Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone
From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: I.E_Johansson: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- Previous message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- In reply to: Eric Stevens: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- Next in thread: Daryl Krupa: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:32:49 -0500
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:0bq8u09tvm8o64p9dtl28ddt3sfvqt5sos@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:03:14 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@tesco.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Steve Marcus wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Eric. You post a snippet which essentially alleges that Wolter can
>>>confidently date the KRS inscription to the 18th century (or earlier).
>>Your
>>>snippet states how Wolter could do that.
>>
>>Actually, the part of Eric's post which justifies his thread title "Update
>>on the Kensington Runestone" is not as described above (that, as has
>>already been mentioned in this thread, is old news). The updated
>>information concerns the attitude of other experts in the field, like
>>William Fitzhugh (to whom Eric gives the "last word" in his extract) and
>>Sorena Sorensen- who are clearly deeply sceptical.
>>
>
> Thank you for seeing the point of me posting the article.
Bullocks. Your post is entitled "Update on the Kensignton Runestone." It
then proceeds to present two detailed paragraphs on Wolter's position, and a
single sentence on Fitzhugh's position.
> I thought
> afterwards that it might appear that I was selectively quoting to
> deliberately give a wrong impression. In fact, all I really intended
> was to quote enough of the original to show that there had been some
> shifting of views and to whet the appetite of the interested
> sufficiently to cause them to read the full article.
What shifting of views. Wolter believes in his work. Fitzhugh continues to
doubt the authenticity of the runestone (for those who came in late, he has
doubted on the basis of linguistics since he was first discussed in
sci.archaeology re the KRS).. Sorenson "remains skeptical."
But, regardless of your motives, Eric, what is your position re Wolter's
work. Is analysis of the weathering of slate tombstones in Maine a tool
that is applicable to the analysis of a greywacke runestone in Minnesota.
Do such factors as the depth of the inscription, the width of the charactes
forming the inscription, the direction in which the respective stones faced
relative to the prevailing winds, the amount of particulate matter that was
available to be entrained in the winds, the average yearly precipitation,
and the question of whether the respective stones were subject to identical
(or even similar) chemical and/or mechanical "cleanings" have any bearing?
Do you know answers to any of the above? Do you care about the answers?
After two years (or is it more), Wolter still has not published in a peer
reviewed journal, although his work appears to be complete enough so that he
is satisfied of his conclusions. Why? Do you know? Do you care?
>
>
>
> 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 >
- Next message: I.E_Johansson: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- Previous message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- In reply to: Eric Stevens: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- Next in thread: Daryl Krupa: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
