Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 10/22/04 

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:44:33 -0400

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3vkgn0l3r5mk2nrpap1i9i987orpki3htt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:45:26 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> >The word "is" implies you believe that I'm lying on this thread When
>>>>> >and
>>>>> >where? Post the link.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message-ID: <we5dd.5648$EZ.945@okepread07>
>>>>>
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> > I note immediatedly that although requiring a peer reviewed source,
>>>>> > there is no source given countering this claim. Mr. Marcus is, of
>>>>> > course, requiring me to do work that his is unwilling to do himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is, of course, that I do have a peer reviewed source.
>>>>> Try:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga", Smithsonian Institution Press,
>>>>> 2000, pages 320, 321, article by Hans Christian Gullov (Danish
>>>>> National Museum, Copenhagen) entitled "Natives and Norse in Greenland"
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As I have previously posted, (citing the same post you cite, and posting
>>>>a
>>>>half hour before you did) the above book in question contains several
>>>>pages
>>>>of citations to peer reviewed sources. To clarify for readers of this
>>>>newsgroup (you, after all, already should know this based upon your
>>>>alleged
>>>>ownership of the book in question), the sources are listed under the
>>>>heading
>>>>"bibliography." In my edition, the bibliography is on pages 402-413.
>>>>Each
>>>>page contains three columns of peer reviewed reference material, save
>>>>page
>>>>402 which is limited to two columns. I'm not going to count them all,
>>>>but
>>>>typically, there are about 60 listings on a given three column page.
>>>>Thus,
>>>>pages 403-413 contain 660 peer reviewed listings, which when added to
>>>>the
>>>>40
>>>>on page 402, yield a total of 700 citations to peer reviewed material.
>>>
>>> Fudge. I've already dealt with this in another post. That sources are
>>> peer reviewed does not make the book peer reviewed.
>>
>>But how about the facts, Eric? How about the facts? Or are the
>>scientifically competent authors of the essays, employed by museums,
>>universities, institutions and governments taking the peer reviewed facts
>>and shredding them?
>
> What's that got to do with my criticism of what **you** wrote?

Everything. This is sci.archaeology. People want to talk about archaeology
(or history since that's mostly what gets discussed). The facts in the book
in question were peer reviewed, they contradicted what Michael Zalar wrote,
and I pointed it out. If I was in error in regarding a book consisting
wholly of essays written by scholars, which essays cite 700 peer reviewed
sources, as being a peer reviewed book, fine. It's a mistake. (Of course
you've offered no evidence to prove that the book isn't peer reviewed, or
that the article I cited from the book isn't peer reviewed, but failing to
offer evidence is nothing new for you, is it?) But that mistake doesn't
change the facts does it, Eric? The facts, and the reality that the facts
_are_ peer reviewed is what counts. However, since you don't like the
facts, you invent your usual squinkscreen. The legend of Eric, the
crackpot, continues.

>>
>>>
>>> I've used sources that are peer reviewed. Does this make my email peer
>>> reviewed?
>>
>>If you cite a peer reviewed source, and repeat what it says precisely,
>>then
>>I would say that you are doing nothing other than presenting peer reviewed
>>information. So there's a gnat's hair, at best, between the email being
>>"peer reviewed" and only the source being "peer reviewed." Just the sort
>>of
>>squink that you're famous for producing, and which you would rather argue
>>interminably than discuss the merits of the matter.
>
> But you are not citing a peer reviewed source. Not even the article by
> Gullov in the book was peer reviewed, was it?

Prove that neither was peer reviewed. Then explain why the peer reviewed
facts appearing in a non-peer reviewed article in a non-peer reviewed book
are not peer reviewed.

> You tried to trump
> Michael Zalar's sources with a superior source of your own.

No idiot. I wasn't having a pissing contest over sources. First, I was
pointing out that a fact presented in Michael Zalar's post was apparently in
error. As it turns out to be in at least two of the sources (the first and
third URL) that he subsequently posted. Second, I was pointing out that his
entire post is presumption, supposition, and essentially fantasy. At the
time of my post, I refrained (because I like Michael, I think he is honest
and tries hard), from pointing out that his post was apparently an attempt
to link the non-proven-authentic KRS and the unsubstantiated 1300'something
search for missing Greenlanders allegedly led (but not proven to have been
led) by Paul Knutsson with an authenticated North American runestone
(actually it's _the only_ authenticated North American runestone) and
thereby confer some mantel of credibility on the KRS, by citing a bunch of
unproven supposition.

> There is
> nothing wrong with quoting Gullov but there is everything wrong with
> claiming it was peer reviewed.

Prove it was not peer reviewed. Then explain what difference that makes if
it cites peer reviewed sources that give accurate facts.

>>>
>>> You made up the claim that your source was peer reviewed in an attempt
>>> to bluff Michael Zalar. Your bluff hasn't worked.
>>
>>Bull***, Eric.
>>
>>1. I noted that Michael Zalar wrote a post in which he presented fantasy
>>based upon presumption, without presenting a single source. In my first
>>response, I pointed out that the one of the facts presented in the post
>>(the
>>dating of the stone given by Michael as a 14th century stone was not
>>accurate, and asked him for a peer reviewed source for his dating of the
>>stone.
>>See: http://tinyurl.com/4xx95
>>
>>2. In response, Michael stated that I had asked him for such a source,
>>without giving one myself. Michael then presented six sources, comprising
>>three URLs, two books and an article by Thalbitzer, and without
>>characterizing any of them as "peer reviewed" (which, given my post and
>>Michael's response, might give the reader the impression that Michael's
>>sources were "peer reviewed.") See: http://tinyurl.com/4phqa And if
>>one
>>bothers to read his post, Michael offers to check the very source that I
>>cited, certainly an implication that he regarded it as being "peer
>>reviewed"
>>just as I did.
>
> Bull***. You claimed it was peer reviewed.

I did. At the end of the sequence above. Not in the sequence you alleged.
But that's nothing new for you, confusing facts, is it Eric?

>
> End of this. You've been caught out and nailed. I need say no more.

Particularly with respect to the facts in question. That's why you need say
no more.
>
> Take him down :-(

Lying again about your killfile, hey Eric?

> Eric Stevens
>
Steve 

-- 
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either.  This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.  To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Quantcast