MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina ordered to pay 405m dollars to nationalized Suez water works
The World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has ordered Argentina to pay 405 million dollars to French company Suez, who saw their contract for water and drainage provision cancelled in 2006. The service had been privatized in the nineties during the presidency of Carlos Menem. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMore of the same. No wonder the whole world no longer trusts Argentina.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0The decline is inevitible. Cristina is to blame for not taking control of this.
With different policies, and some acceptance of responsibility for past mistakes, she could have taken Argentina so high, but due to her own corruption she has destroyed that potential, and taken the country down so low.
That's your tax dollars Nostrils!
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Think!
Thank you very much!
Do you think that they will actually pay up !!!
Apr 10th, 2015 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3
Apr 10th, 2015 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0In one word “ NO ”
I think once that current scum is out of office, there is a better chance for reality to set into Argentina's leadership. Remember we are talking about a women taking psychotic medications and out of touch with reality to the point even her peers in SA think she is a lunatic.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@5
Apr 10th, 2015 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't think the next government is going to be any different. All the so called politicians the world over only consider one thing, Feathering ones own nest.
This “nationalization” was the perfect example of how through Thugs running a gov't you can destroy a company.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since the Theft water rates have skyrocketed and service is worse.
Silly Kthugs
I seriously doubt the next Gov't can fix this mess. It will take a generation to fix with austerity. I don't think the apathetic and stupid Rgs have the will to do what is necessary.
Especially the Millions of Slum Dwellers around BA.
This is going to get ugly and I can't wait.
Get in line collecting that debt... I am not familiar with that court, but I am sure they will do nothing much to help with the collection process. Argentina is a deck of cards and all this stuff piling up will come crashing down, probably on the next presidents head.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@6. I don't agree. There's a well-known homily that a socialist government falls when it runs out of other peoples' money to spend. Simple question. If all the members of the so-called argie 'government' had to pay all argie debts on the day they left office, would argieland have any debts? Mind you, Kirchner can probably pay off all of argieland's debts by herself from what she's stashed away. It's even money that the next argie 'government' will spend a considerable amount of time on its collective belly sobbing about how it's not their fault. Let's take a new approach. 'You're an argie, aren't you? Two choices. Pay or die. We're taking everything useful. Starting with whatever is edible.'
Apr 10th, 2015 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let them start by learning to be human. And here's the best bit. Based on their usual attitudes, how many will be left? They'll be killing each other for the Coco-Pops and cornflakes.
@7. I don't think so, yb. It would be nice to think that argies could get themselves straight in a couple of hundred years. In reality, considering the Celtic influence, it's more likely to be something like 2,500 years. Take a look around the world. Check out people notably considered 'Celtic'. Aren't they generally thieving, skiving, scrounging? And why? Part of their genetic makeup. Because they were 'hill tribes'. Existing on thieving from coastal territories where people were 'working' to farm, produce food, be civilised.
The check for $405 million is in the mail.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who ever is looking after the water around BA is not doing their job.
El Rio Reconquista is pitch black and an open sewer full of trash. I can smell it from 2kms away when I drive over it on the Panamericana.
Hasn't barely rained in months to wash it out.
@10
Apr 10th, 2015 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ Hasn't barely rained in months to wash it out” Pray tell us where it is being washed out to, most civilised countries treat their sewage. Some pump it to sea ( treated of course not I hasten to add )
They will never pay. The government have the same attitude as TTT; we stole your money and tough luck.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps Suez can sell the debt to Paul Singer at a substantial discount...
Apr 10th, 2015 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11 It goes into the Rio del Plata, just north of Buenos Aires.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the sewer is from those filthy Villas near the Buen Ayre freeway. We could eliminate a good % of the problem if we sent the foreigners home to Bolivia, Peru etc.
9
Apr 10th, 2015 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many times do I have to repeat myself before it sinks into your stupid dense skull...
How many times do I have to repeat myself before it sinks into your stupid dense skull...
“Even in England, about 64 per cent of people are descended from these Celts, outnumbering the descendants of Anglo- Saxons by about three to one.
The proportion of Celts is only slightly higher in Scotland, at 73 per cent. Wales is the most Celtic part of mainland Britain, with 83 per cent.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/we-re-nearly-all-celts-under-the-skin-1-1141420
...are we learning yet...?
Suez water works
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0tough shit , tough decisions,
Still,
seeing as she is carrying the shovel..lol
Once again Argentina gets embroiled in another losing legal battle. Buenos Aires' refusal to abide by civilised standards has turned it into an international pariah, mired in the miasma of delusion and illusion that has saw Argentina experience terminal decline since 1914. It is so, so sad that the Argentinian people have not had the courage to recognise the damage their populist, rabble-rousing leaders have inflicted on their beautiful country.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now this is going to be interesting. What a paradox the US is in, now. Bieber is a Canadian National, not a US citizen. He is here on a work visa. Argentina has an arrest warrant out for him. Will the US step in and stop his extradition, knowing he is a Canadian citizen? Will Canada keep him in the US to avoid extradition? Legally, I don't believe the US can stop an extradition of a non-citizen who merely works in the country, if Canada has to send him back to Argentina.
Let's see how the “civilized” Neanderthal great-grand children behave here.
Bahahahahaha an arrest warrant for Justin Bieber.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gads Argnetina is pathetic.
Hope you get him.
Good luck with getting the money, but if I was you, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Voice
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Entirely depends on which set of data, or even which interpretation of the data you believe.
Last article (BBC website) concluded there was no “overarching Celtic gene”
People in N. Wales being more different from people in S. Wales, than people in England were from people in Scotland.
The Celts, were disparate groups of people with similar languages and customs, but quite un-related genetically speaking.
Most estimates put the Anglo-Saxon genetic contribution in England at between 50-100%.
Bearing in mind that Danish Vikings and Normans were genetically the same as Anglo-Saxons.
21
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Most estimates put the Anglo-Saxon genetic contribution in England at between 50-100%.”
Show me the link....How would this be known without DNA analysis...
...and the only major DNA analysis that has been attempted is the one I referred to...
Please state your facts and not the myths of the great Anglo-Saxon decimation of Britons....at the time of the Roman invasions there were about 3 million Britons...
“On the basis of the available genetic data, Dr. Oppenheimer believes no single group of invaders is responsible for more than 5% of the current gene pool. Estimates by the archaeologist Dr. Heinrich Haerke suggest that the Anglo-Saxon invasions, beginning in the 4th century AD, added about 250,000 people”
@22 Voice
Apr 11th, 2015 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One is a Tony Robinson program about Anglo-Saxon graveyards/skeletons and the conquest, in conclusion comparatively few Anglo-Saxons came from Europe overwhelmingly they were born here. Yet the Anglo-Saxon genetic contribution in England is between 50-100%.
You’ll have to find it yourself.
The other is a report of an article in New Scientist magazine about the Celtic Gene, or not as it turned out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31953344
As I said it depends on who you believe, and anyway new data and even new interpretations of old data are appearing on a regular basis these days.
For the moment however “Celts” are just a figment of history.
Of the two theories, mingling or massacre, the archaeological, historical and now genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports the massacre scenario.
@22 Voice
Apr 11th, 2015 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Genetic data never mind interpretations of data can change on a weekly basis these days, and you quote Dr Oppenheimer from what 2013 and Dr Heinrich Haerke from circa 2011.
Way, way out of date now.
23
Apr 11th, 2015 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You might want to read your BBC link first before you use it to back your theories......“Of the two theories, mingling or massacre, the archaeological, historical and now genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports the massacre scenario.”...you stated....
..and your link says...
“And it shows that the invading Anglo Saxons did not wipe out the Britons of 1,500 years ago, but mixed with them.|
”The new analysis shows a MODEST level of Saxon DNA, suggesting that the native British populations lived alongside each other and intermingled with the Anglo Saxons to become the English.
There is some evidence in the study that intermingling did not happen immediately following the Saxons' arrival, but occurred at least 100 years later. This suggests that Britons and Saxons had separate communities to begin with, and then over time they began to merge.”
So let's go with my and your evidence which points to the mingling and not the massacre....;-)))
.....on a modest 250,000 level of course....
I also prefer the term Brythonic Tribes as opposed to Celts...which is more of a cultural link....
@25 Voice
Apr 11th, 2015 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You need to check out both references to get the whole picture.
Then read the original article in New Scientist magazine and you see MODEST level is defined as 10-40%. Somewhat more than 5% max, don’t you think.
As explained in the first reference, isotope analysis of skeletons show overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxons were born here, probably fewer than 25,000 actually arrived from Europe.
The archaeological and historical evidence does overwhelmingly support the massacre scenario, indeed I know of no evidence to the contrary, the genetic data, simply depends on who you believe and as I have repeatedly said, keeps changing.
Not Brythonic Tribes, Non-homogenous grouping formally known as Celts.
Try looking at thing more objectively and with less conformational bias, it will all make more sense.
26
Apr 11th, 2015 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've studied it for years off and on and the massacre theory has never made sense....the logic screams that 25,000 Anglo Saxons did not wipe out 3 million Britons...
Just as the Viking and Norman invasions didn't make a ha'p'orth of difference to the standing population....
Your figures also appear to be decreasing with each post...down from 50 - 100% to 10 - 40%....
Which of course agrees with my original post that stated ...“Even in England, about 64 per cent of people are descended from these Celts, outnumbering the descendants of Anglo- Saxons by about three to one.....
Does it really matter,
Apr 11th, 2015 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0they are the British isle, if you are born there you would be British born, just as if you were born in Argentina, you would be argentine born,
but then again, if you wish to get technical and just using the Anglo as an anti,
then remember that WE are all ANGLOs, in one way or another, and ALL of us are ANGLO AFRICAN are we not.
unless of course some very clever intelligent advanced human knows something different.
[ edit]
some say CFK was planted here by Martians in 1955, so they say...
@28 Briton
Apr 12th, 2015 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, I must correct you.
CFK, (Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, born 19 February 1953), rose from the SA, (Sunken Atlantis), as a fully formed goddess, and leader of the Poor into a New Future, (Nueva Fantasia).
Catch Up on The Disney Channel - On Demand. Right Now!)
PS: Allegedly the D.O.B. is correct, but who knows? She lies about everything else.)
@27 Voice
Apr 12th, 2015 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 50-100% is on the first reference, a geneticist using the same data as on the 10-40% quoted on the links original article.
Either way completely contradicting the 5% max quoted in your 5 year old references, prehistoric in modern genetic terms.
The evidence suggests that 25,000 Anglo-Saxons produced a few hundred thousand more and that they wiped out a similar number of what were formally known as Celts.
3 million, would be more like the middle-ages, or even later.
As I said Normans and Danish Vikings are indistinguishable from Anglo-Saxons, in genetic terms.
I repeat:
“The archaeological and historical evidence does overwhelmingly support the massacre scenario, indeed I know of no evidence to the contrary, the genetic data, simply depends on who you believe and as I have repeatedly said, keeps changing.”
“I know of no evidence to the contrary”- I stand to be corrected here.
It is clear that you actually know very little about this, and certainly nothing that could be considered current thinking.
Must have come as a shock to discover that the Celts do not and never did exist as a people.
Just Anglo-Saxons and a few others.
30
Apr 12th, 2015 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...and still not one credible link to support your massacre theory...
I'm also well aware that Danish Vikings DNA are indistinguishable from Anglo Saxons...but Norwegian Vikings are...but that still doesn't help your theory it just means there were even less Anglo Saxons thrown into the mix as they count as Anglo Saxons....
