Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

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

Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:28:21 +1300

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:56:59 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"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.

Quite right. It was at this point that I objected to your claim.

>Again, there is no comment in my post regarding the status of Michael
>Zalar's sources as being peer reviewed, or not.
>
See Message ID <we5dd.5648$EZ.945@okepread07>

  "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"

You were claiming that your source was different from Michael Zalar's
in that it was peer reviewed. Of course your source was not peer
reviewed.

  --- usual tail of irrelevancies nipped ---

The point is you lied in bluff and have been caught out.

Eric Stevens

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... Steve Marcus and Michael Zalar were debating the age of the ... references in support of what he had originally posted. ... Stevens' characterization of the sequence of events given above is ... Why should you trust someone who tries to justify ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... >you know they will take a public beating, and Michael Zalar ... Neither of those two sources makes either the book or (as Steve Marcus ... The problem with the KRS is that from early in the 20th century it has ... become surrounded by a cloud of lies. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... >>This is the basic problem. ... >>the appearance that the book was a sham by making ... > I was not making the point that the book was a sham. ... Steve Marcus and Michael Zalar were debating the age of the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading