Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

Per,
expert opinion don't say that the opinion is correct. You know that don't
you.
It takes more than refering to present paradigm in a question to show that
you yourself studied/read what you can. Btw. is husumtoften close to
Prestetunet?

Inger E

"Per Rønne" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:1gxexp5.1pr1h211m18zwaN%spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:01:48 +0200, spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Per
> > Rønne) wrote:
> >
> > >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:48:22 +0200, spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Per
> > >> Rønne) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >IEJ <Iejohansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> that's not true. If you exclude the linguists the facts are
accepted
> > >> >> also by those who doesn't believe the runestone to be from 1362
but
> > >> >> made between 1500 and 1700 AD.
> > >> >
> > >> >But most experts think the stone was made in the late 1800s ...
> > >>
> > >> How about a few names.
> > >
> > >Isn't necessary as long as encyclopædias agree on that.
> >
> > Then all you can say is 'most encyclopaedias'.
>
> Encyclopædias tend to rely on expert opinion. I don't see anything more
> valid in saying that the stone is older than the late 1800s than what
> the Mormons use as "proofs" for the validity of Mormon's Book.
> --
> Per Erik Rønne


.

Quantcast