Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jg4ia1141lakp7rm8r1f1cb770p4dp3has@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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.

LOL. Squink as fine art.

Philip's *point*, which you neatly side-stepped, is that all your going on
about Wolter's claim that the KRS bears "Templar markings" constituting some
sort of "code" that indicates a Templar presence in Gotland circa 1362 is
pure speculation piled on top of nonsensical disregard for history.

But, for you, any port in a storm ...
>
>> ... 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
>

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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
    ... >>> professional spheres and making these new discoveries. ... No matter how tenuous the ... As a matter of fact the templar did not exist in 1362 and it is ... the stone, the that is self-evident the stone IS a hoax. ...
    (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. ... >can be obtained by modern day analyses simply of the stone. ... Eric Stevens ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >> The Templar connection seems to be a matter of fact and there is ... No matter how tenuous the ... >the stone, the that is self-evident the stone IS a hoax. ... Eric Stevens ...
    (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)