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

From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_charter.net)
Date: 07/17/04 

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:35:51 -0500

Seppo Renfors wrote:

>
> "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> Wrong again. While salvaged good can be and probably are traded
> internally within a particular people, they do NOT become "trade
> goods" no matter what. Further to that INTERNAL trade between
> individuals of the same people, eg Thule people, isn't considered
> "trade" when discussing trade between different ethnic groups and
> cultures. You really need to learn the correct meaning of words - you
> cannot communicate with your private secret definitions of terms! So
> far you have wasted the majority of time attempting to "justify" your
> abuse of others via these PRIVATE non standard, and unknown
> definitions.
>
>
>>>>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,
>
>
> More bull***.... you demonstrate you inability to grasp it above -
> AGAIN!
>
>
>>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).
>
>
> Bull*** won't even get you there - and THAT lot is BULL***!
>
>>Amusing.
>
>
> Go learn the language!
>
>>>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!
>
>
> It isn't needed - only COMMON SENSE is, and that is something you are
> lacking.
>
>
>> trade goods
>> n : articles of commerce [syn: commodity, goods]
>>
>>Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term.
>
>
> You just show you bloody ignorance more clearly, nothing more! It is
> only so IF it has been INTENDED to be "trade goods" in the first
> place, dufus! THAT is what your dictionary is telling you - IF you
> could understand it!
>
> You speak about "salvage" - you ignore that the different people are
> talked about as a single entity and the TRADE is BETWEEN the different
> people groups. Wriggle for all it is worth, it won't alter anything.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> You bull*** is noted - and your reason is noted, to DEFEND and
> JUSTIFY harassing others using misrepresentations. THAT is what this
> is about!!
>

Seppo,

        Are you facing me? I wouldn't want to say this to your ass.
Or your arse (just in case you are monolingual in English). OK.

        You're always funny; but this is really wonderful comedy.
Don't ever change.

Tom McDonald

Quantcast