Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:55:30 +0100, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:52 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
>nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>Apparently on date Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:49:24 -0400, Horace LaBadie
>><hwlabadiejr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>>
>>>In article <rcmuf1hg73j6tva59todtur4t47ok0r9f2@xxxxxxx>,
>>> nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well it's mentioned in here - "Le Nord: paysage imaginaire"
>>>> http://www.collectionscanada.ca/nord/h16-4223-f.html
>>>
>>>How does this put Norsemen in Minnesota, which is nowhere near Ellesmere
>>>Island? Your claim: "pretty convincing archaeological evidence exists
>>>for the Norse to have gotten as far west as Minnesota." There is no
>>>evidence to support that claim, only evidence that the Norse could
>>>travel long distances in other directions.
>>
>>Ellesmere island is as far west as Minnesota, as per my original statement, up
>>to 92 W as compared to 89 W onwards.
>>
>
>I don't want to be difficult, but 'as far west as Minnesota' would
>normally mean Minnesota, unless it was made clear that it didn't. You
>wouldn't say you'd traveled as far west as Minnesota if you meant you 'd
>been to Ellesmere Island.
>

Doug,

I don't wnat to be difficult but it seemed clear to me that in the
context of his original reply Message-ID:
<si8sf1lq13c5dj0ado965ae6g8sjcf4e16@xxxxxxx> nospam was excluding the
USA so he cannot have been talking about Minnesota.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages
Loading