Re: Paleo-eskimo were building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago.

From: Floyd L. Davidson (floyd_at_barrow.com)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 03:10:26 -0800

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:00:49 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>Here we go again. You have snipped an entire block of text, URL and
>quote which show you are flannelling. To make matters worse you
>haven't even indicated the fact. That is just plain dishonest.

Your criticism is just plain ignorant. Of *course* I snipped the
irrelevant text.

>>>>Sigh. I cited them as an authority on kayaqs, and the fact that
>>>>kayaqs are thought to have been in use on Greenland for 4000
>>>>years. They are in fact an authoritative source.
>
>I again point out that what you relied upon was
>>>http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/library/052902-1notes.pdf - the
>"University of Washington Kayak Club" - "Fundamentals of Sea Kayak
>Design Seminar - Notes". That is hardly a scholastic source when
>discussing the identity of the people who may have been building
>canoes in Greenland 4000 years ago.

I did not cite that as a scholastic source concerning the
identity of the people. That only happens when you play
the Eric/Seppo Word Weasel Game.

You said they were wrong because they used a common
understanding of the term "Inuit". Since you made that claim, I
have provided any number of authoritative sources to demonstrate
that it is in fact proper usage.

Stop playing the Eric/Seppo Word Weasel Game.

>>You are part and parcel of
>>the set of Inger, Seppo, and Eric who claim there wasn't enough
>>wood, were no Inuit, and whoever it was used whale bone anyway.
>>And the three of you go around in circles on it, bringing up the
>>same old tired arguments that have been debunked before.
>
>Here we go again. You are a flat out LIAR. I have never made any of
>those objections and have corrected you when you have accused me of
>them previously.

Yes, everyone reading this is aware that not *one* of you has
ever hinted that there is no driftwood on Greenland, that they
had to use whale bone to frame kayaqs, that there were no people
who can ever be called Inuit on Greenland 4000 years ago, and no
Inuit from the Norse period could possibly have seen any value
in a carpenter's plane.

And *you* above all would never argue in circles, would never
change word meaning in mid-stream, and would never try to confuse
an issue. Nor would you ignore evidence provided two days past
as if it had never existed.

>Yet again you lie. The argument was not over that at all. It was
>whether or not the medieval norse would have brought planes along as
>trade goods.

You wanted a quote where you were not telling the truth? There
you are! You provided it yourself!

>>But when you insist that someone who uses the other definition
>>is wrong, then you have stepped far beyond acceptable.
>
>But Floyd, it is you also who insist that I am wrong when I use the
>term 'inuit' in the other 'other definition'.

As others have told you, as well as myself, I've *never* made
any such claim. Indeed you can find *hundreds* of articles that
I've posted to Usenet over the past many years where *I* use the
term in exactly that way. Worse yet, there are dozens of
examples where I've explained to people when and why it should
be used. (And sometimes explaining when it should *not* be used
too.)

Whatever, you asked for an example where you are dishonest, and
here you are with a second example!

>>Yes, indeed *I* do. It is an adjective. Inuit is a noun. See
>>the connection? If there are Paleo-Inuit people 4000 years ago
>>on Greenland, then *by definition* there were Inuit people on
>>Greenland 4000 years ago.
>
>This is bizarre. You are now starting to discuss the topic with
>yourself! :-)

Yes, provided for your benefit, as you still seem to be unable
to grasp what it means.

>I'm not continuing with this vast waste of time until I can get an
>answer from my absent expert.

You've seen an awful lot of answers from non-absent experts.
What makes you think that I would accept anything from your
"expert" even if you did get an answer? (You do understand that
I am qualified to decide who is and who is not an "expert"? And
you aren't.) 

-- 
FloydL. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

Relevant Pages
Loading