Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:51:57 +1300

On 1 Nov 2004 22:30:34 GMT, Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam>
wrote:

>In sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens created a message ID
>news:4b9do0d3kpjcnjc9qlh8c096vvntvrsgfh@4ax.com:
>
>> I could give you my book list but what do facts matter.
>
>You could but you don't, and you and I, both, know why you
>won't.
>
>> I know that with respect to the KRS the Smithsonian
>> book was ill founded.
>
>Because you implied this you got your *** whooped-up on.
>You can make this statement 1000 times, but unless you
>come up with something better, this is all bad-mounthing.

The '***-whoopers' like you, have nothing more to their case than
name calling. I have facts. On this occasion I cited Michael Zalar's
article at http://tinyurl.com/3pdav. You come up with something
comparable with that and you might be worth paying attention to.
>
>> 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 want to rely on is not peer reviewed.
>
>Editors of books can be considered as peer reviewers if the
>articles that are submitted are not thier own. Invited review
>articles are infrequently rejected but frequently corrected.
>This suffices as pure review. Sure there is a 5% chance that the
>editor added the review without further changes, 95% that he
>didn't.

You haven't been following this have you? Here is an extract from an
article less than a week old:

Begin quote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regarding the Smithsonian Book, Vikings: The North Atlantic saga, a
few notes from Old Norse Net - a scholarly list that I subscribe to.

"I have not yet seen it, but I heard a constant refrain from reputable
archaeologists at the Viking 2000 Symposium that there are a number of
errors in it, and that contributors had their submissions altered
substantially without consultation. Of course the editor himself was
there too (Bill Fitzhugh) and he had nothing but good to say about it.
I would go with the judgment of those I talked to other than him or
Birgitta Wallace. One person was quite blunt; she said that she and
three other European archaeologists were in Washington as consultants,
and could have been asked to do a read-through, but weren't asked. And
she would NEVER cite the paper she had submitted because it is
inaccurate
through no fault of her own."
http://lists.mun.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0009D&L=onn&P=R1358

"I've discussed this with several of the contributors and can say that
some
corners were rounded in the editing. For scholars it would be best
to follow the recommendation of one I spoke to and confirm specific
facts
directly with the paper's author. It is useful as a popular
introduction."
http://lists.mun.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0009D&L=onn&P=R1404

I believe there were several more articles in ONN regarding the book,
though the archives where such articles could be found are currently
inacessable. Trusting only to memory in this regard, I seem to recall
that one person noted the book was put together in a somewhat rushed
fashion in order to be ready for the Vikings exhibition that the
Smithonian put on.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End Quote
>
>> You are attempting to resolve the matter on the basis of
>> an argument from authority.
>
>Have you ever refereed an article.

Yes.

>I was an assistent editor of
>both a review journal and a primary literature journal,
>therefore I am an authority.

... and the relevance of this is?

>You nor Michael have done neither.

I can't speak about Michael but you are wrong about me.

>Which makes you what? That's right bad mouth.

What does you shouting off your mouth about me before you know the
facts make you? That's right 'loud mouth'.

>I don't like reviews or books but that does not mean relatively
>speaking that books and reviews are 'bad'. Books and reviews are
>opinionated and dated, the best sources of literature are
>primary peer-reviewed literature because the current collection
>is the most up-to-date and representes a variety of
>perspectives. Nonetheless I have refereed many very good review
>articles and book chapters given that context.
>
>> Both Michael and I can do better than that.
>
>Neither you or Michael, after 2 weeks have chosen to do that.

I've just demonstrated above that I have done better than you in this
matter.

  --- cloud of words snipped ---
>
>> In most cases we can go back to primary sources to
>> establish the actual facts.
>
>Bud, talk is real cheap.

Unfortunately. Its also easy if you don't have to know what you are
talking about.
>
>> The problem with the KRS is that from early in the 20th
>> century it has become surrounded by a cloud of lies.
>
>The politician is ones again talking. Because you believe
>differently is the truth, anything that disagrees with your
>belief is a lie. Truth lies at the insection of valid
>perspectives. To approach the truth one needs a multitude of
>perspectives, what you are calling lies are what I would call
>other perspectives.
>
>> The last great liar was Wahlgren
>> but his lies are carried on in the literature,
>
>Oh dear, the big bad ole literature again. Let's take the flag
>of Max Plank and Christopher columbus and run it around the
>ball park again.

You really are an idiot arsehole aren't you? I suggest you try and get
hold of 'The Kensington Rune-Stone Authentic and Important, A Critical
Edition' by Robert A. Hall, Jr, ISBN 0-993104-30-8 and 0-933104-30-8.
Published by Jupiter Press in 1994. This is a slim, dry and old
fashioned scholarly volume in which Hall devoted 10 pages to exposing
the outright lies of Wahlgren. Wahlgren was a liar alright and so too
are others in the history of this matter.

If you have never heard of Robert A. Hall, at the time he wrote this,
his second book on the KRS, he was professor emeritus of linguistics
at Cornell.

  --- Deitiker's use of words as a substitute for thinking snipped ---

Eric Stevens