely above the replacement rate.
http://www.t21.ca/population/
>
>
>
> > At that rate, the genetic percentage of Huns in the European genetic
> > pool was 0.1%.
> >
> > No need to estimate how many additional migrants to Europe diluted this
> > further with non-Hun genes.
> >
> > Estimate of Hun percentage in European gene pool: 1/10 of 1%. And in
> > Britain, a helluva lot less since the Huns NEVER MADE IT TO BRITAIN!
>
>
> Why the hell, then, Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia which is a
> part of England moron?
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T HUNS, IDIOT!!!!
And I see you now admit they were not Kings of England! That is
progress!
>
> Your statement directly contradict the historical record.
No it doesn't. You STILL have not provided any EVIDENCE that Beorna and
Hun were actually HUNS!!!!
Where is your evidence????? Where???? Cite it. Provide a link. The
opinion of a moron like you is worthless. Link, please. And not another
from worthless Wilmerding-ding-ding.
>
> Either you are insane or totally deranged in fear of admitting the truth.
You are a moron who is incapable of completing a 10th grade Fermi
estimate.
By the way, Ed, you're getting your ass kicked . . . AGAIN.
Does it hurt when you sit down?
Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47194 ] |
Mi, 29 Juni 2005 19:40 |
|
In article <ostwe.2199$cb6.1956 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> Moron, the fact remains that Hun became the king of East Anglia after the
> death of Attila the Hun 300 hundred years later.
Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
> Hun Kingdoms are supposed
> to have disappeared by then. There supposed to be no more Huns ruling any
> Kingdom in Europe or England. They are supposed to be all gone, aren't they?
Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>
> They didn't. You are dead wrong.
Then so is the historical record. I have provided citations to support
my argument that the Huns retreated from Europe.
Where is your evidence??
Anyway, Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>
> It means that Attila the Hun's descendents thrived as a royal family for
> three hundred years in Europe and England.
Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>
> All those wishful distortion of historical truth by your so called
> "historians" fails miserably on this smoking gun.
Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>
> How the hell Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia who happened to
> be a joint King and became the dominant monarch of England?
Bullshit. He did not become the joint King and dominant monarch. I
provided evidence previously that the crowns were not joined until 200
years later. Where is your evidence to support your opinion??
>
> Why a Hun would want to be a joint King with a non Hun? Aren't they supposed
> to fight against each other?
Bullshit. He did not become the joint King and dominant monarch. See
above.
>
> You miserable moron, I can see your rat dick size ego being shattered to
> pieces.
You were looking in the mirror as you typed that, weren't you.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAA!
>
> The existence of Saxon before the 4th century would have proved your point
> easily, but you couldn't, because they didn't exist before the 4th century.
> And because they are basically formed by the descendents of Huns who came
> out of Germany and formed the independent monarchs. Those seven monarchs of
> Saxons are basically formed by the seven different generals of Attila the
> Hun.
>
> Afterall, that's what Attila the Hun should have promised to his generals
> before the invasion of Europe, don't you think?
>
> "I'll make all of you and your children to be the kings of the land we
> conquer, if you help me on this mission"
>
> Personally, I wouldn't risk my life to help Attila if such a guarantee is
> not promised.
>
> Sax(on) itself means growing children of offspring like sprouts in Korean.
>
> Those monarchs would not have allowed anyone who do not have Hun heritage to
> be their King. Politically, it should be obvious. Now it makes sense how and
> why Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia.
>
It only makes sense to a moron like you who needs to believe a fantastic
story to make himself feel less inferior.
All you have done is engage in nonsensical speculation. You haven't
provided a shred of evidence to back up any of it.
Your entire case rests on your assumption that Beorna and Hun were Huns.
Your view that Beorna was a Hun came from your previous misreading of
the record, where you stated that the line of kings ( . . . Hun, Beorna,
.. . . ) meant Beorna was a Hun.
Now, you agree with Jim Walsh that there was a king named Hun. But you
go on to state that both he AND Beorna were Huns. Where did you get
that??????????
But your reason for thinking Beorna was a Hun is invalidated by your
acceptance that "Hun" was actually one of the Kings, not a word used to
describe Beorna's ethnicity.
In other words, your own argument is inconsistent!!
Please explain why you think Beorna was a Hun.
I'm waiting . . . . . .
Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47541 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 11:37 |
|
This moron finally got totally deranged.
It's really sad.
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2c7d33bae135e798a1dd [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <ostwe.2199$cb6.1956 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>> Moron, the fact remains that Hun became the king of East Anglia after the
>> death of Attila the Hun 300 hundred years later.
>
> Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>
>> Hun Kingdoms are supposed
>> to have disappeared by then. There supposed to be no more Huns ruling any
>> Kingdom in Europe or England. They are supposed to be all gone, aren't
>> they?
>
> Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>>
>> They didn't. You are dead wrong.
>
> Then so is the historical record. I have provided citations to support
> my argument that the Huns retreated from Europe.
>
> Where is your evidence??
>
> Anyway, Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>>
>> It means that Attila the Hun's descendents thrived as a royal family for
>> three hundred years in Europe and England.
>
> Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>>
>> All those wishful distortion of historical truth by your so called
>> "historians" fails miserably on this smoking gun.
>
> Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>
>>
>> How the hell Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia who happened
>> to
>> be a joint King and became the dominant monarch of England?
>
> Bullshit. He did not become the joint King and dominant monarch. I
> provided evidence previously that the crowns were not joined until 200
> years later. Where is your evidence to support your opinion??
>>
>> Why a Hun would want to be a joint King with a non Hun? Aren't they
>> supposed
>> to fight against each other?
>
> Bullshit. He did not become the joint King and dominant monarch. See
> above.
>
>>
>> You miserable moron, I can see your rat dick size ego being shattered to
>> pieces.
>
> You were looking in the mirror as you typed that, weren't you.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAA!
>>
>> The existence of Saxon before the 4th century would have proved your
>> point
>> easily, but you couldn't, because they didn't exist before the 4th
>> century.
>> And because they are basically formed by the descendents of Huns who came
>> out of Germany and formed the independent monarchs. Those seven monarchs
>> of
>> Saxons are basically formed by the seven different generals of Attila the
>> Hun.
>>
>> Afterall, that's what Attila the Hun should have promised to his generals
>> before the invasion of Europe, don't you think?
>>
>> "I'll make all of you and your children to be the kings of the land we
>> conquer, if you help me on this mission"
>>
>> Personally, I wouldn't risk my life to help Attila if such a guarantee is
>> not promised.
>>
>> Sax(on) itself means growing children of offspring like sprouts in
>> Korean.
>>
>> Those monarchs would not have allowed anyone who do not have Hun heritage
>> to
>> be their King. Politically, it should be obvious. Now it makes sense how
>> and
>> why Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia.
>>
> It only makes sense to a moron like you who needs to believe a fantastic
> story to make himself feel less inferior.
>
> All you have done is engage in nonsensical speculation. You haven't
> provided a shred of evidence to back up any of it.
>
>
>
> Your entire case rests on your assumption that Beorna and Hun were Huns.
>
> Your view that Beorna was a Hun came from your previous misreading of
> the record, where you stated that the line of kings ( . . . Hun, Beorna,
> . . . ) meant Beorna was a Hun.
>
> Now, you agree with Jim Walsh that there was a king named Hun. But you
> go on to state that both he AND Beorna were Huns. Where did you get
> that??????????
>
> But your reason for thinking Beorna was a Hun is invalidated by your
> acceptance that "Hun" was actually one of the Kings, not a word used to
> describe Beorna's ethnicity.
>
> In other words, your own argument is inconsistent!!
>
> Please explain why you think Beorna was a Hun.
>
> I'm waiting . . . . . .
>
> Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47543 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 12:22 |
|
Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
What is this marauding horse mount army bullshit?
He ruled Germany while wandering around the whole Europe? He married to a
German princess and had a baby. Are you saying that other Hun soldiers
didn't have a chance to marry local girls and give birth to babies? Because
they were constantly marauding? It takes average less than 10 minutes to
make a girl pregnant and 9 months to give a birth to it.
Some married couples rarely see each other because they are working in
separate cities and they are still married even in today's society.
What a fucking moron!!!!
Hun and Berona were not Huns?
Where is the proof that they were not Huns?
The name apparently indicates they were Huns and now it's your task to prove
they were not.
Do you remember all those wierd names of the monarch kings of England no one
uses these days? Where do you think those names came from?
Those names are all from Hunic language because they were all Huns.
And why would any individual assume a name which he/she is not? That's an
immediate disqualification factor to be a King because he cheated.
And are you saying 50 million total population in Europe was totally
defeated by 100,000 Hun soldiers?
What a bunch of crappy people those Europeans were. The pope even begged for
mercy with bare feet in front of Attila the Hun.
What a shame!!!!
You don't even know you are insulting your own kind. Being kicked in the ass
repeatedly. Even kicking your own kind's ass.
You are totally deranged to the degree you don't know what you are talking
about.
Incoherency is an early symptom of a total mental breakdown and derangement.
It is truly pitiful.
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2c7a7a4708b66c98a1dc [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <MNswe.2198$cb6.317 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>>
>> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d2b62d17aabc6e998a1d6 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <z0hwe.544$Ox3.97 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> > [at] global.com says...
>> >>
>> >> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.1d29f482ed8302ca98a1d2 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> >> > In article <XaWve.337$U61.334 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> >> > [at] global.com answered his own post by saying:
>> >> >> Of course, then, if you are not a real Hun and still want to assume
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> name
>> >> >> of Hun in the 4th century society, who would take such kind of
>> >> >> bullshit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It was a name not everyone can arbitrarily take. That only means
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> Hun King of England was a real Hun.
>> >> >
>> >> > BULLSHIT, er, ah, "nonsensical speculation".
>> >> >
>> >> > BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! Clutching at straws again, Ed. Straws of
>> >> > Mongolian
>> >> > super grass, I hope! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAA!
>> >> >
>> >> > So, was Beorna a Hun, or was there a minor king of East Anglia named
>> >> > "Hun"? Which was it?? It can't be both!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If Huns had kept the record of birth as Jews did, more than 80
>> >> >> percent
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the population in Europe would have claimed themselves to be a Hun.
>> >> >
>> >> > How do you know, Ed?
>> >> >
>> >> > "NONSENSICAL SPECULATION" -- that's how!
>> >> >
>> >> > BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAAAHAA!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Remember it was since 4th century AD.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It has been about 1600 years. Gene mixing would have been completed
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> now.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The recorded number of Huns in the troops was recorded to be
>> >> >> enormous.
>> >> >
>> >> > Really? How ENORMOUS? As enormous as your inferiority complex??
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Use your statistics to calculate how many descendents can be
>> >> >> produced
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> initial one hundred thousands of strong and healthy male soldiers
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> 1600
>> >> >> years, which is a very conservative number.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are a moron, no doubt about it.
>> >> >
>> >> > What was the female population of Europe in 500 AD?
>> >> >
>> >> > What percentage of all Hun warriors fathered children?
>> >> >
>> >> > What other ethnic groups entered Europe between 500 AD and 2000 AD,
>> >> > and
>> >> > how many individuals from these groups contributed to the European
>> >> > gene
>> >> > pool?
>> >> >
>> >> > Therefore, what is the genetic percentage of "hun" in the current
>> >> > population of Europe?
>> >> >
>> >> > Out of a possible 10 points. Show you work.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't know how you taught statistics to students with that brain.
>> >>
>> >> What is the 80th power of 2?
>> >>
>> >> Assuming only one couple produced two kids every 20 years.
>> >>
>> >> But of course, then, there can at least be hundreds of couples who
>> >> produced
>> >> out of that hundred thousands.
>> >>
>> >> I think I should revise the 80 percent figure, I think now at least 90
>> >> percent of the present population in Europe must have at least some
>> >> trace
>> >> of
>> >> Hun linage. Some may have inherited the high intelligent
>> >> brain(Beethoven)
>> >> and some the superior genes controlling the mind and body coordination
>> >> skills etc.
>> >>
>> >> Contrary to the general scholastic treatment of this historical event,
>> >> the
>> >> Hun's invasion of Europe was a monumental historical event that has
>> >> changed
>> >> Europe permanently. I think, for the most part, for the better.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Failing mark. I give you ZERO out of 10.
>> >
>> > Let me show you how to do the calculation.
>> >
>> > What was the female population in Europe just before the Huns invaded?
>> >
>> > Estimate: 25 million.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. Maybe barely 5 million.
>
> There is a range of estimates of world's population in 500 AD. I have
> cited one below that estimates it at ~ 400,000,000.
>
> The population of the Roman Empire from Spain to Asia Minor was
> estimated at 45,000,000 in 14 AD. I have extrapolated to 50,000,000 by
> 500 AD, of which 25 million were women. Close enough for government
> work.
>
> See: http://www.t21.ca/population/
>
>>
>> Are you saying 25 million people could not defend themselves from a
>> merely
>> 100,000 Hun soldiers?
>>
>> What a bunch of crappy people are they!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > (That is 10% of the world's female population in 500 AD, estimated at
>> > 250,000,000, or half of the total population of 500 million.)
>> >
>> > How many huns invaded?
>> >
>> > Your estimate: 100,000
>> >
>> > How many Huns were killed in action?
>> >
>> > My estimate: 50%
>>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> I think your estimate is totally off the mark.
>>
>> If Huns had lost half of their soldiers, they can't claim they have
>> conquered Europe. That's a failure.
>
> That is a loss of only 3% per year for 19 years. Do the math yourself.
>
> So, you think the Huns went to war in Europe, and even natural deaths
> from cancer, heart disease, bad food, accident, etc. didn't reduce their
> force by 3% per year????
>
> What is YOUR estimate, ED?
>>
>>
>> > How many huns lived and fathered children who were not immediately
>> > killed by the families of the raped mothers?
>>
>> No, they were married in a perfectly normal way to the natives.
>
> You think they got married? MARRIED? BWAAAHAAAHAAHAA!
>
> They were there for only 19 years! They were an invading force, riding
> around Europe on military campaigns! They were a marauding army! They
> didn't "move into the neighbourhood" and settle down!
>
> They didn't speak the languages of the tribes they overcame!
>
> And you think they got MARRIED AND SETTLED DOWN???
> BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAA! What a moron!!!!!!!
>>
>> And they could have multiple children.
>
> The population of the world grew very slowly from ~1 A.D. to ~ 1650 A.D.
> It expanded by only 66% over 1650 years.
>
> http://www.t21.ca/population/
>
> That is an increase of less than 1/10th of 1% per year!!!!!! That is
> only a tiny fraction above the replacement rate!
>
> Do you know what that means, Ed???
>
> That means couples produced, on average, only 2 surviving children who
> reached breeding age. ONLY TWO!!
>
> Half-Hun (note -- they were HALF hun, not full hun) children that
> survived would have been a very small proportion of the total.
>
>> If any of the subjugates killed Hun
>> soldiers, you know what would be the fate of them and their whole family.
>> People are much smarter than that.
>
> You seem to have forgotten that the Huns were a marauding army, on the
> move, conquering tribes. 100,000 Huns wouldn't have been able to both
> settle down AND tour Europe conquering tribes as they went!
