Re: KRS: Final thoughts

Top posting here to save readers' time:

What follows is yet another Stevens post in which he ignores a linked
article and does everything except discuss what the article says.

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

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:05n3c1terag1h5emvn8dld2ka41ibnthk1@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:23:57 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:23d3c1ph8h2tsrpogh7nmkcscd4q1pdumq@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:24:49 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:no21c1d944ke1n3g29o5h3tnmseutnc0qv@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:03:08 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:rhivb1dh19um72glc9bvncf4hdt0jqivds@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:30:39 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The accounts of Inventio Fortunata that I have seen suggests it
>>>>>>>>>>did
>>>>>>>>>>exist, but that it was a collection of stories and favored myths
>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>the time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These words will come back to haunt you. :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The words are not Philip's words. They are the words of the person
>>>>>>>>who
>>>>>>>>wrote the paper that Philip linked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please cite the source and quote the relavant parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why not go to the link and read the words for yourself? It's only 12
>>>>>>pages;
>>>>>>you should be able to manage that much. I'll even re-post the link
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/Places/Mercator%20Article.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was responding to Philip's statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The accounts of Inventio Fortunata that I have seen suggests it did
>>>>> exist, but that it was a collection of stories and favored myths
>>>>> of the time."
>>>>>
>>>>> Those words are not in the document referenced by the URL. They are
>>>>> Philip's words and not to be found in a URL or anywhere else. That's
>>>>> why I was puzzled by your statement "The words are not Philip's
>>>>> words".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And once again, you prove to be either a smartass of the first order, or
>>>>simply lazy (perhaps you didn't read the linked document but simply
>>>>searched
>>>>it for the string "collection of stories ... of the time"), or you are
>>>>just
>>>>buck stupid.
>>>>
>>>>This document linked by Philip is entitled "The Mythic Geography of the
>>>>Northern Polar Regions:Inventio fortunata and Buddhist Cosmology", and
>>>>this
>>>>appears on page 3, where the author gets in to discussing the Inventio:
>>>>
>>>>"Thus the source of this mythical polar geography is a lost work by an
>>>>unknown author of the 14th century. Nonetheless, it is possible to
>>>>speculate
>>>>about where the author of the Inventio fortunata may have derived this
>>>>geography." The author then goes on to discuss some of the mythic
>>>>themes
>>>>and stories that may have formed the basis for the Inventio and which
>>>>are
>>>>reflected on the maps of the day.
>>>>
>>>>So, while all of the following words were obviously written by Philip,
>>>>""The
>>>>accounts of Inventio Fortunata that I have seen suggests it did exist,
>>>>but
>>>>that it was a collection of stories and favored myths of the time."
>>>
>>> Listen shyster, of course they were obviously written by Philip. Those
>>> were the words to which I obviously responded. Yet your (now snipped)
>>> response was "The words are not Philip's words. They are the words of
>>> the person who wrote the paper that Philip linked".
>>>
>>> I then asked you "Please cite the source and quote the relavant
>>> parts". Rather than do that you just told me to go back and read the
>>> URL. Had you done what I asked, you might have realised the source of
>>> the confusion - but perhaps you did and chose to evade rather than
>>> admit your mistake?
>>>
>>> Now that your nose has been rubbed in your own misunderstanding you
>>> resort to several paragraphs of waffle in an attempt to conceal your
>>> error and change the subject.
>>>
>>> You are an utterly unhelpful waste of time. Back on ignore.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>those
>>>>before the comma reflect Philip's position (he believes the position
>>>>taken
>>>>by the author of the article), and the words that follow the comma are a
>>>>short and accurate summary of *the theme discussed by the author of the
>>>>article*. If you don't believe that the words "collection of stories
>>>>...
>>>>of
>>>>the time" are accurate, your quarrel is with the author of the linked
>>>>article linked by Philip (and that author's sources), and not with
>>>>Philip
>>>>who chooses to believe them. Obviously, you lack the information to
>>>>rebut
>>>>what the author of the article wrote, and so once again, your squink
>>>>generator has swung into action.
>>
>>How clever of you, Eric. Let the entire post stand, and respond to none
>>of
>>the part which clearly demonstrates that you've gotten the squink
>>generator
>>cranking yet again.
>
> What do you call claiming I should have responded to words other than
> those I responded to?
>
>>Regarding following: "the words before the comma
>>reflect Philip's position (he believes the position taken by the author of
>>the article), and the words that follow the comma are a short and accurate
>>summary of *the theme discussed by the author of the article*." what part
>>didn't you understand, you dishonest son of a bitch??
>
> I understand all of it but, as you have inadvertantly pointed out, I
> was responding to something quite different in an earlier article
> written by a person quite different from the author of the words you
> now want to argue about.
>>
>>Again, if you don't believe that the words "collection of stories ... of
>>the
>>time" are accurate, your quarrel is with the author of the linked article
>>linked by Philip (and that author's sources), and not with Philip who
>>chooses to report them and to believe them. **Obviously, you lack the
>>information to rebut what the author of the article wrote, and so once
>>again, your squink generator has swung into action.** Merely because you
>>haven't the information, or the wit, to discuss what was written in the
>>article linked by Philip, there's no excuse for the name calling and the
>>dishonest crap about "putting me on ignore." Simply be a man and admit
>>that
>>the linked article presents information that you were totally ignorant of,
>>and casts doubt on the Inventio having any importance as a historical
>>document.
>
> Who wants to get into a ***-fight with an evil-minded incompetent
> like you?
>>
>>In short, you are dead wrong to believe that the Inventio is anything more
>>than a reflection of mythic traditions, with a possible kernel of truth
>>regarding a voyage aimed at northern waters that produced nothing in the
>>way
>>of accurate, or even solid, information. Just suck it up, and move on to
>>the next historical fairy tale.
>
> Boy! - that surely is not a logical chain of argument.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>


.