Re: Medieval ink

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:20:36 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:35:16 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:51:54 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 07:46:32 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >[..]
>> >
>> >> >> >Iron-gall ink is a popular conclusion because of the find of iron in
>> >> >> >the ink that points to vitriol ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I will be the first to admit I have not refreshed my mind as to the
>> >> >> details but, unless the Fe concentratoin is high, the finding of iron
>> >> >> needs mean no more than that the ink was prepared in an iron pot or
>> >> >> pan.
>> >> >
>> >> >Apparently found in sufficient quantity to suggest ilmanite to
>> >> >McCrone.
>> >>
>> >> How much iron is needed to suggest ilmenite to McCrone?
>> >>
>> >> Don't bother trying to answer. You will need to quote a number.
>> >
>> >It does NOT require a number - a demand for a number is in fact
>> >pettifogging.
>> >
>> >> >> 'Vitriol' is a common ingredient in ancient inks by any acid will
>> >> >> dissolve iron, including vinegar which is is found in some of the
>> >> >> alternative ink recipes. There is a danger in leaping to conclusions.
>> >> >
>> >> >That vitriol was a common medieval ink ingredient is hardly "leaping
>> >> >to conclusions"!
>> >>
>> >> That the iron arose from the manufacture of an iron-gall ink is merely
>> >> a conjecture. i.e. a conclusion which has been leaped to.
>> >
>> >What part of "vitriol was a common medieval ink ingredient" results in
>> >"iron-gall ink"? I suggest that part is "a conclusion which has been
>> >leaped to" by yourself.
>>
>> Then why are we discussing this in the context of the iron content?
>
>Are we? A better question would have been "Why are we talking about
>this in the context of gall?"

Why do you answer questions with questions?
>
>> >[..]
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Now the problem becomes "how come it separated and spread" - and at an
>> >> >> >expected rate that measures to an equivalent time frame as if it was
>> >> >> >made in the 1400's?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The expected spread of the "yellow line" away from the carbon, as it
>> >> >> >soaks into the parchment was achieved in about 50 years what should
>> >> >> >take 500+ years to occur naturally (assuming a longer time frame for
>> >> >> >the forgery).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Umm - you are assuming the yellow line is still spreading. I would
>> >> >> expect that the initial rate of spreading was high but that now it is
>> >> >> virtually zero. i.e. something like an inverse logarithmic scale.
>> >> >
>> >> >.....which still amounts to an average per annum. It does indeed
>> >> >continue to spread until such timne as there is nothing left to
>> >> >spread. However the amount od spread is said to indicate a length of
>> >> >time - in this case nobody is arguing "too much" or "too little", but
>> >> >"just right" for the spread to be concistent with it being medieval.
>> >>
>> >> It will stop spreading when it becomes sufficiently oxidised to lose
>> >> its fluid properties.
>> >
>> >...and the claim "sufficiently oxidised" is something purely plucked
>> >out of the air - please explain how WATER "oxidises" when used in ink?
>> >I would suggest "evaporates" is a more logical term to use for the
>> >loss of the fluid properties if you MUST define it.
>>
>> Water - evaporates - yet you are arguing that the line should still be
>> spreading up to at least 500 years.
>
>Why do you misrepresent the above for this time? Why did you fail to
>respond to the actual question - "please explain how WATER "oxidises"
>when used in ink" - after all that WAS your claim! Also part of your
>claim has been "iron-gall ink" - which we do know uses water to
>prepare for use and therefor YOU must be saying "water oxidises" and I
>want to know HOW??
>
>*I* have not stated water - most True Believers also seem to think of
>something "organic" was used in the ink - linseed oil is "organic".
>NOTE: do not start claiming I have said "linseed oil was used in the
>ink" as I haven't said that - even though for all we know it might
>have been.
>
>> >
>[move text to bottom to restore context]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your thesis that ink goes on spreading indefinitely is unusual and
>> >> >> will require confirmation.
>> >> >
>[text shifted to the bottom]
>> >> >
>> >> >> How come we can still read the Domesday Book?
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't think we were discussing other than the VM. Also the bit
>> >> >below is part of the consideration you ignored in your response.
>> >>
>> >> Well you claim the ink goes on spreading.
>> >
>> >What part of "wrong" didn't you understand? You resort to a deliberate
>> >misrepresentation - it cannot be read in that manner taken ALL the
>> >text into consideration - not even if only the above is taken into
>> >consideration.
>>
>> You have talked about spreading over +500 years.
>> >
>> >Why do you NEED to misrepresent what I say? IS that your way of
>> >scoring brownie points?
>>
>> Maybe you are not making yourself sufficiently clear?
>
>I have made it clear enough for a 12 year old to understand already.
>You spread the text by inserting text BEFORE reading the whole, then
>disregarding the rest of the text - thereby destroying the context.
>However I'll restore the text again at the bottom for you to read it
>once more in its totality.
>
>> I know you can
>> use numbers to express time periods in years. How about using a few
>> numbers to express either rate or extent of spread?
>
>Why? You couldn't handle those I already provided.
>
>> >[..]
>> >
>[text moved to here]
>> >> >> >It amounts to 10 years worth of spread achieved every
>> >> >> >single year. Therefor it should NOW have some 600 years worth of
>> >> >> >spread - not the 500 + years worth - and be bloody obvious to a blind
>> >> >> >man! Would a forger wait 50 years? I doubt it - perhaps the ink had a
>> >> >> >nano-trigger inbuilt to cut off the spread after it reached the
>> >> >> >desired amount, eh!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Of course as you go down that conspiracy theory road - you would
>> >> >> >realise this was a failure of the "theory" (fantasy really) - and THAT
>> >> >> >is where the "double inking" becomes a "solution" - forget the fact it
>> >> >> >is impossible to achieve, it is an "explanation" that can merely be
>> >> >> >asserted! Again the argument that; just because nobody knows of anyone
>> >> >> >existing (or ever having existed) who COULD perform the double inking
>> >> >> >to the fine degree required, doesn't mean that such a person does not
>> >> >> >exist - well the "argument" may well be convenient but it is bogus.
>
>[2nd text shifted to here - this is the second explanation of the same
>thing]
>
>> >> >Wrong again - I'm showing how ridiculous the idea is (see below) - but
>> >> >it DOES have validity to the extent that it does spread - to achieve
>> >> >that spread in a specific time period, in much LESS than the natural
>> >> >time, requires "special conditions" - (1) A carefully 'claibrated' ink
>> >> >that is known to (a) separate neatly from the carbon and (b) spread to
>> >> >the "just right" extent and no more. (2) - the nano-trigger
>> >> >aforementioned.
>
>Eric, please provide examples of both (1) and 1(a) and 1(b) as well as
>(2) if you still support your contention I have said it is possible as
>you MUST believe the aforementioned IS possible to make the claim you
>have.
>
>[..]




Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Today
    ... it's not a lie, even in spirit, if you don't know ... >> the quote is out of context. ... >before spreading misleading information, validate one's sources? ... *you* are spreading misinformation about Preznit Bush ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Today
    ... > the quote is out of context. ... Is spreading someone else's lie the same as lying? ... Given that you habitually quote people out of context, ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Medieval ink
    ... >>Eric Stevens wrote: ... >>> How much iron is needed to suggest ilmenite to McCrone? ... > Then why are we discussing this in the context of the iron content? ... > spreading up to at least 500 years. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: List etiquette question
    ... In a 1:1 simple mail exchange top/ bottom it does not matter as long ... messages often apply to this specific context. ... posting works well. ... I know that "famous name" posters bottom posts and when I read the ...
    (Fedora)
  • Top & Bottom posting vs Netiquette [was Re: CM8738 On-Board Sound Problems (Works...mostly....mo
    ... >]In the English speaking world we read left to right, top to bottom. ... but they do *not* give you the context of a Top-Posted remark. ... >Top posting is far more polite many times than is bottom posting. ... material is stored in the drawer that contains other related items. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
Quantcast