>>
>> Huns are known to be merciless to people who do not obey.
>
> You seem to have forgotten that the Huns were a marauding army, on the
> move, conquering tribes.
>>
>> Furthermore, the situation must have been much more amicable than you
>> thought. There was no recorded revolt by the natives other than the fight
>> among the Hun generals themselves, which was basically a hegemony game by
>> the ruler themselves.
>>
>> Hun lasted more than a thousands of years rule.
>
> Bullshit. I have provided citations refuting your opinion. The Huns
> retreated from Asia. They did not stay in Europe en mass.
>
> Where is YOUR evidence to the contrary? Your infantile dreaming about
> the "great Huns" is not evidence.
>
>
>> If the natives did not love
>> them, it could have been impossible.
>
> BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
>
> Now you're romanticizing the Huns! Oh, what humanitarians they were!
>
> A few lines ago you said they were merciless. Now you say they were
> loved. Which was it? BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAA!
>
>> I think they loved Huns rule because of
>> their impartiality. No kickbacks, no favoritism. No local thugs were
>> allowed
>> to pest the people.
>>
> You THINK??????? I don't believe you EVER think!!! You simply engage in
> nonsensical speculation!
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAA! BWAAAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAA!
>
>> Huns ruled in a very precise way. You can tell that by the way Germans
>> behave in their culture. There was no cheating, lying allowed in their
>> rule.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAAAAA! With 0.1% hun genes in them, Germans were
> transformed?? BWAAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAA! You're a
> total moron!!! BWAAHAAAHAAHAHAAAHAA!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'll make the very generous estimate that 25,000 Hun offspring survived
>> > in the 19 years Attila ruled Europe.
>>
>> That 25,000 would have produced 50,000 at the end of the 19 years rule.
>
> 25,000 half Huns would produce 50,000 quarter Huns. These 50,000
> quarter-huns would produce 100,000 1/8th Huns. These 100,000 1/8th Huns
> would produce 200,000 1/16th Huns. I think even YOU can guess the next
> few steps in the calculation.
>
> THE HUN GENES GOT WATERED DOWN, ED! Huns were not breeding with Huns --
> they were breeding with the locals. Watered down, Ed. Watered down.
>
> How much do your vaunted hun genes need to be watered down before their
> effect is zero? Your estimate, please.
>
>
>> And
>> then every 20 years, the number would have been doubled. And in 1600
>> years
>> the number would have been doubled 80 times.
>
> And the percentage of Hun gene would have been halved 80 times.
>>
>> It's an astronomical number.
>
> And an astronomical fraction.
>
>> In ancient time, there is no birth control,
>> unless the child dies of disease, the chance of survival would have been
>> great. Especially remember they are all
>> well to do government official's children.
>
> Bullshit. Look at the population growth for the entire world. The
> birth rate was barely above the replacement rate.
>
> http://www.t21.ca/population/
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > At that rate, the genetic percentage of Huns in the European genetic
>> > pool was 0.1%.
>> >
>> > No need to estimate how many additional migrants to Europe diluted this
>> > further with non-Hun genes.
>> >
>> > Estimate of Hun percentage in European gene pool: 1/10 of 1%. And in
>> > Britain, a helluva lot less since the Huns NEVER MADE IT TO BRITAIN!
>>
>>
>> Why the hell, then, Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia which
>> is a
>> part of England moron?
>
> BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T HUNS, IDIOT!!!!
>
> And I see you now admit they were not Kings of England! That is
> progress!
>>
>> Your statement directly contradict the historical record.
>
> No it doesn't. You STILL have not provided any EVIDENCE that Beorna and
> Hun were actually HUNS!!!!
>
> Where is your evidence????? Where???? Cite it. Provide a link. The
> opinion of a moron like you is worthless. Link, please. And not another
> from worthless Wilmerding-ding-ding.
>>
>> Either you are insane or totally deranged in fear of admitting the truth.
>
> You are a moron who is incapable of completing a 10th grade Fermi
> estimate.
>
> By the way, Ed, you're getting your ass kicked . . . AGAIN.
>
> Does it hurt when you sit down?
>
> Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47550 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 15:24 |
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:22:40 +0000, Supertech thought carefully and wrote:
> Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
Germany didn't exist until the late 19th Century.
> Hun and Berona were not Huns?
Nope. A Anglo-Saxon with the family name "Hun" was not a Hun.
--
Love, Jim
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47568 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 18:56 |
|
In article <b3Pwe.2439$cb6.334 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> This moron finally got totally deranged.
>
> It's really sad.
You can't refute my arguments.
You can't cite references to back up your arguments.
You can't cite references that contradict those I have posted.
Yet you cling to your irrational claims of Hun (and therefore, Korean)
superiority despite a complete lack of credible evidence.
And I'M the one who is "totally deranged"???
BWAAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAA!
Slink off now with your tail between your legs, Ed.
Verno
>
>
>
> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d2c7d33bae135e798a1dd [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <ostwe.2199$cb6.1956 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> > [at] global.com says...
> >> Moron, the fact remains that Hun became the king of East Anglia after the
> >> death of Attila the Hun 300 hundred years later.
> >
> > Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
> >
> >> Hun Kingdoms are supposed
> >> to have disappeared by then. There supposed to be no more Huns ruling any
> >> Kingdom in Europe or England. They are supposed to be all gone, aren't
> >> they?
> >
> > Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
> >>
> >> They didn't. You are dead wrong.
> >
> > Then so is the historical record. I have provided citations to support
> > my argument that the Huns retreated from Europe.
> >
> > Where is your evidence??
> >
> > Anyway, Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
> >>
> >> It means that Attila the Hun's descendents thrived as a royal family for
> >> three hundred years in Europe and England.
> >
> > Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
> >>
> >> All those wishful distortion of historical truth by your so called
> >> "historians" fails miserably on this smoking gun.
> >
> > Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
> >
> >>
> >> How the hell Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia who happened
> >> to
> >> be a joint King and became the dominant monarch of England?
> >
> > Bullshit. He did not become the joint King and dominant monarch. I
> > provided evidence previously that the crowns were not joined until 200
> > years later. Where is your evidence to support your opinion??
> >>
> >> Why a Hun would want to be a joint King with a non Hun? Aren't they
> >> supposed
> >> to fight against each other?
> >
> > Bullshit. He did not become the joint King and dominant monarch. See
> > above.
> >
> >>
> >> You miserable moron, I can see your rat dick size ego being shattered to
> >> pieces.
> >
> > You were looking in the mirror as you typed that, weren't you.
> >
> > BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAA!
> >>
> >> The existence of Saxon before the 4th century would have proved your
> >> point
> >> easily, but you couldn't, because they didn't exist before the 4th
> >> century.
> >> And because they are basically formed by the descendents of Huns who came
> >> out of Germany and formed the independent monarchs. Those seven monarchs
> >> of
> >> Saxons are basically formed by the seven different generals of Attila the
> >> Hun.
> >>
> >> Afterall, that's what Attila the Hun should have promised to his generals
> >> before the invasion of Europe, don't you think?
> >>
> >> "I'll make all of you and your children to be the kings of the land we
> >> conquer, if you help me on this mission"
> >>
> >> Personally, I wouldn't risk my life to help Attila if such a guarantee is
> >> not promised.
> >>
> >> Sax(on) itself means growing children of offspring like sprouts in
> >> Korean.
> >>
> >> Those monarchs would not have allowed anyone who do not have Hun heritage
> >> to
> >> be their King. Politically, it should be obvious. Now it makes sense how
> >> and
> >> why Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia.
> >>
> > It only makes sense to a moron like you who needs to believe a fantastic
> > story to make himself feel less inferior.
