Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)


Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
news:2slk91lc0tctsi0d4pcc6grc795n7c8ido@xxxxxxx:

> Don't you remember you recent arrival in this news group? You
> arrived pronouncing possible norse presence in NA (beyond LAM)
> as lies, rubbish, a racist theory debated only by Kooks? Don't
> you remember how you promulgated your list of factors which make
> up Kookery so you could use it label people whose ideas you did
> not like? I would be careful before you start preaching about
> the dangers of leading with a hypothesis.

What I say then and now, I entered the discussion because of the Red
INdians White Indians issue and because I saw no peer-reveiwed
literature. I still see no peer-reviewed literature. You very well
forget, the KRS discussion flowed over into s.a.p. on occasion, I was
well aware of the type of 'alternative' archaeology that was going
on.

>>And when that
>>faith involves a people you aspire to have a greater past
>>because of your relationship to that people, and you want
>>everyone to bow to your faith, that is racism.
>>
>>>>I don't seen the norse mentioned above in her paragraph.
>>>>She is talking about Norwegians and Swedes past the viking age
>>>>and North American History.
>>>
>>> Norse is simpler to write than Norwegians and Swedes
>>
>>That is what she wrote. She did not write greenlanders,
>>icelanders, gotlanders, danish, she wrote Norwegians and Swedes.
>>By 1456 the two entities had already separated, and were rejoin
>>under queen Margerate. You could have referred to them as
>>Danish, but I think everyone would agree that greenland was
>>under inuit control in 1456, and whatever claim the danish had,
>>was null and void, abandoned.
>
> Hmm. You are leading the argument into the trackless swamps.

There are people and there are times. She is arguing Norwegian and
Swede after 1350, not Norse during the 11th century.


>>> Inger's style of presenting her arguments earns her a fair
>>> proportion of what she gets. However, IMHO labelling her a
>>> 'racist' for her historical beliefs is going too far,
>>> especially when your own objections smack of racism.
>>
>>Wrong, it is the way she confronted Peter that showed her hand,
>>once again as Peter reminds us about past incidences. You still
>>don't get it. Let me clarify this for you so that you can
>>understand. Inger has confused buffulo and wild ox for kettle,
>>squirrels, clams, . . . . . . what does also this confusion
>>mean?
>
> It has nothing to do with claims she is a racist. Stop trying to
> confuse the issue.

See below.

>> One does not look at a single event, but deliberacy in
>> actions, she
>>is trolling everything she can find to try to bring support for
>>her belief or her faith. If one is not lead by a belief, a
>>faith, or whatever you want to call it, there is no reason to
>>dredge highly questionable ties into the argument. Her reason
>>for dragging these can be directly tied to her desire to get
>>people to follow her forgone conclusion [conclusion may be a
>>nice word for it alternative you could call it a 5 letter word
>>that starts with F].

Note he responded to a premise and not the conclusion.

>>Is the sweat of a Jomon cool the brow differently from that of a
>>Swede? Is a premature death any different an outcome for either?
>>And yet this continent was full of Native peoples, and yet
>>somehow this group is obsessed with the 18 mention on a
>>potentially fradulent stone or the 'putative' escape of
>>greenlanders in 1456.
>
> Do you really regard this as a proper argument by means of which
> you can show Inger to be wrong?

I certainly do. This groups is polluted with off-topic
alternative archaeology because of the belief of one or two people.

>>I see so that is the license to play loosely with the facts.
>
> So,you consider that she plays looseley with the facts is
> grounds to call her a racist?

Playing loosely with facts can be an indication of many things, in
this case her statement of 'play homage to me' indicates she is a
racist. Actaully in many different ways she is making the statment
The accusation of chauvanism is appropriate to some and racism is
appropriate to others. If you like I can just capsulize them and call
it bigotry, would that make you happy.

> At this point I can see you have been taking lessons from Steve
> Marcus. I'm not going to go on responding to an ever expanding
> tail of allegations. I'm stopping right here.

Apparently looking at the other replies you did not.
.

Loading