Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:30:14 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
>news:gstha11vdodl0mqad9vgomt50fdjo6vllr@xxxxxxx:
>
>>>I was neutral to the KRS. I was calling people kooks because of
>>>the style of their proofs for its authenticity. For example,
>>>proclaiming that a deceased C.1362 organization carved the stone
>>>is a kooky idea.
>>
>> That wasn't even suggested until probably a year later.
>
>Alright, some of the silly issues being proposed when I 'regulared'
>in this group were 'Red Indians/White Indians'.

And that really got you going, didn't it?

Whether or not was a proof is one thing. That it was a topic of
discussion was another, and that last is what you objected to.

You were unable to dispose of the topic with scholarship so resorted
to ridicule and name calling, a precedent you have followed ever
since.

--- snip ----

>OK. We have been through these:
>
>Next we went into
>
>Newport Tower, foolishness, obviously built by colonist.

A colonist which no one can name for certain, and please don't throw
in Benedict Arnold as there is no proof for him having built it.

>Let us not forget 77 viking ships,

Probaly wrong and disposed of by a scholar who used neither ridicule
nor name calling for the deed.

>Nicholas of Lynn the north pole

I'll leave that as I'm currently following a non-KOOK lead which may
throw some more light on it.

> and little green screaming pygmies,

I think you introduced them.

>king authors men,

A very old legend which surely does not need your permission or
aproval before we can discuss it.

>otherwise
> known as santa claus and his merry elves.

Ridicule as a scholastic method again.

>Incredible use of myth
> and foolishness, Nth hand accounts and bar tales.
>You offered up a picture of vancover as it fits the vinland map,

Some one else introduced that topic. I merely told people where they
can finda link to someone who seriously discussed it.

> circumnavigating the north polar ice cap.

Are you referring to the suggestion of John N. Harris that the vikings
made a trip around the north siberian coast or his suggestion for
which there is much more evidence that they made it round the
northwest passage and through the Behring Strait.

>Somehow we are to believe
> that these vikings were heading to vinland on the pacific, as if
> they knew d'hell where they were going?

They probably did after the first time.

> If they knew where they
> were going, Louis and clark could clearly explain to them, Don't go
> that way, and La Salle could teach them don't go south either, And
> the spanish could tell them what awaits them taking a northward
> route.

That's another thing you are ignorant of - climate change over the
centuries.
>
>We have enough fantasies in this group offered up as proof that the
>vikings were in minnisota in 1362 to write several volumens of good
>fiction, a few screen plays and at least one miniseries.
>
>>>> Go back through the threads and you will find a consistent
>>>> pattern of bias and arguing from ignorance. What he calls
>>>> 'trivia' are the facts of the matter.
>>>
>>>Give me a break, they are bull***. You don't prove that the sun
>>>exists by looking at the reflections of light off planets of
>>>distance suns.
>>
>> I suppose you consider gravitational microlensing equally KOOKY.
>
>You look at the fricken sun to prove the sun exists, not at the yeast
>growing under your toenails.

That's a scholastic argument?
>
>>>You can't seem to answer basic quetion and yet you claim to have
>>>the firmest understanding of the facts.
>>
>> Of course I can't answer some of the more basic questions.
>> Nobody can. All I claim about my knowledge of the facts is that
>> it is firmer than yours.
>
>But they are completely fricking useless. If Wolters is your 'facts'
>stop while your ahead.
>
I don't have your advantage of being willing to argue from ignorance.
I want to find out what I'm talking about.



Eric Stevens

.