Re: KRS - Possible news to come

From: I E Johansson (ingerxjohanssonx_at_telia.com)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:02 GMT

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:prpkk01cg5bml49fqh6fvd85a2hvjv5mv0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:20:02 -0500, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> There are informal email communications going on all the time between
> >> persons interested in the KRS. One or two are active contributors to
> >> sci.archaeology on the subject. Others are lurkers. However, I can say
> >> that (with one or two exceptions) most of the people who have
> >> contributed to discussions on the KRS in this news group have been
> >> destructive and negative in their contributions. They have not been
> >> and are unlikely to ever become engaged in the email updates which are
> >> ongoing.
> >
> >Eric,
> >
> > I know that there are ongoing KRS discussions via email. It
> >may even be that they are scholarly and productive. However, my
> >experience of that has been a very angry former KRS museum board
> >member, one of the email elite, who came in like a bull in a
> >china shop. He was outraged because of what we had written
> >about him wrt the KRS.
> >
> > The problem was that we hadn't written anything particularly
> >negative about him. Inger had run some posts on s.a. through
> >her twisted, biased filters, and had been spoon-feeding him
> >bile. Her bile, as it happened. She lied, for no other reason
> >that I could see than that she was pissed at us and *could*
> >misrepresent us, and could get support in email from the uninvolved.
> >
> > After he read the relevant posts, he apologized and said that
> >he would take what Inger said with a grain of salt in future.
> >
> > The problem is surely not all on Inger. The issue is
> >contentious, and reasonable people disagree, sometimes with more
> >heat than necessary. But the fact is that the pro-authenticity
> >side has a history of reaching beyond the evidence, and of being
> >absolutely certain of things that are not yet settled.
> >
> > You may wish to say that the same can be said for the pro-hoax
> >side as well. I wouldn't argue against that. But please look
> >at the response of this 'destructive and negative' group to
> >Michael Zalar. Some heat, but far more respect and decent
> >discussion. Then look at the response of the same crew to
> >Johansson. Do you really think that it's solely the nay-sayers
> >who are 'negative and destructive'?
> >
> > And, of course, Michael doesn't tease us by starting
> >discussions and then crapping out on references.
>
> You are in fact changing the subject. The point is that someone who is
> demonstrably negative and persistently ignorant is unlikely to be
> invited to join in the discussions between those working positively
> behind the scenes. I must make it clear that by 'positively' I do not
> mean a bunch of kooks slapping each other on the back and encouraging
> themselves to strengthen their faith. I mean there are people doing
> real research in the field, the lab and the library. There are
> requests for ideas and technical knowledge is shared. Progress is
> being made although in most cases, nobody knows towards quite what
> end.

On top of it all I suggest that Tom take contact with the person in the
board he say is angry of me and told him I lied. That is a lie of Tom as far
as I know. The two members of the board I have had contact with keep sending
me mails and haven't in any way indicated that I have lied about anyone of
them - on the contrary. I haven't been accused in any form to be salt in the
grain!

That Tom is spreading false information about me and my contacts which
definitely not only are linked to persons in the Museum board!

Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS - Possible news to come
    ... > No Inger, we are enlightened. ... >> deliberately accuse Swedes of conspiracy in KRS question. ... That doesn't say anything - you are accusing Swedes of forgery which is ... >> You also better accept that we do know what happened to the stone from ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: a question for inger
    ... >> is it possible the KRS is not a genuine norse artifact? ... > question was clearly directed to Inger alone. ... Second word 'genuine' needed to be defined as well. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Norse, Vatican and Vinland
    ... > Inger E Johansson wrote: ... Professor Knirk might be correct in one way, ... > further investigation to scorn the KRS. ... > current commonly used runes - it is quite obvious that isn't so. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: a question for inger
    ... >With all due respect my dear Inger, ... Th fact is, you have NO evidence to back that up, and you, ... >> Since the field in where there was a hillside where KRS was found was marked ... >any device you can to try and uphold you ridiculous assertion that the KRS is ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS - Possible news to come
    ... > scholars analyses, excavations and more. ... If you'd ever bothered to read anything I have written Inger, ... >> Am I to understand from this that you consider any doubts cast on the KRS ... I can carve a far better runestone than that were I to have the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast