Re: Hooked 'X' Runes and where they have been found.




"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kknbp4t4qr3a0goff2kagcv8f15dbvhos7@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:31:44 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mig9p49khakjb1sap3khkiqrmpffoteip3@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:36:13 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

--- snip ----

That the KRS is genuine is a good start. It is now more simple to
place a suitable party near Kensington in the 14th century than it is
to explain how and why some one with the requisite knowledge was in a
position to carve and plant the KRS at a more modern time.

LOL. And you have the stones to speak of flannel...

Why don't you actually address, point by point what I posted regarding
what
one has to accept if one argues that the KRS is authentic. Then explain
whether all of that is more or less than one would have to accept if the
thing is a fake. Point by point. You haven't got either the stones, or
in
my not so humble opinion, the brains to do it.

You are, I suspect, referring to all the things in the KRS which are
atypical of what you regard as a proper runestone. I don't have to
argue them point by point. The characterstics of the KRS are what they
are. We are not trying to get the KRS to join a club, where meeting
the qualifying conditions are necessary. It is what it is.

I'm not going to let you off that easily.

What I posted was that Occam's razor demonstrates that the KRS is much
more
likely to be a fake than it is to be authentic. I listed a whole host of
problems beyond the runeforms on the stone that have to be "waved away" or
accepted as major coincidences if that stone is authentic. There are far
fewer problems with the stone being a fake.

Your response was that I don't understand Occam. I think that you and I
both understand Occam pretty well - but at the end of the day, you simply
will not admit that there are far fewer problems with the hypothesis that
the KRS is a fake than there are with the hypothesis that it is authentic.
That you choose to refuse to discuss things, problem by problem, is
telling.


Past experience is that attempts to discuss things with you leads to a
cancerous growth of the thread. You shift ground. You misrepresent
what was said. As you are trying to do here, you even misrepresent
what the argument is about. [Hint - compare the top quoted paragraph
with the bottom. Then look for the points where the subject is
changed]

To adopt a phrase from the late Leon Uris' book "Battle Cry," "Bullshit
Little Eva."

Either present your argument, or retract your statement regarding my
understanding of Occam Razor and admit that you cannot establish that if one
applies Occam to the issue of the authenticity of the KRS, it is far more
likely that thing is a fake than that it is authentic. If you aren't man
enough to do that, why should anyone accept any argument that you present,
or any conclusion that you draw?




Eric Stevens

Steve


.