Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 03:56:09 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
>news:7mkpa1prl8esf91ct5tt6d0rrhe9qkbuk1@xxxxxxx:
>
>>>>> If you are prepared to concede that under particular
>>>>> circumstances, no matter how teensy weensy, there could be
>>>>> evidence for something then you cannot say there is NO
>>>>> evidence for that particular something.
>>>
>>>Have you ever heard of 'begging the issue' Eric. Its a form of
>>>propoganda and you are using it.
>>
>> Logic isn't your strong point, is it? 'NO' evidence means there
>> is non, nothing, nada .... not even a teeny weensy bit.
>
>Logic is that you are begging the issue. Begging and leading are the
>two most favorite strategies of kooks. I feel it my duty to point
>these out to you when you use them.
>
>>>>> In osme respects, this is a futile discussion. I am prepared
>>>>> to concede that the evidence for OOP norse in NA is 'very
>>>>> thin on the ground' but that is not the same as
>>>>> conceding/claiming there is no such evidence. As you say ...
>>>
>>>No-one wants you to concede anything, in some respects you
>>>should give Tom and I the benefit of the doubt. What we are
>>>saying is that one constructs good arguments of good facts.
>>
>> In your case, you construct arguments with no facts at all.
>
>See below, I don't need to produce an argument to debunk yours. It is
>the proponents that must provide reasonable proof.

But you have been putting up hypothese and arguments based on 'facts'
of your own invention. I don't have to put up a counter hypothesis to
contradict yours. All I have to do is, as I have done, point out that
yours is a load ignorant bigotted rubbish.
>
>>> What you are saying is that every argument should be
>>> entertained
>>>no matter how subjective the selection of data, and no matter
>>>how poor the facts. Worse when we ask for the facts you and
>>>Inger say you have, Inger says, gee you don't deserve them and
>>>you say that they are somehow lost in your vast reservoir of
>>>facts.
>>
>> I'm also the one who says you don't deserve them. I'm not going
>> to go to the trouble of doing your basic homework for you.
>
>Ah, you loose. What you say is meaningless, you concede your defeat.

Defeated by your ignorance? Not pygmalion likely!
>
>>> If you ask T.K. or Doug for facts, they generally can cite
>>> them
>>>within a couple of posts. So why is that?
>>
>> Maybe they have a better memory than me, not that that would be
>> hard.
>
>Maybe they have a better control of the facts. Maybe because they
>rely on peer-reviewed literature and published materials in reputable
>places that they can easily cite their references. Muddy waters don't
>make finding gold easier.
>
>
>>>[And don't come back
>>>buggering me for citations on the KRS, I am not a proponent for
>>>its authenticity, and by default it is a hoax]. To place this is
>>>a logical context, if you are in an american court of law and
>>>you are chosen as a Jurer for a criminal case, what the judge
>>>will tell you is this, it is the prosecutions job to prove his
>>>case, the lawyers for the defense are not obligated to prove
>>>their case. This is the same standard for these 'etherious'
>>>facts in support of fantastic claims. It is not Tom's, T.K.'s or
>>>my job to disprove these things, it is your job to provide
>>>evidence that can support them, otherwise we should reject their
>>>authenticity.
>>
>> Thank heavens we are not in a court of law. We are not being
>> forced to reach a verdict in the immediate future (much as you
>> would like to).
>
>But you are, in the court of peer critique, and your peers are asking
>you for your sources of information.

What a hide you have!

This arose because you repeatedly made claims for which I asked you
the source. You are the one who is making things up out of thin air.
Look at your latest load of BS about boat building! That you knew
diddly squat of the subject didn't stop you lecturing us.


--- snip ----

>>> I repeat that it is the proponents job to bring about the
>>> contexts
>>>that would make the story more plausible, apparently Eric does
>>>not think that the stone is worthy enough in putative
>>>authenticity to deserve this treatment, he just wants us to
>>>avoid drawing a reasonable conclusion based on no alternative
>>>evidence. To Eric I would say, you can't have your cake and eat
>>>it, either you are going to have to work to show how the stone
>>>could be authentic in some context, or avoid criticizing others
>>>who suggest the evidence suffices to exclude script consistent
>>>authenticity.
>>
>> Why? I've never claimed it is authentic.
>
>I know.

Then why do you claim that I do?
>
>> My main line of
>> arguemnt is that you have been concocting fictional rubbish in
>> your atempts to discredit the KRS.
>
>Fictional, no, in agreement with your sources, no.

You might get away with that if you had any sources of your own, but
you don't.

>That is a
>difference, at least 2 sources agree that the stone was used as some
>kind of step, the Ohmans deny this, but they might have vested
>interest now for doing so. One claimed it was a step stone for an
>outhouse and the other for some sort of barn.

And neither source knows the actual type of building. I have a
photograph of what is claimed to be the building. I say 'claimed' as
it may have replaced an earlier smaller building on the site.

>> This is not an argument in
>> favour of the authenticity of the KRS. I'm saying you clearly
>> have read damn-all about the KRS and your arguments are a load
>> of rubbish.
>
>In your opinion but you do not provide your sources. Rubbish is
>something you cannot define. Your opinion of my perspective (actually
>I really don't have a perspective other than its dominance here
>is spiritually off-topic for the group) is irrelevant. That you
>protect Inger's wild assertion and crazy plugging of insubstantial
>sources while at the same time you take aim at the KRS critics is
>notable. Worse, in fact, is your often protection of her ethnocentric
>behaviors as not being so, when just about everyone here of any
>credential agrees that she is ethnocentric to a fault. Then you run
>off discussing the issues of how far along the Nazis were with atomic
>weaponry, but the fact of the matter is the Germans might have had
>the atomic bomb if they had not scared away their most brilliant
>intellectuals on a campaign of genocide, something you seem to
>forget. The ultimate goal of the gestapo was not to remain in power,
>but to eliminate a people, that goal did not need nuclear bombs.
>So where do you want to go from here, do you still want to discuss
>Hitler, Atomic bombs, the KRS which you don't know if it is
>authentic, my rubbish or Maybe something archaeological for a change.
>Obviously you don't give a damn about my critiques, what is more
>important that you keep your foot in the door of sqinkyisms and keep
>the corkscrew logic that you use to defend Inger against her critics.
>Keep one thing in mind, Inger is not going to stop posting her
>nonsense here, defended or not defended, and those that have
>killfiled her are not going to un-killfile her. So that the arguments
>you are mediating put all the burden on you, without any particularly
>good reward if you are not a proponent.

Getting to the truth of the matter is its own reward. People like you
make it very difficult to do so.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
    ... >>Eric Stevens wrote: p6kha1t9fmuk6bhsr536sttfoaf8kmmsv0@xxxxxxx, ... What he calls 'trivia' are the facts ... >>> the KRS based on irrelevancies and what people haven't said. ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
    ... of bias and arguing from ignorance. ... What he calls 'trivia' are the facts of the matter. ... You watch him now build a fact-free argument against the KRS based on irrelevancies and what people haven't said. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
    ... >Eric Stevens wrote: p6kha1t9fmuk6bhsr536sttfoaf8kmmsv0@xxxxxxx, ... What he calls 'trivia' are the facts ... >> the KRS based on irrelevancies and what people haven't said. ... Philip doesn't really need facts and has absolutely no doubt as to ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Bad Archaeology
    ... Jean Aule is only dismissed as rubbish when those books are claimed to be ... Bjorn Kurten, which I read later, was closer to the facts about ... her forays into invention and domestication much better had the ... But that's no reason to not read them or call them "rubbish". ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading