Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
news:oaqha1h4drfch4rd9fg7sk5rmmsvuvemt5@xxxxxxx:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:57:27 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
>>news:6pcha1l78dibosdibc17klkga5ein26aau@xxxxxxx:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:41:22 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>>> <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rather that argue around in circles with people who want to
>>>>debate trivia rather than what constitutes a good argument I
>>>>have decided to set this aside.
>>>
>>> It's been pretty obvious that this is all you have wanted to
>>> do from the moment you first heard of the KRS.
>>
>>No, I don't want to argue your squink with you, since you seem
>>unable to do anything but derail the argument into squink I need
>>to reset it at its fundementals, IOW that which you don't want
>>to discuss because it is to important to the argument.
>
> You call giving you the facts 'squink'?

Not facts, trivia. Gotlandic Templar c. 1362 doesn't even constitute
as trivia, its fiction. Your issue with the stone is also squink,
because its provenance begs questions given the fact that two
amatuers pulled it from the earth without regard to what damage they
might do, and the professionals from the area weren't much better.

My point to you, which you can't seem to get through your thick skull
is that each issue of uncertainty decreases the confidence of what
can be obtained by modern day analyses simply of the stone.

Secondarily, and I am asking this question for at least the 5th time,
what is the most probable location from where the stone came. This is
not to debunk the stone, if what one other individual here said is
true and lake Agazzi was at a significant height in 1362 then the
stone may have been brought from a rocky island where the type of
stone was more prevelant, in which case one can carry a 200 lb stone
in a dugout or other watercraft much faster than by foot, and the
distance traveled could be 50 miles. It is a legitimate first
question to ask, not what in the f%$# the templar where doing on
gotlandia in 1362.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
    ... >>>unable to do anything but derail the argument into squink I need ... >Not facts, trivia. ... >can be obtained by modern day analyses simply of the stone. ... Eric Stevens ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
    ... Gotlandic Templar c. 1362 doesn't even constitute ... Your issue with the stone is also squink, ... >>can be obtained by modern day analyses simply of the stone. ... sort of "code" that indicates a Templar presence in Gotland circa 1362 is ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone Vegetation)in the Scandinavian press
    ... I terms of facts shooting, ... do with bad routes with trip times that exceed the context of ... the stone, or with Templar crosses in gotlandia. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>saying is that one constructs good arguments of good facts. ... >>buggering me for citations on the KRS, I am not a proponent for ... >>its authenticity, and by default it is a hoax]. ... >> However, again, someone has mentioned that the stone might ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Norse, Vatican and Vinland
    ... you are judging Yuri of today with Juri five years ago, ... I and others here have refered to proved facts, ... single valid contra-argument against in your lines below. ... It's been proven that the stone was found under a tree within it's roots. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading