Re: VMs: The Gibberish Movement

["jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

well, I have  great news: using Rugg's informal logic, I  took his  article and sifted  it through the grill  - and  guess what: I'v  got VM's lookelike!  So you see, he is right, one can use any gibberish, including  his own. 

Noticing I am onto something, I took the other, completely random gibberish, used again  the same   method and guess  what? I got Rugg's lookelike article!   Now we know where he gets his  ideas!

Jan
P.S. From his modified page I noticed  he must be reading this list - so here si  looking at you,  kid!
 
 
  
  
=======  You wrote:  
>
>	Crap sells - look at all those tabloids that people keep buying. Rugg and
>these guys have simply managed to start a Gibberish Movement in scientific
>and linguistic circles to boost the lagging sales of what may have once been
>quality publications. The publishers lap this up because it is controversial
>and because they expect the insulted communities to respond with more
>material for them to publish.
>
>	Controversy can be seen as 'freedom of expression'. Everyone has a right to
>publish crap that isn't based on anything more than speculation about why
>nobody has yet figured out the puzzles. Hieroglyphics were 'meaningless' for
>a very long time as well and plenty of medieval Ruggs & Company would have
>existed along the way to denounce the Egyptian civilization as being
>literate as well.
>
>	This approach to 'solving' problems can certainly get names in the papers
>and get communities of interest a little riled up without making much of a
>case.
>
>	It's all gibberish. Anything that can't be understood by the modern
>researcher must be gibberish - now to prove it, all I have to do is say:
>'This stuff is gibberish.'
>
>Oh.. some supporting 'evidence'
>- well, there are very few artefacts to prove it was a language - so it
>can't be.
>- the character sets don't seem to translate into anything anyone can really
>decipher, especially
>if we can't all agree on how many characters there are. - so they can't
>equate to 'text-based' characters.
>- let's toss in 'magic' because readers like that word. They script is
>probably just sporadic/random
>supposedly magical characters to support a hoax or because society believed
>the symbols would protect them.
>- The Indus Gibberish Movement didn't follow Rugg's approach to show how
>they could create garbled
>nonsense by randomly writing down symbols that appear on other fragments and
>declaring 'Voila - I have proven
>how this is Gibberish'.
>- Lastly, I publish this in an 'academically' driven media and it is
>suddenly accepted as worthy of consideration. Hmmm... I can't read it,
>therefore it doesn't exist.
>
>	John.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
>Behalf Of Nick Pelling
>Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 6:57 AM
>To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: VMs: O.T.: The Indus Script--Write or Wrong? (Science)
>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>IMHO the simplest possible Indus hypothesis would be that the script is
>simply a set of competing numbering systems. Please excuse my ignorance,
>but has this been tested?
>
>Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
>unsubscribe vms-list
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
>unsubscribe vms-list

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
 



______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list