From Max Mueller's lectures on the science of language delivered at
the Royal Institution of Great Britain in April May and June 1961:

start quote:

Another Scotch philosopher, Dugald Stewart, was much less inclined to
yield such ready submission. No doubt it must have required a
considerable effort for a man brought up in the belief that Greek and
Latin were either aboriginal languages, or modifications of Hebrew, to
bring himself to acquiese in the revolutionary doctrine that the
classical languages were intimately related to a jargon of mere
savages; for such all the subjects of the Great Mogul were then
supposed to be. However, if the facts about Sanskrit were true, Dugald
Steward was too wise not to see that the conclusions drawn from them
were inevitable. He therefore denied the reality of such a language as
Sanskrit altogether, and wrote his famous essay to prove that Sanskrit
had been put together, after the model of Greek and Latin, by those
arch-forgers and liars the Brahmans, and that the whole of Sanskrit
literature was an imposition. I mention this fact, because it shows,
better than anything else, how violent a shock was given by the
discovery of Sanskrit to prejudices most deeply engrained in the mind
of every educated man. The most absurd arguments found favour for a
time, if they could only furnish a loophole by which to escape from
the unpleasant conclusion that Greek and Latin were of the same kith
and kin as the language of the black inhabitants of India. The first
who dared boldly to face both the facts and the conclusions of
Sanskrit scholarship was the German poet, Frederick Schlegel. He had
been in England during the peace of Amiens (1801—1802), and had

learned a smattering of Sanskrit from Mr. Alexander Hamilton. After
carrying on his studies for some time at Paris, he published, in 1808,
his work, "On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians." This work
became the foundation of the science of language. Though published
only two years after the first volume of Adelung's " Mithridates," it
is separated from that work by the same distance which separates the
Copernican from the Ptolemaean system. Schlegel was not a great
scholar. Many of his statements have proved erroneous ; and nothing
would be easier than to dissect his essay and hold it up to ridicule.
But Schlegel was a man of genius ; and when a new science is to be
created, the imagination of the poet is wanted, even more than the
accuracy of the scholar. It surely required somewhat of poetic vision
to embrace with one glance the languages of India, Persia, Greece,
Italy, and Germany, and to rivet them together by the simple name of
Indo-Germanic. This was Schlegel's work ; and in the history of the
intellect, it has truly been called " the discovery of a new world."

end quote.


The same racism - much subtler but nevertheless deeply condemnable
(self-hate in the case of Indian subscribers to PIE theory) continues
to this day - to "derive" Sanskrit from something else through
mechanistic processes.

On Feb 6, 9:50*am, "analys...*hotmail.com" <analys...*hotmail.com>
wrote:
> From Max Mueller's lectures on the science of language delivered at
> the Royal Institution of Great Britain in April May and June 1961:

You're off by 100 years, you incompetent nutcase.

analyst41*hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> The same racism - much subtler but nevertheless deeply condemnable
> (self-hate in the case of Indian subscribers to PIE theory) continues
> to this day - to "derive" Sanskrit from something else through
> mechanistic processes.

The racism lies, if anywhere, in your insistence that Sanskrit is
primordial because it appeals to your ethnic pride despite its lack of
support by the data.

On Feb 6, 4:50*pm, "analys...*hotmail.com" <analys...*hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> The same racism - much subtler but nevertheless deeply condemnable
> (self-hate in the case of Indian subscribers to PIE theory) continues
> to this day - to "derive" Sanskrit from something else through
> mechanistic processes.

All natural human languages derive from earlier languages through
mechanistic processes. Whoever suggests that Sanskrit is different is
suggesting that Sanskrit, or its speakers, are inhuman. Now *this* is
racism, if anything.

analyst41*hotmail.com:

> From Max Mueller's lectures on the science of language delivered at
> the Royal Institution of Great Britain in April May and June 1961:
>
> start quote:
>
> Another Scotch philosopher, Dugald Stewart, was much less inclined to
> yield such ready submission. No doubt it must have required a
> considerable effort for a man brought up in the belief that Greek and
> Latin were either aboriginal languages, or modifications of Hebrew, to
> bring himself to acquiese in the revolutionary doctrine that the
> classical languages were intimately related to a jargon of mere
> savages; for such all the subjects of the Great Mogul were then
> supposed to be. However, if the facts about Sanskrit were true, Dugald
> Steward was too wise not to see that the conclusions drawn from them
> were inevitable. He therefore denied the reality of such a language as
> Sanskrit altogether, and wrote his famous essay to prove that Sanskrit
> had been put together, after the model of Greek and Latin, by those
> arch-forgers and liars the Brahmans, and that the whole of Sanskrit
> literature was an imposition. I mention this fact, because it shows,
> better than anything else, how violent a shock was given by the
> discovery of Sanskrit to prejudices most deeply engrained in the mind
> of every educated man. The most absurd arguments found favour for a
> time, if they could only furnish a loophole by which to escape from
> the unpleasant conclusion that Greek and Latin were of the same kith
> and kin as the language of the black inhabitants of India. The first
> who dared boldly to face both the facts and the conclusions of
> Sanskrit scholarship was the German poet, Frederick Schlegel. He had
> been in England during the peace of Amiens (1801—1802), and had
>
> learned a smattering of Sanskrit from Mr. Alexander Hamilton. After
> carrying on his studies for some time at Paris, he published, in 1808,
> his work, "On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians." This work
> became the foundation of the science of language. Though published
> only two years after the first volume of Adelung's " Mithridates," it
> is separated from that work by the same distance which separates the
> Copernican from the Ptolemaean system. Schlegel was not a great
> scholar. Many of his statements have proved erroneous ; and nothing
> would be easier than to dissect his essay and hold it up to ridicule.
> But Schlegel was a man of genius ; and when a new science is to be
> created, the imagination of the poet is wanted, even more than the
> accuracy of the scholar. It surely required somewhat of poetic vision
> to embrace with one glance the languages of India, Persia, Greece,
> Italy, and Germany, and to rivet them together by the simple name of
> Indo-Germanic. This was Schlegel's work ; and in the history of the
> intellect, it has truly been called " the discovery of a new world."
>
> end quote.
>
>
> The same racism - much subtler but nevertheless deeply condemnable
> (self-hate in the case of Indian subscribers to PIE theory) continues
> to this day - to "derive" Sanskrit from something else through
> mechanistic processes.

What racism? The speaker is ridiculing the pre-Schlegel racist prejudice
against Indians as 'savages' and Brahmins as 'arch-forgers and liars'
that had prevented Western scholars from acknowledging an Indo-European
language family.

We may conclude that he hadn't encountered modern Indian nationalists.

--
Trond Engen

Trond Engen:

> analyst41*hotmail.com:
>
>> The same racism - much subtler but nevertheless deeply condemnable
>> (self-hate in the case of Indian subscribers to PIE theory) continues
>> to this day - to "derive" Sanskrit from something else through
>> mechanistic processes.
>
> What racism? The speaker is ridiculing the pre-Schlegel racist prejudice
> against Indians as 'savages' and Brahmins as 'arch-forgers and liars'
> that had prevented Western scholars from acknowledging an Indo-European
> language family.

Hm. This could possibly be read both ways. Intended meaning: "the
pre-Schlegel racist prejudice [...] that had prevented Western scholars
from acknowledging"

> We may conclude that he hadn't encountered modern Indian nationalists.

But then again, one shouldn't let prejudice come in the way of
acknowledging the relationship between the Indian and the diverse
European brands of nationalism.

--
Trond Engen

in article <c487bac9-ac52-4462-8794-6a112ddc0010*o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
analyst41*hotmail.com <analyst41*hotmail.com> wrote:

|From Max Mueller's lectures on the science of language delivered at
|the Royal Institution of Great Britain in April May and June 1961:
|
|start quote:
|
|Another Scotch philosopher, Dugald Stewart, was much less inclined to
|yield such ready submission. No doubt it must have required a
|considerable effort for a man brought up in the belief that Greek and
|Latin were either aboriginal languages, or modifications of Hebrew,
|to bring himself to acquiese in the revolutionary doctrine that the
|classical languages were intimately related to a jargon of mere
|savages; for such all the subjects of the Great Mogul were then
|supposed to be.

are you beginning to get it yet? your racist rejection of the
evidence for proto-indo-european is just a mirror-image duplication of
that of like-minded morons who came before you.

obviously you should seek out europeans who are revolted by any
suggestion of a common heritage with indians and form an alliance with
them.


