Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:43:20 GMT
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
news:nee9a1lfj9ike5ghnenml02bvr9vbm055r@xxxxxxx:
>>That was not the issue, the issue was whether a logical argument
>>is better built with a named and known suspect or better built
>>on the facts surrounding the putative forgery. I am in favor of
>>the facts,
>
> Then don't come back until you've got some.
Excellent, let us drop the entire discussion of the KRS until some
essential facts are present, start with:
Who made it
When was it carved
>From where was the stone harvested.
How was it carried to the site.
How much damage was done between 1898 and 1910.
When you have all of these facts then we can begin anew the
discussion.
.
- References:
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: David Johnson
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Alaca
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Alaca
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Tom McDonald
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- Prev by Date: Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- Next by Date: Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- Previous by thread: Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- Next by thread: Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|