- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#1
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 02:41:37 AMWould be a good name for a cafe in New York's financial district......Thank God it's TACO Tuesday!
#2
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Crazy_Ivan80 - Today at 01:48:25 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on March 09, 2026, 09:14:44 PMThere are still chances that ending the Terrorist theocracy can have some good consequences.Yes, but what about the ayatollahs?
#3
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by crazy canuck - March 09, 2026, 10:45:17 PMThat is probably why Israel pushed Trump into attacking
#4
Off the Record / Re: Youtube Recommendations
Last post by crazy canuck - March 09, 2026, 10:44:23 PMYou're right, I did need that
#5
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by viper37 - March 09, 2026, 10:40:02 PMInteresting. Apparently, the negotiations were going well. Even further than under Obama.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-omani-foreign-minister-badr-albusaidi/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-omani-foreign-minister-badr-albusaidi/
#6
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by viper37 - March 09, 2026, 10:23:54 PMQuote from: Legbiter on March 08, 2026, 09:30:41 PMI'd say Trump has lost this war and just about obliterated his presidency. And I don't know if he can just declare victory. Iranians will have a say in that as well.They're talking of conscription in the US. Well, Leavitt said they're not ruling out a draft.
The war will last until the election so he can have riots and send troops to Blue States.
#7
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by viper37 - March 09, 2026, 10:10:38 PMQuote from: Neil on March 07, 2026, 09:58:43 AMThere was a patrol craft in the area just before the attack, to spot the ship before it departed.Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2026, 08:26:00 AMYes, it is. The submarine commander does not have perfect knowledge of the battlespace, nor is he obligated to act as if he does. He's within theoretical range of maritime patrol aircraft. He's attacking an enemy warship. A warship is inarguably a legitimate target, not just a Hegseth 'we shoot anything that moves' target. The problem here isn't the actions of the submarine, but rather the political decision to go to war (or police action, or whatever) with Iran.Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2026, 08:25:02 PMNo, it's not enough. There were no other Iranian ships or aircraft anywhere near that area. The United States Navy knew that.Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2026, 07:23:49 PMwho was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft. It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough.
This is in no way analogies to what happened during the Falkland war.
They knew it was alone. Besides, modern subs have sophiscated radars & comms now, unlike U-boats.
#8
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Neil - March 09, 2026, 10:08:18 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 09, 2026, 12:06:11 PMPlus, of course, the issue of gun system saturation by large-scale drone attacks where "they can get some of us, but not all of us."This is obviously a problem for missile-based defence too, when we're talking about cheap drones versus expensive interceptors.
But yeah, something big like an airbase would be a nightmare to adequately cover with guns.
#9
Off the Record / Re: Grand unified books thread
Last post by Jacob - March 09, 2026, 09:52:55 PMBut to get back to the conversation... yes, there's definitely a interdisciplinary disagreement going on 
The archaeologists do seem to build their arguments on an interdisciplinary foundation (including some literary and philological arguments). I'm not sure to what degree the stylistic/ literary criticism side of things considers evidence outside their specific fields. However, IMO - and this is Skre's argument earlier in the book - a conclusion supported by evidence in multiple different fields is more persuasive than one supported by evidence from only one field and failing to address questions raised by evidence in other areas of inquiry.
So from a bit of a re-skim of the argument, here's my rendering of the "Scandinavian origin" arguments:
Beowulf discusses gold rings frequently and they appear in significant numbers in the Scandinavian archaeological record from the 3rd to mid 6th centuries, after which they disappear until the 9th century. Meanwhile, gold rings are completely absent from the Anglo-Saxon record until the 9th century (which is after the composition of Beowulf by most reckonings).
Similarly, there are many references to byrnies - in language the suggests practical and personal experience - which are completely absent from the Anglo-Saxon archeological record from the 5th - 10th centuries, with the one exception of Sutton Hoo (which is unique in England, but has many features commonly found in Scandinavia in that period).
Both of those elements are described in great and realistic detail, in a way that suggests personal experience by the author(s), which is odd in the case of England where they basically hadn't appeared yet.
As well, the subjects of the poem are existing ethnic groups accurately placed along the Baltic and in Scandinavia, none of whom according to DNA analysis contributed to Anglo-Saxon settlements in England; yet there are no mention of Angles or Jutes or Saxons who did. It seems odd that ancestors of the local magnates weren't mentioned even peripherally if the song was composed locally.
There are other arguments (about the timing of the development of Hall culture so vividly described in the poem) and plausible answers given to questions raised (about the form of names, about the meter used, and about how the song could've appeared) as well.
Obviously it's subject to discussion, but I think Skre's basic contention that a theory should be able to address the evidence from multiple disciplines to be convincing is sound. The "local author" argument seems to be that an English author could reflect social and material culture from Scandinavia that did not exist locally without error and without making flourishes reflecting local conditions (unlike, say, Shakespeare) to create something very distinct from the other output of the era because "they drew on a local tradition of performing Scandinavian derived songs to provide the form, the themes, and the material and social culture, but the tradition wasn't relevant enough to make the writing down of a Scandinavian song credible".
That is potentially possible, of course, but it seems less credible than "they wrote down a Scandinavian song that had elements particularly offensive to the locals removed" to Skre (and therefore, to me as his reader )
The archaeologists do seem to build their arguments on an interdisciplinary foundation (including some literary and philological arguments). I'm not sure to what degree the stylistic/ literary criticism side of things considers evidence outside their specific fields. However, IMO - and this is Skre's argument earlier in the book - a conclusion supported by evidence in multiple different fields is more persuasive than one supported by evidence from only one field and failing to address questions raised by evidence in other areas of inquiry.
So from a bit of a re-skim of the argument, here's my rendering of the "Scandinavian origin" arguments:
Beowulf discusses gold rings frequently and they appear in significant numbers in the Scandinavian archaeological record from the 3rd to mid 6th centuries, after which they disappear until the 9th century. Meanwhile, gold rings are completely absent from the Anglo-Saxon record until the 9th century (which is after the composition of Beowulf by most reckonings).
Similarly, there are many references to byrnies - in language the suggests practical and personal experience - which are completely absent from the Anglo-Saxon archeological record from the 5th - 10th centuries, with the one exception of Sutton Hoo (which is unique in England, but has many features commonly found in Scandinavia in that period).
Both of those elements are described in great and realistic detail, in a way that suggests personal experience by the author(s), which is odd in the case of England where they basically hadn't appeared yet.
As well, the subjects of the poem are existing ethnic groups accurately placed along the Baltic and in Scandinavia, none of whom according to DNA analysis contributed to Anglo-Saxon settlements in England; yet there are no mention of Angles or Jutes or Saxons who did. It seems odd that ancestors of the local magnates weren't mentioned even peripherally if the song was composed locally.
There are other arguments (about the timing of the development of Hall culture so vividly described in the poem) and plausible answers given to questions raised (about the form of names, about the meter used, and about how the song could've appeared) as well.
Obviously it's subject to discussion, but I think Skre's basic contention that a theory should be able to address the evidence from multiple disciplines to be convincing is sound. The "local author" argument seems to be that an English author could reflect social and material culture from Scandinavia that did not exist locally without error and without making flourishes reflecting local conditions (unlike, say, Shakespeare) to create something very distinct from the other output of the era because "they drew on a local tradition of performing Scandinavian derived songs to provide the form, the themes, and the material and social culture, but the tradition wasn't relevant enough to make the writing down of a Scandinavian song credible".
That is potentially possible, of course, but it seems less credible than "they wrote down a Scandinavian song that had elements particularly offensive to the locals removed" to Skre (and therefore, to me as his reader
) #10
Off the Record / Re: Iran War?
Last post by Jacob - March 09, 2026, 09:29:44 PMSaw a thing where Iran allegedly promises safe transit of the Hormuz Strait for European and Middle Eastern countries if they expel their local US ambassador...