--


jdolan*math.ucr.edu

On Feb 6, 4:10*pm, jdo...*math.UUCP (James Dolan) wrote:
> in article <c487bac9-ac52-4462-8794-6a112ddc0...*o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>


> evidence for proto-indo-european

There is none. There is a plethora of alleged laws, but none of them
is without exceptions, most are hedged with "most linguists agree"
etc.

> jdo...*math.ucr.edu

On Feb 7, 3:50*am, "analys...*hotmail.com" <analys...*hotmail.com>
wrote:
> From Max Mueller's lectures on the science of language delivered at
> the Royal Institution of Great Britain in April May and June 1961:
>
> start quote:
>
> Another Scotch philosopher, Dugald Stewart, was much less inclined to
> yield such ready submission. No doubt it must have required a
> considerable effort for a man brought up in the belief that Greek and
> Latin were either aboriginal languages, or modifications of Hebrew, to
> bring himself to acquiese in the revolutionary doctrine that the
> classical languages were intimately related to a jargon of mere
> savages; for such all the subjects of the Great Mogul were then
> supposed to be. However, if the facts about Sanskrit were true, Dugald
> Steward was too wise not to see that the conclusions drawn from them
> were inevitable. He therefore denied the reality of such a language as
> Sanskrit altogether, and wrote his famous essay to prove that Sanskrit
> had been put together, after the model of Greek and Latin, by those
> arch-forgers and liars the Brahmans, and that the whole of Sanskrit
> literature was an imposition. I mention this fact, because it shows,
> better than anything else, how violent a shock was given by the
> discovery of Sanskrit to prejudices most deeply engrained in the mind
> of every educated man. The most absurd arguments found favour for a
> time, if they could only furnish a loophole by which to escape from
> the unpleasant conclusion that Greek and Latin were of the same kith
> and kin as the language of the black inhabitants of India. The first
> who dared boldly to face both the facts and the conclusions of
> Sanskrit scholarship was the German poet, Frederick Schlegel. He had
> been in England during the peace of Amiens (1801—1802), and had
>
> learned a smattering of Sanskrit from Mr. Alexander Hamilton. After
> carrying on his studies for some time at Paris, he published, in 1808,
> his work, "On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians." This work
> became the foundation of the science of language. Though published
> only two years after the first volume of Adelung's " Mithridates," it
> is separated from that work by the same distance which separates the
> Copernican from the Ptolemaean system. Schlegel was not a great
> scholar. Many of his statements have proved erroneous ; and nothing
> would be easier than to dissect his essay and hold it up to ridicule.
> But Schlegel was a man of genius ; and when a new science is to be
> created, the imagination of the poet is wanted, even more than the
> accuracy of the scholar. It surely required somewhat of poetic vision
> to embrace with one glance the languages of India, Persia, Greece,
> Italy, and Germany, and to rivet them together by the simple name of
> Indo-Germanic. This was Schlegel's work ; and in the history of the
> intellect, it has truly been called " the discovery of a new world."
>
> end quote.
>
> The same racism - much subtler but nevertheless deeply condemnable
> (self-hate in the case of Indian subscribers to PIE theory) continues
> to this day - to "derive" Sanskrit from something else through
> mechanistic processes.

Well, you've summed it up quite well in this last paragraph. You will
continue to see racism in IE wherever it exists, no matter what
happens. Here we're invited to see Stewart as a racist because he
couldn't accept the idea of Sanskrit being related to European
languages. Yet Jones and the others who insisted that it _was_ so
related -- why they're racists too, according to you! OK, we'll just
take it as a constant of your world view. You'll continue to use it as
a term of abuse but there's no point in arguing with you.

Ross Clark

analyst41*hotmail.com:

> On Feb 6, 4:10 pm, jdo...*math.UUCP (James Dolan) wrote:
>
>> evidence for proto-indo-european
>
> There is none. There is a plethora of alleged laws, but none of them
> is without exceptions, most are hedged with "most linguists agree"
> etc.

