Re: 1548 edition of Ptolomy's worldmap - Hudson Bay

Daryl Krupa wrote:
bogart.lloy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
<snip>
Instead, I depended upon the information provide
by Peter, which I quoted.
<snip>
I don't personally care, of course, but if those
details are not there, then your conclusion is
wrong. If they *are* present, then Peter is wrong,
and you are a brilliant discoverer of lost wisdom.

Which is it?
<snip>

False dichotomy.
It is neither.
You did not quote Peter's words.
Instead, you quoted my words, then paraphrased my words
as if you were contributing something original,
then chastised me for commenting on the subject,
which you had just done without contributing anything new at all.

Sheesh, Daryl, how have I offended thee?
I mis-attributed your words (to Peter), and
when that was pointed out, I readily saw my
error and admitted it.

I quoted your words - did I do so incorrectly?

I paraphrased nothing - I added my own opinion.

And when did I chastise you? You didn't introduce
this topic.

[snip]

You did not read what I had written.
You do not understand what you see in front of you.

I surely did, and I certainly do. My understanding was
that a map that did not show critical features was not
well cartographed -- at least with respect to the area in
question. I fully agree with what I thought was your
main point: that the details that 'would have been' present,
were missing.

It's very puzzling to read this, your reaction to *my*
conclusion but I do understand what is written. Did you
intend to make some different point?

You have nothing useful to contribute, but instead
offer only errors and pointless imitation.
I quote your own evaluations of the behaviours you have
exhibited here, in the hope that you will do the honopurable
thing and thing and FRO:

Why, thank ye kindly. I really *must* go back and read what
I wrote that might have set you off like this.


I wrote: (and you accurately quoted)
"Surely it must be clear that there's no benefit to be had in
discussing old maps, on an ARCHAEOLOGY newsgroup,
with someone who understands neither maps nor archaeology."

And wasn't it clear to you, who that was directed at?
Not you, to be sure.

"We all know who it is that "don't are up to needed skills" when
well-reasoned interpretation of information is needed."

" ... your skills at misinterpreting non-information are becoming
legendary."

"Only a troll would persist in this behavior."



Go play somewhere else.

Curiouser and curiouser...
did you somehow think any of this was directed at you?

Lloyd
*****

.

Relevant Pages