Commentary on the Greek voicemod....

Has anyone actually provided information on why they believe the pronunciation of Greek has not changed? The most I have seen is this:

Quote:

---

Eclessiastic psalms are the very same since dark ages so i assume that the ''change'' happened earlier.

---

Not that it is a bad argument per se, but it is hard to swallow. Latin is perhaps the best example of what a church can do to a language.

Languages change - Shigawire's comments on palatalization in other threads being one of the best arguments. More so, modern Greek does not use pitch accents and itacism goes against the logic of spelling.

Quote:

---

So if a modern englishman cannot speak easily modern greek, why a roman, gaul, iberian, persian wouldnt alter the sounds and adjust them to their accent?

---

Latin and Greek have many similarities and for a number of reasons. They are very closely related. Also, the Romans added letters - not just altered spelling, but added letters - to accommodate Greek words and many aristocrats learned Greek at a very young age from Greek slaves or Greek educators. For example, Caesar's teacher was from Rhodes and was allowed to address the Senate and do so in Greek.

Quote:

---

My questions are to you and if you want you reply. Why all greek populations speak D and B the same way if there was an alteration affecting only greece?
If thre was a general transformation on the pronounciation of those dipthongs when did it took place? Is there a theory why it happened?

---

Now, these questions are a bit harder to answer. As to why the changes occur in consonants, palatalization seems to be the culprit. When it happened is much more difficult, but I am sure someone knows the answer to that.

You ask why EB members react aggressively? The best answer I can give you is that we are human.

I can't speak for all EB members, but three things that get me angry more than any other thing in modding are:

- People who attack us for nothing more than attempting to follow the evidence
- People who state EB is ahistorical for following the evidence
- People who aggressively attack without provocation

In the past, in most threads on this subject, modern Greeks (not all, individuals) have met all three of these conditions. So consider this a very sore spot for us, which is why we at times react poorly to challenges here. For two years we faced constant, unfounded attacks simply because we took an objective view rather than a Greco-centric view of the evidence.

It felt like a lost cause because as far as I knew personally, the reputable scholars throughout the world had one view, and those within Greece had another. Now I come to find out that the latter is not true, and it changes my perspective on what is going on here.

I personally apologize for my behavior. Allow me to explain through an analogy. Imagine if our mod were not set in the bronze or iron age, but in the early history of China. Now imagine if you will that we are happily modding, attempting to do our best researching the primary and secondary evidence, and all of a sudden a small group of people comes along, dismisses the majority of the primary evidence, and states our mod is completely ahistorical because our mod predates the creation of the world as told in the Bible. They have plenty of arguments on behalf of the world being created only a few thousand years ago, and dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

Can you imagine how we would feel if we started being constantly attacked in this manner? We never claim to hold any absolute truth. I cannot say 100% for sure that the world existed 5000 years ago. My conclusion based on the available evidence is that it is, but someone else will come along and say that plenty of people disagree with my conclusion (true) and that I cannot 100% prove the world existed (true) and that my evidence is wrong because of a long list of reasons, each of which have logical flaws, but are restated with vehemence each time the subject is brought up.

This is my frustration with this sort of argument. The danger with arguing against ideology is that you can never win. Researching history is all about following the available evidence and drawing conclusions based on them. It is important to be objective in following this evidence lest incorrect conclusions be drawn, or evidence be given greater weight than it should simply because it supports a conclusion that someone wants to make. Historians, like other scientists, should not approach their research with a conclusion in mind. They should approach it with an open mind and allow the evidence to point them wherever it may. Thus, people with personal religious or political ties to a particular subject tend to make less effective researchers of such a subject due to those personal ties. We are all egotistical and it is only fair that our own feelings will interfere with any objectivity we may have.

So here we have someone who comes along and challenges our metaphorical old planet. Someone who wants an honest debate about the planet's age, and can't understand why we would feel as though we should dismiss arguments against the age of the planet, not having had the experience we have had in the past with such arguments. I would love to see even a handful of peer-reviewed scholars argue against our metaphorical old Earth with solid evidence. But I fear this is too much to ask.

So we take the metaphorical position that we will assume the world is old and that unless someone approaches us with real research on the subject, we have no interest in debating it any longer. And I don't mean the sort of research that metaphorically tries to tear down carbon dating or fossil records. I mean honest, solid evidence to the contrary, to prove our metaphorical world is young.

Until that point, I think it is only reasonable if we assume that the metaphorical Young Earth Creationists have allowed their religion to cloud their judgement. I think our position is understandable, if not our recent methods. There are many opinions on many different subjects, but that does not mean that they all deserve merit. Some are transparently religious, or transparently political, which is apparent to those who are not extremely close to the subject matter at hand. Only solid evidence to support points can show that this is not the case.

For which I, for one, wait, but not very patiently.

The only point that is arguable really is the pronounciation of Β,Γ,Δ as b,d and g respectively. That they must have been originally pronounced as such, it would seem undeniable to one trained in comparative linguistics: words of the same roots in related languages have them. Now as to when the shift started: first it might have not been universal at the beginning; I recall that there is an inscription from Boiotia (could be wrong, its been years since I studied those things) that has an interesting spelling mistake: it presents a digamma where a beta should have been. If the scribe made such a mistake it might lead us to think that the digamma (presumably pronounced as "v") and the beta sounded the same (spelling mistakes and mistakes in general are our friends, seriously, don't correct people in the way they talk or write, future linguists will thank us for this). Now iirc this inscription dates from sometime in the 4th cent BC. But again it would only prove that Greek as spoken in a particular place was moving towards the shift in question, towards a softer pronounciation of Β,Γ,Δ. It would certainly be rash to claim that this proves a universal tendency in Greek. And again all this concerns one of the three letters in question. Evidence for when the pronounciation shift of these is very hard to come by. What I can say, is that to my knowledge, Latin never rendered Greek B in borrowed words (and there were a lot around the 1st and 2nd cent AD) as anything else than b, at a time when the Latin V must have sounded like v today, that is the exact sound of the modern Greek pronounciation of beta. Why would this have been so at this point in time if B did not still sound like b?

Just to correct, the Classical Latin V sounded more like the english "W" - a mix between U and V. Depending on the word..

Yes, but that must have changed rather early, just like the pronounciation of C before e and i. Otherwise its universal appearence as v and the universal palatalization of C before e and i e.g. in Romance languages are very hard to explain; those changes must have taken place before Latin actually spread to places like Gaul and Iberia if we are to explain this type of uniformity in Romance languages; but lets not argue about this here too, Greek is enough of a headache!

What in god's name is this debate about?:dizzy2: Hellenes, who cares if the accent sounds this way or that? It's a game mod and they did the best they could and it turned out a lot better than what we wished for.

So because the modder's voice has a different accent than what you expected there's some kind of academic conspiracy involved?:inquisitive:

Palatalization of C in front of i, e..

You know.. The letter G was invented by a grammarian by the name of Spurius Carvilius Ruga around 3rd century BC, and it was passed into law by Censor Appius Claudius Caecus in 312 BC.
The letter G was created because letter C had 2 sounds.. One hard (K) and one soft (G).. and Spurius Carvilius Ruga wanted to put that difference to paper. To demonstrate it. So he added an extra line to the "C" thus creating "G."

The very same process would have occurred when V branched out into U and V, and when I branched out into I and J..

I am not sure I agree with you that the palatalization of C occured as early as you predict.. I think the general consensus is that it occured some time between 300-450 AD. But I haven't studied this intermediary face much, I've mostly studied on the great change from the hard "K" of "Caesar" (Kaisar) versus the palatalized C in "Cesare" (Chessare) in Italy today.. and of course the G in "Giovanni"..

Tiberie,

On Dipthongs, I either made a big mistake or I misunderstood completely what my philologist friend was trying to say. Either way, I must do some more research on this... :book:

For the reccord, the "ΙΠΠΕΙΣ" you see was "ΙΠΠΗΣ" originally. Teleklos had written it this way. I changed it because I considered it to be mistaken, while it seems to be a phonetic version of the change in dipthongs Tiberius is talking about. (HIPPEIS or rather ΙΠΠΕΙΣ was and is the written version).

You heard Falangitai, e? :oops: Do tell me if you find more glaring obvious mistakes like that so that I can :skull: them..

Thanks.

Actually I tried the Greek campaign and when I heard "Hoplites Aploi", I thought there was some kind of mistake. I am not an expert in ancient Greek and my school grades were very bad actually so I didn't know these theories you mention keravnos. Anyway, even though it sounds strange to most Greeks, I don't think the pronanciation is so bad, 2000 years have passed for God's shake you can't be sure how they talked, right?