> >
> > All you have done is engage in nonsensical speculation. You haven't
> > provided a shred of evidence to back up any of it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your entire case rests on your assumption that Beorna and Hun were Huns.
> >
> > Your view that Beorna was a Hun came from your previous misreading of
> > the record, where you stated that the line of kings ( . . . Hun, Beorna,
> > . . . ) meant Beorna was a Hun.
> >
> > Now, you agree with Jim Walsh that there was a king named Hun. But you
> > go on to state that both he AND Beorna were Huns. Where did you get
> > that??????????
> >
> > But your reason for thinking Beorna was a Hun is invalidated by your
> > acceptance that "Hun" was actually one of the Kings, not a word used to
> > describe Beorna's ethnicity.
> >
> > In other words, your own argument is inconsistent!!
> >
> > Please explain why you think Beorna was a Hun.
> >
> > I'm waiting . . . . . .
> >
> > Verno
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47575 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 20:11 |
|
In article <QJPwe.2443$cb6.1732 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2 [at] global.com says...
> Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
Details, please.
Where are your references?
>
> What is this marauding horse mount army bullshit?
Huns conquered much of Europe in 19 years, and as you have been so fond of telling us in the past, on horseback.
Please explain how this was done while sitting in Germany. Did they do it on the Internet? Did they fly in?
Drive across Europe on the autobahn? Take the Orient Express?
Nope. None of the above. On horseback, Ed, on horseback. Millions of square km of land, thousands of small
villages and tribes, all conquered, all on horseback. Quite a feat. But they didn't do it sitting on their asses
in what was later to become Germany.
And cite REFERENCES to back up your arguments, not your fanciful imagination.
>
> He ruled Germany while wandering around the whole Europe? He married to a
> German princess and had a baby.
Cite references.
How did he "rule Germany" while conquering the whole of Europe in 19 years, all on horseback?
REFERENCES, moron, REFERENCES. Where do you get your information?
(REFERENCES, ED, REFERENCES! What makes Mongolian Supergrass so superior??)
> Are you saying that other Hun soldiers
> didn't have a chance to marry local girls and give birth to babies? Because
> they were constantly marauding? It takes average less than 10 minutes to
> make a girl pregnant and 9 months to give a birth to it.
>
> Some married couples rarely see each other because they are working in
> separate cities and they are still married even in today's society.
>
> What a fucking moron!!!!
A moron is a person of extremely low intelligence with poor reasoning skills. That's you to a "T".
>
> Hun and Berona were not Huns?
>
> Where is the proof that they were not Huns?
This is laughable!
You make a claim you can't substantiate, then you say it's up to ME to disprove it??
SNORT!
That's like my claiming Beorna and Hun were Cherokee chiefs, and insisting that YOU prove they AREN'T. It's
totally ridiculous!
Are you sure you went to college? No self-respecting college student would advance the ridiculous arguments you
have advanced about Hun and Korean superiority! You're either lying about going to college, or you're so
emotionally dependent on this irrational belief in Hun superiority that you've lost your reason.
>
> The name apparently indicates they were Huns and now it's your task to prove
> they were not.
Which name? Hun?
Jim Walsh dealt with that quite convincingly months ago.
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.china/msg/12f86c29 af5c2e97?hl=en
In addition, it's not unusual for men to choose "strong" names for male children in the hope the name will
influence the child's character. So it's quite conceivable that Hun's father chose the name Hun hoping his son
would grow up to be fearless, ruthless and aggressive.
The other explanation -- yours -- is that the name "Hun" was chosen because of the child's ethnic roots.
Let's evaluate your argument.
To be an ethnic Hun, he must have had Hun parents.
Are you with me so far?
To have Hun parents, he must have sprung from a long line of ethnic Huns in Europe.
Correct?
To be from a long line of pure Huns, the Huns must not have interbred with other European ethnic groups -- in
fact, at least 300 years long.
Correct?
That's 15 generations of unadulterated Hun bloodlines!
Correct?
Is that likely?
Absolutely not!
First, it's very unlikely that there were ANY full-blooded Huns in Europe 300 years after Attila. None of the
original ones survived for 300 years.
Correct or not?
If not, explain.
Second, any Huns who were full-blooded would also have to have Hun mothers.
Correct? If not, explain.
There is no evidence that Hun mothers came to Europe with Attila's horde, so even 300 years earlier, full-blooded
Huns would be extremely rare or non-existent.
Correct? If not, explain.
Next, there is no evidence -- absolutely none -- that Huns did NOT interbreed with the locals, choosing instead to
preserve the purity of the Hun bloodline by breeding only with other full-blooded Huns.
Correct? If not, provide EVIDENCE, not OPINION.
Next, based on my previous calculations (which you have failed to refute), the percentage of Hun genes in the
European gene pool after Attila would be less than 1/10th of 1%. As strong as you may posit Hun genes to be, they
would not even register in the characteristics of the population in such tiny proportions.
If you disagree, provide alternative calculations that are equally detailed as those I previously provided.
By the way, stupidtech, the method I used is called a Fermi estimate. It's taught in Canada in the 11th grade.
Surely you can master Fermi estimates if you can handle differential equations. :-)
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/F/Fe/Fermi_pro blem.htm
Finally, you have provided no evidence that Huns EVER made it to Britain. So the likelihood is that any Hun in
the gene pool of the early Britons would be an even smaller proportion than the rest of Europe.
Watered down, Ed . . . . . watered . . . . down . . . . down . . . . down . . . . down . . . . down.
A fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction
multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by
a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction
multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by
a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction
multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by a fraction multiplied by
a fraction . . . . .
is a very, very tiny amount.
It is insignificant.
>
> Do you remember all those wierd names of the monarch kings of England no one
> uses these days? Where do you think those names came from?
>
> Those names are all from Hunic language because they were all Huns.
So when I meet a Chinese guy in Vancouver named Bill (from William), by your reasoning that means he's of Norman
extraction, correct? BWAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAAAA!
> And why would any individual assume a name which he/she is not? That's an
> immediate disqualification factor to be a King because he cheated.
I know plenty of people of Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Indian ethnicity, for example, who bear ONLY
European names. Are they immediately disqualified from positions because "they cheated"? Not a chance!
>
> And are you saying 50 million total population in Europe was totally
> defeated by 100,000 Hun soldiers?
Are you saying there were more than 100,000 Huns who came to Europe with Attila?
If so, SAY it and PROVIDE REFERENCES TO BACK IT UP. But please, no nonsensical speculation!
>
> What a bunch of crappy people those Europeans were. The pope even begged for
> mercy with bare feet in front of Attila the Hun.
>
> What a shame!!!!
>
> You don't even know you are insulting your own kind. Being kicked in the ass
> repeatedly. Even kicking your own kind's ass.
>
> You are totally deranged to the degree you don't know what you are talking
> about.
>
> Incoherency is an early symptom of a total mental breakdown and derangement.
>
> It is truly pitiful.
>
I'm incoherent???
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAA!
Answer my questions above and we'll see who is incoherent.
Verno
--
"BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
(The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical speculators.)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47576 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 20:38 |
|
Your repeated "Hun is not a Hun" nonsense was too hilarious to respond.
You are making a joke of yourself.
I think you are suffering from a Parkinson's disease. Or some kind of a
mental disorder.
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2dc451cbd591398a1e0 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <b3Pwe.2439$cb6.334 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>> This moron finally got totally deranged.
>>
>> It's really sad.
>
> You can't refute my arguments.
>
> You can't cite references to back up your arguments.
>
> You can't cite references that contradict those I have posted.
