Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:37:36 -0500
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u9pgr11rj54ns29p86kpt8e0te33mpihnh@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 13:31:06 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:75udr1hre27hsmvrdm5fiec6t3ho4eo96t@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:23:20 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:9sabr15n4gb2cram7glrop6rr255cknjj3@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 06:54:41 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:et2ar1hau6oobv8bh9jsh5tqqsfu07f1ke@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:02:10 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Because it is damned difficult to reconcile its being genuine with
>>>>>>>>>>any
>>>>>>>>>>sort
>>>>>>>>>>of logic, let alone with the historical record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK. Its a forged ... what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Runestone. Or, if you prefer, artifact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you tell a forged runestone from a genuine runestone? For the
>>>>>>> purpose of this question all that is required to establosh that an
>>>>>>> artifact is made of stone and has runes carved on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Historically, runestones tend to favor certain formats. I'll forego
>>>>>>specifics, since you already know what I mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> On that basis, Finnegan's Wake is not an english language book.
>>>>
>>>>That's a heck of poor analogy. Certainly, it is clear that Finnegan's
>>>>Wake
>>>>is an English language book, not withstanding its format.
>>>
>>> Finnegans Wake breaks many rules of english grammar, english sentence
>>> construction and english usage in general.
>>
>>But it is clearly in the English language, written by a known author who
>>has
>>written other books in the English language.
>>
>>> If you feel you can argue
>>> that lack of names rules out the KRS is not a genuine runestone than
>>> you MUST accept that Finnegan's Wake is not an english language book.
>>
>>But I haven't argued that the lack of names rules out the KRS as a genuine
>>runestone. I've argued that the lack of names is a quantum of evidence
>>that
>>cuts against the stone being a genuine runestone, and must be weighed and
>>considered on balance with all of the evidence. That's why I wrote
>>"runestones tend to favor certain formats." As to the analogy to
>>Fnnegan's
>>Wake, see below.
>>
>>>
>>>>It is not,
>>>>however, clear that the KRS is actually a 14th century runestone left in
>>>>Minnesotat by Norse visitors circa 1362.
>>>>
>>>>Although I smell the squink generator warming up to go full bore, I will
>>>>nevertheless ask you whether it is or is not true that the vast majority
>>>>of
>>>>runestones describing things done by people have certain formats? Does
>>>>the
>>>>KRS display such a format? Would the failure of the KRS to conform to
>>>>such
>>>>format be evidence bearing on its authenticity (note the difference
>>>>between
>>>>"evidence" and "conclusive evidence")?
>>>
>>> I've never accepted that argument.
>>
>>Because it cuts against your preconceived desired result.
>
> Because it closes doors without evidence that they should be closed.
How so? You claim to work with evidence as a forensic engineer. In the
following sentence: "[W]ould the failure of the KRS to conform to such
format be evidence bearing on its authenticity (note the difference between
'evidence' and 'conclusive evidence')?", what part of "note the difference
between "evidence" and "conclusive evidence" don't you understand?
Certainly the failure of the KRS to conform to cultural norms re the format
of runestones is evidence that has to be considered, and weighs to it not
being an authentic 14th century artifact. Equally certainly, that fact does
not foreclose the consideration of other evidence which might well
establish, on balance, that the KRS is an authentic 14th century artifact.
>
>> Nevertheless, see:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stone and see also:
>>
>>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vikings/runesright.html
>>
>>See also any of several books by Dr. R. I. Page, a noted authority on the
>>Viking era, Norse culture and runes in general. Two of the best are
>>"Runes
>>and Runic Inscriptions" and "Chronicals of the Vikings: Records,
>>Memorials
>>and Myths"
>
> Hmm. You should by now know that the Viking age officially closed in
> 1066AD. Page's book is of no essential relevance to an event which may
> have occurred 300 years later.
The first book listed is not limited to the Viking age. The second book
also discusses material relevant to runestones in general, not just to
Viking age runestones. As you have read neither, (how do I know?, well,
I've been dealing with you for quite some time), I find it amusing (but not
out of character for you) that you claim anything at all re either of the
books by Page that I cited.
>>
>>What you fail to understand is the cultural aspects of runestones and
>>runes.
>>If you did understand (but why should you, it's fact that you don't wish
>>to
>>consider), you would appreciate why your Finnegan's Wake analogy is
>>nonsense. Finnegan's Wake is fiction, written in a particular style
>>because
>>the author choose to use a style for artistic reasons. In doing so, there
>>was no disregard for any cultural conventions, deep seated or otherwise.
>>While 100% of known runestones do not conform to the convention of using
>>names (and names were used for a variety of reasons), the vast majority
>>do,
>>and for deep seated cultural reasons. While it is possible that the KRS
>>is
>>an authentic 14th century runestone that does not conform to those
>>cultural
>>conventions, the fact is that the failure of the stone to conform cuts
>>against its authenticity, *especially* since it is otherwise telling a
>>story
>>of a long journey, and death. It makes no sense that the stone mentions
>>neither the actors, or those on whose behalf they were acting, which is
>>why,
>>of course, that it becomes necessary to hypothesize secret coded messages,
>>Templars, etc. as being involved in creating the thing.
>>
>>Occam's razor suggests, by the way, that one could just as easily coded a
>>message using, for example, Latin, especially if "Templars" were involved.
>>
>>> You seem to be claiming that:
>>>
>>> A Swedish inscriber said Damn!
>>> I've only just found that I am,
>>> destined to moves,
>>> in preordinate grooves,
>>> I'm not really a scribe but a tram.
>>>
>>> In other words, they can carve anything they want to carve. It is not
>>> an essential that 600 years later we can understand either the message
>>> or their motives.
>>
>>All well and good, Eric, but you are simply ignoring the weight of the
>>evidence. And, if in order to get the thing to be authentic, you must
>>hypothesize that the KRS is a runestone on which was carved anything that
>>the carver wished, resulting in a message that we cannot understand, for
>>no
>>discernible reason and to no discernible end, and that into the bargain,
>>it
>>was left in an area of the world (the interior of North America south of
>>the
>>Great Lakes) in which the presence of the carver is totally unprecedented,
>>then I must ask you whether you've ever heard of Occam's Razor. Moreover,
>>just to insult Occam even more, your hypothesis now takes a rather
>>straightforward message that people (including one of the authors of this
>>new hypothesis) have believed that they understood for more than 100 years
>>and converts it into a secret code to be understood only by parties
>>unknown
>>whose presence would also be totally unprecedented, which parties may
>>include the Templars, who were essentially dead and buried 50 some odd
>>years
>>prior to the date on the KRS.
>>
>>Would you treat a quantum of evidence being dealt with by you in the
>>course
>>of your profession in the same manner?
No comment? I'm not surprised.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Most often, an artifact's authenticity (from tools to bones to
>>>>>>runestones)
>>>>>>is established by its provenence. Provenence is one of the most
>>>>>>important
>>>>>>things lacking with respect to the KRS.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if I find a $10 bill on the street and don't know ehere it has
>>>>> come from (i.e. it lacks provenance) I should presume its a forgery?
>>>>
>>>>Again, the squink generator cranks out an absurd analogy.
>>>
>>> It's exactly the argument you seem to want to use.
>>
>>Now it isn't, for the reasons that appear below. Rational people have
>>default behaviors based upon experience. When you awaken in the early
>>morning, groggy with sleep, and you wander with eyes half closed into the
>>bathroom to relieve yourself, do you first do a check to make sure that
>>the
>>bathroom floor is still in existence? If not, ask yourself why. It's the
>>same with your $10 bill; the default position (as explained previously) is
>>that absent some immediately discernible glaring defect, people routinely
>>presume such a bill to be genuine. They do not consult an expert on
>>counterfeit $10 bills every time they are handed one.