Keep up the good work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

Actually I tried the Greek campaign and when I heard "Hoplites Aploi", I thought there was some kind of mistake. I am not an expert in ancient Greek and my school grades were very bad actually so I didn't know these theories you mention keravnos. Anyway, even though it sounds strange to most Greeks, I don't think the pronanciation is so bad, 2000 years have passed for God's shake you can't be sure how they talked, right?

Keep up the good work.

---

Thanks on behalf of all the team. I voiced it but it wasn't and has never been a one man's show. We DON'T KNOW how they talked. We can theorize and speak among ourselves ad infinitum. Yet we have some certainties, and we can cover the rest with a tiny bit of speculation. Just don't expect to ever hear modern Greek in EB, because you won't.

As for the TETYΞ aka TZITZIKAS thing, I just don't know. Maybe I can find out more about it on my research.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Idomeneas:

My questions are to you and if you want you reply. Why all greek populations speak D and B the same way if there was an alteration affecting only greece?

---

It is not quite clear what you are asking here; what are the Greek populations you are referring to (I assume outside Greece)? Can you elaborate on the point you are trying to make, because honestly I don't follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

It is not quite clear what you are asking here; what are the Greek populations you are referring to (I assume outside Greece)? Can you elaborate on the point you are trying to make, because honestly I don't follow.

---

yes i mean the ones outside mainland. some may say that the greeks of mainland changed their pronounciation for some reason, and in a small geographical space its more possible than a big general space. So why Greeks of Pontus, Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria etc spoke b and d the same way? Is there a region with greeks that speak that way even as dialect? In local dialects today there are loads of ancient to foreign influence elements, why we dont have an example of diffrent Δ Β pronounciation?

What are the elements that point to the Β=b Δ=d theory except the ''bee'' ''bee'' point which i think i showed how it can be argued. Do we have examples beyong doubt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

yes i mean the ones outside mainland. some may say that the greeks of mainland changed their pronounciation for some reason, and in a small geographical space its more possible than a big general space. So why Greeks of Pontus, Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria etc spoke b and d the same way? Is there a region with greeks that speak that way even as dialect? In local dialects today there are loads of ancient to foreign influence elements, why we dont have an example of diffrent Δ Β pronounciation?

What are the elements that point to the Β=b Δ=d theory except the ''bee'' ''bee'' point which i think i showed how it can be argued. Do we have examples beyong doubt?

---

I cant speak for the B=b case but I can tell you that being a Pontian Greek I know that we spell αυτος=aoutos/avoutos with the emphasis on the "u" so there is some basis on it....
Thats why I believe that the closest thing to the ancient Greek are the Cypriot and Pontian dialects...
Lastly Ive read here a lot of arguments supporting the B=b position however I havent seen anything supporting the ΑΙ=a-i and the EI=e-i...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

yes i mean the ones outside mainland. some may say that the greeks of mainland changed their pronounciation for some reason, and in a small geographical space its more possible than a big general space. So why Greeks of Pontus, Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria etc spoke b and d the same way? Is there a region with greeks that speak that way even as dialect? In local dialects today there are loads of ancient to foreign influence elements, why we dont have an example of diffrent Δ Β pronounciation?

What are the elements that point to the Β=b Δ=d theory except the ''bee'' ''bee'' point which i think i showed how it can be argued. Do we have examples beyong doubt?

---

How do you know that Greeks of Pontus, Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria etc spoke b and d the same way in ancient times? We don't really have evidence as no living Greek dialect has survived directly through ancient times to our age in places remote from Greece. Pontic Greek might have archaisms and so does Cypriot, but those places had been under the authority of the Greek speaking Byzantium for ages. Of course at Byzantine times Greek was pronounced as today. So you can't use modern Pontic Greek for example to say that Greek speakers of Pontus must have spoken like this from ancient times. Do not forget the influence of Greek in Byzantine times, those people probably speak Greek in pretty much the same way as Greeks of the mainland because of the unifying influence of the Byzantine empire, which was Greek speaking officially.

