Tópico: pergunte a um esoterista

[Marciano]

Cadê as traduções?

Artigo do Skeptic que refuta a hipótese da herança tecnológica-cultural de civilizações desaparecidas de Graham Hancock.

Conjuring Up a Lost Civilization:
An Analysis of the Claims Made by Graham Hancock in Magicians of the Gods
BY MARC J. DEFANT

Graham Hancock’s 2015 book Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth’s Lost Civilization1 is something of a sequel and update to his 1995 international bestseller Fingerprints of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth’s Lost Civilization,2 which was translated into 27 languages and sold more than three million copies.3 In Fingerprints, Hancock uses creation myths in ancient texts and wild geological scenarios to suggest that 12,450 years ago major crustal shifts moved Antarctica to its present location. Portions of a supposedly highly advanced unknown lost civilization (none other than Atlantis) living on Antarctica at the time were able to survive the destructive cataclysms and go on to convey their knowledge to the builders of the megalithic structures of Egypt, Maya, Babylon, and other known great civilizations. He also claims that the Mayan calendar portended world cataclysms in 2012. In Magicians, Hancock now says he got it all wrong—there was no crustal shift; instead he thinks this advanced civilization was destroyed by a comet.

Magicians appears to be on its way to becoming another bestseller for the British writer. Although Hancock has few scientific credentials (an undergraduate degree in sociology from Durham University),4 his early career as a journalist helped him navigate through a wide range of scientific research, but without benefit of specialized training in astronomy, geology, history, archaeology, or comparative religion and mythology. Hancock is obviously bright, articulate, and a good writer and storyteller who comes across as eminently reasonable, which makes it all the more difficult to tease apart fact from fiction in the many claims made in his books, documentary films, and lectures.

Göbekli Tepe

Figure 1: Excavators uncover one of many circular enclosures at Göbekli Tepe. Two large T-shaped pillars over 5m (16 feet) high typically stand in the middle of the ring with smaller pillars facing them. Some of these stones are decorated with reliefs of animals that once lived in the area. This area known as Enclosure D features birds, while others emphasize animals such as snakes, foxes, boars, or wildcats.

The centerpiece of Hancock’s Magicians is a remarkable archaeological site called Göbekli Tepe in Turkey dated to 11,600 years ago. He contends Göbekli Tepe is too advanced to have been built by hunter-gatherers alone, and must therefore have been constructed with the help of people from a more advanced civilization. Unfortunately for Hancock these people left behind no hard evidence for their existence, so he is forced to allude to what he thinks is sophisticated architecture, along with a few carved figures that he asserts represent astronomical constellations. From these speculations Hancock concludes: “At the very least it [Göbekli Tepe] would mean that some as yet unknown and unidentified people somewhere in the world had already mastered all the arts and attributes of a high civilization more than twelve thousand years ago in the depths of the last Ice Age and sent out emissaries around the world to spread the benefits of their knowledge.”

It’s a romantic notion, but not the conclusion that the late great German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt came to after excavating Göbekli Tepe for more than two decades beginning in 1994. The site, he says, was used from 11,600 to about 10,000 years before the present. Lower sections were backfilled giving way to new structures on top. The fill is refuse containing sediment, hundreds of thousands of broken animal bones, flint tools for carving the structures within the site and for hunting game, and the remains of cereals and other plant material, and even a few human bones. There is no evidence that the site was ever used as a residence, and the megaliths found there (Schmidt called them “monumental religious architecture”) along with carvings and totems, imply ritual and feasting.

Figure 2: A T-shaped megalith with animal carvings at Göbekli Tepe.