Dodging the embarrassing point with a pretend attack, are we? But why
would anyone believe that your comprehension skills (and/or intellectual
honesty) are any better when it comes to the technicalities of
historical linguistics?

--
Trond Engen

analyst41*hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:10 pm, jdo...*math.UUCP (James Dolan) wrote:
>> in article <c487bac9-ac52-4462-8794-6a112ddc0...*o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>
>
>> evidence for proto-indo-european
>
> There is none. There is a plethora of alleged laws, but none of them
> is without exceptions, most are hedged with "most linguists agree"
> etc.

It isn't hedging, it's an observation that the argument is strong enough
that most linguists agree--whether or not a racist dunderhead like you
understands the argument enough to agree with it.

On Feb 6, 1:39*pm, "analys...*hotmail.com" <analys...*hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:10*pm, jdo...*math.UUCP (James Dolan) wrote:
>
> > in article <c487bac9-ac52-4462-8794-6a112ddc0...*o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > evidence for proto-indo-european
>
> There is none. *There is a plethora of alleged laws, but none of them
> is without exceptions, most are hedged with "most linguists agree"
> etc.
>
> > jdo...*math.ucr.edu

Why not consider internal reconstruction within Sanskrit. I haven't
looked at Sanskrit for many years but it seems to me that, at the very
least, the voiceless aspirated stops could be identified as an
innovation and all the sandhi effects reversed.

Much of the older work on IE seems to me to based on little more than
Greek and Sanskrit. I suspect, but am in no position to prove, that a
lot of this work (pre-laryngeal) is actually only internal
reconstruction of Sanskrit.

We mustn't be too hard on poor analyst who is no crazier than all our
US creationists. The difficulty I have with his theologically-based
model for the origin of Sanskrit is that he has never offered the
slightest hint about how he imagines Sanskrit was revealed. Surely he
must have some idea.

On Feb 6, 7:47*pm, Harlan Messinger
<hm.usenetremovert...*gavelcade.com> wrote:
> analys...*hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 4:10 pm, jdo...*math.UUCP (James Dolan) wrote:
> >> in article <c487bac9-ac52-4462-8794-6a112ddc0...*o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> evidence for proto-indo-european
>
> > There is none. *There is a plethora of alleged laws, but none of them
> > is without exceptions, most are hedged with "most linguists agree"
> > etc.
>
> It isn't hedging, it's an observation that the argument is strong enough
> that most linguists agree

Truth by majority consensus? - hasn't that played havoc in human
history?

I like this opinion, although in a minority of one perhaps among
Western linguists: (Caveat: I am citing a citation of excerpts from a
translation - I haven't seen the original).

start quote:

3. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (2001), Studies in General Linguistics and
Language Structure, Anatoly Liberman (Ed.), translated by Marvin
Taylor and Anatoly Liberman, Durham and London: Duke University
Press.


Determining genetic descent among languages

“It is usually supposed that, at one time, there was a single Indo-
European language, the so-called Indo-European protolanguage, from
which all historically attested Indo-European languages are presumed
to descend. This supposition is contradicted by the fact that, no
matter how far we peer back into history, we always find a multitude
of Indo-European-speaking peoples. The idea of an Indo-European
protolanguage is not absurd, but it is not necessary, and we can do
very well without it (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 87).”

“Kretschmer (1896) has rightly emphasized that the only difference
between borrowing and genetic relation is one of chronology. We
recognize as borrowings those words that entered Germanic from Celtic
or Italic and entered Slavic from Germanic only after the Germanic
sound shift [because they do not confirm to certain sound laws…Words
that had taken the same path before the sound shift, on the other
hand, are regarded as belonging to the common stock. Strictly
speaking, we ascribe to the protolanguage all elements that occur in
several branches of Indo-European and for which the direction of
borrowing can no longer be determined. [The same happens in other
language families], (Trubetzkoy 2001, pp. 87-88)”

Q: How can the IEL then determine chronology based on the genetic tree
model if the assumption of genetic descent is itself based on
chronology?