Hellenes, as for the AI, OI etc just think for a minute why on earth they wrote this way (and of course why on earth ancient grammarians called these diphthongs, if they in fact were simple vowels) if they didn't actually speak this way and see if you can come up with a plausible answer. Anyway, basic knowledge of how morphology works tells you beyond a shadow of doubt that those AI and OI were not pronounced E and I, but you need to take a morphology 101 class to see for yourself and be convinced. As of now, don't push where you really can't: pronounciation of AI and OI as diphthongs is beyond question.

As I said the only thing that is in question is when the shift started in pronouncing B,Γ,Δ in a softer way, and this isn't really easy to answer. First let me say that the Bee bee argument is frankly, imo, rubbish. You can't base anything on how a sheep sounds to someone. That said, it is beyond doubt that at least up to some point in history they must have been pronounced as b,g,d, as I said before, because equivalent words of the same roots in related languages have them i.e. ιδειν==videre. Now when the shift started is not easy or maybe it is impossible to say for this set of sounds, because few if any spelling mistakes or dialect variations indicate anything meaningful, and how certain words appear in other languages can be said that it proves nothing.

What I am waiting to hear at last is an argument about why you people think that Greek pronounciation hasn't changed, that is a positive argument finally, instead of negative arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casmin

What in god's name is this debate about?:dizzy2: Hellenes, who cares if the accent sounds this way or that? It's a game mod and they did the best they could and it turned out a lot better than what we wished for.

So because the modder's voice has a different accent than what you expected there's some kind of academic conspiracy involved?:inquisitive:

---

I can only agree with u man......How the hell can pronunciations cause such big debate ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Birka Viking

I can only agree with u man......How the hell can pronunciations cause such big debate ~:rolleyes:

---

As I said earlier in this thread, this is the single biggest debate that has existed over the whole mod. It's utterly ridiculous. I've totally removed myself from it as I have better things to do continuing to make the mod better and finish it rather than engage in this game. People who aren't actually trying to make the mod or any others actively may not actually realize that we aren't just here for a debate, but to make a mod. Complainers complain, but what keravnos and shiga have actually done immediately shows everyone that results are what matters, especially results that the mod team is very very happy with.

You know, some people like arguing about Star Trek physics others like arguing about ancient pronounciation. Who are you to judge?

Anyway, Back on topic, let me provide the thoretical outlines of the theory of the BGD pronoungiation: phonetic stucture of a language is called like this, because there actually exists structure, that is method to madness. Ancient Greek has no voiceless fricatives: Φ,Χ,Θ were pronounced ph, kh, th that is the first like "p" in "pot" the second like "k" in "kit" and the third like "t" in "tip". This we know because even the letters Φ,Χ,Θ do not exist in old inscriptions but you find ΠΗ, ΚΗ, and ΤΗ in their place, that is stops with the sign of aspiration (H). Corresponding to this class of consonants there are their non aspirated variants Π,Κ,Τ. Now, there really isn't much sense in a phonetic system of this sort that those varieties of consonants coexist with a class of voiced fricatives, i.e. β,δ,γ (moddern pr.), because those would not correspond to any other class of consonants. If they are stops, they do correspont to Π,Τ,Κ as their voiced variants. The advantage of such a system is that it is homogeneous, as classes of consonants naturally correspond as variants of others. The existence of β,δ,γ in the consonantal system of Greek would have been a rather major aberration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

As I said earlier in this thread, this is the single biggest debate that has existed over the whole mod. It's utterly ridiculous. I've totally removed myself from it as I have better things to do continuing to make the mod better and finish it rather than engage in this game. People who aren't actually trying to make the mod or any others actively may not actually realize that we aren't just here for a debate, but to make a mod. Complainers complain, but what keravnos and shiga have actually done immediately shows everyone that results are what matters, especially results that the mod team is very very happy with.

---

Yes and Iam realy happy with it also....Nice job EB team!!!!!:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

You know, some people like arguing about Star Trek physics others like arguing about ancient pronounciation. Who are you to judge?

---

The difference is that here we are on the EB team forum berating them for something that they went beyond the call of duty of. As much time, research and trouble they went through to get this job done I hardly think these kind of discussions make them feel appreciated for their diligent work. The other difference is that Hellenes is claiming that there is some sort of conspiracy in the study of ancient Greek outside of Greece. I don't even think Baigent and Leigh could come up with such a far-flung conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casmin

The difference is that here we are on the EB team forum berating them for something that they went beyond the call of duty of. As much time, research and trouble they went through to get this job done I hardly think these kind of discussions make them feel appreciated for their diligent work. The other difference is that Hellenes is claiming that there is some sort of conspiracy in the study of ancient Greek outside of Greece. I don't even think Baigent and Leigh could come up with such a far-flung conjecture.

