> Publishing, maybe, if the results come out pointing the "wrong" way.
Poppycock. As the source I pointed to shows, those two authors have been publishing along these lines for years.
> Equating the possibility of literate Carthaginians having sailed to the Baltic Sea
I'm showing how your flat assertion about how science works is not correct. I said nothing about Carthaginians having reached the North Sea, much less the Baltic. (Earlier you said Denmark, and you don't need to get to the Baltic to get to Denmark.)
If you want to have a real argument, make a real argument. Don't start by using faulty logic to dismiss others.
> Whenever older runes show up, the picture might change.
But of course. From what I gather, that's why specialists in this field are so interested in this work.
Do note that this mild statement of your is quite different from your earlier assertion that "Any discussion that doesn't even mention the possibility of origin in semitic forms ... seems unlikely to enlighten".
What is your strongest argument that the semitic origin hypothesis is viable enough to warrant its coverage in a paper like this? Simply that they could have reached Denmark? And why is it more viable than, say, Tartessian explorers?
Poppycock. As the source I pointed to shows, those two authors have been publishing along these lines for years.
> Equating the possibility of literate Carthaginians having sailed to the Baltic Sea
I'm showing how your flat assertion about how science works is not correct. I said nothing about Carthaginians having reached the North Sea, much less the Baltic. (Earlier you said Denmark, and you don't need to get to the Baltic to get to Denmark.)
If you want to have a real argument, make a real argument. Don't start by using faulty logic to dismiss others.
> Whenever older runes show up, the picture might change.
But of course. From what I gather, that's why specialists in this field are so interested in this work.
Do note that this mild statement of your is quite different from your earlier assertion that "Any discussion that doesn't even mention the possibility of origin in semitic forms ... seems unlikely to enlighten".
What is your strongest argument that the semitic origin hypothesis is viable enough to warrant its coverage in a paper like this? Simply that they could have reached Denmark? And why is it more viable than, say, Tartessian explorers?