Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 15:56:25 +1200
On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:27:24 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
>news:cpqk919grm7rpgsshetksmghvqlan08ogu@xxxxxxx:
>
>>>There are people and there are times. She is arguing Norwegian
>>>and Swede after 1350, not Norse during the 11th century.
>>
>> You seem to be equating Norse with Viking. They are not the same
>> thing.
>
>The Viking period ended at the end of the 10th century. The
>greenlanders were christianized thereafter and would have been Norse.
>The swedish state with recognized borders did not begin until 1323,
>however a partial definition was in place by the 12th century. Prior
>to that people would have been informally called Swedes if they were
>from eastern trading portion of the viking world, prior to 1323 there
>was a contested claim over finland, so at that time the Swedish state
>would have been Swedo-finnic.
All of which is correct. They all come under the umbrella term
'norse'. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Norse
>
>>>I certainly do. This groups is polluted with off-topic
>>>alternative archaeology because of the belief of one or two
>>>people.
>>
>> Either you have your tongue in your cheek or you are misguided.
>
>Me?
Is there anyone else in the room?
>
>>>>>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' ...
>>
>> "play homage to me"?
>
>> Inger never said that. I've searched both
>
>' and ' indicate a paraphrasing. The first time you've seen
>paraphrasing marks.
I might have taken them as paraphrasing if you hadn't labeled it a
'statement'.
>She was in essence implying that a person was
>inadequate if they could not pay homage to her 'forthcoming' facts of
>evidence. 'Pay homage to my people' means 'pay homage to me'.
>Looks like we are back to the obfuscating Eric. Eric, you know damn
>well what I mean, you have no need to play games, your offense at the
>racism claim is a actually an attempt to defend her agenda from the
>reality of her critics, true of false. Playing loosely with the facts
>as you know she has been doing, might be explained by ignorance, but
>she has so many times pulled out bovine excrement and wanted someone
>else to do the homework, 95% of these so-called links between canada
>and the NE US are utter brain farts. And the excuses.
> Truth or not, do you believe all her excuses? How about 50%, 25%.
>And if you don't believe them how can you not see deliberacy. The so
>called fauna picking, again one error, fine, but she has brought up a
>half dozen animals and claimed these connect old world and new world
>via the Norse. You be the judge, how many of these connections is a
>solid link. So, therefore, consider whether or not this is deliberate
>or just an inability to learn from past mistakes. Shall we go through
>all the flora and fauna. Kettles, Clams, Horses, . . . . . . Let us
>go through the Archaeology, the so called new studies, new native
>american sites for Norse, all the reports that are supposed to be now
>published or aired, where are they, how come none have appeared.
>And let us not consider how many threads she started went in the
>direction of false accusations, sex mail, viruses, claims about
>supreme knowledge of the internett, etc. Certainly there is no
>deliberacy there on diverting the discussion.
>
>
>> I stopped responding to that article right then.
>
>I see, but you continued responding to the follow-up.
I'm glad to see you can follow these things.
>I suggest you
>stop, I have predicted about 2/3rds of your last few replies, also
>what you have avoided responding to. You are testing for a weakness
>in my argument and avoiding the general argument being made. Here is
>the chessboard, you have only a few pieces left. I will allow you to
>see those two moves.
>
>'Don't put off to malice that which can be explained by stupidity'
>
>So which is it malice (bigotry) or stupidity, if you say its simple
>ignorance, I should note that racisms definition has no exemptions
>for ignorance, ignorance is always presumed. Your argument would then
>include and exclusion for the fact there is a pathology associated
>with the excuses and that the reintroduction of failed arguments is
>caused by some kind of dementia. I should also note that as we began
>making web pages of the discussion of some 'lines' the quadriannual
>repetition of some topics stopped, mnemonic device?
>
>Wouldn't you rather plonk me? :^).
>
Oh no, on your good days, when you have taken your pills, I read what
you have written with interest. :-)
Eric Stevens
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Prev by Date: Re: Big Druid
- Next by Date: Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- Previous by thread: Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Next by thread: Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|