>>
>>>>
>>>>The answer to your question is no, because the vast majority of US $10
>>>>bills that a typical individual will ever encounter in their lifetimes
>>>>will
>>>>not be forged. Therefore, rational people behave as though a US $10
>>>>bill
>>>>in
>>>>their possession is authentic; it's the default position unless the
>>>>person
>>>>has clear reason to assume other than the default position (as, for
>>>>example,
>>>>the ink on the purported US $10 bill is red, not green).
>>>
>>> Doesn't the same argument apply to runestones?
>>
>>Yes. Which is why the default position re the KRS is that it is not an
>>authentic artifact. When and where it was found, the lack of clear
>>provenance for it, the lack of conformity with the history of the area,
>>and
>>the lack of conformity with cultural traditions that are reflected in the
>>vast majority of runestones, causes rational people to doubt its
>>authenticity as their default position. Note that "doubt" is not the same
>>thing as claiming absolutely that the thing is false; it is a result
>>reached
>>by balance all of the evidence, both pro and con.
>>
>>>>
>>>>However, given what is known of history, the finding in Minnesota of an
>>>>authentic 14th century runestone which purports to record a visit by
>>>>Norsemen to the stone's location, is an extremely atypical event.
>>>>Therefore, the rational position, absent a clear provenance for the
>>>>runestone from which it is demonstrated that the runestone could not be
>>>>a
>>>>fake, is that the runestone is of questionable authenticity, at best.
>>>
>>> Certainly it is questionable. We haven't yet got all the answers.
>>
>>It's more than that. "Questionable" is the rational position. That in
>>turn
>>establishes the burden of proof on the matter. I look forward to reading
>>Wolter/Nielsen's book to see how the deal with that burden. From your
>>report, it would appear that they've created a hypothesis or two out of
>>thin
>>air, but perhaps your reports haven't done them justice. I shall see.
>>And,
>>unlike others I could name, (and you may wish to consider whether you
>>would
>>be one of them), I shall call it as the *evidence* dictates, weighing each
>>quantum of evidence, and considering principles of logic. In the event
>>the
>>event tips to either side of scale, I shall adopt the position so
>>dictated,
>>subject to changing my position in the future as new evidence may require.
>>I shall not run screaming to the keyboard to chant "Wow, Wow, Wow" and
>>reach
>>a premature conclusion based upon a preconceived desired outcome.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Please note that saying "damned
>>>>>>>>difficult to reconcile its being genuine with any sort of logic, let
>>>>>>>>alone
>>>>>>>>with the historical record", is *not* saying that I find the KRS to
>>>>>>>>definitely be a fake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a fake what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of a runestone created in the 14th century.
>>>>>
>>>>> I take it that you think it may be a runestone created in some other
>>>>> century.
>>>>
>>>>I love it when you squirm around and are reduced to playing word games.
>>>>Yes, if the runestone facially purports to be a 14th century runestone
>>>>and
>>>>it is, in fact, not a 14th century runestone, then it would have been
>>>>created in some other century.
>>>
>>> Getting to the bottom of exactly what you are trying to say is not a
>>> word game.
>>
>>It is when what I've been saying is in clear, and rather succinct English,
>>and English is *your* native tongue. If a person ask me what I think the
>>KRS is a fake of, it is pretty damned clear that: that person is playing
>>word games.
>>
>>>
>>> I take it that you believe that the claim that the KRS belongs to the
>>> 14th century is based on the date of 1362 carved into it. You seem to
>>> have confirmed that you would regard it as a fake if it was carved in
>>> any other century.
>>
>>You really do have trouble with English, don't you? The KRS is currently
>>touted by its proponents (with the exception of Wolter and Nielsen, and
>>those who have read their new book) as being an authentic runestone,
>>carved
>>in 1362, and by reason of its discovery in Minnesota, as establishing the
>>presence of "8 Götlanders and 22 Northmen" in Minnesota in 1362. If it was
>>carved in 1732 than it is certainly not an authentic 14th century
>>runestone.
>>
>>Of course, if the stone were carved in 1732, so that it is an "authentic
>>18th century runestone), no one would really care much about it at all,
>>since its significance to date *is* that it is claimed to reflect a visit
>>by
>>Norsemen to Minnesota in 1362 and that significance would have vanished.
>>The KRS would then become an interesting historical item, perhaps one of
>>import for reasons differing from the establishment of a Norse presence in
>>14th century Minnesota. People might like to know why, if it were carved
>>in
>>1732, it bears the date 1362 twice (according to you, once "in the clear"
>>and once in code), and whether it story reflects events in Minnesota or is
>>the story of events that took place elsewhere.
>>
>>> Is it appropriate to call it a fake simply because
>>> the date is anomalous?
>>
>>Since, to date, the KRS has been touted as being the record of a 14th
>>century visit to Minnesota by a group of Norsemen, it is indeed proper to
>>state that on the balance of all evidence, does not appear to be an
>>authentic record of such a visit. So the KRS would then be a fake to that
>>extent. It is surely an "authentic" something, even if it is nothing more
>>than an authentic attempt at faking a 14th century runestone.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm merely answering your inquiry; I do think that
>>>>>>>>the evidence (exclusive of Wolter/Nielsen's book which I have not
>>>>>>>>yet
>>>>>>>>read)
>>>>>>>>clearly does not establish that the KRS is an authentic runestone
>>>>>>>>(or
>>>>>>>>if
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>prefer, artifact). Nothing you've reported from their book
>>>>>>>>encourages
>>>>>>>>me
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>change my thinking in that regard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly it is an artifact. Your desk is an artifact. So is my
>>>>>>> calculator - and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Squinking so soon into the discussion?? You must already be
>>>>>>desperate.
>>>>>>How
>>>>>>about "authentic artifact" in the sense of actually being what it
>>>>>>purports
>>>>>>to be, namely a 14th century runestone>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not squinking at all. You are trying to claim that it is a fake
>>>>> (runestone) artifact.
>>>>
>>>>Where have I claimed that the KRS is a fake?? I have merely pointed out
>>>>some issues that are raised by *your* report of what is stated in the
>>>>Wolter/Nielsen book. So far, your response to what I've pointed out is
>>>>that
>>>>you didn't read the book closely enough to respond to those points.
>>>
>>> I've only read the book once and you seem to wish to make that a
>>> hanging offence.
>>
>>Not at all. Your offense has been to read the book once, post as to what
>>you consider its important points, and then to have begun arguing with
>>people who asked questions about what you posted when you admittedly were
>>not prepared to answer those questions (because you hadn't read the book
>>"closely enough) and when you admitted that you are not impartial on the
>>subject.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to get you to the point where you can
>>>>> say what kind of artifact it is a fake of. To do that I had to make
>>>>> clear that it is an artifact in its own right so that it cannot be a
>>>>> fake artifact. It is an artifact.
>>>>
>>>>As I said, the squink generator is in full swing, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>>From Merriam-Webster on line, at http://m-w.com/dictionary/artifact
>>>>
>>>>Main Entry: ar·ti·fact
>>>>Pronunciation: 'är-ti-"fakt
>>>>Function: noun
>>>>Etymology: Latin arte by skill (ablative of art-, ars skill) + factum,
>>>>neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do -- more at ARM, DO
>>>>
>>>>1 a : something created by humans usually for a practical purpose;
>>>>*especially* : an object remaining from a particular period <caves
>>>>containing prehistoric artifacts> (Emphasis in the original.)
>>>>
>>>>See also" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=artifact
>>>>
>>>>ar·ti·fact also ar·te·fact
>>>>
>>>>1. An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool,
>>>>weapon,
>>>>or ornament of archaeological or historical interest.
>>>>
>>>>Since we are on a Usenet group called sci.archaeology, I would have
>>>>credited
>>>>you with understanding that the word artifact, when used in a discussion
>>>>in
>>>>this newsgroup, is the relevant most common definition given as
>>>>"especially:
>>>>an object remaining from a particular period." or an object produced or
>>>>shaped by human craft ... of archaeological or historical interest."
>>>
>>> The point at issue was whether or not you understood the meaning of
>>> the word artifact. You wrote of the KRS being a 'fake artifact'. This
>>> an oxymoron. All fakes are artifacts and remain artifacts even if they
>>> are a copy of another artifact.
>>
>>You will never admit when you make a mistake, will you? The whole point
>>is
>>that I used the word artifact in its accepted sense, in the context of the
>>group that this discussion appears in. As to all fakes being artifacts,
>>that's nonsense. The Piltdown Man was a fake artifact, where artifact is
>>used in the most common accepted way (archaeological or historical
>>interest).
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now you've got to the nitty gritty by writing "being what it purports
>>>>> to be, namely a 14th century runestone". Now, what makes you so sure
>>>>> that it purports to be a 14th century runestone other than that it
>>>>> includes the date 1362 in the text?
>>>>
>>>>What makes you so sure that a US $10 bill is what it purports to be,
>>>>namely
>>>>a note that is worth $10 US rather than $20 US or $5 dollars US??
>>>>Rational
>>>>people will take, as a default position, that a bill purporting to be
>>>>worth
>>>>$10 US will fetch $10 US.
>>>
>>> Better than that, you can prove it is $10 bill by scientific test.
>>> Take it to a bank and see whether or not they accept it.
>>
>>If taking it to a bank is your idea of a scientific test, there is little
>>hope for you.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Per Dr. Nielsen circa 2001, the KRS tells a story of 30 Norse who "(are)
>>>>on"
>>>>an acquisition expedition/business, who had a camp within a day's
>>>>journey
>>>>from the location of "this stone", and who went fishing one day. The
>>>>story
>>>>then continues by stating that the leader (or author or stonecutter)
>>>>that
>>>>"I
>>>>have" (note the present tense) a ship or ships 14 days travel away from
>>>>this
>>>>"wealth/property." The stone concludes with the following: "Year of
>>>>our
>>>>Lord. 1362"
>>>>
>>>>Facially, the KRS clearly states that the leader/author/stonecutter
>>>>"has",
>>>>present tense, a ship or ships at a particular location and then states
>>>>the
>>>>date as 1362. Thus, the KRS clearly purports to be a runestone on which
>>>>the
>>>>text was carved in 1362. Rational people will take, as a default
>>>>position,
>>>>that the KRS was carved in 1362 because the story on it is told in the
>>>>present text (we arrived, we did some stuff, I currently have ships a
>>>>given
>>>>distance from the current location, and the date is 1362).
>>>
>>> See my previous comment immediately below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please recall that I have already said somewhere that all conventional
>>>>> interpretations of the KRS must now be in doubt.
>>
>>There's nothing "must" about it. You accept the "must", because it suits
>>you to do so, even after admitting that you've not read the Wolter/Nielsen
>>book in sufficient depth to be certain of anything (from geological
>>evidence
>>to the logic of secret codes employed by long dead Templars). I'll
>>reserve
>>judgement on "must" until I've read the book in depth.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and that's the problem. In 2001, Dr. Nielsen was absolutely
>>>>certain
>>>>of
>>>>a translation that contained some new elements to it. He supported his
>>>>argument that there was 14th century precedent for essentially all of
>>>>the
>>>>rune forms on the stone. Now, you are describing a book in which the
>>>>message on the stone changes, there's a coded date (although that date
>>>>is
>>>>1362, just like the date that's "in the clear"). You have not, however,
>>>>provided enough detail to preclude people from taking a somewhat
>>>>skeptical
>>>>attitude. Neither have you provided enough detail to establish that the
>>>>KRS
>>>>in fact is not what what "all conventional interpretations" of it.
>>>
>>> It's not my function to do provide all the material you might think
>>> you need.
>>
>>Clearly you are correct, since you claim that you haven't even provided
>>yourself with all the material that you think you need to address
>>questions
>>that have been raised by me, and by other posters.
>>
>>> I suggest you read the book when it comes to hand.
>>
>>Since I've ordered the book and paid good money, I imagine that I will,
>>indeed, read the book when it arrives. I can also guarantee you that I'll
>>read it in sufficient depth to understand what it says, and why the
>>authors
>>think that they can say it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>In short, you've initiated a discussion of the Wolter/Nielsen book
>>>>without
>>>>providing sufficient detail to support what they claim, and have
>>>>confessed
>>>>to having read the book without getting into sufficient depth to discuss
>>>>some of the rather obvious cavets to what they claim.
>>>
>>> What part of my opening sentence "I've just finished my first pass
>>> through the book ... " don't you understand?
>>>
>>
>>No part. That's why I said that you posted without having read the book
>>in
>>sufficient depth to be able to discuss obvious caveats that I, and others,
>>have raised.
>>
>>>>I could as easily
>>>>take all of the numbers on the KRS and conclude that they represent
>>>>coordinates that direct one to a star other than our own, and presume
>>>>that
>>>>the "authors" of the KRS were in fact extraterristrials. It costs
>>>>nothing
>>>>to do so, does it?
>>>
>>> Reaching such a conclusion is one thing. Demonstrating that you are
>>> right is another, especially in the context of the practices of your
>>> favoured time period for the KRS.
>>
>>If I did as I suggested, how, I wonder, would you prove me wrong?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>The lesson learned is that you ought to be prepared to fully discuss
>>>>evidence before posting about such evidence and conclusions derived
>>>>therefrom, rather than cheerleading as you've done in this case. Do not
>>>>denigrate, or play word games with, people who wish to discuss that what
>>>>you
>>>>have posted. It isn't their fault that you aren't prepared to
>>>>rationally
>>>>discuss the matter.
>>>
>>> Giving a summary of the arguments of the book is cheerleading?
>>
>>No. Cheerleading is being argumentative with everyone who posts a caveat.
>>Cheerleading is saying "... all conventional interpretations of the KRS
>>must
>>now be in doubt.", particularly when you claim to have only made a "first
>>pass through the book. Or does the word "must" have some meaning that I'm
>>not aware of?
>>
>>>
>>> The nearest I came to cheer leading was in the final sentence of my
>>> original article:
>>>
>>> "In my humble opinion, this book is a 'must have' for anyone who
>>> seriously wants to get the bottom of almost any aspect of the
>>> story of the KRS."
>>>
>>> ... and I still hold that opinion.
>>>
>>
>>That's wrong, of course. See above regarding what you claim "must now be
>>in
>>doubt." That's a clear example of cheerleading, especially given that you
>>claim to have not read the book in great depth during your "first pass"
>>through it. (Just so we are clear that you aren't being quoted out of
>>context, here is what you wrote: "Please recall that I have already said
>>somewhere that all conventional interpretations of the KRS must now be in
>>doubt." You said that in the context of what Wolter/Nielsen now report,
>>and
>>you said it in answer to things I've posted.) I would
>>
>
> All of this - allegations of "cheer leading" - and other things simply
> because I posted a summary of the contents of the book.
You really do have a problem reading English, don't you? I've clearly
stated that you are "cheerleading" for the book because you have responded
to questions and caveats about what you posted by arguing with those asking
the question and raising the caveats, at the same time that you responded by
claiming that you hadn't read the book in sufficient depth to answer those
caveats.
By the way, I note that you apparently have no cogent response to 90% of
what I just posted. Why not simply say so, and then edit the material that
you are unable to reply to?
> I hate to
> think what you would try to do if I actually posted something
> conclusive.
LOL. In the following sentence: "Please recall that I have already said
somewhere that all conventional interpretations of the KRS must now be in
doubt." , what part of "all conventional interpretations of the KRS must now
be in doubt" do you regard as not being conclusive?
> As usual, I haven't read most of the above and I will leave you on
> your own to continue muttering in a dark corner.
As usual, you've read the whole thing, and have no cogent answer to the 90%
that you haven't addressed. In the future, be a polite little biased
correspondent and just admit to not having an answer, and then edit the
material that you won't/can't reply to.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
.
- References:
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Prev by Date: Re: KRS book: Geology
- Next by Date: Re: New book on Vinland
- Previous by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Next by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
