Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:15:25 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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...

I don't think you are winning any brownie points with an argument like
that. Once again you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't you know the collapse of the ice dams retaining Lake Agazzis is
believed by some to have triggered the Younger-Dryas event about
12,000 years ago. FYI 1362 is less than 12,000 years ago.

> ... 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.
>
But one question leads on to another - like why are you getting so
deeply involved in these matters when you so clearly know damn-all
about them? Is it possible you have some deep-seated objection to the
very idea of people from europe getting to america before Columbus?




Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >Eric Stevens wrote: sf8ia1l4uu1vh2lab91qrhs0lsn11j1nu5@xxxxxxx, ... There is also no evidence that Shaolin monks ... >> There is NO evidence as to how long it took for the stone to get from ... >>> one's imagination to work on the known facts a work of invention ...
    (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: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
    ... >>unable to do anything but derail the argument into squink I need ... Not facts, trivia. ... Gotlandic Templar c. 1362 doesn't even constitute ... can be obtained by modern day analyses simply of the stone. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... Eric Stevens writes: ... >>>would be evidence of tampering. ... >>>authenticate the identy of the group who carved the stone. ... >>undetected/unrecognized marks, Templars, etc., makes the scenario where a ...
    (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)
Loading