Surely in the whole of the internet you can find one link....
...you can't because it's old hat ...outdated and now proven wrong theories...
You can't argue with the DNA and the DNA says 64% and that include Normans and Vikings....
I rest my case mi'lud.....
@31 Voice
Apr 12th, 2015 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have given you the references, you will have to look them up yourself I’m afraid.
“about 64 per cent of people are descended from these Celts,”
Where does this figure come from, this century is it?
Also you now know there were no Celts, don’t you.
You have no “case” only conjecture, ill founded at that.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/we-re-nearly-all-celts-under-the-skin-1-1141420
Apr 12th, 2015 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.scotsman.com/news/we-re-nearly-all-celts-under-the-skin-1-1141420
What we have here are two completely different “interpretations” of the same data.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/we-re-nearly-all-celts-under-the-skin-1-1141420
However in the Scotsman’s more than a little fanciful “interpretation” (lets be kind and call it that) they continue to gaily witter on about something the source data says doesn’t exist.
“There exist genetically differentiated subgroups rather than a general ‘Celtic’ population”.
Absolutely no figure of “64%” anywhere in the original report, in reference to anything.
32
Apr 12th, 2015 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where does the figure come from...work it out....it's from your own source!
...your source...
”The majority of eastern, central and southern England is made up of a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a significant DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxon migrations (10-40% of total ancestry). This settles a historical controversy in showing that the Anglo-Saxons intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing populations.
- See more at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0315/180315-fine-scale-british-isle-genetic-map#sthash.2mCWxesA.dpuf
Do the arithmetic...if only 10 - 40% of total ancestry is Anglo Saxon it means that 60 - 90 % is not Anglo Saxon, but the single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group known as Celts...
So more than 60%...but less than 90%....so the figure of 64% is well within the limits..in fact it's on the lower end...
This is facts from your own link....not conjecture...what more do you want...
Do the sensible thing and fall on your sword....
...yer beaten....;-)
@34 Voice
Apr 12th, 2015 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“relatively homogeneous, genetic group known as Celts...”
Oh no, no, no, noooo.
“genetically differentiated subgroups” formally known as Celts.
So what happened to Dr Oppenheimer and the 5% max then, went fissile and “bang” did it, don’t you believe that anymore?
Luck you had this little talk, now you actually know something up to date on the subject.
No need to thank me, here to help.
@ 34 Mc Voice
Apr 12th, 2015 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The majority of eastern, central and southern England is made up of a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a significant DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxon migrations”.
“There was not a single “Celtic” genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically”.
So Anglo-Saxons exist in quantity, however Celts do not exist, at all.
Just Anglo-Saxons and a few others then.
Tell me what this information has done for your “sense of identity”.
Now being, genetically differentiated subgroups formally known as Celts.
29 ilsen
Apr 12th, 2015 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I stand corrected,
As a fully formed goddess, and leader of the Poor into a New Future, (Nueva Fantasia).
Cheers….
.
Pugol-H and Pogle Wood...
Apr 12th, 2015 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well...if you are not going to do the noble thing and fall on your sword I'm going to have to cut you to pieces....
You have stated that....
“The archaeological and historical evidence does overwhelmingly support the massacre scenario, indeed I know of no evidence to the contrary,“
Your link states...
”This settles a historical controversy in showing that the Anglo-Saxons intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing populations.“
You say
”What we have here are two completely different “interpretations” of the same data.“
What the comparison link says...
”We estimate the genetic contribution to SOUTHEASTERN ENGLAND from Anglo-Saxon migrations to be under half, and identify the regions not carrying genetic material from these migrations.”
...just under 50%...but this is for Southeastern England only not the whole of England... a clue is in the name of these areas....Wessex...(West Saxon)...Sussex (South Saxon) Essex (East Saxon).....are you seeing the pattern...;-)
If the whole of England was included we would be back to our 10 - 40% again....
...“the single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group ”
.....these are not the Anglo Saxons....these are the people that were there before them...the people we know as Britons and in some cases often referred to as Celts....
....and according to your links....between 60 and 90% of the population of England (current) are descended from them and not the Anglo Saxons....
...................................ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT NOW...????
Shit man,
Apr 12th, 2015 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I traced mine back to the 11 century [name dilation]
to Devonian,
and that makes me what /?
meanwhile back on blog,
will Argentina pay.
Oh you won't get him back on to the article.
Apr 13th, 2015 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Look how excited you have gotten him!
39
Apr 13th, 2015 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can't tell you that without a DNA test, all I can tell you is every two out every three people in England are descended from “the single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group” aka Celts...
...but if you have a birthday coming up and maybe your son would like to treat you, then a great gift can be obtained from the University of Oxford....they will test your DNA for £30 and tell you which ancient tribe of Britain you came from....
...you never know you could even be related to Boudica from the Iceni, Corieltauvi, Catuvellauni or Trinovantes tribes...;-)
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/component/option,com_virtuemart/page,shop.browse/category_id,7/Itemid,67/
@ Voicey
Apr 13th, 2015 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I invite anyone to read the Scotsman link and then the source material @nature.com, and tell me it is a true and fair representation of the data.
Let’s review here, you started at 5% max, you then went to 36% and now its 10-40% (incidentally the fig I gave you @26, remember).
It’s not me getting pushed back here, is it?
If I can find a link for 50-100% I will post it, if not you heard it here first OK.
“You can't argue with the DNA” –No, 5% max to 10-40%, you do.
DNA tests and interpretation of results is a rapidly evolving field, in which things can change on a daily basis.
Whereas things like isotope analysis are most unlikely to change in any significant way.
It does help if you understand at least some of the science involved in these things.
The 50-100% figure is the one that will ultimately be proved right, simply because all the hard evidence, historical and archaeological, supports a massacre scenario, it is as simple as that.
I know of no evidence to the contrary, if you do, link away.
Otherwise you could start by reading the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, hardly the most un-bias version of history I agree, but it will give you the flavour of the times.
Or there is Bede of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede
Just substitute the term “Celt(s)” for “genetically differentiated subgroups formally known as Celts”.
No need to thank me, here to help and in your case enlighten and educate as well, all for free.
@ Voicey
Apr 13th, 2015 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Having had to go from 5% max to 40% max, you can’t argue you’re winning here, can you?
Poor kid ...doesn't know when he's beaten.....
Apr 13th, 2015 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You state...
....“Let’s review here, you started at 5% max, ”
...now let's look where I really started...
“Even in England, about 64 per cent of people are descended from these Celts, outnumbering the descendants of Anglo- Saxons by about three to one.
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/10/argentina-ordered-to-pay-405m-dollars-to-nationalized-suez-water-works#comment391440
Oh dear oh dear ...wrong again....does that look like 5%...;-))))
Why won't you just die...after all I've already buried you.....
Be noble take your sword and fall on it....
I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you.... and there is no simple way to make it easy on you...
@22 Voice
Apr 13th, 2015 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“On the basis of the available genetic data, Dr Oppenheimer believes no single group of invaders is responsible for more than 5% of the current gene pool.”
You said, yes.
@ Voicey
I believe you will find my position here has been entirely consistent throughout.
I favour the 50-100% figure for all the reasons outlined above, as I pointed out to you, the latest report says 10-40%.
If you knew anything about this field you would know that this is more likely to change than not, indeed change either way.
You on the other hand began by insisting that 5% max was the only true gospel, then since your Damascene conversion from reading the link I provided, you shout 10-40% with gay abandon.
Clearly at the 5% stage you knew very little about this subject, so how did you expect to win an argument?
On the up side, you have gone from:
“Knowing very little about this, and certainly nothing that could be considered current thinking.”