>
> Yet you cling to your irrational claims of Hun (and therefore, Korean)
> superiority despite a complete lack of credible evidence.
>
> And I'M the one who is "totally deranged"???
>
> BWAAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAA!
>
> Slink off now with your tail between your legs, Ed.
>
> Verno
>>
>>
>>
>> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d2c7d33bae135e798a1dd [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <ostwe.2199$cb6.1956 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
>> > [at] global.com says...
>> >> Moron, the fact remains that Hun became the king of East Anglia after
>> >> the
>> >> death of Attila the Hun 300 hundred years later.
>> >
>> > Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>> >
>> >> Hun Kingdoms are supposed
>> >> to have disappeared by then. There supposed to be no more Huns ruling
>> >> any
>> >> Kingdom in Europe or England. They are supposed to be all gone, aren't
>> >> they?
>> >
>> > Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>> >>
>> >> They didn't. You are dead wrong.
>> >
>> > Then so is the historical record. I have provided citations to support
>> > my argument that the Huns retreated from Europe.
>> >
>> > Where is your evidence??
>> >
>> > Anyway, Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>> >>
>> >> It means that Attila the Hun's descendents thrived as a royal family
>> >> for
>> >> three hundred years in Europe and England.
>> >
>> > Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>> >>
>> >> All those wishful distortion of historical truth by your so called
>> >> "historians" fails miserably on this smoking gun.
>> >
>> > Hun was not a Hun. You have provided no evidence that he was.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How the hell Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia who
>> >> happened
>> >> to
>> >> be a joint King and became the dominant monarch of England?
>> >
>> > Bullshit. He did not become the joint King and dominant monarch. I
>> > provided evidence previously that the crowns were not joined until 200
>> > years later. Where is your evidence to support your opinion??
>> >>
>> >> Why a Hun would want to be a joint King with a non Hun? Aren't they
>> >> supposed
>> >> to fight against each other?
>> >
>> > Bullshit. He did not become the joint King and dominant monarch. See
>> > above.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You miserable moron, I can see your rat dick size ego being shattered
>> >> to
>> >> pieces.
>> >
>> > You were looking in the mirror as you typed that, weren't you.
>> >
>> > BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAA!
>> >>
>> >> The existence of Saxon before the 4th century would have proved your
>> >> point
>> >> easily, but you couldn't, because they didn't exist before the 4th
>> >> century.
>> >> And because they are basically formed by the descendents of Huns who
>> >> came
>> >> out of Germany and formed the independent monarchs. Those seven
>> >> monarchs
>> >> of
>> >> Saxons are basically formed by the seven different generals of Attila
>> >> the
>> >> Hun.
>> >>
>> >> Afterall, that's what Attila the Hun should have promised to his
>> >> generals
>> >> before the invasion of Europe, don't you think?
>> >>
>> >> "I'll make all of you and your children to be the kings of the land we
>> >> conquer, if you help me on this mission"
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I wouldn't risk my life to help Attila if such a guarantee
>> >> is
>> >> not promised.
>> >>
>> >> Sax(on) itself means growing children of offspring like sprouts in
>> >> Korean.
>> >>
>> >> Those monarchs would not have allowed anyone who do not have Hun
>> >> heritage
>> >> to
>> >> be their King. Politically, it should be obvious. Now it makes sense
>> >> how
>> >> and
>> >> why Hun and Beorna became the King of East Anglia.
>> >>
>> > It only makes sense to a moron like you who needs to believe a
>> > fantastic
>> > story to make himself feel less inferior.
>> >
>> > All you have done is engage in nonsensical speculation. You haven't
>> > provided a shred of evidence to back up any of it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Your entire case rests on your assumption that Beorna and Hun were
>> > Huns.
>> >
>> > Your view that Beorna was a Hun came from your previous misreading of
>> > the record, where you stated that the line of kings ( . . . Hun,
>> > Beorna,
>> > . . . ) meant Beorna was a Hun.
>> >
>> > Now, you agree with Jim Walsh that there was a king named Hun. But you
>> > go on to state that both he AND Beorna were Huns. Where did you get
>> > that??????????
>> >
>> > But your reason for thinking Beorna was a Hun is invalidated by your
>> > acceptance that "Hun" was actually one of the Kings, not a word used to
>> > describe Beorna's ethnicity.
>> >
>> > In other words, your own argument is inconsistent!!
>> >
>> > Please explain why you think Beorna was a Hun.
>> >
>> > I'm waiting . . . . . .
>> >
>> > Verno
>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47577 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 20:46 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jiSPm_walAMsh_iii [at] oOKperamNOail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.30.13.24.59.183488 [at] oOKperamNOail.com...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:22:40 +0000, Supertech thought carefully and wrote:
>
>> Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
>
> Germany didn't exist until the late 19th Century.
Germany was initially called Hun. I'm talking about the name of a group of
the indigenous people who lived around the same place.
>> Hun and Berona were not Huns?
>
> Nope. A Anglo-Saxon with the family name "Hun" was not a Hun.
That's why you are all morons.
There is an Italian last name called Correa.
Long time ago, there was a Korean who went to Italy and lived there, married
and had children and so forth.
Obviously these present day Correa may not look like a Korean anymore. But
threre is no doubt Correa family started from this one Korean man.
Same thing. These Saxon's got the last name from Hun because they are the
descdents of Huns. The real ancestor could be Attila the Hun or any other
Huns. Who cares?
> Love, Jim
>
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47579 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 20:57 |
|
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2dd60665c42cb898a1e2 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <QJPwe.2443$cb6.1732 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> jones2 [at] global.com says...
>> Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
>
> Details, please.
>
> Where are your references?
You said it. You are losing your mind.
>> What is this marauding horse mount army bullshit?
>
> Huns conquered much of Europe in 19 years, and as you have been so fond of
> telling us in the past, on horseback.
>
> Please explain how this was done while sitting in Germany. Did they do it
> on the Internet? Did they fly in?
> Drive across Europe on the autobahn? Take the Orient Express?
>
> Nope. None of the above. On horseback, Ed, on horseback. Millions of
> square km of land, thousands of small
> villages and tribes, all conquered, all on horseback. Quite a feat. But
> they didn't do it sitting on their asses
> in what was later to become Germany.
>
> And cite REFERENCES to back up your arguments, not your fanciful
> imagination.
>>
>> He ruled Germany while wandering around the whole Europe? He married to a
>> German princess and had a baby.
>
> Cite references.
>
> How did he "rule Germany" while conquering the whole of Europe in 19
> years, all on horseback?
>
> REFERENCES, moron, REFERENCES. Where do you get your information?
>
> (REFERENCES, ED, REFERENCES! What makes Mongolian Supergrass so
> superior??)
>
>> Are you saying that other Hun soldiers
>> didn't have a chance to marry local girls and give birth to babies?
>> Because
>> they were constantly marauding? It takes average less than 10 minutes to
>> make a girl pregnant and 9 months to give a birth to it.
>>
>> Some married couples rarely see each other because they are working in
>> separate cities and they are still married even in today's society.
>>
>> What a fucking moron!!!!
>
> A moron is a person of extremely low intelligence with poor reasoning
> skills. That's you to a "T".
>>
>> Hun and Berona were not Huns?
>>
>> Where is the proof that they were not Huns?
>
> This is laughable!
>
> You make a claim you can't substantiate, then you say it's up to ME to
> disprove it??
>
> SNORT!
>
> That's like my claiming Beorna and Hun were Cherokee chiefs, and insisting
> that YOU prove they AREN'T. It's
> totally ridiculous!
>
> Are you sure you went to college? No self-respecting college student
> would advance the ridiculous arguments you
> have advanced about Hun and Korean superiority! You're either lying about
> going to college, or you're so
> emotionally dependent on this irrational belief in Hun superiority that
> you've lost your reason.
