Azure <tain@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote :
> -----> this form of government is
>> advanced because it is the form on which America is founded?
>
> Yes!
An enthusiastic reply founded on the preexisting assumption that America
can truly be called 'advanced'. Rome long assumed the same thing.
> Prick.
Your puerile abuse is a sign of your weakness.
> What lies are you sup****ting with the Dishonest Snippage You Pull?
> You take the context out of a thread and post what?
> EH?
> What is your point?
> You cut there thread so what is the point?
My point? My point is that the claim you made:
> > Barbarians are not stupid cavemen.
> > They actually had a very advanced form of Government.
.... has no rational basis, since 'barbarian' did not and does not
describe a single cultural system. 'Barbarian' was a word used by those
who considered themselves 'advanced' (and just as you consider America
advanced, perhaps) to describe those they didn't consider so.
You then said that Thrace and the Huns specifically had a 'very
advanced' form of government. This was not the case according to the
Greeks, who, while recording some of their artistic and cultural
achievements, described the Thracians as being primitive, tribal and
with no centralised form of government at all until Greek and later
Roman influence began to mould them according to the standards of these
two civilisations. Of course, it may be that the Thracians thought they
were advanced (after all, it's common to view one's own culture as the
best one) - although from what I know of them I suspect they didn't
really think about it all that much.
As for the Huns, they established a relatively successful (if rather
short-lived) empire based primarily on their advanced military tactics -
credit where it's due - but their form of government was very basic
indeed: they did as their leader(s) told them.
> I repeat:
Then repeat, by all means. Two times zero is still zero.
>> I last saw this tactic in a school playground. What next? "I know
>> you are"? "Takes one to know one"?
>
> Seems to be your game yes.
[Reverent silence for the Duke of Irony.]
> Yeah right so stop annoying me with your stupidity.
> Magh is also MOGH, but Scoti use an A not an O.
> Tribes of the MAGHO or MACHO not Mocho.
> Mac not Moc, but I know nothing even though it is my Family Tree.
> Rama was a Liar, their was no Lepoard/Lion King.
This family tree is a tangled weed. Why not research your real one
instead of making one up out of dodgy fantasy stories? I'm told
genealogy can be very interesting.
|
