Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about

george wrote:  1118262121.609014.105620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> Doug Weller wrote:
IEJ wrote:
"Eric Stevens" skrev
Doug Weller wrote
Eric Stevens wrote: 
Doug Weller wrote:

Michael, if I've got you wrong here somehow, I apologise.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:51:49 GMT, in sci.archaeology, IEJ wrote: 

Philip and Doug are the ones who doesn't know what they are
talking about. No son of Ohman has said what they make believe
he said. I take it that they missed listen to the long
radiointerview which at least a while ago still was up to
listen to. There are so many queer rumours spreading around.


Well, this one doesn't come from me, it is Michael Zalar that
you are saying doesn't know what he is talking about. Even with
you problems with reading English you should have realised that
-- here is what I wrote: "I am not advocating Ohman as a forger
of the KRS, but the comment 'nor used to do any kind of stone
work' must be wrong if Michael Zalar was right when he said
"Arthur Ohman says that his father was
never more than a fair stonemason"."

Look again, maybe you will see that you are attacking Zalar,
who is the source for that, not me.


There seems to be some confusion here. AFAIK Zalar was perfectly
accurate in his quote of Arthur Ohman. What is being disputed by
Inger is whether or not Arthur Ohman was correct in what he said.


No, Inger says 'no son of Ohman has said what they make believe
he said'.

First, it was Zalar who said it, not me.  Either Inger just
decided to abuse me or she is again having problems understanding
English.

Secondly, she doesn't say that Ohman was wrong, she says, once
again, 'no son of Ohman has said what they make believe he said'.
That is accusing someone (she thought me, but Zalar) of making
this up, in other words, lying.


In fact, I suspect Arthur Ohman was correct over all but Inger is
correct if she is claiming that he was wrong as far as the time
up to the discovery of KRS is concerned. In other words, Olaf
Ohman did not work with stone and had no stone working tools
until some time after the KRS was discovered.


She doesn't say Arthur Ohman was wrong, she says he didn't say
that. Your interpretation may or may not be correct, we don't
have enough evidence to be sure.


said earlier none of them has ever been able to correctly
identify Ohman here in Sweden, neither has most of the rest
here, thus they haven't studied the Churchbooks here. The
occupation, were a person worked and which what, reading and
writing skill as well as a person's living and what he did in
the Army/Marine(also how well he did it), if he knew his Bible
and Katekes and many many other details are to be found in
Churchbooks for every single person here in Sweden. We also
know well what Ohman did when he came to US and all such. I
suggest Philip and Doug to do their homework better.

You mean Michael Zalar, not me. 

I've gone back and tried to unravel this thread. It hasn't helped
that one way or the other you have succeeded in starting a new one
and before that Inger first responded to what she saw as a wide
range of errors and then responded again to herself when she wrote
the article to which you have most recently responded. Nor does it
help that Inger has given no indication, neither quote nor header,
of the article to which she was responding.

I think you are quite right in that among other things she was
objecting to the quote from Arthur Ohman and I think she was wrong
to do so.


No Eric, I am not. Take a new look at was came out and was
presented last August.


My understanding is that Arthur Ohman did make that statement (but
please don't ask me for the source) but that it referred to a
period later in the life of Olaf Ohman. I think Inger has since
confirmed this.


That is what I was refering to AND Doug tried in his first line
make believe that Ohman was a stone mason AT the time he found KRS.


You're lying, Inger. Here is what I wrote;
"I am not advocating Ohman as a forger of the KRS, but the comment
'nor used to do any kind of stone work' must be wrong if Michael
Zalar was right when he said "Arthur Ohman says that his father was
never more than a fair stonemason".

Unless Inger is accusing Arthur Ohman of lying. "

None of that suggests that Ohman was a stone mason AT the time he
found the KRS.  And I explicitly say that I'm not advocating Ohman
as a forger of the KRS.  But accuracy is important, and it is clear
that Arthur Ohman considered his father to be some sort of
stonemason (a 'fair' one) at some time.


 It's also disputable
to call him a stone mason later, that you can hear if you listen to
the interview that was up on one of the url:s which revealed the
origin interview in full and which have been misinterpred by some
later.


Take it up with Michael Zalar. I thought he'd hear the interview, it
will be he who misinterpreted it if in fact it is misinterpreted,
which seems unlikely if the quote is correct.


I seem to recollect this very subject arising some years ago with
Inger claiming (and Eric supporting) that Ohman wasn't a stonemason
of any sort.


Easy to find in sci.archaeology with
author: "johansson"  and "stonemason"

In her claim it was that he 'was a rough carpenter' 

According to the history he spent winters working on building houses
for others.


For Ohman see Michael Zalar's site:
Finding the runestone
http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/island/3634/finding.html
- Regarding Ohman
- A Rumour


Any-one who built houses then had to build chimneys, cut and lay stone
flag floors in kitchens and to line cellars with stone...



Even those guys back in 1362 had a set
of chisels with them to make a runestone.


Get her to produce the evidence for her claims Doug :-)
That should give us three weeks of squink


--
- Peter Alaca - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS - Possible news to come
    ... Wolters and Nielsen touched on many points but none in great ... > KRS and the accusations against Ohman. ... > The KRS is a very complex highly metamorphosed greywacke. ... > to clean the grooves in the stone when it was found. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... > with a peer reviewed source that claimed the stone wasn't 14th ... Also realize that I have stated, frequently, that peer review is not a ... on a large number of peer reviewed sources. ... that Ohman was a stonemason. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... of the King-- stone to the 14th century. ... the KRS, that the Smithsonian, in a second printing of the book, ... Wallace admitted to 11 errors (and did not comment ... Ohman, was "a stonemason from Forsa...", as example of how such ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine-Or{sigh}the KRS diversion
    ... > and Wallace wrote articles in rensponse to my article. ... > new evidence that shows her case to be correct, ... > Flom refers only to acquaintances of Ohman, ... > Ohman had any thing to do with the stone' and 'that the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesnt know what hes talking about
    ... >>> None of that suggests that Ohman was a stone mason AT the time he ... And I explicitly say that I'm not advocating Ohman ... >>> as a forger of the KRS. ... >>> Take it up with Michael Zalar. ...
    (sci.archaeology)