To simply:
“Knowing very little about this”
Progress, slow but sure, progress of a sort.
It's a pity you don't understand what Dr Oppenheimer is saying....
Apr 13th, 2015 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”no single group of invaders is responsible for more than 5% of the current gene pool.”
It's not about just quoting links it's also about understanding them...
You have already admitted the DNA is indistinguishable between Danish, Anglo Saxon, Norman etc...
Now there is at least 15 % between those...then there are other invaders and settlers Romans etc...
HE IS SAYING NO MORE THAN 5% FROM EACH...
So going back to the figure of between 10 - 40 % also corroborates what he is saying....
You truly have not got the ability to understand what you are reading....this is doing your image no favours for those that are reading these posts....
They will be thinking...That Pugol should be changing that H for a D....
Voice is slaughtering him.....;-))))
I will watch this playing out
Apr 13th, 2015 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0from the side lines.
47
Apr 13th, 2015 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Briton did you look at the link...
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/
Gotta be worth £30...to know who you are...
48 Voice
Apr 13th, 2015 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Being an amateur genealogist I have considered this in the past,
But considering as stated before, there will always be someone that will either disagree or come up with something different, like most of these argies that seem to hate us,
Perhaps in the future I may consider doing a DNA test.
But I think that after well over 800 years I think I’m British enough at the moment,
Besides do us all not in turn decent from Eretria in Africa so they say.
I would as I say, consider it for the future, but not just now.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Have you taken the DNA test.
.
1 ilsen
Apr 14th, 2015 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The decline is inevitible. Cristina is to blame for not taking control...With different policies, and some acceptance of responsibility for past mistakes, she could have taken Argentina so high.”
Prey, ilsen, what would be your recipe for Cristina?
Do as Carlos Menem did? Or do it as Videla and Co.? Or perhaps De la Rua?
Even Alfonsin perhaps?
You fail to realize the country has seen it all. CFK, the same as Nestor, have taken the country on a totally different path. The opposition is blind with rage and is failing to come up with any acceptable proposal.
This is what happens when you have a government that goes for the throat and does not waste energy in trying to appease the right. Of course, the propaganda is unabated. No sooner the Nisman affair crumbled, the Clarin group came up with Maximo Kirchner and Nilda Garre's “secret accounts” in a foreign bank, which was dismissed by the own bank.
People in this board may entertain themselves talking about race and genetics, while the Peronists have begun to win the primaries, starting with 60 per cent in Salta.
@ Voicey
Apr 14th, 2015 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Riiiiight, so now you’re not saying it’s 5% max, you’re saying it’s actually 5+5+5% = 15% (max, I take it) hmmm. Is this some sort of “correct to fit” calculation?
Still doesn’t add up to your other oft quoted figure of 36%, does it?
You do seem to get your knickers in a twist with numbers, don’t you?
On the up side, now at least both numbers are inside the 10-40% range.
Let me give you a clue here, as you are obviously clueless about such things.
Data of this kind is generally presented as a percentage range, i.e. 10-40% or 50-100%, for complicated reasons we can’t go into here and you wouldn’t understand anyway.
When you see a single figure like 36% for example, it usually means some idiot has plucked a number out of thin air, or in this case some fool has copied a number some idiot has plucked out of thin air, thinking it sounds clever and because it’s in print it must be gospel.
It does help if you have at least some understanding of the science involved.
I have explained my thinking on this issue, and the rationale behind it, the link to the original report is posted above for anyone interested.
You on the other hand don’t seem to have an original thought in your head.
Unlike you I don’t have an agenda in terms of what outcome I want the data to show. Also unlike you I know this report is not going to be the last word on this subject.
@ 49 Briton
Yeah, he took the DNA test, and failed.
@ 50 Enrique Massot
So Salta is 60% Peronist eh.
What percentage of Anglo-Saxons or genetically differentiated subgroups formally known as Celts did they find?