>>
>> The name apparently indicates they were Huns and now it's your task to
>> prove
>> they were not.
>
> Which name? Hun?
>
> Jim Walsh dealt with that quite convincingly months ago.
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.china/msg/12f86c29 af5c2e97?hl=en
>
>
>
> In addition, it's not unusual for men to choose "strong" names for male
> children in the hope the name will
> influence the child's character. So it's quite conceivable that Hun's
> father chose the name Hun hoping his son
> would grow up to be fearless, ruthless and aggressive.
>
> The other explanation -- yours -- is that the name "Hun" was chosen
> because of the child's ethnic roots.
>
> Let's evaluate your argument.
>
>
>
> To be an ethnic Hun, he must have had Hun parents.
>
> Are you with me so far?
>
>
> To have Hun parents, he must have sprung from a long line of ethnic Huns
> in Europe.
>
> Correct?
>
>
> To be from a long line of pure Huns, the Huns must not have interbred with
> other European ethnic groups -- in
> fact, at least 300 years long.
>
> Correct?
>
>
> That's 15 generations of unadulterated Hun bloodlines!
>
> Correct?
>
>
> Is that likely?
>
> Absolutely not!
I see.
Because they are watered down, a Hun with the Hun last name is not a Hun. Is
that what you are saying?
How convenient!!!!
If someone has a black ancestor, it doesn't matter how many, you morons like
to classify them as black. Is that not true?
Now, if you have a Hun in one of your ancestors, you don't classify them as
a Hun.
But I classify them as Hun. So, anyone who has a drop of a blood of Hun is a
Hun.
WHO can argue with that?
I need to find where the precious genes of my people gone to be spread out.
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47583 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 21:47 |
|
In article <w_Wwe.1125$Ox3.30 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
> Your repeated "Hun is not a Hun" nonsense was too hilarious to respond.
You don't have any logical comeback.
We are witnessing the retreat of stupidtech behind a cloak of feigned
humour.
This is how the Hun acquits himself!
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!
You should kill me just by looking at me!
BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
>
> You are making a joke of yourself.
This is unusually perceptive of you. Yes, I am making a joke, but the
joke is on you, and it has been for months.
>
> I think you are suffering from a Parkinson's disease.
> Or some kind of a
> mental disorder.
>
Projection, dear stupidtech. Projection.
"Projection is a primitive defense mechanism, seen especially in
paranoid individuals who resist or refuse to recognize that qualities,
feelings or wishes emanate from themselves, attributing them to someone
or something else instead."
BWAAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAHAAAAAA!
http://www.parkhurstexchange.com/qa/A.php?q=/qa/Psychiatry/2 004-04-20.qa
Keep on projecting, stupidtech. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for you
to make your first logical argument.
Verno
--
"BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
(The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical
speculators.)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47585 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 22:03 |
|
In article <%5Xwe.1127$Ox3.699 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
>
>
>
> "Jim Walsh" <jiSPm_walAMsh_iii [at] oOKperamNOail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.06.30.13.24.59.183488 [at] oOKperamNOail.com...
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:22:40 +0000, Supertech thought carefully and wrote:
> >
> >> Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
> >
> > Germany didn't exist until the late 19th Century.
>
> Germany was initially called Hun. I'm talking about the name of a group of
> the indigenous people who lived around the same place.
>
>
> >> Hun and Berona were not Huns?
> >
> > Nope. A Anglo-Saxon with the family name "Hun" was not a Hun.
>
> That's why you are all morons.
>
> There is an Italian last name called Correa.
>
> Long time ago, there was a Korean who went to Italy and lived there, married
> and had children and so forth.
>
> Obviously these present day Correa may not look like a Korean anymore. But
> threre is no doubt Correa family started from this one Korean man.
Yes, obviously.
But then, I like to find REFERENCES for statements I make.
Let's see what the references tell us.
Hmmmmmmm. They say that Correa is a Spanish name known from the early
1500s in the Spanish region of Castile. It means "strap" or "leather
strap".
So, do you think this guy from Korea moved to Italy in the 1500s, then
went on vacation to Castile, somehow creating the word in Italian? Or
maybe in Spanish?
And so forth?
Please explain.
THERE IS NO DOUBT? THERE IS NO DOUBT????? BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAAHAAAAA!
What a fucking MORON you are! You're too stupid to even GOOGLE before
you post something like this!
But then, there is no doubt.
BWAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAA!
Verno
--
"BEORNA! BEORNA! BEORNA!"
(The battle cry of Supertech, Hun "king" of the nonsensical speculators.)
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47589 ] |
Do, 30 Juni 2005 22:20 |
|
In article <9gXwe.1131$Ox3.1062 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
[at] global.com says...
>
> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d2dd60665c42cb898a1e2 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <QJPwe.2443$cb6.1732 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> > jones2 [at] global.com says...
> >> Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
> >
> > Details, please.
> >
> > Where are your references?
>
>
> You said it. You are losing your mind.
And you just lied . . . again.
>
>
> >> What is this marauding horse mount army bullshit?
> >
> > Huns conquered much of Europe in 19 years, and as you have been so fond of
> > telling us in the past, on horseback.
> >
> > Please explain how this was done while sitting in Germany. Did they do it
> > on the Internet? Did they fly in?
> > Drive across Europe on the autobahn? Take the Orient Express?
> >
> > Nope. None of the above. On horseback, Ed, on horseback. Millions of
> > square km of land, thousands of small
> > villages and tribes, all conquered, all on horseback. Quite a feat. But
> > they didn't do it sitting on their asses
> > in what was later to become Germany.
> >
> > And cite REFERENCES to back up your arguments, not your fanciful
> > imagination.
> >>
> >> He ruled Germany while wandering around the whole Europe? He married to a
> >> German princess and had a baby.
> >
> > Cite references.
> >
> > How did he "rule Germany" while conquering the whole of Europe in 19
> > years, all on horseback?
> >
> > REFERENCES, moron, REFERENCES. Where do you get your information?
> >
> > (REFERENCES, ED, REFERENCES! What makes Mongolian Supergrass so
> > superior??)
> >
> >> Are you saying that other Hun soldiers
> >> didn't have a chance to marry local girls and give birth to babies?
> >> Because
> >> they were constantly marauding? It takes average less than 10 minutes to
> >> make a girl pregnant and 9 months to give a birth to it.
> >>
> >> Some married couples rarely see each other because they are working in
> >> separate cities and they are still married even in today's society.
> >>
> >> What a fucking moron!!!!
> >
> > A moron is a person of extremely low intelligence with poor reasoning
> > skills. That's you to a "T".
> >>
> >> Hun and Berona were not Huns?
> >>
> >> Where is the proof that they were not Huns?
> >
> > This is laughable!
> >
> > You make a claim you can't substantiate, then you say it's up to ME to
> > disprove it??
> >
> > SNORT!
> >
> > That's like my claiming Beorna and Hun were Cherokee chiefs, and insisting
> > that YOU prove they AREN'T. It's
> > totally ridiculous!
> >
> > Are you sure you went to college? No self-respecting college student
> > would advance the ridiculous arguments you
> > have advanced about Hun and Korean superiority! You're either lying about
> > going to college, or you're so
> > emotionally dependent on this irrational belief in Hun superiority that
> > you've lost your reason.
> >>
> >> The name apparently indicates they were Huns and now it's your task to
> >> prove
> >> they were not.
> >
> > Which name? Hun?
> >
> > Jim Walsh dealt with that quite convincingly months ago.
> >
> > http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.china/msg/12f86c29 af5c2e97?hl=en
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition, it's not unusual for men to choose "strong" names for male
> > children in the hope the name will
> > influence the child's character. So it's quite conceivable that Hun's
> > father chose the name Hun hoping his son
> > would grow up to be fearless, ruthless and aggressive.
> >
> > The other explanation -- yours -- is that the name "Hun" was chosen
> > because of the child's ethnic roots.
> >
> > Let's evaluate your argument.
> >
> >
> >
> > To be an ethnic Hun, he must have had Hun parents.
> >
> > Are you with me so far?
> >
> >
> > To have Hun parents, he must have sprung from a long line of ethnic Huns
> > in Europe.
> >
> > Correct?
> >
> >
> > To be from a long line of pure Huns, the Huns must not have interbred with
> > other European ethnic groups -- in
> > fact, at least 300 years long.
> >
> > Correct?
> >
> >
> > That's 15 generations of unadulterated Hun bloodlines!
> >
> > Correct?
> >
> >
> > Is that likely?
> >
> > Absolutely not!
>
>
> I see.
>
> Because they are watered down, a Hun with the Hun last name is not a Hun. Is
> that what you are saying?
No. I am saying two things.
Please put your finger under the words on the screen to follow the
sentence and read aloud so you'll understand.
1. There is no evidence the minor King of East Anglia named "Hun" was
actually an ethnic Hun. Only your nonsensical speculation.
2. Even if he did have Hun ancestors, the Hun genes in his genetic
makeup were such a tiny percentage of the total that they were
inconsequential.
Huns were a non-entity in Britain. And Europe.
But then, you're the guy who said the name Correa (which you erroneously
said is Italian, when it's actually Spanish) was brought to Italy by a
Korean, who "married, had children, and so forth". OBVIOUSLY, you said.
What is OBVIOUS to you turns out to be FALSE most of the time because
you're an idiot.
>
> How convenient!!!!
Correa. OBVIOUS? BWAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAA!
>
> If someone has a black ancestor, it doesn't matter how many, you morons like
> to classify them as black. Is that not true?
No, it is not true. But thanks for asking.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAAAAAA!
>
> Now, if you have a Hun in one of your ancestors, you don't classify them as
> a Hun.
Correct.
>
> But I classify them as Hun.
OBVIOUSLY! But WRONG.
(hint: As obvious as Correa!)
> So, anyone who has a drop of a blood of Hun is a
> Hun.
That is an argument advanced by racist morons, moron.
Watered down, Ed. Watered . . . . down . . . down . . . . down.
>
> WHO can argue with that?
Anyone whose IQ scores above Koko the Gorilla. Which yours doesn't.
>
> I need to find where the precious genes of my people gone to be spread out.
>
You need to find where the brainpower you inherited has been squandered.
CORREA! OBVIOUSLY!
BWAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAHAAA!
Verno
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47602 ] |
Fr, 01 Juli 2005 02:41 |
|
I KNOW a direct decendant of atilla the hun from eastern europe, living
in new york. By no means "pure" but only through recent marriages.
There are plenty of non-slavic races that lived and maintained SEPERATE
identitys from slavic and other races for centurys and still continue
to do so. Know any gypsys? They are ALL OVER. They keep to
themselves. They probably practice intermarriage bordering perhaps on
ritual marriage rites. There were plenty of people that lived off the
reputation of huns and mongols and other races for one simple fact. To
keep people off their backs. Living off a progeners reputation, wow
thats a new thing.
Dilution? Caste rules say that the caste comes from the MALE line.
Recent genetic evidence proves this. A man of high caste can take a
lower caste wife (but usually not a blonde or redhaired wife as they
were taboo) and the childs caste is determined by the father. Forget
blood %'s. The huns were driven from asia by other hun/mongol type
races. This did not mean they were weak. The ordos and black cathay
were feared because of their magic/shamanism not by no means inferior
or superior in fact probably equal. Mongols today fear LIGHTNING as an
ancient throwback to this fack. Before the advent of fire and its
worship was lightning.
Try and imagine what atilla was scared of and ask yourself if that
power still exists to be evoked and channeled.
The three cultural traits that have seldom been changed are: seperate
identification, trancendental identification (spirit/shamnistic family
vs. generational/nuclear family), rejection of external dogma, and
resistance of forien influences. Mostly customs. Nomadic warrior
people indeed incorporated other cultures but this was probably a flaw
in tactics. The chinese took an opposite stance with zenophobia.
Neither is the best interpretation. Yet its up to the individual.
Atilla said: "We can be better than the romans, better than the greeks"
We have our own science, our own math, or own religon. What use do we
have for these garbage laws of god, man and science? Spurious notions
of modern primitives. Pathetic creatures.
A physicist rejects ideas on the basis of clashes with what he
understands as natural law. The same thing occurs and one can live
within societys and cultures and systems (mathematics and music) and
not be effected by them. The difference is one is cognitive and the
other genetic. Behavioral traits that are cemented will not change.
Am I my brothers keeper? Fuck no.
Whats changed?
Scenarios... Eugenics, rDNA id cards. rDNA immigration. China could
do a rDNA survey of ethnic russians to find known markers for "hun"
genes. Those with a certain percentage are given visas. Those people
migrate or worse case scenario donate sperm/eggs to eugenics clinics.
Chinese women of high class with political connections and perhaps with
"minority markers" will be given money or incentives to have artifical
insemination.... long story short, 30 years down the road (dont really
need to anyways) there will be more "hun" and "mongolian" blood people
on earth than anyone.
Next question is if the desired behavioral traits will have passed on
or brought out. You remember also that those cultures that practice
backbreeding a accessory from horsebreeding are more often than not
exogamic. Behavioral traits are the most obvious outcome of
backbreeding. Hit your books, stop looking at the outside. The bible
says: The decendants of cain are the masters of camoflage.
You cant fight an enemy you cant see. We are the hidden, the dark, the
shadow people. The decendants of cain. Children of the serpent and
well will spread and encompass the world like a cancer.
And there is nothing you can do about it. Those that control the past,
control the living present and therefore the future. You already know
the future by knowing the past. What more needs to be said?
Now, get me some coffee boy.
ordosclan [at] gmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #47649 ] |
Fr, 01 Juli 2005 10:10 |
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:46:19 +0000, Supertech thought carefully and wrote:
>
> "Jim Walsh" <jiSPm_walAMsh_iii [at] oOKperamNOail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.06.30.13.24.59.183488 [at] oOKperamNOail.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:22:40 +0000, Supertech thought carefully and
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
>>
>> Germany didn't exist until the late 19th Century.
>
> Germany was initially called Hun. I'm talking about the name of a group
> of the indigenous people who lived around the same place.
Nah. I have never seen a country called Hun on any map.
>>> Hun and Berona were not Huns?
>>
>> Nope. A Anglo-Saxon with the family name "Hun" was not a Hun.
>
> That's why you are all morons.
>
> There is an Italian last name called Correa.
>
> Long time ago, there was a Korean who went to Italy and lived there,
> married and had children and so forth.
OK. I get it. You are a troll. I will add you to my bozo file.
--
Love, Jim
|
|
|
| Re: Sensational Korean trend culture, Han ryu [message #48023 ] |
Fr, 01 Juli 2005 12:03 |
|
It seems like "watered down" argument is your last resort to avoid the
embarrassing fact that Hun became the King of East Anglia.
But Saxon's are nothing more than the seven monarchs initially formed by the
seven different Generals of Attila the Hun.
But they were all watered down according to your argument. So, there is no
more Hun shape or genetic effect on the existing group of English people.
Right?
I can tell that you have no basic knowledge of genetics. Zero.
Genes do not get watered down, moron. They propagate actively and change the
existing genes.
For example, Monsanto developed insect resistant crop genes and have them
planted in the field and they noticed that the neighboring farmers already
got their crops changed into the insect resistant one within a year.
They found out that the neighboring crop genes have completely changed into
the insect resistant ones.
Monsanto is suing the neighboring farmers to collect the loyalty for the
(inadvertent service of)gene improvement of the neighborhood crops.
There is no such thing as "watered down" in genetics, moron. New genes
change the existing genes permanently.
So much for your moronic "watered down" theory.
As I already told you before, the difference between Irish and English
people is that English people had this gene improvement treatment done by
the superior Huns.
That's why English has dominated Irish all through out the history. English
people are Hun-Caucasian hybrid as the same goes to Germans.
It all started from my statement that John Lennon is a Hun., which is the
truth.
I'm telling you John Lennon is a Hun-Caucasian hybrid with stronger Hun
genes compared to a lot of other English people. I don't have to tell you
where his charismatic intelligence has come from.
People can tell how their family members are supposedly look like.
I heard this repeatedly from many different ethnic groups of people.
"Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2df444b090865b98a1e5 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <9gXwe.1131$Ox3.1062 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, jones2
> [at] global.com says...
>>
>> "Vernon North" <verno [at] oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d2dd60665c42cb898a1e2 [at] shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <QJPwe.2443$cb6.1732 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
>> > jones2 [at] global.com says...
>> >> Attila the Hun ruled Germany 16 years before he died.
>> >
>> > Details, please.
>> >
>> > Where are your references?
>>
>>
>> You said it. You are losing your mind.
>
> And you just lied . . . again.
>>
>>
>> >> What is this marauding horse mount army bullshit?
>> >
>> > Huns conquered much of Europe in 19 years, and as you have been so fond
>> > of
>> > telling us in the past, on horseback.
>> >
>> > Please explain how this was done while sitting in Germany. Did they do
>> > it
>> > on the Internet? Did they fly in?
>> > Drive across Europe on the autobahn? Take the Orient Express?
>> >
>> > Nope. None of the above. On horseback, Ed, on horseback. Millions of
>> > square km of land, thousands of small
>> > villages and tribes, all conquered, all on horseback. Quite a feat.
>> > But
>> > they didn't do it sitting on their asses
>> > in what was later to become Germany.
>> >
>> > And cite REFERENCES to back up your arguments, not your fanciful
>> > imagination.
>> >>
>> >> He ruled Germany while wandering around the whole Europe? He married
>> >> to a
>> >> German princess and had a baby.
>> >
>> > Cite references.
>> >
>> > How did he "rule Germany" while conquering the whole of Europe in 19
>> > years, all on horseback?
>> >
>> > REFERENCES, moron, REFERENCES. Where do you get your information?
>> >
>> > (REFERENCES, ED, REFERENCES! What makes Mongolian Supergrass so
>> > superior??)
>> >
>> >> Are you saying that other Hun soldiers
>> >> didn't have a chance to marry local girls and give birth to babies?
>> >> Because
>> >> they were constantly marauding? It takes average less than 10 minutes
>> >> to
>> >> make a girl pregnant and 9 months to give a birth to it.
>> >>
>> >> Some married couples rarely see each other because they are working in
>> >> separate cities and they are still married even in today's society.
>> >>
>> >> What a fucking moron!!!!
>> >
>> > A moron is a person of extremely low intelligence with poor reasoning
>> > skills. That's you to a "T".
>> >>
>> >> Hun and Berona were not Huns?
>> >>
>> >> Where is the proof that they were not Huns?
>> >
>> > This is laughable!
>> >
>> > You make a claim you can't substantiate, then you say it's up to ME to
>> > disprove it??
>> >
>> > SNORT!
>> >
>> > That's like my claiming Beorna and Hun were Cherokee chiefs, and
>> > insisting
>> > that YOU prove they AREN'T. It's
>> > totally ridiculous!
>> >
>> > Are you sure you went to college? No self-respecting college student
>> > would advance the ridiculous arguments you
>> > have advanced about Hun and Korean superiority! You're either lying
>> > about
>> > going to college, or you're so
>> > emotionally dependent on this irrational belief in Hun superiority that
>> > you've lost your reason.
>> >>
>> >> The name apparently indicates they were Huns and now it's your task to
>> >> prove
>> >> they were not.
>> >
>> > Which name? Hun?
>> >
>> > Jim Walsh dealt with that quite convincingly months ago.
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.china/msg/12f86c29 af5c2e97?hl=en
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In addition, it's not unusual for men to choose "strong" names for male
>> > children in the hope the name will
>> > influence the child's character. So it's quite conceivable that Hun's
>> > father chose the name Hun hoping his son
>> > would grow up to be fearless, ruthless and aggressive.
>> >
>> > The other explanation -- yours -- is that the name "Hun" was chosen
>> > because of the child's ethnic roots.
>> >
>> > Let's evaluate your argument.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To be an ethnic Hun, he must have had Hun parents.
>> >
>> > Are you with me so far?
>> >
>> >
>> > To have Hun parents, he must have sprung from a long line of ethnic
>> > Huns
>> > in Europe.
>> >
>> > Correct?
>> >
>> >
>> > To be from a long line of pure Huns, the Huns must not have interbred
>> > with
>> > other European ethnic groups -- in
>> > fact, at least 300 years long.
>> >
>> > Correct?
>> >
>> >
>> > That's 15 generations of unadulterated Hun bloodlines!
>> >
>> > Correct?
>> >
>> >
>> > Is that likely?
>> >
>> > Absolutely not!
>>
>>
>> I see.
>>
>> Because they are watered down, a Hun with the Hun last name is not a Hun.
>> Is
>> that what you are saying?
>
> No. I am saying two things.
>
> Please put your finger under the words on the screen to follow the
> sentence and read aloud so you'll understand.
>
> 1. There is no evidence the minor King of East Anglia named "Hun" was
> actually an ethnic Hun. Only your nonsensical speculation.
>
> 2. Even if he did have Hun ancestors, the Hun genes in his genetic
> makeup were such a tiny percentage of the total that they were
> inconsequential.
>
> Huns were a non-entity in Britain. And Europe.
>
> But then, you're the guy who said the name Correa (which you erroneously
> said is Italian, when it's actually Spanish) was brought to Italy by a
> Korean, who "married, had children, and so forth". OBVIOUSLY, you said.
>
> What is OBVIOUS to you turns out to be FALSE most of the time because
> you're an idiot.
>>
>> How convenient!!!!
>
> Correa. OBVIOUS? BWAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAA!
>>
>> If someone has a black ancestor, it doesn't matter how many, you morons
>> like
>> to classify them as black. Is that not true?
>
> No, it is not true. But thanks for asking.
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAAAAAA!
>>
>> Now, if you have a Hun in one of your ancestors, you don't classify them
>> as
>> a Hun.
>
> Correct.
>>
>> But I classify them as Hun.
>
> OBVIOUSLY! But WRONG.
>
> (hint: As obvious as Correa!)
>
>> So, anyone who has a drop of a blood of Hun is a
>> Hun.
>
> That is an argument advanced by racist morons, moron.
>
> Watered down, Ed. Watered . . . . down . . . down . . . . down.
>>
>> WHO can argue with that?
>
> Anyone whose IQ scores above Koko the Gorilla. Which yours doesn't.
>>
>> I need to find where the precious genes of my people gone to be spread
>> out.
>>
> You need to find where the brainpower you inherited has been squandered.
>
> CORREA! OBVIOUSLY!
>
> BWAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAHAAA!
>
> Verno
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mo Feb 6 13:19:19 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,20618 Sekunden |