“There is therefore, no compelling reason for the assumption of a
homogeneous Indo-European protolanguage from which the individual
branches of Indo-European descended. It is equally plausible that the
ancestors of the branches of Indo-European were originally dissimilar
but that over time, through continuous contact, mutual influence, and
loan traffic, they moved significantly closer to each other, without
becoming identical (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 88).”

“But if scholars had only several semi-Romance languages like Albanian
at their disposal and applied to them the comparative method as it is
practiced in Indo-European studies, they would be obliged to
reconstruct a protolanguage for the semi-Romance group as well. In
doing so they would either have to leave the non-Romance elements
unexplained or have to explain them by means of some clever artificial
provisions in the reconstruction of the “proto-language.” The picture
would become even more complicated if history had preserved the
descendants of several groups that had begun converging but then
stopped. All of them would share some elements, and comparatives
would have to reconstruct another “protolanguage” from the common
features of their morphology and vocabulary and from the regular sound
correspondences. This protolanguage would not be particularly
difficult to reconstruct, even though it quite obviously never existed

Thus a language family can be the product of divergence, convergence
or a combination of the two (with emphasis on either). There are
virtually no criteria that would indicate unambiguously to which of
the two modes of development a family owes its existence. When we are
dealing with languages so closely related that almost all the elements
of vocabulary and morphology of each are present in all or most of the
other members (allowing for sound correspondences), it is more natural
to assume convergence than divergence (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 89).”

“Be that as it may, the Indo-European family does not consist of very
closely connected branches. Each branch possesses numerous elements
of vocabulary and morphology not matched by the others. In this
respect, Indo-European differs greatly from such families as Turkic,
Semitic and Bantu. Therefore, it is equally probable that the Indo-
European family arose when some originally non-related languages (the
ancestors of the later branches) converged and that the Indo-European
languages developed from a protolanguage by divergence.]

This possibility must always be kept in sight when the Indo-European
problem is addressed [and every statement about the problem should be
formulated so as to be valid for either assumption: divergence or
convergence.] Since only the hypothesis of a single protolanguage has
been considered until now, the discussion has landed on the wrong
track. Its primary, that is, linguistic, nature has been forgotten.
Prehistoric archaeology, anthropology, and ethnology have been brought
in without any justification. Attempts are made to describe the home,
race, and culture of a supposed Indo-European proto-people that may
never have existed. The Indo-European problem is formulated [by
modern German (and not only German) scholars] in something like the
following way: “Which type of prehistoric pottery must be ascribed to
the Indo-European people?” But scholarship is unable to answer
questions of this kind, so they are moot. Their logic is circular
because the assumption of an Indo-European protopeople with definite
cultural and racial characteristics is untenable. We are chasing a
romantic illusion instead of keeping to the one positive fact at out
disposal—that “Indo-Europeans” a purely LINGUISTIC concept (Trubetzkoy
2001, p. 90, emphasis in the original).”

“The only scientifically admissible question is, How and where
(Trubetzkoy does not say when) did the Indo-European linguistic
structure arise? And this question should and can be answered by
purely linguistic methods. The answer depends on what we mean by the
INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUSITIC STRUCTURE (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 91, emphasis
in the original, parenthesis added).”

“Languages can thus cease to be Indo-European, and they can become
Indo-European. “Indo-European” was born when all six specific
structural features mentioned above first came together in a language
whose vocabulary and morphology displayed a series of regular
correspondences with the later-attested Indo-European languages. It
is not impossible that several languages became Indo-European in this
sense at roughly the same time. [If this is true, then originally
several Indo-European languages existed in a so-called language union,
which later developed into a language family.] We can consider them
today in retrospect only as dialects of the Indo-European
protolanguage, but it is not logically necessary to trace them all
back to one common source. Only geographic contact among these oldest
Indo-European dialects may be assumed with a high degree of certainty
(Trubetzkoy 2001, pp. 93-94).”

“Thus, the area in which the oldest Indo-European dialects arose must
be situated somewhere between the areas of Finno-Ugric and the
Caucasian Mediterranean languages. [To be sure, this localization is
rather vague, the more so as we have no idea how far north the
Mediterranean language families spread in the remote past (at present
we find their representatives by the Bay of Biscay and in the northern
Caucasus).] A more precise location cannot be determined. Above all,
we must combat the prejudice that the so-called Indo-European
protolanguage occupied a narrowly defined area (Trubetzkoy 2001, p.
95).”

