>This is all so unnecessary. I don't have to report anything, I'm not putting forth a claim.
No need to get all cheeky just because you receive a detailed answer to your question. Try a sense of humour for a change. It's far more becoming.
> I'm demonstrating a good-faith willingness to examine your claim. The burden is on you to make your case.
You sound like a lawyer. Leave it at the office!
>Toward that end, I have questions concerning language.
And you have received your answers. Deposition over.
> the repetitive posts on the question of language is because of the repetitive non-responses to it.
Did you even READ my answer?
> Let's stipulate that language is not the only determining factor in sorting through this,
it's but one potentially useful tool.
No, I am stipulating that language is irrelevent to the case. If you can't handle that, see the judge.
> So, does the linguistice data support the Lost Tribes theory on the origin of the Celts,
or not?
Get over it counselor. Language as a feeble secondary issue is over. Kindly actually read what I have written and you might even understand the case. You have no special standing here, either real or imagined.
Did you even READ my answer?
Enough to see that you didn't answer the question, you dismissed it without cause, simply asserting it isn't relevant. Maybe you're right, but if you are you should be able to demonstrate why, and you haven't. This is a weakness, not a strength, in the argument you've put forth so far.
What are the commonalities between the languages of the Celts and ancient Hebrew? If there are no commonalities, what is the explanation for that?
So far, you answers have amounted to, "There are commonalities, go look them up yourself," and "Even if there aren't commonalities, that's not important."
Do you expect reasonable people to find this persuasive?
