Re: Gotland crosses

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
news:e8sra1tc2tm49igs10ej3pkkj507qe4phc@xxxxxxx:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:50:54 +0100, Doug Weller
> <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:41:27 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric
>>Stevens wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:06:54 +0100, Doug Weller
>>><dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:54:09 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric
>>>>Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:00:23 +0100, Doug Weller
>>>>><dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm allowing for the fact that someone may pop out of the
>>>>>>>woodwork claiming they are not Templar crosses. That they
>>>>>>>are has yet to be satisfactorily proved. But, if they are,
>>>>>>>then ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could you please remind me what the evidence is that they
>>>>>>are Templar crosses? I've missed it. I gather a dotted rune
>>>>>>comes into it?
>>>>>
>>>>>You know very well that all I presently have to go on is the
>>>>>WCCO program.
>>>>
>>>>Hey, no I don't! I really thought I'd missed something else.
>>>>In fact I didn't even remember that the WCCO program mentioned
>>>>templar crosses there.
>>>>
>>>>Ok, now I've looked at the web page that mentions them. If
>>>>that's all you're basing your speculation on, then why in the
>>>>world are you even bothering to speculate? That's not
>>>>evidence, it's assertion, and you wouldn't accept it in the
>>>>normal course of work surely?
>>>
>>>I'm not speculating and I've already said I will withhold
>>>judgement until I read the book or some other publication. What
>>>I have been saying is that if Nielsen and Wolters have found
>>>dotted Rs on the KRS and gravestones in Gotland and if the
>>>gravestones in Gotland have Templar crosses on them, it is not
>>>appropriate to write these things off as though they do not
>>>exist. Not liking the possible connection is not grounds for
>>>ignoring it.
>>
>>No, the lack of any evidence is grounds for ignoring it until
>>they come up with something that can be discussed sensibly.
>>It's not even a question of someone popping up saying they
>>aren't Templar crosses, at the moment there's nothing to look
>>at.
>>
> Quite.
>
> In fact there is not even any point in popping up and saying
> they aren't Templar crosses. What gets my goat is the
> willingness of some to deny that they are Templar crosses even
> before they have seen them. Denying possible evidence in advance
> is not a sign of an open mind. In the meantime, I'm happy to sit
> here and patiently wait to see what it is all about.

I can deny that there are little green men on mars before I go to
mars. I can deny that there are snowballs in molten lava before
seeing it. I can deny that the president of russia lives at the south
pole. Many things can be denied without seeing evidence, it is when
one has the evidence that one switches from denying to some other
stance. For example, I can deny that you know much about North
America Natives without officially having met you. Does that help you
with your little crocodile tears.

We need to go back a second.

Wolters pulled one turd out of his ass
You defended Wolters turd
There is no evidence that the turd has anything to do with the KRS.
And, very propogandistically, you are casting dispersions at people
who point this out to you. And what gets your goat, I don't know its
probably hard for you to see with all your crocodile tears.



--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/

____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
.

Relevant Pages