Re: KRS: Final thoughts

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:15:51 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> says in
>fJFwe.69428$Fv.14834@lakeread01:">news:fJFwe.69428$Fv.14834@lakeread01:
>
>>
>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:5626c1ddi95ahr3h6e8go9jr306gf8hahk@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:07:12 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One of Steve's favourite tricks. If he is losing an argument,
>>> he changes the subject (in this case via the linked article)
>>> and then blames the other person if they are not interested in
>>> following him into the field of battle he prefers.
>>>
>>> Been there. Done that. Not interested anymore.
>>
>> Just when I thought that you couldn't be any more dishonest than
>> you've been, you prove me wrong.
>>
>> The entire discussion (which it started out to be, I initially
>> posted nothing that should have started an argument) initially
>> revolved around some very simple sentences in written in
>> English, your native tongue:
>>
>> Philip Deitiker provided a link to a paper that discussed the
>> Inventio Fortunata, and wrote this sentence:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> You then replied: " These words will come back to haunt you.
>> :-( "
>>
>> I commented on your reply as follows: "The words are not
>> Philip's words. They are the words of the person who
>> wrote the paper that Philip linked.
>>
>> You replied: "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'."
>>
>> The matter is very simple, and should have required no
>> explanation. Philip Deitiker's sentence simply reported on the
>> substance of the linked paper (and, apparently, other sources).
>> His report on the source(s) is very plain: The Inventio
>> Fortunata evidently once existed, but it was a collection of
>> stories and favored myths. Those words are what the source(s)
>> boil down to.
>>
>> For clarity (not that I expect you to understand, or if you do
>> understand, to acknowledge that you do): If I reported to the
>> newsgroup that Dr. Richard Nielsen reached conclusion "ABC"
>> regarding a particular rune found on the KRS, then I am simply
>> reporting what Dr. Richard Nielsen has said, which is concludion
>> "ABC" regarding that particular rune. The conclusion "ABC" is
>> not mine, it's my source's conclusion, in this case Dr.
>> Nielsen's. While the words on the monitor are "mine" in the
>> technical sense, (if not in enclosed within quotation marks), no
>> honest person conversant with the English language could fail to
>> understand that the my message re that particular rune is
>> conveys Dr. Nielsen's position. And the same is true of Philip
>> Deitiker's sentence as quoted above. The only person(s) who
>> could be haunted by what Deitiker wrote is the author of the
>> source(s) he linked.
>>
>> My comment regarding words that were, and words that were not,
>> Philip Deitiker's words, and my reposting of the paper linked by
>> Deitiker, were intended to provoke a discussion of the paper.
>> But I was way too optimistic; there's no way that you would have
>> cared to discuss what is stated in that paper. Instead, _you_
>> sidetracked the discussion, threw in an ad hominem for neatness,
>> and converted what should have been a discussion re a given
>> topic into an argument about how someone whose native language
>> is English should interpret simple English language sentences.
>>
>> No one who follows your posts can fail to understand that the
>> sidetracking occurred not because you didn't really understand
>> what I meant, but because you didn't want to discuss what
>> Philip's source had written. In case you don't realize it, the
>> vast majority of people posting on sci.archaeology understand
>> your modus operandi, and consider you as something of a
>> dishonest flake. Just ask them.
>
>Eric and Steve, enough.
>
>Eric, your comment were in appropriate,

My comment was an almost throw-away line in passing. Nevertheless, if
I can confirm what I have read elsewhere you will live to regret (even
if only mildly) going along with the suggestion that the Inventio
Fortunae did exist, but that it was a collection of stories and
favored myths of the time. On the other hand I may live to regret my
potentially contrary view. But so what, either way.

>my words were based on my
>readings of what other scholars had said. However even if it were my
>opinion it is obviously based on some sort of mythical embellishment,
>any scholar can see that, and almost every scholar who has studied
>the Inventio Fortunata 'claims' has come to a similar conclusion.

That doesn't make them right. As Daryl Krupa has recently pointed out,
one of the more contentious items, the magnetic island may have a
basis in fact. If you really have been digging back into articles from
1998 (as you have said elsewhere) you will know that I made much the
same comment then. However, Daryl (and others) have since sharpened up
on the geography of the situation and may even make sense. What then
happens to the scholastic view that the magnetic island with the four
inrushing rivers and a whirlpool is just a myth? What else isn't just
a myth?
>
> Let us put aside this little difference for now, it now appears
>that we 'as a group' now have every little bit and drop of what is
>currently interpretable from the Inventio Fortunata, there is simply
>no more to be had.

I'm sorry, no. You are back to your old trick again of trying to shut
down any discussion of possible evidence of pre-Columbian contact
between Europe and North America. Not doubt this is your first polite
try at shutting down this particular topic but, on past performance, I
expect this to rapidly degenerate into a cloud of misinformation,
faulty logic and hasty conclusions.

>And you, Eric, have to face the fact that the
>common elements recognized by many, Ruysch, Mercator and Dee indicate
>that the Inventio Fortunata follows similar myths of that time and
>not just myths from NW europe, but from areas that had magnetic
>compasses for a long time. One has to face the fact that people who
>knew the world was round, who could trac latitude isoquants from more
>30' longditude would come to the opinion that there was a place on
>the earth where the magnets would function properly. But their error
>was one of scale, that they assumed magnetic properties they saw with
>small loadstones would be applicable to the earth. I suppose one
>could say that the magentic pole and 4 islands probably followed the
>magnetic compass around.
> If we scrape this story off we have 8 guys who claim to have
>reached an island where magnetism does not work properly 5 times in 4
>years. IT DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE KRS.

Who ever said it does? Its quite a different topic altogether.
>
> In fact, consider that they have been to the same island 5 times in
>4 years, interesting they did not resolve that there was not a
>magnetic pole at the center of the island, of course having one guy
>travel 'all of the north' makes it difficult for him to see
>everything. The Inventio Fortunata as it is conveyed by Mercator,
>putatively by Ruysch has big problems and multiple contradictions
>from what is known.
> Indeed if someone was at the north pole for 24 hours in and about
>June 21st they would realize that only one place on the earth gives a
>position where the sun is in the sky for exactly the same time all
>day long. The description of that place would have included alot of
>ice.

You really are running off the rails, aren't you. The IF does not talk
about the geographic north pole but the magnetic north pole.
>
> Eric, I should point out one more thing, Hiding facts and sources
>in 2005 does not have a pay-off anymore, if you are concealing or
>hiding 'quotations' because you think that in ignorance we might have
>less resolve to challenge your opinion, you are wrong.

I'm not hiding any quotation I have got.

>These
>documents, with a hefty search are publically available, and all you
>do is loose face by taking a stance and using propoganda and
>deception to maintain that invalid stance. Nor will the opinion that
>others are not deserved of these sources carry any weight. If you
>have a source and you are unwilling to devulge it we can only assume.
>1. That you are lying you don't have the source.
>2. That the source contradicts what you say.
>3. That the source is unreliable and you don't want that divulged.
>It is about time you stopped using propoganda in order to try to win
>your arguments and started using good debate tactics and facts.
>
I decided to not say anything about what I have read in a prticular
book until I can get hold of another book to verify it. I haven't yet
got the second book and won't have it for a while. I've told you all
this already. Now you are attributing all kinds of unpleasant motives
to me. You don't know what is in the book that I have on order and to
a great extent neither do I. You will just have to hold your water in
the mean time.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS: Final thoughts
    ... > "The accounts of Inventio Fortunata that I have seen suggests it ... > wrote the paper that Philip linked. ... the earth where the magnets would function properly. ... reached an island where magnetism does not work properly 5 times in 4 ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Erasing tapes
    ... >the cassettes through. ... Yep - but the cost of S&H to the Island is more than the cost of the magnets ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Kangaroo Island Wilderness
    ... think) years ago and didn't see any magnets. ... The island is a magnet. ... Take a compass with you next time. ... It will behave very strangely. ...
    (rec.travel.air)