Re: The language of the KRS

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 02:39:33 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote: umo0s1h6g99t60b2v4h0ki4ct3p504bclp@xxxxxxx,
>
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 23:56:31 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>>>> I E_Johansson wrote:
>>>>>> "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 So, unpublished new 'evidence'.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 I don't know where you get the 'unpublished' from.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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 "I don't know where you get the 'unpublished' from"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.
>>>
>>>> My original question may be found in my Message-ID:
>>>> <b6ptr19c1pa99l1g0l3k7vejf3fos54v6h@xxxxxxx> when in response to you
>>>> writing "So, unpublished new 'evidence'.That will keep us going." I
>>>> wrote "I don't know where you get the 'unpublished' from."
>>>>
>>>> I thought that what I wrote implied a question or at least deserved
>>>> a meaningful response. Instead, you responded with the following
>>>> question:
>>>>
>>>> "Oh? Please give us a reference to the paper(s)
>>>> where he published his post-book discoveries,
>>>> and especially in the last ten days."
>>>
>>> And that is no meaningfull response?
>>>
>>>> This seemed to be getting further and further from the original
>>>> point but rather than continue asking you to explain your remark
>>>> about unpublished new evidence I thought I would engage in the game
>>>> of verbal fencing.
>>>
>>> To hide the fact that you had not the slightest
>>> what I was talking about, because you did't
>>> read or didn't understand the information
>>> I presented.
>>
>> Far from hiding the fact that I didn't understand the information you
>> presented, I presented you with an implied question.
>>>
>>>> I'm quite happy to return to your original remark if
>>>> that's what you would now prefer.
>>>>
>>>> I take it from your reference above that the basis of your comment
>>>> about unpublished new evidence may be the part of the newspaper
>>>> article which said "Wolter said in the past two weeks it has been
>>>> determined that ...".
>>>
>>> Very clever of you to detect that,
>>> but you forget the other one.
>>
>> Please tell me. That's all I require.
>>>
>>>> The relevant quote from the newspaper is:
>>>>
>>>> "In an interview with the NEWS Monday, Dec. 26, Wolter said in the
>>>> past two weeks it has been determined that within the inscription
>>>> on the rune stone is probably an encoded prayer for the 10 dead
>>>> men whose apparent demise/deaths is mentioned within the
>>>> inscription."
>>>
>>> That was from the beginning in the article
>>> I referred to and it was one of the parts I quoted.
>>>
>>>> My initial reaction was that the date was a mistake as I was under
>>>> the impression that Wolter and Nielsen made reference to the Grail
>>>> in the book.
>>>
>>> Who said the Grail thingy was
>>> among the new discoveries?
>>
>> That is the prayer.
>>>
>>>> In fact, as far as I can see, it is not in the book and my
>>>> knowledge of this discovery must have come from
>>>> other sources.
>>>
>>> You say you read the book.
>>> Not worth remembering I suppose
>>
>> I'm currently engaged in quite a bit to do with the KRS, including
>> non-news-group discussions of all kinds of aspects. The existence of
>> library catalogues and book indexes is evidence that people do not
>> always know exactly where information can be found. The book has +573
>> pages and it is unlikely that anyone can remember exactly what is in
>> it, especially when it is not the only source of information on the
>> subject of interest.
>>>
>>>> So yes, there is unpublished new information,
>>>
>>> Yes, and that was clear from the moment
>>> I posted that article (if you trust the writer
>>> and Wolter). What took you so long?
>>> Too busy with "games of verbal fencing"
>>> to read and digest?
>>
>> Too busy to read and digest 573 pages all in one setting. Most
>> certainly. Especially when there is a constant flow of ever expanding
>> related information to keep up with.
>
>I was talking about reading the posts here,
> as was clear from the conext.

That might have been your intention. It might even have seemed clear
from the context to you but it was not so clear to me. Afterall, we
were discussing the reading of several objects, the current one of
which in my mind was the Wolter/Nielsen book for references to the
grail prayer.
>
>>>
>>>> but then that isn't that what makes life exciting?
>>>
>>> Ah, you like being fenced. That explains a lot.
>>>
>>>> I also know that there is more to come and
>>>> this may make life even more exciting. :-)
>>>
>>> Watch your bloodpressure.
>>
>> I'm watching the assembly of into new patterns of old information that
>> mostly has been lying there under everybodies' noses.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS book: Geology
    ... >>> Did you stop reading here or have you ... >>> difficulties understanding what I write? ... >>> than one train meeting that condition. ... Eric Stevens ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS: Final thoughts
    ... > Eric Stevens wrote: vg01c15p6a2mkc4685a8me4em79n6gga4b@xxxxxxx, ... >> I won't start reading it today though. ... you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. ... all roads are leading back to a trinity of lost books and ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hawaiki-nui Hawaiki-roa
    ... Eric Stevens wrote: ... >>from the Maoris themselves. ... I'm always careful when reading any writings, ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Hawaiki-nui Hawaiki-roa
    ... Eric Stevens wrote: ... >>from the Maoris themselves. ... I'm always careful when reading any writings, ...
    (sci.archaeology)