---

Hmmm...can you provide me with a QUOTE?
Where did I say that there is a conspiracy?

Not a comment, but a question on the Greek voice mod:

will the team be including the standard battle sentences such as "Gods be praised the enemy general is killed! Fear makes a home in the enemies' hearts" etc.?

Those are the "battle_events", and we were actually thinking of making them. However, currently we've simply muted them, because they are a nuisance.
"The day is oours!" :dizzy2:

I wondered where (though didn't miss) the pubesant roman, overly gruff barbarian, greek guy with a mysterious accent, and eastern guy who can control the tone of his voice went. Good to hear they may be replaced.

A nuisance, but one that allows you to switch off another nuisance called 'event cutscenes'...

Anyway, I've been doing some further thinking on this, and here's what I've come up with so far (I can't 'do' accents including spirita, so that will have to be sorted out):

INITIAL:

"Gods be praised the enemy general is dead! Fear makes a home in our enemies' hearts!" >>> "χαιρετε, ο γαρ πολεμιος στρατεγος επεσον, και νυν φοβησονται ημας!" = "Rejoice, for the enemy general fell, and now they'll fear us!"
"The enemies flee from the battle!" >>> "Οι πολεμιοι φοβουσιν τηι μαχηι!" (each iota after an eta should be an iota subscriptum - another thing I can't get to work.)

EDIT 1:

"We have taken the walls!" >>> "Ειλομεν τα τειχεα!" (Ε should have a spiritus asper) To be used in in conjunction with something bound to happen later on (for there's an aoristus and not a perfectum involved here.)
Outro 1 "We achieved a great victory, now it's time to send a messenger to spread the word (of our victory)" >>> "Ενικησαν μεγαλως, νυν δε δει στελλειν αγγελον σεμαινοντα νικησαντας ειναι." = "We've won 'in a great fashion', and now we must send a messenger who will spread the message that we are victorious."

EDIT 2:
Outro 2 (You wanted something a-Vanilla, here you are then) "Bring on the wine, and take care of the wounded." >>> "Φερετε τον οινον και κομιζετε τους τραυματους."
Outro 3 "Let's start looting." >>> "Φερωμεν τε και αγωμεν."
Intro 1 (Vanilla style again) "We should slaughter them from a distance." >>> "Χρη αποκτεινεσθαι τους πολλους των εχθρων υπο των ψιλων, πριν η μαχη αχεται ως αληθως." = "Most of the enemies must be killed by the psiloi, before the battle really begins." The latter part of the Greek sentence could be used for any statement ending with the message "the real fight begins".

EDIT 3:
"Today is a good day to die, but it's better still to live and tell our grandchilderen of our victories" (Vanilla, indeed) >>> “Καλος μεν εστιν ο εν τηι μαχηι θανατος, ο δε βιος τε και ο της νικης μυθος εισιν βελτιοντες.” = "Dead in battle is beautiful, but life and the story of the/our victory are more beautiful." (each iota after an eta should be an iota subscriptum - again.)
"The walls have been taken (by the enemies)." >>> “Ηιρηνται τα τειχεα (υπο τους εχθρους).” (each iota after an eta should be an iota subscriptum; due to the way a perfectum is translated this may also stand for "We have lost the walls", for the result of your enemies taking your walls equals (that of) you losing your walls.)
"Our general is dead!!!" >>> “Τεθνηκεν ο στρατεγος ημετερος!!!” (This, of course, can't do without a perfectum so that's why.)
"The enemies are fleeing in terror!" >>> “Οι πολεμιοι ατυζονται!”

Most likely impossible, just wishful thinking on my part; if you could script a general with a hatred for the particular enemies he's facing today to call them "εχθρους" (acc, pl, m) but should he feel no particular hatred for them then he should call them "πολεμιους" (acc, pl, m). Why? Because the former, "εχθρους", may also stand for 'those who are hated' (and therefore probably it came to be 'enemies' as well); whereas the latter simply means 'enemies'.

EDIT 4:
Outro 4 "We have won, and no one can argue about it." >>> "Ουδεις αντιλεγοι αν μη τηνδε νικην ημετεραν ειναι." = "Nobody could question that this victory (here) is ours."

EDIT 5:
Intro 2 "There is no advantage in numbers to either side." >>> “Τοσουτοι εν ημιν εισιν, οσοι εν τοις πολεμιοις εισιν.” = "Amongst us are as many as amongst the/our enemies."
Intro 3 "I have never lost a battle against those people, and why should I start losing now?" >>> “Τι αρα δει τηνδε μαχην νυν πεφυκεναι τραυμα, ουδεμιαν γαρ τινων εμων εκεινοις πολεμιοις μαχων πεφυκεν τραυμα;” = "Why should this battle here result in a defeat now, as none of my battles with those enemies resulted in a defeat?"
Intro 4 "With men such as you under my command." (Could be used in conjunction with other phrases, so I adressed this bit separately.) >>> “Νυν εγω ειμι ο στρατεγος εχων υμας υπο της εμης ηγεμονιας .” = "Now I am the general with you under my command."

I might come up with some more, but for now let's see if this sort of thing is kinda possible. (If so, I'll stick to editing this particular post, rather than creating new posts within this thread.)

What about making entirely new battle events, instead of translating the old ones?

My main concern is of course that battle-events have a function for the player, explaining an important event, and if we record them in some ancient language the player most likely wont understand, it just loses the purpose. We can of course make subtitles, as a part of the battle_event "cut-scenes."

The player does receive the battle-event in the form of a message that drops down on the left.. that will suffice for now I think. On to other languages!

It's altogether quite 'do'-able to make entirely different battle events, but I thought let's start with the basic Vanilla ones - those who should be in one way or another, 'to the letter' or 'free form' - as they are about the very basic things a general must be informed about. I'd say that it isn't all that important to make them really understandable; one could play battles without listening to such message, because of those drop down boxes. (After some battles people will get used to them; and so the way such a message sounds is sufficient to recognise whatever it is about.)

So for now I'll try to keep the basic things 'Vanilla style translated', and will only be playing around with 'The day is ours' like statements; those who are quite redundant, yet give a battle more flavour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

Countries that allow free speech are no less at risk of having untrue things taught in their schools than countries that are totalitarian.

---

Let me correct you:

Countries that allow free speech have a good chance of having untrue things taught in their schools, while countries that do not have free speech guarentee untrue things will be taught in their schools.


As incredible and wonderful an effort the EB team made in even attempting such an amibitious project as these voicemods, it doesn't shield them from criticism. The goal of this mod (as least I think?) is to make as realistic as possible Rome Total War. Thus anything they do that goes against their goal, should be criticized, to whatever extent it takes for them to fufill their own goal.

So while TA argues that he is here to mod, and not to debate, sadly debating is the process through which you best decide whether or not something is realistic, and thus fufills the goal of the mod. And of course this relates directly to my correction of Khelvan's quote.

Let me ask the EB team again, and hopefully for the last time. Do not use arguements like "if you don't like it leave, make your own, we are here to mod...". Most people are not arguing on their behalf, their arguing on your behalf when they say "you want your mod to be realistic, change this". Maybe EB should change its party line to "A Realistic Mod, not necessarily to the time period, but for EB members only".

Now, I have no idea what ancient Greek should sound like, but whatever, I just don't like when people give stupid reasons for people not to criticize.

Edit: Looks like someone beat me to this.

There is nothing more to be learned from this debate. The response to criticism on this subject is due to past history with the presentation of this "argument." There are many things open to debate; the time for learning from this one passed a long time ago. I find it hard to believe that you just don't understand that we can actually decline to debate one point, while being open to it in another. That we accept criticism when it is constructive and supported, and reject it when it is not constructive or supported.

However, feel free to make sweeping generalizations. It shows how much thought you've put into this.

In a similar vein, those who like to argue with us seemingly just for the sake of argument or based on an agenda should really be aware that we passed the point of listening to them a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

In a similar vein, those who like to argue with us seemingly just for the sake of argument or based on an agenda should really be aware that we passed the point of listening to them a long time ago.

---

We've evolved! :grin:

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

We've evolved! :grin:

Foot

---

https://img150.imageshack.us/img150/...olutionjn0.jpg