Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 01/13/05 

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:17:04 -0500

"I.E_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:k37Fd.14030$d5.117836@newsb.telia.net...
> Another rude stalking by Steve Marcus who hasn't got it:
> HE ISN'T ALLOWED TO MOVE MY POSTING AROUND. If Steve doesn't stop his
> abuse
> behavior shown the last 6 years he will have to answer to his webmaster.

First of all, I did not move your posting around. You have just
demonstrated that you didn't actually read what I wrote, because while I
commented on you rude top post, I moved not a word of what you wrote.

Second, I called you a liar. You have an easy way to prove me wrong; simply
back up your statements with evidence. After all, you keep claiming that
you cited this source or these sources, you posted an article or articles.
If so, it ought to be easy to re-post them and prove that you have
sources/references, or to link to an archive showing your post(s). You have
never done that in response to criticism, not even once. So it is clear
that I was telling the truth when I called you a liar. It's your choice;
learn to live with the consequences of trying to lie your way out of
criticism, or simply stop lying. Your choice. But see the next paragraph.

Thhird, if you continue with your rude and abusive behavior by calling me a
stalker whenever I correctly comment on your posts, you will find that you
are answering to someone a bit more scary than a "webmaster." You
understand, I trust, that I am an attorney. I have legal contacts in
various parts of the world, including Sweden, and you will find yourself
defending a lawsuit if you keep it up. As the lawsuit will be in Sweden,
(your home turf as it were), you won't have a jurisdictional shield to hide
behind. If you don't believe it, consider this: only one of us is a liar,
and it is not me, Inger. If you don't believe it, Inger, try me.

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
>
> Inger E
> "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:VR6Fd.73418$Jk5.37487@lakeread01...
>>
>> "I.E_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote in message
>> news:ifOEd.13970$d5.117269@newsb.telia.net...
>>
>> Another rude top post, which she claims is proper when she disagrees with
>> what the previous poster wrote.
>>
>> > No Steve,
>> > you didn't hit a nerve -
>>
>> You are a liar.
>>
>> > you proved once and for all that you haven't
>> > followed what's been presented nor have you tried to do so.
>>
>> You have presented exactly nothing.  Zero.  0  If you claim otherwise, 
>> you
>> are a liar.
>>
>> > That's not at
>> > all scholarly behavior - only stupidness.
>>
>> Pot, kettle, black.
>> >
>> > Inger E
>> >
>>
>> 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
>> > "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
>> > news:ZQNEd.72482$Jk5.3725@lakeread01...
>> >>
>> >> "I.E_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:76LEd.127253$dP1.457945@newsc.telia.net...
>> >>
>> >> Wow.  A reply addressed to me from the Inger-bot.  I must have hit a
>> >> nerve
>> >> with that last post ...
>> >>
>> >> > Steve,
>> >> > what you seem to be unaware of is that the thing you say Wolter has
> to
>> >> > prove
>> >> > already has been proven and gone thru and presented at Geologic
>> >> > symposia
>> >> > last year.
>> >>
>> >> If I am "unaware" of that, it's because you refuse to provide any
>> > references
>> >> that discuss it.  Please cite a reference to the"Geologic symposia"
> that
>> >> took place "last year."  Of course you won't, because you are simply
> not
>> >> telling the truth.
>> >>
>> >> > What you also seem to be unaware of, as many other here, is that
> Wolter
>> >> > has
>> >> > had access to a definite 1898 core example.
>> >>
>> >> What you are unaware of is that having "access to a definite 1898 core
>> >> 'example' (sic, 'sample'?)" is meaningless if one does not have a
>> >> definite
>> >> benchmark against which to apply the analysis of that core "example."
>> >> But
>> >> then, you are pretty weak when it comes to logic and to the scientific
>> >> method, aren't you?
>> >>
>> >> > Since neither of which are my
>> >> > own research I will not forward any information
>> >>
>> >> Of course you won't.  Not only don't you have any information, you
>> > wouldn't
>> >> understand any information that had anything to do with science or
> logic
>> > if
>> >> someone might put in your possession.
>> >>
>> >> > but tell you that you as the
>> >> > rest will have to wait until ALL, that's much more, are printed in a
>> >> > public
>> >> > available form.
>> >>
>> >> Sure Inger.  It's all going to be printed in public form some day.
> Until
>> > it
>> >> is, I suggest that you and your ilk stop making claims based upon
>> >> snippets
>> >> of random allegations regarding the matter, and wait until that magic
> day
>> >> when all will be "printed in a public form."  Doing that would have 
>> >> the
>> >> benefit of making you look at least semi-intelligent and
>> > semi-intellectually
>> >> honest.
>> >> >
>> >> > Inger E
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >> > "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
>> >> > news:QfHEd.72150$Jk5.38597@lakeread01...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:jaa6u093n6rqd99t180kj6ka4f176bu7ei@4ax.com...
>> >> >> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:29:43 -0000, "JMB" <jmb@utvinternet.ie>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>news:5sp5u0pv486mgjett7a2085tr6jdcof7nk@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >>> http://www.geotimes.org/current/NN_MNrunestone.html
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>  " For comparison, Wolter sampled inscribed tombstones in
>> > Hallowell,
>> >> >> >>>   Maine, that were subject to similar weathering conditions as
> the
>> >> >> >>>   Kensington rune stone. He found that on the surface of the
> slate
>> >> >> >>>   tombstones that were older than 200 years, all the biotite
> mica
>> > had
>> >> >> >>>   weathered out, whereas younger tombstones still had remnant
> mica
>> >> >> >>>   grains. Turns out that the carved parts of the Kensington 
>> >> >> >>> rune
>> >> >> >>>   stone also showed no signs of mica, Wolter says. Thus, he
>> > concluded
>> >> >> >>>   that the Kensington inscription had to be from the year 1700
> or
>> >> >> >>>   earlier (it has been in museums since it was found, so it
> hasn't
>> >> >> >>>   substantially weathered in the past 100 years).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does slate = greywacke?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/stone/site105.html
> and
>> >> >> http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/stone/site107.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Note also http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/1080/slate.htm
> re
>> >> >> slate, and compare
>> >> >> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/1080/greywacke.htm re
>> >> > greywacke.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here's a greywacke still retaining mica in a structure built 
>> >> >> between
>> > 1400
>> >> >> and 1600 (possible that some reconstruction was done in the 
>> >> >> 1700's).
>> >> >> http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/stone/site110.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In short, I think that at a minimum, Wolter has to demonstrate a
>> >> >> relationship between the KRS greywacke material and the slate
> material
>> > of
>> >> >> the Maine tombstones in which it is determined to a particular
> degree
>> > of
>> >> >> certainty that the two materials will react in a very similar 
>> >> >> manner
>> >> >> to
>> >> > each
>> >> >> other when exposed to the same or highly similar weathering
>> >> >> conditions.
>> >> >> Absent that relationship, all he has (at least per your post) is
> that
>> >> > slate
>> >> >> tombstones that were weathered in Maine all biotite mica had
> weathered
>> >> >> out
>> >> >> after 200 years, but that this wasn't the case on younger slate
>> >> >> tombstones
>> >> >> from Maine, and that the KRS greywacke showed no signs of mica.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That done, Wolter needs to establish that the various cleanings, 
>> >> >> etc
>> > that
>> >> >> the KRS was subjected to could not be responsible for the absence 
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> mica.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>   A remaining problem, Wolter recognizes, is that he can only
>> >> >> >>> prove
>> >> >> >>>   that Ohman did not carve the inscription; he has no evidence
>> >> >> >>> that
>> >> >> >>>   it specifically dates to 1362. Still, Wolter believes that 
>> >> >> >>> the
>> >> >> >>>   stone is authentic. The facts - the linguistics, historic
> record
>> >> >> >>>   and geologic details - "all line up," he says.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>   The geologic studies "are certainly interesting and add to 
>> >> >> >>> the
>> >> >> >>>   complete picture, but there isn't a lot of proof yet," says
>> > William
>> >> >> >>>   Fitzhugh, curator of the Smithsonian National Museum of
> Natural
>> >> >> >>>   History's arctic collections."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Two big problems there.  Firstly, the stone has not been stored
> away
>> > in
>> >> >> >>ideal preservation, so the lack of mica is easily explained
> without
>> >> >> >>a
>> >> > need
>> >> >> >>for weathering.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > OK, explain it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not quite fair, in the sense that JMB undoubtedly can support his
>> >> > statement,
>> >> >> but in the final analysis, it's Wolter's burden to establish that
>> >> >> slate
>> >> >> tombstones from Maine are a good benchmark against which one may
>> >> >> assess
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> inscribed greywacke runestone from Minnesota, taking into account
> that
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> only the differences between the materials, but the fact that the
>> >> > runestone
>> >> >> was subject to "cleaning" treatments, may have been underground for
> a
>> >> > period
>> >> >> of time after being inscribed and is alleged to have been used as a
>> >> >> "doormat" of sorts for a period of time.  The tombstones (insofar 
>> >> >> as
>> > your
>> >> >> post describes them) appear to have simply been out in the 
>> >> >> elements.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Please don't use words like 'if', 'perhaps', 'likely' or
> 'possibly'.
>> >> >> > In other words, I'm asking you to give us your easy explanation
> and
>> >> >> > not yet another hypothesis.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Again, a bit unfair, as your source has not (at least per your 
>> >> >> post)
>> >> >> addressed the matter of different stone typess, different climates
> and
>> >> >> different conditions (cleaning for example) but has simply 
>> >> >> presented
> a
>> >> >> "likely" "hypothesis"; to wit, observations re slate tombstones
>> >> >> provide
>> > a
>> >> >> template for assessing a greywacke runestone that was clearly
>> >> >> subjected
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> conditions differing from those to which the tombstones were
>> >> >> subjected.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>Secondly, the linguistics, historic record, and geologic
>> >> >> >>details don't "all line up".  To the contrary, in order to 
>> >> >> >>believe
>> > that
>> >> >> >>the
>> >> >> >>stone is authentic, you would have to accept that a lot of 
>> >> >> >>unusual
>> >> >> >>charactistics in runestones were brought together in order to
> create
>> >> > this
>> >> >> >>one stone.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This not a matter of belief. Its a matter of fact.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ??  There is no "historic record" to line up with, and the
> linguistics
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> still quite in doubt.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>Given the situation that the carver claims to have been in, it
>> >> >> >>is not really likely that he would be bothered being so complex
> with
>> >> >> >>the
>> >> >> >>inscription.  Simple and fast would have been the way to go in
> that
>> >> >> >>situation.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What situation?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That related in the runestone's inscription.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 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
Loading