Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:50:51 -0400, Horace LaBadie
<hwlabadiejr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>In article <giq5g15kdegoghg4tegohnknij29h683go@xxxxxxx>,
> nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Apparently on date Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:41:13 +0100, Doug Weller
>> <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>SNIP
>
>> >>>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.
>>
>> Given that Minnesota is in the USA and does not contain anywhere called
>> Eureka
>> 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.
>
>
>Yeah, clearly no such place exists.
>
><http://eurekatownship-mn.us/>
>
>
>
>> 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"
>
>
>When you ignore the context of the discussion (and the archaeologcal
>context of the material finds) this is result -- nothing at all of
>relevance to the discussion of a supposed Norse penetration of the
>present day interior USA.
>
It seems to me that all this hoo hah exists because people have been
determinedly ignoring the context of nospam's original remarks. But
what's new? Some people will do anything to win an argument. :-(



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >>>USA so he cannot have been talking about Minnesota. ... > Norse went to the US and I referred to Eureka to narrow down where I meant. ... When you ignore the context of the discussion (and the archaeologcal ... relevance to the discussion of a supposed Norse penetration of the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Haaretz, Fox News, OReilly vs God Passes By, T-N, ESW
    ... "If I were Christian and you, for example, thought that Jesus married ... Mary and moved to Minnesota would you do the same thing?" ... Comments that are irrelevant and out of context such as this can be ... funny. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
Loading