Boudicca

[Digit]

Knowledge has a shelf life now ?

No. Darwin is as correct now as he ever was, but opinions have a shelf life, and whereas I can quote modern day acedemic support for Darwin how about some support for your statement from somebody with a pulse?

Roy.

[uniface]

There are times when I suspect you must have been born with an Auto-Quibble feature, and the contact's stuck on it.

[Digit]

I take it you're short of a suitable supporter?

(I wonder if the demonstrable genetic component of intelligence will ever be RE-acknowleged ?)

You mean like the German Jewish population was about 5 percent pre-Hitler and gained 25 per cent of the Nobels?

Roy.

[uniface]

There's another button stuck down . . .

[Digit]

And another fact for you to ignore. At the time of your mentor's writings science was still supporting the Aether, Phrenology, Cold Blooded Dinosaurs, Neaderthal the ape man, the Static Universe and a planet a few thousand years old.
Science has moved on Uni, time to update!
This might help you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

Roy.

[uniface]

An uncanny anticipation on your part, Digit. Possibly psychic, even.

I had been weighing the idea of pointing out that "discussions" that were only re-hashes of talking points copped off sites like that were of perishingly little interest, and wondering if you'd any thoughts of your own that weren't regurgitations of standard, concensus views with footnotes and references to prove that it was officially OK to think them.

Something -- anything -- at variance with Brave New World herd-think orthodoxy. Something like re-inventing a wheel of your own rather than assembling one from a kit with pre-shaped parts.

As it seems on this end, eating that kind of mental sawdust undoubtedly provides a sense of activity, has a distinct flavor, and generates a sense of being full. But the nutritional value of it is nil.

(Then again, maybe consuming nearly pure fibre like that helps keep people "regular" ?)

[uniface]

Drat. Another mixed metaphor.

[Digit]

And once again, as per normal, you offer not one shred of evidence in support of you views.
If you care to check back on some of your earlier posts you will find that on each and every occasion that I have challenged your views anything, you simply fall back on personal remarks, as now. Which BTW have no effect on me at all as I take it as an admission that you have run out of anything sensible to say.
You have NOT ONCE posted any modern sienctific view in support of your views, simply throwing them aside as the 'herd reaction'.
It appears to me that if science were to suddenly support your wierd ideas you would have to reject them as suddenly inaccurate as they represent the modern 'concensus'.
But of course you could very easily prove me wrong and produce some evidence in support of ANYTHING you have claimed over the months.
I wait with great anticipation, and little hope!
Oh, and BTW, the reports you posted WERE the consensus back in the 19C!

Roy.

[uniface]

Mr. Digit, look back through some old standard texts on nearly any topic except maths & physics, at 20 years intervals. They were making most of it up as they went along. And citing each other for support. I don't mean little details that weren't accessible with the equipment they had. Big picture generalities.

They're still doing that. And politics is in the drivers' seat of it.

I've used up my quibble-tolerance for this week.

The chapter I linked to (1923 -- as if insight goes out of date) contains considerable food for thought.

Cheers & Regards

[Digit]

They were making most of it up as they went along.

Yet another generalisation without any evidence offered in support.

Roy.

[Ishtar]

Ahem .... anyway, I hate to interrupt the squabbling and hair pulling ... but back to King Arthur and Lucius Artorius Castus and ...

I wonder how many guys at that time had Artorius as middle name?

With Roman names the so-called "middle name" actually designates the gens or family name. So there may have been scads of guys named "Lucius" but probably not many named Artorius.

But there would have been scads of those with the middle name of Artorius among the gens of the military Artorii. From your own link, Min:

The Artorii were an equestrian class gens, "family," who, based on the evidence from ancient inscriptions, had a very specific geographic distribution.8 Whatever the clan's origins, the family developed a proud tradition of military and civil service within the Roman Empire. The core branch of the family, the one that left dozens of inscriptions all over the city of Rome itself--and one at Pompeii--dwelt in Campania.9 It is this branch into which Lucius Artorius Castus was born.

What you Americans need to understand is that the Celts and the Romans were bitter enemies. So the Celts are as much likely to hero worship this Roman soldier as (without wishing to set uniface off again) the Jews are to hero worship Hitler. Added to that, as I said, there is not one single fact known about Lucius Artorius Castus's life that matches any plot line in the stories of Arthur. Not one.

[Minimalist]

Your making an assumption that it was a big family, Ish. We have evidence of one guy who, BTW (in case you missed it) was a real live military commander in Britain. Now, I know you'd prefer to assign everything to mythology but it does seem that this guy was real.

And, of course, we have no evidence from the Roman world of the name of a famed commander becoming a title ( hint: Caesar)

No one would have given a rat's ass what the Celts wanted. The Britons were fully Romanized and when the legions left they were apparently quite sad to see them go.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Your making an assumption that it was a big family, Ish. We have evidence of one guy who, BTW (in case you missed it) was a real live military commander in Britain. Now, I know you'd prefer to assign everything to mythology but it does seem that this guy was real.

And, of course, we have no evidence from the Roman world of the name of a famed commander becoming a title ( hint: Caesar)

No one would have given a rat's ass what the Celts wanted. The Britons were fully Romanized and when the legions left they were apparently quite sad to see them go.

As I understand it the Britons – especially the Roman empire's loyal 'Special Forces', Artorius e.a., a band of non-Roman born but acquired Roman citizenship 'ninjas', felt betrayed, stabbed in the back by the retreating Romans in the face of the advancing Saxon hordes that were razing, raping and pillaging England and Scotland.
Phew!
So they rebelled, and joined forces with the Celts and possibly fought many (bloody?) rearguard actions against the Saxons before retreating into remote Cornwall. To be eventually assimilated in the general English/Celtic/Saxon/Jute/Norse/Swedish/Baltic/Norman melting pot populace anyway and thus fade into oblivion. A.k.a. legend.

After the Angels and the Saxons, the Jutes, the Norsemen, the Baltic Vikings, and William the Conqueror came knocking, so compared to that the Dark Ages and the tales of Artorius seemed more and more like the good old times...

[Minimalist]

Artorius was dead for 200 years prior to the Roman withdrawal from Britain.

Due to Constantine's down grading of the legions most were little more than border guards anyway and simply melted away when Roman administration was removed.

[Digit]

In the 'original' Arthurian stories, as told in the Mabinogion, the period is described as a time of great unrest and social upheavel. It speaks of cold wet summers when crops fail and the people are reduced to eating the dead.
The descriptions of the weather suggests that the time period was the 6th C when, IIRC, Iceland was experiencing a major period of vulcanism.

Roy.