“[There is only one reason that linguists have always considered the
agglutinative languages inferior to the inflectional ones: they
themselves have been native speakers of the later group… I am
inclined, therefore, to think that the Indo-European linguistic
structure arose through a process of outgrowing a primitive inflecting
type, without, however, reaching the more highly developed
agglutinative type (Trubetzkoy 2001, pp. 97-98).”

end quote.

On Feb 7, 4:39*am, "analys...*hotmail.com" <analys...*hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:47*pm, Harlan Messinger
>
> <hm.usenetremovert...*gavelcade.com> wrote:
> > analys...*hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 6, 4:10 pm, jdo...*math.UUCP (James Dolan) wrote:
> > >> in article <c487bac9-ac52-4462-8794-6a112ddc0...*o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >> evidence for proto-indo-european
>
> > > There is none. *There is a plethora of alleged laws, but none of them
> > > is without exceptions, most are hedged with "most linguists agree"
> > > etc.
>
> > It isn't hedging, it's an observation that the argument is strong enough
> > that most linguists agree
>
> Truth by majority consensus? - hasn't that played havoc in human
> history?

It is what you get in science. If "most linguists agree" on something,
then, well, most linguists agree on it, and if you disagree, you have
to convince "most linguists" of the opposite.

If most scientists working in a particular field agree on some theory,
then those scientists who work in related fields will take it for
granted that you can rely on the theory. It is obvious that there will
always be some minor disagreement on details among the core group of
scientists whose work is directly related to that theory, but those
for whom the theory is just a tool will of course rely on the theory.
You cannot suspect or question every tool in your toolbox all the
time. You work with the tools available.

For instance, most mathematicians working in the field of arithmetics
agree that 2+ 2 = 4. For the rest of us, this agreement is strong
enough, so that we can in our everyday work take it for granted that 2
+ 2 = 4. However, I can imagine an enterprising mathematician who,
just for the sake of intellectual exercise, starts to work out an
alternative arithmetics where 2 + 2 = 5½. Moreover, I can imagine that
he, in this way, arrives at a new kind of mathematics which turns out
to be applicable to some very marginal and little known natural
phenomenon. This will then lead the mathematicians to say that in most
occasions 2 + 2 = 4, but in some particular occasions 2 + 2 = 5½. Most
of us will never know the difference, but for mathematicians it will
thenceforth be crucially important to remember that in some particular
occasions 2 + 2 = 5½.

As regards Trubetzkoy, he is right to remind us of the fact that our
reconstruction of PIE is certainly flawed and incomplete and does
little justice to the linguistic or dialectal diversity that must have
existed among the speakers of the language or languages that developed
into the Indo-European language family. However, this does not change
the fact that Sanskrit - if it ever was spoken - came about as a
result of "mechanistic processes" of simplification, and there was an
ancestor language for whose speakers Sanskrit would have occurred to
be a distorted, bastardized, and pidginized variety of what they
themselves spoke.

analyst41*hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:47 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hm.usenetremovert...*gavelcade.com> wrote:
>> analys...*hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 4:10 pm, jdo...*math.UUCP (James Dolan) wrote:
>>>> in article <c487bac9-ac52-4462-8794-6a112ddc0...*o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> evidence for proto-indo-european
>>> There is none. There is a plethora of alleged laws, but none of them
>>> is without exceptions, most are hedged with "most linguists agree"
>>> etc.
>> It isn't hedging, it's an observation that the argument is strong enough
>> that most linguists agree
>
> Truth by majority consensus? - hasn't that played havoc in human
> history?

Let's see if I can explain this so you can understand it. It isn't that
it's the truth because a majority agree. I am saying the evidence is
strong enough that it satisfies a majority of those who have experience
and knowledge suitable for making such an evaluation that it is the
truth. I'm not expecting that you will understand the difference. The
bottom line is that the collective judgment of experts is still more
convincing than the cherry-picking, finger-pointing, chest-pounding and
bellyaching of a bunch of barely knowledgable agenda-pushing racists
like yourself.