If all you have to counter my proposition is an ad hominem argument against me, our dialogue has come to a close.
It is so obvious that I am older and wiser than you.
I was even once a Christian, but I saw the light.
Do not hold your breath. Even if you had the mental capacity, it would have to mean something in the first place 
No this did not happen.
Gauls were not imerialists.
The Gallic/ Celtic tribes were as fluid when they sacked Greece as when they were slaughtered by Rome. EVen the alliance brought together by Vercingetorix failed at Alesia.
Prove it.
Gauls were better civilised before Rome than under its yoke.
ANd enjoyed better standards of living and more liberty, until Rome enslaved Europe.
Because Gaellic tribes and “celts” did not share an ideoology of conquest.
You are a moron
You are only just beginning your studies of Rome, that is clear.
I hope you will be studying the Roman historians at one point, preferably in Latin.
I am actually educated in Latin and Roman culture, and can only frown in wonder at some of the statements you’re making. You don’t think Romans glorified their conquests as peace? Come on now.
Nor did the Romans themselves look down on other cultures as you do; your propaganda smacks of banal racism, with its very poor understanding of culture. Whereas Rome knew no such thing, as shown in its lineage of emperors.
This game you play, that because you are South American, Catholic, you can represent Rome as if you are its legislator, can be as easily reversed. You are a person from the provinces which have been subjected to Roman rule and you have lost culture of your older ancestors; you are not Etruscan, and you are not descendent of Latium.
The Germans, furthermore, are the true descendants of the Greeks in terms of Philosophy and Science. Rome produced nothing in these terms and was merely a vessel, in this sense, for Greece to be brought to the Germans.
I have an archive of fairy large proportions of my private discussions with James, he developed RM:AO under my influence. Sorry bud.
But this is just your own ignorant racism.
You seem to have reached for racism, and to that end, to feigning a pseudo Roman identity in the taste-scheme of fascism, just in order to be belligerent to cultures you have even less understanding of than you have of Rome, the culture you are appropriating without even knowing its language or ethics, likely without ever having been there.
Youve had your racist rants, that is all. They’re not close enough to facts to be considered divorced from them.
I would direct you to studies of etymology of Sanskrit and Dutch, Sanskrit and German, Persian and Dutch/German - but you barbarians aren’t prone to actual study.
Please.
You said “Eli”. And yet you claim to be champion of literacy.
Offering yourself to the barbaric practice of racist forgery of history, you have sadly not earned my further instructions (which I do have prepared) beyond being corrected in your most dramatic mistake; your original suggestion that the idea of a well is something alien to Judaism.
Your style is praiseworthy and you possess keen intuition. With a shitload of literary discipline you could actually convince people that you’re Roman.
My sincere recommendation is that you start by learning Latin, and ditch the liberality of pretending that Spanish and French are the same as Latin. They’re both infinitely easier, of less discipline and form;
It was the Germans who appropriated Greece and Rome precisely because of the discipline hewn into their language; the cases.
And stop trying to be a racist. You’re thankfully not actually smelling like one like that honest to god peon “Sculptor” and so many illiterates.
(And I get this Spiel of trying to define all of the German world as “Goths”, which would be the same as a Dutchman defining all Mediterranean Europe as “garlic-countries”. Yeah you can play that game, it’s being done, it’s easy. It’s a dumb game.)
This is an interesting choice of words. In any case, that is a shame, you will be missed.
Yes, if you say so.
Alright.
I am not.
Well, young friend, I do at least have the mental capacity to know that words have meanings. That is, in fact, what constitutes a word.
The meaning of this one is of great interest to me.
I never said they were imperialist. Ineed, they were not. Certainly, however, they were expansionist. You seem to hold the fact that they were ultimately never able to expand beyond the Gallic world, though they did consolidate principalities within it, as proof of lack of a warring and conquering mentality. They were simply more savage.
I am afraid, young man, I have better things to do with my time.
If you say so.
Yes, if you say so.
I am not 100% certain I understand what you mean by ‘ideology of conquest.’
Yes, if you say so.
That has to be ridiculous. Not only was he talking about his way of thinking long before he came here (I was watching) but also you are a totally different kind of mind - seemingly seriously injured. For you to suggest that You influenced his ontology is reminiscent of Ecmandu (also obviously mentally injured) and is about like saying that O’Biden taught Mr Trump on economic and foreign policy.
And despite Vittorio’s haughtiness and blindness to rational thinking - I wouldn’t call him a “racist” merely because he disagrees with the documented historical narrative of migrations and interactions. He might be a racist (most people actually are - unless you are in the US) but not merely for the reason you are suggesting.
Yes, if you say so.
Yes indeed, though state historians are never the most reliable source of information there is. I don’t believe much of what was written would float in the river of tears you have poured for the victims of Rome. Indeed, all of them would be very evil racists if one is to go by your writings here. And, if one is to go by your writings here, that also itself disqualifies them as historians.
If you say so.
Alright.
You seem to have several confused and conflicting interpretations of what Rome is. And a tendency not to reply where that confusion becomes greatest. Conquest was a lot of things to Romans, peace not really one of them, unless it referred to addressing some tribe or alliance of savages that somehow or another posed a threat to Rome. In that case, indeed, it does not take a erudite to understand that quashing that people will bring peace. To Rome. Peace in general is one of the softest, saddest concepts I have ever come across. And may be one reason you keep your statements vague and general. It is not, I assure you, a daughter of Rome.
If you say so.
If you say so.
Indeed, if you say so.
Yes, if you say so.
Here may be an interesting avenue to explore, if your emotions will allow you. What exactly is it you mean here?
If you say so…
If you say so.
If you say so.
If you say so.
If you say so.
Alright.
OK.
Alright.
Well, if you say so.
Ah, but before Germans, French, and before French, Italians (Venetians, mostly, and Romans, and many others, we will say Italia), and before that Spanish, and before that Arabs, and before that Egyptians.
One thing Goths are incapable of understanding, for this traditional divorce I have described, and the superstition of universalism it has allowed (you are a Platonist, I presume, as stated under your Parodites pseudonym?), is that Greece is only great, only exist, only is known from Staten Island to Timbuktu and revered as the giants they were, is Rome. If not for Rome, expanding her res publica throughout the four corners of the world at the expense of anybody who tried to stop it, Greece would not exist. It would have been an interesting case of island rebels some time long ago, that only royal chroniclers would know about.
You are welcome, it is our pleasure. This also is an annoying Gothic habit. I have brought up several dozens deeply interesting points, but all Goths hear are personal attacks that hurt their feelings. I refuse to believe it is an actual simple incapacity to discuss.
One has only to read something such as this:
To understand that provenance need not be any kind of hindrance to real thought. Alexandre Dumas was a black man. Only a Goth believes that the reality of the actual characteristics of and differences between peoples constitute some kind of inferiority or incapacity of one or another. Perhaps it is this insecurity that breeds things like communism, with its universalism that resets every human as a clone of eachother, identitcal particles in the societal mass, or nazism.
All that is being asked of you is to think, all you are managing to do is cry and be angry about it. I am sure there are neo-nazi movements that can cater to you.
If you say so.
If you say so.
If you say so.
If you say so.
If you say so.
If you say so.
I would never do that. A Roman would never do that. That is a joke. Specially considering what I have already written on this.
If you say so.
Alright.
Alright.
OK, if you say so.
Yes, I would not waste your time with that. I have, however, explained my standards for finding answers of interest in this particular topic that interests me, though, I gather, it does not spark very much curiosity in you, of the meaning of the word ‘God.’ If those standards do not please you, I am sorry.
OK.
Yes, you said the Elohim constituted a plural feminine of a root, ‘i’ is a common plural form in English. Thus, ‘Eli.’
If you say so.
That is a shame, we will do our best to carry on regardless.
If you can bring yourself to the slightest amount of discipline, and to keep yourself to the standards I have described earlier, we would be very interested in hearing about this.
Thank you. Considering all you have said, however, one fails to understand how this can be possible. Perhaps a depth of the Gothic intellect that is impenetrable to such as myself.
Yes, thank you, though I refer you to the above.
Ah.
Yes, thank you.
If you say so. You surely seem qualified, young man.
If you say so.
Yes, alright.
My puzzlement at you Goths never ceases.
Do you?
As you say.
If you say so.
This would seem to be an admission that you’re only argument against my proposition is an ad hominem one. My definition of racism is broader than yours. You seem to think that race is a real thing and that cultural differences are biologically based whereas I see them as products of enculturation. I imagine that the idea that mixing the blood of various races changes the character of people seems real to you. Whereas I see them not as races but as ethnic groups with characteristic social practices. But you seem very committed to your theory and it seems important to your identity. So it’s not like I think any argument that I present is likely to change your mind.
Intense.
Yes, if you say so.
From Lawrence Kushner and David Mamet’s “Five Cities of Refuge: Weekly Reflections on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy:”
YHWH - “I am what is”.
James reduced it to - Your real situation - whatever that might be.
It seems rather less studiously dissected than the previous example, I’m afraid.