51
Apr 14th, 2015 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...did you say anything there....only, it looked like you were agreeing that the original figure of 34% is well within the margin of 10 - 40%.....
...thanks for agreeing....
When you find a link that supports your argument that 25,000 Anglo Saxons wiped out several million of the “the single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group” aka Celts...
....please do let me know....only you haven't produced a single one so far....
ps... Also you should amend Wiki, inform the BBC and correct Celtnet.org and all the thousands of references to Celtic Britain throughout that they should be using...“the single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celtic_tribes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celtic_tribes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celtic_tribes
@34 Voice
Apr 14th, 2015 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You’re really struggling with these numbers aren’t you, is this 36% (not 34% unless you’ve changed again) now the correct figure, because it is within the margin of 10 - 40%?
You have yet to explain how it was arrived at in the first place, it’s not in the source data.
For that matter 5+5+5% = 15% is within the margin of 10 - 40%, why is this not now correct?
Sorry, I can’t be bothered to do your research for you, just look up isotope analysis in archaeology, in this case Strontium although lead and heavy water are also used.
“relatively homogeneous, genetic group known as Celts...”
Oh no, no, no, noooo.
“genetically differentiated subgroups” formally known as Celts.
and
“a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a significant DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxons”.
Simples.
53
Apr 14th, 2015 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...can't be bothered...more like... can't find one single link...Yaint fooling anybody...
Whoops.....you have changed your link evidence....
“a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a “MODEST” DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxons”.
It said modest remember.....;-)))))
Or are you changing the info to try and regain some face and credibility....Shameful..
@ Voicey
Apr 14th, 2015 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Given up with the numbers then, wise decision, you had no answers.
Avoid getting into arguments where you know little of the subject matter and even less of the science involved, and you will avoid looking a twat.
Yep, just like it doesn’t say:
“relatively homogeneous, genetic group known as Celts...”
Pot, kettle.
So what did your DNA test say, Chimp or Bonobo?
Ha....beaten reduced to name calling...I wondered how long it would take....
Apr 14th, 2015 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now join the ranks of those I must go out of my way to ridicule when they make gaffes and ridiculous comments...
...everyone is always given fair opportunity...then....enough rope...to hang themselves with...
Off you pop now.... you are dismissed........close the door on your way out.....
Argentina, pay your debts!
Apr 15th, 2015 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0@56 Voice
Apr 15th, 2015 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, that was unkind to the Bonobos.
Seems I am in good company then.
Just when I have a link for you.
Google: anglo-saxon archaeology isotopes
You will find all the evidence you require (may have to buy some reports) that apart from the early period on the coast, overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxons did not come from Europe but were locals.
Drastically reducing the numbers thought to have migrated.
Mingling I hear you cry, except no evidence of that.
You’ll have to wait for this guy to publish for your proof positive.
http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/CE1.html
58
Apr 15th, 2015 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have an it all supports my claim and not yours...
The ratios of the strontium and oxygen isotopes, which are determined by the food and drink that individuals consume during their childhood, allowed the team to identify where the individuals of the sample population were born.
The results suggested that just 5% of the population originated outside the local area, supporting the idea that the local people continued to live in the region when the Anglo-Saxons arrived and adopted the culture of the new elites.
http://oxfordarchaeology.com/news/oasouth-news/289-new-analysis-of-old-site-at-berinsfield-reveals-information-on-anglo-saxons
With only 5.3% of the sample originating from Europe, the isotopic data support the hypothesis of acculturation. In addition, the isotopic data shows no temporal patterning, although females show a statistically significant enrichment in the oxygen isotope ratio.
Mingling..do you mean acculturation..;-)
http://oxfordarchaeology.com/news/oasouth-news/289-new-analysis-of-old-site-at-berinsfield-reveals-information-on-anglo-saxons
...are you deliberately trying to destroy your own argument by supplying me with data that supports mine...?
...are they both saying about 5%...well I never....;-)
@59 Voice
Apr 15th, 2015 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again you only see the bits that you think support your position, conformational bias it’s called.
Again you are so intent on proving a point, that you completely miss the point.
You are assuming that the “local” skeletons are not ethnic Anglo-Saxons, but are from the genetically differentiated subgroups formally known as Celts.
Again I point out, there is not one shred of evidence to support that hypothesis.
All the archaeological evidence would indicate Anglo-Saxon, you know where to find that evidence now.
That is why I gave you this link:
http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/CE1.html
Did you read it?
Current Research
Mass migration & apartheid in Anglo-Saxon Britain?: an ancient DNA re-evaluation
“Ancient DNA data will be combined with stable isotope analysis to study the Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon transition.”
“What happened to the indigenous people? – were they absorbed or displaced by this migration event? Geneticists have attempted to look at this question using modern mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA data, with estimates of ~25–100% contribution to the modern male English gene pool.”
“This methodology is problematic, not least because, by using modern DNA, subsequent migrations will overlay any original Anglo-Saxon introgression.”
“We also have to consider how the bottleneck caused by the Black Death in the 14th century AD has affected modern genetic affinities.”
“The only way to begin to determine how many Anglo-Saxons migrated to Britain, or if an apartheid system was indeed in place, is to look directly at contemporaneous British populations.”
So:
The more “local” skeletons that prove to be ethnic Anglo-Saxons then the more massacre and the less mingling (coerced or otherwise).
If a significant number prove to be “local” Anglo-Saxons, then we are indeed looking at a scenario where a migration of probably fewer than 25,000 individuals from Europe, arrived, established themselves, then multiplied and almost completely displaced a native p
@60 – Cont:
Apr 15th, 2015 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If a significant number prove to be “local” Anglo-Saxons, then we are indeed looking at a scenario where a migration of probably fewer than 25,000 individuals from Europe, arrived, established themselves, then multiplied and almost completely displaced a native population of probably more than a million.
In a few centuries.
Don’t for fu*ks sake tell Nigel Farrage.
And that I do believe is the last word on the matter, for now at least.
60
Apr 15th, 2015 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't even understand that your link only asks questions and doesn't give any answers or numbers or anything at all....
The links I provided says only 5% of all the skeletons examined came from Europe and were not local.....
You still have not provided one single link that supports you theory that 5% invaders massacred and replaced millions of Britons.....
Reply when and only when you find a link to support your nonsense....
God loves a trier...but....
Voice loses another one, but won't let go of the line - like a mackeral flailing away, even as he's hauled into the boat... !
Apr 16th, 2015 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quick, grab the fish-bonker!!
You aren't fooling anyone...sycophant...
Apr 16th, 2015 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0everyone knows what you are...
...no mate Troy........the saddest shite that's on this site...
@ Voicey
Apr 16th, 2015 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again you completely miss the point.
The question is whether the 95% of local skeletons are Anglo-Saxons born locally, or native people.
Which is what they are researching in the link above, by analysing the DNA of both types of skeleton.
Look, I have given you chapter and verse of the current position, including explanations which have obviously fallen on deaf or un-comprehending ears.
Nothing I can do about it if you simply don’t or won’t understand what you’re reading.
Sorry and all that.
You still don't get it...You have given a link to an unanswered question...
Apr 16th, 2015 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not like they can't instantly check the DNA....so where are the results...
A link to incomplete data is no link at all....
It will be the same results as it is all over the UK....a modest contribution from Anglo Saxons plus other invaders....within the range of 10 - 40%....
@ Voicey
Apr 16th, 2015 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You have given a link to an unanswered question”
The only correct thing you have said so far.
“It will be the same results”
So you say, in your expert capacity as what?
In god we trust, everyone else has to bring data.
On you go!
...my expert capacity of giving you links that supply data the verifies my position...
Apr 16th, 2015 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0..and your expert capacity of giving links that also verify my position...
and one link that doesn't verify or support anything...
nice going....
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!