Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:03:59 +1300

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:07:06 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:ni6jn0h4q5ubqvhctts0uitgagvqrgigip@4ax.com:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2004 18:02:07 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>> <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens created a message
>>>ID news:3vkgn0l3r5mk2nrpap1i9i987orpki3htt@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What's that got to do with my criticism of what **you**
>>>wrote?
>>>
>>>Everything, you implied that the authors of the book could
>>>be confused as wantedly misrepresentative.
>>
>> In some cases they were and this has been demonstrated.
>
>Is that a trivial piece of information, or is it an opinion you
>want reiterated for some greator [rhetorical] reason.

It has already been demonstrated by Michael Zalar some time ago. See
http://tinyurl.com/3pdav

>
>>>See this is what I
>>>don't like when you are directly confronted on what you say
>>>you become evasive, as if people don't remember. Your
>>>specific critique of that book is what _will_ catch the eye
>>>of anyone who read it, no matter how cleverly you try to
>>>disguise your accusation, we know what you meant.
>>
>> You can make that accusation because you have snipped what
>> I actually said. You make a habit of doing that without
>> even noting the fact.
>
>Right, unlike you and your friend Inger, I don't like wasting
>UseNet and Internet band width with post, and in particular I
>get a message when quoted text is excessive.

Also unlike me, you don't mind altering the apparent thrust of an
argument by deleting sections of it without saying so.

>So I do the
>reasonable thing and cut text. Any fool can go back up the
>thread and see what the original said.

But only if they know that something has been deleted.

> If you say something
>stupid I am doing you a favor by pointing it out to you, if you
>don't want to go back and read what stupidity you have written,
>fine by me.
>
>> When I ask you to support your claims
>> by a quote you never do because they almost always are
>> wrong.
>
>In the first paragraph of this thread you reiterated what you
>said, and now you are saying I have to go back in requote.
>Do you like arguing with the wind, also?

I take it you are referring to my statement in repsonse to you that
"In some cases they were and this has been demonstrated". What I wrote
then is demonstrably correct (see the URL above) and you would know
that if you had been following this matter for more than the length of
this thread.
>
>> The truth is that in this case was point out that
>> Steve's claim that the book was peer reviewed was false.
>> Now you want to inflate that into an attack by me on the
>> book.
>
>Frankly I couldn't give a crap about the book. I was making a
>statement of your propoganda motif because you do this all of
>the freaking time, and I am frequently have to correct you on
>this.

What do you think you have corrected me on? Do you think I am wrong
when I say that sections of the book are demonstrably wrong?

>Unless you have a SPECIFIC peer reviewed article that
>refutes what another widely accepted source book or other peer
>reviewed article says, or you have a collective of really good
>information that any reasonable person would interpret just as
>you do, don't cast trivial dispersions against work to undermine
>it in favor of that which you, with your best set of data,
>cannot prove.

I have copies of 'prime documents' which prove my case. They are
exactly the same as the ones Michael Zalar relied upon when he made
his criticism and I have to say that they support his views.

> You don't seem to understand this, when you sling monkey poo,
>its not going to fly by unnoticed. So stop throwing the Monkey
>poo. Micheal seems to get by with alot more of the support than
>you or Inger do, you consider the style has something to do with
>why you get a hostile response.

This is getting a long way off the topic. Its nothing to do with
style. Its to do with matters of fact.
>
>> BUt Steve was trying to claim that *his* source was better
>> anchored than Michaels. Well it wasn't a
>
>I have yet to see the meat in Zalar's.

In that case I suggest you stay quiet until you actually know what you
are talking about.

>The date on Kensington is
>1362, Zalar is saying there is a _potential_ reference to
>Helluland which _might_ be as late as 1333. 1333 is potentially
>reasonable, however I would have some question about the
>communication between the New World and Old World in 1333.
>However to imply that some potential new world contact was proof
>of KRS's authenticity is a very far stretch of the imagination.
>In 50 years the world changed, the climate changed dramatically,
>what could be done in the early part of the 14th century, became
>troublesome at the end ot the 14th century.
> 1333 contact with potential lands across the labrador straits
>does not equal a large scale expedition into minnisota in 1362.
>Anyone who believes so needs to have thier head examined.

 ... and this relevant to what we have been discussing because ...?
>
>Is there something specific about what Micheal said that
>suddenly makes a connection between Helluland and KRS that I
>missed?

Probably.
>
>
>>And Steve's claim was a stupid bluff.
>
>Wasn't it you who was criticizing his rhetorhical style.

I was criticising his honesty.
>
>>>> End of this. You've been caught out and nailed. I need
>>>> say
>>>no more.
>>>
>>>The ultimate diversion here.
>>>
>>>> Take him down :-(
>>>
>>>This is supposed to have some meaning?
>>
>> Yes. It's what the judge in some British courts says to the
>> warders after finding the prisoner guilty.
>
>No one appointed you Judge, and if we are asking for the
>providers of false and misleading information, you stand with
>the accused.

You clearly are in no position to know. I suggest you do some
background research on source material before you form an opinion.

Eric Stevens

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Warning: Major Provocation by Antidemocratic Agitators May Be Imminent
    ... I received no child support or any welfare ... >>> But, when it comes to criticism of people living on their sword, far ... >> achieved peace with Adolf Hitler. ... >> Quite frankly, I feel safer in Israel when I visit there, because there ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Letter to the US
    ... Exactly where on the page I've attempted to sweep "all criticism of US ... Albright had to say about the coup in Pakistan 7 years ago: ... I'm not sure what Pakistan has to do with the right of the Thai people ... I don't doubt that a majority of Thais "support" this coup, ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: William F. Buckley, Jr. Crosses The Firing Line Into 10-3-39
    ... Is this a good idea that you'd support or a stupid one that you wouldn't you would support a good idea and wouldn't support a stupid one, and you agree the idea is not a "neutral" one...)? ... And in a civilized and free society, the answer is an unequivocal yes. ... It was a tragedy. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Wake Up Call For Sue
    ... >>>In their real life they probably get very little or no support from ... >>>they mostly get criticism is not as important as the fact that they ... >>But you're as much a zealot as she is. ... >For you to place someone kind of moral equivalence between Jan Drew ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)
  • Re: New Diabetes Vaccine coming Soon.
    ... There is NO reason to expect Malcolm to have a CLUE when it comes to ... That's how academic criticism works. ... Schools Epidemiology department, or, best of all, try ... I'd ask the flack to support its case, ...
    (misc.health.diabetes)