Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:56:59 -0400

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ghijn01ib52jodqrk56ek783ahc3hoanfo@4ax.com...
> On 22 Oct 2004 22:38:25 GMT, Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam>
> wrote:
>
>>In sci.archaeology, Steve Marcus created a message ID
>>news:Tueed.16847$jd.13574@lakeread04:
>>
>>
>>>> You don't give up do you?
>>>
>>> Because the real issue is the accuracy of the fact,
>>
>>Facts are open to debate, they could be in error.
>>
>>> Eric, not the quibble about whether peer reviewed
>>> facts in an essay written by an expert (which
>>> essay may or may not have been peer reviewed;
>>
>>This is the basic problem. Eric was trying to create
>>the appearance that the book was a sham by making
>>'appearances' like statement.
>
>
> Good God - you are dense.
>
> I was not making the point that the book was a sham. I was making the
> point that Steve Marcus's claim that the book was "peer reviewed" was
> a sham. Steve Marcus and Michael Zalar were debating the age of the
> Kingigtorssuaq stone. Michael Zalar had several references giving
> different ages, with all of which Marcus disagreed. He tried to give
> priority to his data over Michael Zalar's data by claiming that his
> (Marcus's) data was obtained from a book which was peer reviewed.

An outright lie and missequencing of events, as already admitted to by
Stevens. As has already been posted, the sequence was this:

1. Michael Zalar posted something about the King. runestone, linking it to
the expedition that he believes might have created the Kensington runestone.
That post contained an alleged date for the King. runestone.

2. I replied, and in the reply, noted that the alleged date was in error,
givng the most current accepted date, and asking, most politely, for
references in support of what he had originally posted. I did in fact ask
for "peer reviewed" references; although unstated, my request for "peer
reviewed" material was so that I could easily compare dates and learn
whether Mr. Zalar's references pre-dated or post-dated my reference. I did
not state that my reference was peer reviewed.

3. Mr. Zalar replied with a list of six references, and noted that I had
not, at that point, presented my own reference. He apparently regarded it
to be either rude, or somewhat insulting, to be asked for references by
someone who had not presented any reference(s) of his own. Mr. Zalar rather
testily accused me of asking him to do my work for me (I guess he meant that
my failure to cite a reference in my post meant that I had none, and now I
was asking him to provide a reference backing my post). I can understand
him be put off by my post, because my post pointed out that there was
nothing to support various points of presumption and speculation in his
post.

4. I then replied, giving my source, and noting that it was peer reviewed.
Again, there is no comment in my post regarding the status of Michael
Zalar's sources as being peer reviewed, or not.

Here are the posts in sequence corresponding to the above sequence:

1. http://tinyurl.com/6rm6l

2. http://tinyurl.com/4xx95

3. http://tinyurl.com/4phqa

4. http://tinyurl.com/6xg5n

>
> This is not now an argument about the age of the Kingigtorssuaq stone.
> It is not now an argument over which of the various refrences is best.
> It is an argument over whether Steve Marcus is prepared to risk a lie
> to strengthen his own argument. The answer is yes, Steve Marcus is
> prepared to lie.

Actually, my last post is somewhat ambiguous, and can be read either as
stating that the book, "Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga" is a peer
reviewed source, or that Gullov's essay, which is specifically what I cited
(here's the quote from post #4 above:

"'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'

is a peer reviewed source.

My belief was that because the Gullov essay relies upon peer reviewed
material, it in fact was peer reviewed, and because the same would be true
for all essays within the book that rely upon peer reviewed material, that
the book would be regarded as being peer reviewed. The logic is that if I
cite a given volume and number for, let's say, "Scientific American", and
state that "Scientific American, vol. X no. Y" is peer reviewed, it's
because the articles contained in "Scientific American, vol. X no. Y" are
"peer reviewed." It's a peer reviewed publication. This may well be sloppy
on my part, mea maxima culpa, but then again, you will note the time stamp
on my post.

In short, two things are clear:

Stevens' characterization of the sequence of events given above is
erroneous, _and he knew that when he wrote his post_ because it's been
proven elsewhere in this thread, and Stevens actually agreed that it was
erroneous.

My charcterization in post #4 above hardly qualifies as a lie; and the fact
is that Stevens not only doesn't know whether the cited Gullov article is a
peer reviewed article, or whether any or every article in the book is a peer
reviewed article, he doesn't care. He is simply casting as much squink
about as he can, for the simple reason that he likes Michael Zalar (whose
position on the KRS is one which Stevens supports) and dislikes me (whose
position on the KRS is one that Stevens can't stand; note that it isn't
simply that he dislikes my position, it's that he can't stand the spotlight
of evidence and the scientific method being shined into his dirty corner of
fantasy, speculation, presumption and mythology).

>
> You may consider this acceptable but then you have to explain why one
> should trust data from anyone who is prepared to offer false data with
> a straight face. Why should you trust someone who tries to justify
> offering false data on the grounds that several unattributed and
> unverifiable layers of quote down there may indeed be some verifiable
> facts?

The above paragraph wins this year's award for ironic Usenet post of the
year, and may also have clinched the award for the entire decade. You, who
championed the late Mr. Athy's erroneous claptrap, you who champion Inger's
unsupported and false to the point of actually being invented claptrap, you,
who cites any and every URL giving unsubstantiated nonsense, you, who are
embroiled in a thread discussing Norse in Vancouver and Alaska and who has
admitted that there is no cogent evidence supporting the concept, have the
brass cojones to ask how one can trust someone who offers false data?

Eric, the King. runestone is datable to the end of the 13th century. That
data appears in the article in the book cited above. It is true, and it is
peer reviewed (see the bibliography). That's what matters. That's why you
can trust the data. Get over it. And that's why no data from Inger is
trustworthy, why no data from the late Mr. Athy is trustworthy, and why not
all data from people's private websites is trustworthy. Get over that too.

>
> --- long trail of irrelevancies snipped unread ----
>
>
>
> 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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... >> I was not making the point that the book was a sham. ... Steve Marcus and Michael Zalar were debating the age of the ... >references in support of what he had originally posted. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Ms Access Conversion to 2007
    ... The code will not run unless the database is signed or in a trusted location. ... Click the Office Button | Access Options | Trust Center | Trust Center Settings. ... If you want to check references, press Ctrl+G to open the Immediate Window, and choose References on the Tools menu. ... to MS Office Enterprise 2007 these data bases no longer function. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)
  • Re: Phantom FQDN resolution
    ... to these former trust partners. ... Now each forest has their own Exchange server and the need for the ... I want to remove the references to the foreign DC's. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Formula Works Only Sometimes???
    ... don't trust ya! ... your formula uses uneven ranges ... and references: ... >Select 4008 or A1GQ, for instance, and you will get ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions)
  • Re: What do you think of Centos
    ... That's not what CentOS and White Box do. ... work, remove references to the people that did the work, and package ... You do understand that they're *required* by Red Hat to remove those ... "I trust the Democrats to take away my money, ...
    (Fedora)