The main features of Göbekli Tepe are the T-shaped 7– to 10-ton monolithic pillars cut and hauled from crystalline limestone quarries on the tepe (hill) and erected within 10– to 20-meter ring structures made of rocks annealed by clay mortar that encircle the pillars. The stone statues are clearly anthropomorphic— arms and hands can be seen on the sides of the pillars reaching around to the front. A variety of animals, mostly representing the wild animals found within the refuse, have been carved on the pillars.6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Göbekli Tepe and other archaeological sites being studied nearby have forced archaeologists to rethink the way the prehistoric lifestyle of hunting, gathering, and foraging gave way to a more domesticated lifestyle in northern Mesopotamia. Oliver Dietrich, a colleague of Klaus Schmidt at the German Archaeological Institute, poignantly expressed the impact of these discoveries: “These people must have had a highly complicated mythology, including a capacity for abstraction. Following these ideas, we now have more evidence that…social systems changed before, not as a result of, the shift to farming.”11 It also shows that hunter-gatherers were capable of more than we previously thought, and that the origins of religion may have to be pushed back by millennia.

But this is a far cry from Hancock’s proposal that the site is a link to his lost civilization. In fact, archaeologists consider Göbekli Tepe to be a pre-pottery Neolithic site. Not only is clay pottery absent, the site contans no evidence of any metal or metal workings. The obvious reason for this is that clay pottery and metals are typical of more advanced cultures. Although Hancock writes that “our ancestors are being initiated into the secrets of metals, and how to make swords and knives,” no such thing is found at any of the archaeological sites he touts as being influenced by his highly advanced lost civilization, not at Göbekli Tepe, nor in the non-Roman areas of Baalbek, Easter Island, nor at any of the ancient Mayan sites he discusses.

During an exchange with Michael Shermer on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Hancock suggested that “perhaps,” “maybe,” and “possibly” this lost civilization did not have metal tools, writing, and other features of societies traditionally labeled as “advanced,” and that we need to reconfigure the mainstream scientific timeline of what it means to be an advanced culture. Perhaps, he hinted, they communicated entirely through the oral tradition, skipping writing. When Shermer pressed him to explain what he means by “advanced” Hancock replied: “I am saying that a group of people settled amongst the hunter-gatherers and transferred some skills for them.” When I came into the debate later and pushed him on this same issue of how an allegedly advanced civilization could lack all the features of other such societies, such as metallurgy, he demurred: “I do not make that claim. I am reporting that this claim is made in the Book of Enoch.” It is true that in his book Hancock discusses the secrets of metals in the context of discussing the Book of Enoch, but the entire chapter is in support of evidence that a lost civilization had superior knowledge that included the secrets of metal working. Such details are important because it gives us a glimpse into how Hancock infers one thing when it is convenient in making his point, but then shifts to claiming he is only reporting what other people say when the implications stretch our credulity. For example, Hancock calls these ancient peoples the “Watchers” (aka the “Magicians”) in a section titled “Mystery of the Nephilim”:

The Watchers begin their development project in quite small ways, teaching “charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots” to humans, and making them “acquainted with plants.” This sounds fairly harmless; apart from a bit of “enchantment,” it’s not really above and beyond the basic hunter-gatherer level of skills. But pretty soon, as we saw earlier, our ancestors are being initiated into the secrets of metals and how to make swords and knives, and how to study the heavens.

Hancock may call this reporting, but Shermer was not satisfied by such chicanery when he questioned Hancock on why the hunter-gatherers at Göbekli Tepe were not taught the “secrets of metal workings.” Hancock had no explanation as to why the hunter-gatherers at Göbekli Tepe knew nothing about metals, or even pottery, nor did he reply to Shermer’s numerous requests for a definition of an “advanced civilization” that lacked writing, metallurgy, or ceramics.

Schmidt and his colleagues have arduously documented the use of flint tools for the construction of Göbekli Tepe, and none of the hundreds of thousands of animal bones and cereals found in the backfill from the lowest levels show any signs of domestication— they are all wild species. In fact, the large abundance of bones from wild animals found at the site allows Schmidt to underscore the ability of the hunter-gatherers in the region to support the hundreds of workers and stone cutters presumed necessary to create the megaliths and other structures. Schmidt makes a salient point almost as if he anticipated Hancock’s book: “Fabulous or mythical creatures, such as centaurs or the sphinx, winged bulls or horses, do not yet occur in the iconography and therefore in the mythology of the prehistoric times. They must be recognized as creations of the high cultures which arose later.”12 I would only add that unlike the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations where inscriptions made by literate societies have been well documented, not a single inscription has been found at Göbekli Tepe.

Patterns in the Stars

Next consider Hancock’s assertion that the stone carvings on the sides of the T-shaped pillars at Göbekli Tepe represent constellations. Figure 49 on page 319 of his book (Figure 3 below) emphasizes how virtually any figure could be matched to star asterisms (clusters). In fact, Schmidt concluded that the figures on the pillars mostly represent the wild animals whose bones were found in the backfill from the site.

Figure 3: Hancock claims that the teapot asterism of the constellation Sagittarius fits the vulture from Gobekli Tepe better than the archer (Page 319).

Figure 4: Two interpretations of the “teapot” asterism by the author: Uncle Sam and a commando insignia. It is easy to find matching patterns if you are motivated to do so.

Recently Hancock’s thesis seemed to find support from two professors at the University of Edinburgh, Martin Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis, whose paper reported that the “vulture stone,” a pillar at Göbekli Tepe, is “a date stamp for 10950 BCE ± 250 yrs.”13 I wrote Sweatman about the article prior to our debate with Hancock on the Rogan show, and he directed me to his website where he states:

Graham Hancock attempted to decode GT in his book Magicians of the Gods using the ideas of Paul Burley and the YD [Younger Dryas] context provided by [Andrew] Collins, but in our view his logic takes a wrong turn early on, leading him to make some erroneous conclusions. Especially we oppose Graham’s contention that the Vulture Stone predicts an impact 12,000 years into their future—around 2030 AD—this is, ocurse [sic] impossible.

That Sweatman distances himself from Hancock’s theory is telling, but in my decades of reading scientific papers I have never come across an article more speculative than this one. The entire paper rests on the supposition that the authors can match “low relief carvings” on a pillar of Göbekli Tepe to star asterisms in 10,950 BCE in the western sky at 4 seconds after 1:01 PM on September 11 (Figure 5, below). Specifically, Sweatman and Tsikritsis use the carvings on pillar 43. But why that one? There are many pillars both unearthed (44) and still buried at Göbekli Tepe, so it is not clear why pillar 43 has the significance they attribute to it—drawings of animals decorate most of the pillars. In any case, they start by assuming that the scorpion at the bottom of pillar 43 is the same as the modern-day constellation Scorpius. The assumption that we can attribute 12,950 year-old patterns on rocks to star asterisms is highly suspect. Here in the U.S., for example, we call a set of stars in the constellation Ursa Major the Big Dipper because to our eyes it looks like a dipper. In the UK, however, they call the same asterism the Plough. In Mayan culture it is described as a parrot. In ancient Egypt it is the leg of a bull. No doubt naming asterisms helped ancient peoples remember star patterns, but the names were not always chosen on the basis of a matching appearance with the asterism. Such naming could be and often was symbolic. There are many carved images of animals at Göbekli Tepe, and attributing even one to a star pattern is more like astrology than science.

Figure 5: The star pattern is from the day sky in 10,950 BCE (using the astronomical computer program Stellarium) with the images from pillar 43 at Gobekli Tepe matched with the constellation as proposed by Sweatman and Tsikritsis. I argue that the correlations are purely speculative.

Here is the rub. Sweatman and Tsikritsis casually assume that because in the past a star asterism was attributed to a scorpion (in this case Scorpius), it makes perfect sense that ancient hunter-gatherers living 13,000 years ago saw the same pattern as a scorpion. Look carefully at Figure 6 (below) and compare the scorpions to the star pattern we call Scorpius. I think most would contend that almost any elongated figure could be associated with the star asterism and that matching of a scorpion to the pattern takes a fertile imagination. Finally, the scorpion on pillar 43 looks nothing like the star pattern.

Figure 6: The Scorpius star asterism (far left) associated with the scorpion is compared to the carving of the scorpion found at Gobekli Tepe (left). We know constellations are symbols not necessarily based on matching patterns, as can be seen from the lack of correlation between either scorpion and the asterism. This shows the tenuous foundation of the Sweatman and Tsikritsis argument. (Image on the far left from the Stellarium astronomical computer program.)

The pattern correlation problem does not keep Sweatman and Tsikritsis from matching figures on pillar 43 in a roughly clockwise fashion to the asterisms surrounding Scorpius in the day sky of 10,950 BCE. I show the day sky with the location of the sun and images of the various animals below with arrows pointing to the constellations they supposedly match (Figure 5).

Besides the obvious fact that the images have no good correlation to the star patterns in the known constellations displayed (e.g., look at the bird figure that has been matched with Libra), there are many constellations that have been ignored, such as Norma, Ara, Telescopium, Corona Australis, Scutum, and Serpens. In addition, there is one bird-like feature that does not match to any star asterism and in another case, for an unexplained reason, a crane-like image is combined with a fish-like image to match with Ophiuchus. Not only do Sweatman and Tsikritsist claim their mapping of the images in the sky documents a date of 10950 BCE ± 250 years, but they go on to conclude that the hunter-gatherers of Göbekli Tepe must have been certifying the date of “the” comet strike. (Even though that strike supposedly occurred in North America). They try to bring their point home by suggesting that a “belt buckle” with a “nested U” has “an excellent likeness of the very specific bow shock wave of a hypersonic spherical object.” Seriously? Without high speed photography how does one see the bow shock wave of an object traveling faster than the speed of sound?

If you wanted to convey the existence of a comet strike to future generations, would it not be prudent and obvious to carve the actual positions of the stars along with the comet on a rock? Sweatman and Tsikritsis, along with Hancock, attribute evolved astronomical knowledge to these huntergatherers. So why don’t these ancients show off their knowledge with star maps rather than with figures that may or may not represent constellations? I think the answer is obvious—the carvings likely have nothing to do with asterisms.

Hancock has attempted to make the case that the megalithic structures at Göbekli Tepe are so complex that they had to involve assistance from his lost advanced civilization when the hunter-gatherers built them. But Schmidt found that the backfill that covered these structures had no signs of any advanced technologies including domesticated animals or crops. Shermer’s point about lack of technology becomes even more salient when you carefully examine Hancock’s proposal—the Magicians supposedly taught hunter-gatherers the secrets of asterisms (and even how to predict the destruction of our planet some 12,000 years in the future) but did not pass on simpler technologies like domestication of plants and crops or the use of metals and pottery? Not likely.

[Pedro Reis]

O tópico é de perguntas ao esotérico.

Então vou perguntar: esotérico, o certo é inebriar ou enebriar?

[Marciano]

Só sabe recortar e colar?

Só exisge que os outros traduzam?

continuação...

The Great Sphinx of Giza

Hancock’s formula used at Göbekli Tepe for inferring a lost advanced civilization—speculation absent of supporting data—is extended to other archaeological sites. Arguably, the most egregious example of “fitting” ancient structures into a lost civilization fantasy occurs at the Great Sphinx of Giza and the Sphinx and Valley temples.

The major evidence Hancock brings to the table comes by way of the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis proposed by Boston University professor Robert Schoch. The hypothesis has never been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but that has not stopped Schoch from becoming the darling of subscribers to the ancient lost civilization myth. The argument posits that there is erosion on the Great Sphinx that must have been caused by “thousands of years of heavy rain” as Hancock puts it. He continues: “this means it [the Great Sphinx] has to be much older than 2500 BCE (the orthodox date, when Egypt received no more rain than it does today) and must originally have been carved around the end of the Ice Age when the Nile valley was subjected to a long period of intense precipitation.”

Recent dating that contradicts Hancock’s assertion was published in 2015. University of the Aegean physicist Ioannis Liritzis and his collaborator Asimina Vafiadou published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Cultural Heritage surface luminescence dates of the Valley and Sphinx temples that match perfectly with the time period that archaeologists have long accepted based on other dating techniques—the Great Sphinx of Giza and associated temples were built during the reign of Pharaoh Khafre (c. 2558–2532 BCE).14 Nevertheless, with a stiff upper lip Hancock spends several pages in Magicians attempting to argue that the dates come from what we are told “Schoch already regarded as restoration work.” I wrote Dr. Liritzis and asked him to comment on the assertions made by Hancock and Schoch. He told me he was aware of Hancock’s “ideolipseis” and assured me that the samples Hancock claims were from a coating placed over the blocks to shield them from weathering “were not shielded coatings…but derived from the whole block in between a firm contact!” In other words, the Sphinx and Temple Complex are evidence of an ancient civilization that existed in the third millennium BCE, not thousands of years earlier.

During our debate, Hancock was keen to emphasize that the dates are from the temples and not the Sphinx. But a careful reading of both Fingerprints and Magicians shows that he argues that the Sphinx and associated temples were built in the same period, which explains why he spends several pages in Magicians attempting to undermine or explain away the dates from the temples as noted above. And with good reason, as the work of renowned Egyptologist Mark Lehner shows. Lehner received his Ph.D. from Yale and is currently the director of Ancient Egypt Research Associates. He wrote his dissertation on the Sphinx and has spent the last 30 years working on the approximately two-square miles of the Giza plateau, making some remarkable discoveries. First, the Sphinx is carved directly from an in situ limestone mass. Lehner, together with geologist Tom Aigner, demonstrated that the limestone used to construct the temples has precisely the same fossil assemblage as the limestone in the Great Sphinx, and therefore must have come from the same source. Moreover, they found that the walls of the Sphinx temple were excavated from a trench surrounding the Sphinx. Lehner and Aigner emphasized that the most likely scenario was that the Sphinx temple was built while they were carving the Great Sphinx.15

Hancock makes no mention of these aspects of Lehner’s work, but he does tell us that “By virtue of the distinctive weathering patterns on that monument’s [the Sphinx] flanks and on sections of the trench that surrounds it—highlighted in the analysis of geology professor Robert Schoch of Boston University— a proto Sphinx does appear to have existed when heavy rains fell across Egypt at the end of the Ice Age.” Attentive readers will notice that Hancock links the weathering on the Sphinx with the weathering in the trench from which the walls of the Sphinx and Valley temples were extracted. In other words, the weathering must have occurred after the walls were excavated from the trench and placed in the Sphinx temple—the very walls that have been dated to approximately 2500 BCE by Liritzis and Vafiadou.

Further, in 1853 French Archaeologist Auguste Mariette discovered a life-size statue made of “black volcanic rock” of the Pharoah Khafre within the Valley temple. He also unearthed a paved processional causeway between the Valley temple and a mortuary temple adjacent to Khafre’s pyramid. Is it any surprise that professional archaeologists have concluded that Khafre constructed the Sphinx, the Valley and Sphinx temples, as well as his great pyramid? Egyptian archaeologist and former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs of Egypt, Zahi Hawass, wrote in 2006: “Most scholars believe, as I do, that the Sphinx represents Khafre and forms an integral part of the pyramid complex.”16

Indeed, Lehner located the site where as many as 2,000 laborers lived while constructing the Giza complex near the Old Kingdom cemetery that Hawass had uncovered nine years earlier. The cemetery was the burial site of some of the directors of the construction of Giza based on tomb inscriptions. Lehner showed that the laborers were not slaves, but the kingdoms hired hands—bone artifacts indicate that their diet was mainly young cattle (prime beef!). The makeup of the laborer community is important because it appears they walked off the job before the Giza complex was finished. As far back as 1978, Hawass and Lehner discovered that stone blocks were left abandoned as the Sphinx temple was being built.17 Why?

That’s where German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin come into the picture. They published a study of climate changes in the eastern Sahara in Science in 2006, based on copious amounts of archaeological dating (more than 500 dates from over 150 excavations). Their conclusions are telling: (1) A vast region including Egypt and Sudan and parts of Libya and Chad were bone dry from the last glacial maximum at 20,000 years ago until about 8,500 years ago—not the advantageous environment Hancock envisions for hunter-gatherers when they supposedly met up with his “magicians” in 10,000 BCE to build the Great Sphinx. (2) Monsoon rains beginning in 8,500 BCE transformed the desert into a habitable environment for huntergatherers who began settling in the region about 7000 BCE—no evidence of hunter-gatherers in the lower Nile exists prior to this time, contrary to Hancock’s assertions. (3) By 1,500 BCE desiccation was complete, leading Kuper and Kröpelin to conclude: “The final desiccation of the Egyptian Sahara also had an essential impact on the contemporaneous origin of the pharaonic civilization in the Nile valley.”18

Lehner attributes the evidence of erosion on the Sphinx and along the trenches from which the Valley and Sphinx temple walls were excavated to the monsoon rains that periodically fell in the region as it became desiccated. Not only are there erosional remnants on the Sphinx from rains during this period, but Lehner found evidence of erosion within the laborers’ camp. He postulates that by the later years of the Old Kingdom, laborers refused to work in the suffocating dry conditions and stopped the construction of the Giza complex when food became in short supply.19

It is also worth noting that Lehner has tied the Giza complex together—including the Sphinx and pyramids—through his careful mapping and research of the structures. As Hancock has pointed out, the Sphinx runs east-west, but not because the Egyptians had help from magicians in aligning it with asterisms. Swiss archaeologist Herbert Ricke noted in the 1960s that the Sphinx temple walls encompass a courtyard with 24 pillars—each pillar representing an hour of the day as the sun crosses the sky from east to west. Lehner recognized that at the equinoxes “the shadow of the Sphinx and the shadow of the pyramid, both symbols of the king, become merged silhouettes. The Sphinx itself, it seems, symbolized the pharaoh presenting offerings to the sun god in the court of the temple.” Hawass agrees, reminding us that Khafre as the royal falcon god “is giving offerings with his two paws to his father, Khufu, incarnated as the sun god, Ra, who rises and sets in that temple.”20

[Pedro Reis]

Não vô tomar partido nessa briga sem sentido, mas acho que ficar postando em grego, latim, alemão e croata é sacanagem.

Pô, eu num falo nem Português!

[Pedro Reis]

Conjunção adversativa, que introduz oração coordenada sindética adversativa sucedida de vírgula, em vez de precedida também é questão de preferência?

Vai continuar rolando de rir ou vai voltar ao ensino fundamental da sua língua pátria?

Fundamental mesmo. Isso aí eu estudei na oitava série.

Não lembro de mais nada. Só lembro que foi na recuperação de janeiro, quando eu fiquei em 8 matérias.

Mas passei!

[Marciano]

Não vô tomar partido nessa briga sem sentido, mas acho que ficar postando em grego, latim, alemão e croata é sacanagem.

Pô, eu num falo nem Português!

Eu postei uma curta citação em latim, coisa mais comum em qualquer meio, jurídico, econômico, político, e o troll resolveu me encher o saco, como já vinha fazendo desde que entrei para o clube.

Desculpem-me vocês que não têm nada a ver com isso, mas se ele quer continuar a me encher a paciência e encontrou até um puxa-saco (na melhor das hipóteses) para tomar sua defesa, como o tal do Muad'Dib, só me resta reagir, já que se deixar de lado ele não para.

[Pedro Reis]

Mas um cara que sabe reconhecer de vista uma oração coordenada sindética adversativa eu respeito.

[Marciano]

Vou parar por aqui e dar mais uma chance a esse troll de me deixar em paz.

Mas se ele e seu puxa-sacos quiserem continuar, estou pronto.

Pena que não seja na porrada, minha especialidade.

Desculpem-me pela franqueza.

[Pedro Reis]

Sair na porrada por causa de gramática seria o cúmulo da nerdice.

[Marciano]

Sair na porrada por causa de gramática seria o cúmulo da nerdice.

Não é por causa de gramática, Sérgio. O cara vive dizendo que sou um néscio, por isso, por aquilo, que eu quero posar de homem culto, etc.

Eu não fiz nada disso. Apenas venho comentando aqui, como todo mundo, e do jeito que sempre fiz em outros sítios.

Não tenho pretensão de ficar exibindo conhecimentos ou não, não entrei aqui para isto, não sou doente. Só gosto de bater um papo com pessoas inteligentes, trocar ideias com pessoas que pensam da mesma forma ou que tenham outros pontos de vista.

Não sou nerd. Muito ao contrário.

Eu quero me esquecer dessa trollagem e seguir em paz. Só isso.

Não sei por que razão esse cara cismou comigo. E não para nunca!

[Pedro Reis]

Sair na porrada por causa de gramática seria o cúmulo da nerdice.

Não é por causa de gramática, Sérgio. O cara vive dizendo que sou um néscio, por isso, por aquilo, que eu quero posar de homem culto, etc.

Eu não fiz nada disso. Apenas venho comentando aqui, como todo mundo, e do jeito que sempre fiz em outros sítios.

Não tenho pretensão de ficar exibindo conhecimentos ou não, não entrei aqui para isto, não sou doente. Só gosto de bater um papo com pessoas inteligentes, trocar ideias com pessoas que pensam da mesma forma ou que tenham outros pontos de vista.

Não sou nerd. Muito ao contrário.

Eu quero me esquecer dessa trollagem e seguir em paz. Só isso.

Não sei por que razão esse cara cismou comigo. E não para nunca!

O cara é chato mesmo. Implica com todo mundo.

Olha, vou te dizer... isso é coisa de niteroiense. Esse pessoal de nikiti é mala sem alça.

Há pouco me chamou de "espermatozóide". Só me ofendeu menos que você, que acaba de me chamar de Sérgio.

Arghhhh!

[Gigaview]

Mas um dia, subindo o rio, começo a ouvir um rugir que vai ficando cada vez mais forte. Que estranho!, não poderia haver uma grande cachoeira naquele pequeno curso d´água. Mas... não havia mais dúvida, eu escutava cada vez mais próximo o turbilhão de uma grande queda d´água. Começo a subir rapidamente, o coração acelerado, e de repente me deparo com um imenso canion de paredes de pedras vermelhas de até sete metros de altura. O canion, impressionante, retorcia-se majestoso montanha acima e a partir daquele ponto só era possível prosseguir nadando. Ainda não se via a cachoeira mas estava próxima... e ao vencer mais uma curva do rio avistei o imenso véu. Aquele lugar vermelho, vou te dizer... era uma coisa. Nadei até a cachoeira, nadei por uma caverna. E no labirinto dos caminhos encontrei a passagem que me levou para dentro da queda d´água. Uau, que dia!

Não teve ofensa.

Só faltou uma referência a um bastão de jade.

Chá de trombeta é isso aí, taoquei?

[Marciano]

Sair na porrada por causa de gramática seria o cúmulo da nerdice.

Não é por causa de gramática, Sérgio. O cara vive dizendo que sou um néscio, por isso, por aquilo, que eu quero posar de homem culto, etc.

Eu não fiz nada disso. Apenas venho comentando aqui, como todo mundo, e do jeito que sempre fiz em outros sítios.

Não tenho pretensão de ficar exibindo conhecimentos ou não, não entrei aqui para isto, não sou doente. Só gosto de bater um papo com pessoas inteligentes, trocar ideias com pessoas que pensam da mesma forma ou que tenham outros pontos de vista.

Não sou nerd. Muito ao contrário.

Eu quero me esquecer dessa trollagem e seguir em paz. Só isso.

Não sei por que razão esse cara cismou comigo. E não para nunca!

O cara é chato mesmo. Implica com todo mundo.

Olha, vou te dizer... isso é coisa de niteroiense. Esse pessoal de nikiti é mala sem alça.

Há pouco me chamou de "espermatozóide". Só me ofendeu menos que você, que acaba de me chamar de Sérgio.

Arghhhh!

Putz! Perdão! Chamar uma pessoa pelo nome de outro é muito deselegante, mas foi a cabeça quente.

Não estou fazendo juízo de valor sobre qualquer um de vocês dois, apenas fiquei envergonhado de cometer um deslize desses!

Desculpe-me, Pedro! Não foi desatenção, foi porque eu estava realmente irritado.

[Marciano]

Devo desculpas também ao Eliphas, por esta digressão em seu tópico.

