Re: The language of the KRS


"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43bfa224$0$281$dbd4b001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I E_Johansson wrote: BSMvf.42161$d5.198362@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > "Peter Alaca"skrev
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>
>>>>>>> OK, lets skip the language for a moment.
>>>>>>> Here is the latest:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted: 12/28/05
>>>>>>> Evidence said to prove Rune Stone authentic
>>>>>>> By Rachel Kytonen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some fragments:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> So, unpublished new 'evidence'.
>>>>>>> That will keep us going.
>
>>>>>> I don't know where you get the 'unpublished' from.
>
>>>>> Oh? Please give us a reference to the paper(s)
>>>>> where he published his post-book discoveries,
>>>>> and especially in the last ten days.
>
>>>> Please give me a published source which shows that
>>>> Wolter or Nielsen have discovered new evidence in
>>>> the last 10 days.
>
>>> I did.
>
>> Peter that some new evidence isn't published doesn't
>> mean that it was discovered in the last 10 days.
>
> You are right. It was confused by Eric's invention.
> He changed my question about _publication_ in the
> last ten days to new _evidence_ in the last ten days.
> I don't know if he did that on purpose, or that he
> can't read.

I know. He appears to skim, rather than read. Then he filters the material
through the prism of his preconceived pet beliefs. The results can often be
positively frightening.

>
> My point was what is written in the cited article
> on the basis of an interview with Wolter.
> "Wolter said in the past two weeks
> it has been determined that ..."
> and
> "But after the book came out, Wolter
> and Nielsen discovered ..."
>
> So, Wolter says they discovered new things
> in the previous fortnight. That means that if
> they published that, that only could be done
> in the days since the interview on 26 december.
> Hence the ten days.
> I think that is impossible, but given Eric's
> "I don't know where you get the 'unpublished' from"
> he seems to suggest they did.
>
> --
> º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
>
>

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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS - Possible news to come
    ... are told that only part of the evidence will be disclosed, ... people know all the evidence (like you, Inger) while others will have to ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Vineland
    ... >> In the KRS case, Wolter and others suggest that their ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS - Possible news to come
    ... > Like all of your arguments, this one is riddled with holes where the ... > evidence should be. ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Old story walking again.
    ... >>theorists could imagine a conspiracy isn't evidence. ... > Do you mean to say the reports of finding evidence of a Roman wreck ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>Eric Stevens wrote in message ... ... available evidence points to X conclusion, but there may just be more out ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast