Re: KRS and the 1890's

I E_Johansson wrote:  ocutf.153179$dP1.511088@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> "Eric Stevens"skrev
Erik Hammerstad wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
Erik Hammerstad wrote:
m_zalar 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).


- Wat je zegt dat ben je zelf. (Lekker puh!)
- De pot verwijt de ketel dat hij zwart ziet.
- Zo de waard is vertrouwt hij zijn gasten.
- Wat gij niet wil dat u geschiedt, doet dat
ook een ander niet.

--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°


.