Não concordo com sua visão esotérica da realidade, estamos em situação diametralmente oposta quanto a este assunto, mas deixei-me levar pela impetuosidade.

[Gigaview]

É mais um tópico bagunçado com longas sequências de postagens idiotas como se isso aqui fosse a casa da mãe Joana.

[Pedro Reis]

Não teve ofensa.

Só faltou uma referência a um bastão de jade.

Chá de trombeta é isso aí, taoquei?

A metáfora do espermatozoide eu tinha percebido. A do chá de trombeta não.

É um uso do duplo sentido então.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Sair na porrada por causa de gramática seria o cúmulo da nerdice.

Nem sei o que antecedeu isso, mas é algo que soa como a "sinopse" de um vídeo de humor no estilo de Key and Peele ou "porta dos fundos."


<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/N9qYF9DZPdw" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/N9qYF9DZPdw</a>

Por uma coincidência demasiadamente improvável, nesse clipe que foi a única coisa real meio nessa linha, tem a participação de Key and Peele, de que eu nem "lembrava." Certamente é comprovação do efeito Mandela.

[Pedro Reis]

Só vejo uma saída: os dois resolverem suas diferenças gramaticais no braço. Como homens!

O Marciano chamou a oração do Giga de coordenada adversativa sindética!

Eu num deixava barato...

[Gigaview]

Só vejo uma saída: os dois resolverem suas diferenças gramaticais no braço. Como homens!

O Marciano chamou a oração do Giga de coordenada adversativa sindética!

Eu num deixava barato...

É...ficar chamando prá porrada é fácil mas aposto que o cara nem tem um dicionário decente e a gramática dele com certeza é Edições de Ouro, de bolso.

Também está na cara que esse cidadão nunca se classificou em olimpíadas de gramática e nem sabe quantos botões tem o fardão dos imortais da Academia Brasileira de Letras.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Viiiiixi... humilhou....

Só tem um jeito de resolver isso agora...

SO-LETRADA!

SO-LETRADA!

SO-LETRADA!

SO-LETRADA!

SO-LETRADA!

SO-LETRADA!

[Gigaview]

Humilhou? Isto é humilhar:

[Eliphas Levi]

Mas um dia, subindo o rio, começo a ouvir um rugir que vai ficando cada vez mais forte. Que estranho!, não poderia haver uma grande cachoeira naquele pequeno curso d´água. Mas... não havia mais dúvida, eu escutava cada vez mais próximo o turbilhão de uma grande queda d´água. Começo a subir rapidamente, o coração acelerado, e de repente me deparo com um imenso canion de paredes de pedras vermelhas de até sete metros de altura. O canion, impressionante, retorcia-se majestoso montanha acima e a partir daquele ponto só era possível prosseguir nadando. Ainda não se via a cachoeira mas estava próxima... e ao vencer mais uma curva do rio avistei o imenso véu. Aquele lugar vermelho, vou te dizer... era uma coisa. Nadei até a cachoeira, nadei por uma caverna. E no labirinto dos caminhos encontrei a passagem que me levou para dentro da queda d´água. Uau, que dia!

[Eliphas Levi]

Devo desculpas também ao Eliphas, por esta digressão em seu tópico.

Não concordo com sua visão esotérica da realidade, estamos em situação diametralmente oposta quanto a este assunto, mas deixei-me levar pela impetuosidade.

Imagine! Eu não deixava. A solução é sair no braço.

[Gigaview]

Quando obtive o meu 8º dan no karatê Goju-Kai (Linhagem de Gogen Yamaguchi (IKGA)) fiz um juramento em japonês que jamais sairia na porrada com alguém por motivos gramaticais.

[Gigaview]

Devo desculpas também ao Eliphas, por esta digressão em seu tópico.

Não concordo com sua visão esotérica da realidade, estamos em situação diametralmente oposta quanto a este assunto, mas deixei-me levar pela impetuosidade.

Imagine! Eu não deixava. A solução é sair no braço.

Acho melhor você abrir outro tópico porque este já foi pro saco.