Re: KRS and the 1890's


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:8kncr1dimacm4ilupmikfsjr95katkooj8@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:40:28 +0100, Erik Hammerstad
> <egeha.is.all.you.need@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:00:54 +0100, Erik Hammerstad
> >> <egeha.is.all.you.need@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>The arguments which are more objective from the standpoint of many of
> >>>>these 'wrong' runes to have been shown correct for the 14th century
> >>>>have been mentioned elsewhere, so I will not repeat them here
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>So spoke an amateur relying on the views of other amateurs. AFAIK
> >>>there is no professional linguist or runologist who will agree
> >>>with your last sentence. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> I can inform you that you will stand corrected. I'm sorry, I can't be
> >> more specific than that.
> >>
> >I'll not hold my breath waiting, but then you might be a bit more
> >trustworthy with regard to promises regarding coming papers than a
> >certain Swedish kook we all know too well.
>
> Thank you. I am aware of the dangers of making statements like that.
> All I can say is that I have been reliably informed on this matter.

The only kook discussing this issue is the one who wrote about a kook above!
Nothing same writer, I can't call a person scholar who never ever been able
to produce valid arguments and references in line of subjectline, sent up to
now has hold water when checked. Sad that such a person calls person or
persons with degree in History and/or archaeology kook. But as we say here
in Sweden:
HE WHO SAID IT IS IT! (Han som sa det va' det).

Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>


.

Relevant Pages