Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:15:35 +1300

On 1 Nov 2004 16:24:29 GMT, Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam>
wrote:

>In sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens created a message ID
>news:3tlbo0h8tl50g5r956anjk0510emf7pu0v@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:11:32 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>> <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> says in
>>>news:t7uao0tmmf5j0lntsno2n5aol7ptkpliph@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>
>http://www.swgc.mun.ca/nfld_history/nfld_history_early_explo
>>>>>ration.htm
>>>
>>>> I note that his paens of praise say nothing about the KRS.
>>>
>>>And why should it?
>>
>> Steve Marcus cites the book as being peer reviewed.
>>
>> Michael Zalar (and I) deny that it was peer reviewed.
>
>No, you just want to bad-mouth something that is far superior
>to any sources that you could drag up, but you won't because
>you know they will take a public beating, and Michael Zalar
>was clearly unable to find anything remotely peer-reviewed he
>backed off. However you continue.

I could give you my book list but what do facts matter. I know that
with respect to the KRS the Smithsonian book was ill founded. This has
already been pointed out by Michael Zalar and I gave the link in the
last week or so. Presumably you didn't follow it up.
>
> The deal here is you have a strawman argument, because the
>level of review as Steve states is either peer-reviewed or
>largely based on peer-reviewed and to what degree is
>immaterial until Michael comes back with at least something of
>that level.

Neither of those two sources makes either the book or (as Steve Marcus
later claimed) the article peer reviewed. It is depressing how you
pretend to require peer reviewed sources except when the source you
want to rely on is not peer reviewed.
>
> Until he does so you are JUST bad mouthing Steve and the
>Book. So the key phrase here is put up or shut up. I have
>followed each of Michaels sources backwards, the best that I
>could find is that 2 or 3 rely on or interpret from one single
>source of information, and that source is a guess.

You are attempting to resolve the matter on the basis of an argument
from authority. Both Michael and I can do better than that. In most
cases we can go back to primary sources to establish the actual facts.
The problem with the KRS is that from early in the 20th century it has
become surrounded by a cloud of lies. The last great liar was Wahlgren
but his lies are carried on in the literature, in some cases by people
you would expect to know better.

Eric Stevens

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: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... > Steve Marcus cites the book as being peer reviewed. ... > Michael Zalar deny that it was peer reviewed. ... As one example, the book says that Olaf Olson was a stonemason from Forsa, ... it makes no mention of the KRS so it carries no weight ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... >> Michael Zalar deny that it was peer reviewed. ... it is clear that the essays ... it makes no mention of the KRS so it carries no weight ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... >> I note that his paens of praise say nothing about the KRS. ... Michael Zalar deny that it was peer reviewed. ... Michael Zalar point out that it had gross errors in its ... the section dealing with the KRS. ...
    (sci.archaeology)