Re: [ANE-2] Re: Grouply is Identity Theft Trick
- People are signing up for it. Grouply simply sends a report to you of
activity in your Yahoo groups. I signed up, but don't see much point in it,
except as small potatoes competition with Facebook.
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Chris Weimer <chris.m.weimer@...>wrote:
> I didn't know it was a scam, but I never click on spam anyway. Thanks
> for the heads up.
> Chris Weimer
> --- In ANEemail@example.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>, Dan Pride
> <danielpride@...> wrote:
> > Just a heads up.
> > I and I am sure others here recieved a "Grouply" invitation.
> > It is a scam.
> > FYI
> > Dan Pride
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates,
love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other. ~ C. G. Jung
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- At 02:31 PM 12/2/2008, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>It should have a colophon, no? or at least a date?That would be me, and I use the ad-hoc term (Levant Semitic) for the
>Peter T. Daniels <mailto:grammatim%40verizon.net>grammatim@...
>From: Yitzhak Sapir <<mailto:yitzhaksapir%40gmail.com>yitzhaksapir@...>
>Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 8:53:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Paleo-Hebrew
>On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Which means that (even if the tablet is genuine, and even if the ?Hebrew
> > docket on it is genuine) there's no hope of knowing where it came from.
> > At which "LS" (as you call it)-speaking sites were cuneiform economic
> > documents in use in the NB period? --
> > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon. net
> > I know Laurie Pearce as a specialist in mathematical tablets. Is that
> > irrelevant? Why would a mathematical tablet bear a ?Hebrew docket?
>I don't call anything "LS."
2nd & early 1st mbc when the linguistic situation is somewhat messy.
I'm much less familiar with the evidence from the NB period. My
impression is that by that time all we have is Aramaic & Hebrew, with
a hypothetical Phoenician, assumed to be different from Punic.
Nabatean & Syriac come only later in the 1st mbc. Is that correct? Is
there really no evidence of mid-1st mbc Phoenician? And what is the
current body of evidence and "common wisdom" about Samaritan?
[100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]
Ariel L. Szczupak
AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203