Re: Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic formerRe:CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

From: Floyd L. Davidson (floyd_at_barrow.com)
Date: 07/16/04 

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:04:14 -0800

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>
>> While
>> it is true that Europeans in general were known for their
>> hide-bound stubbornness as Arctic adventurers and Norwegians, in
>> particular those in Greenland, seem to have been true to that
>> form, it still doesn't follow that something useful as a trade
>> item is not going to be traded just because when sitting in the
>> home port while the ship was being loaded that item was
>> manifested as a maintenance tool rather than as cargo for trade.
>
>You have to learn the language, you still demonstrate your inability
>to grasp it. SALVAGE is not "trade items" you know. Look it up in a
>dictionary.

In fact, a great deal of salvage soon becomes trade items.

>> It might not have been "trade goods"
>
>So what the bloody hell did you INSIST it was? Was that just for the
>same of heaping *** on other people, hmmm?

>> to the ship from which it came, but that has *nothing* to do
>> with how the person who finds it washed up on the beach
>> classifies it.
>
>Of course it does, go learn English!!

Apparently I have, and you seem to be both dishonest (see the
first above comment, which entirely ignores the context of the
entire sentence) and obtuse (the idea that a ship's manifest is
what determines whether a salvaged item can sold or not).

Amusing.

>Go learn the language! How often does one have to say that before it
>sinks in? You attempting to justify your rubbish claims only puts your
>own credibility in question. The term "trade goods" has a VERY
>specific meaning and cannot be applied to salvage, or lost property
>which also have very specific meanings. If it wasn't so, then those
>terms wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. Stop trying to redefine
>the language.
>
>It really is no point in dealing with the rest UNTIL you start using
>English properly - NOT with stacks of your personal private
>definitions.

Lets see you cite a dictionary which supports *your* definition
over mine!

  trade goods
     n : articles of commerce [syn: commodity, goods]

Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term. Your
restricted definition is merely the false assumption that
something which is once labeled as a commodity is always a
commodity, and something *not* labeled as such at one point can
never be called that at a later time.

Simply put, your English and your logic are both invalid. 

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