Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:53:24 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Apparently on date Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:41:13 +0100, Doug Weller
><dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:29:39 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I can see where it can be interpreted that way, but I really did think he
>>meant Minnesota -- I guess I just assumed he wouldn't have mentioned it if
>>he didn't actually mean it. It would have helped if he'd been specific and
>>mentioned where he was talking about.
>
>I've meant exactly what I said from the start.
>
>In the first two messages in this thread I agreed that there is nothing to show
>Norse went to the US and I referred to Eureka to narrow down where I meant.

But either I didn't see or didn't recall those posts.

>
>Given that Minnesota is in the USA and does not contain anywhere called Eureka

Over 600 Google references to Eureka Township in Minnesota.

>I'm amazed that quite a few people seem to be insisting that that is what I had
>in mind - particularly when I've said several times that it most definitely was
>and is not.

I agree that isn't what you had in mind, all I've said is that without
very careful reading and a bit of interpretation which might have been
wrong, it was not obvious what you meant.

>
>Still, if a group of "non crackpots" must try and find a crackpot alternative
>of what someone says and then want to argue that:
>a) it must have been what they meant to say
>b) it is wrong
>
>Then go ahead, it's a pretty stupid hobby, but hey. For the record: "I was not
>talking about Minnesota"
>
So we see. :-)

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk


.

Relevant Pages