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


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ouaup4po229joqodbiktj8g9mpb9b1mvk5@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:54:43 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m6lrp4dti4dd9qfn88uicpjlck8aj0l6gb@xxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:43:57 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:snmop4p3908e1v6rljrjcderr5nq2msi12@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:32:42 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aj4np4prq8vvic81b4r1pof8aka19p87lt@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:40:40 -0500, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:14:02 +0000, "David B."
<tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:ZwHml.2086$qy7.1921@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.archaeology:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:34:17 +0000, "David B."
<tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's a neat symmetry. My conclusions are suspect because
I cherry-pick what I read (on the grounds that the
more I read, the more I have to check); Nielsen and
Wolter's conclusions are suspect because they don't
cherry-pick enough, leaving others with the job of
checking their vast quantities of "evidence".

Bizarre!

And often rather depressing, for those that do the
checking. Finding that the "hooked X" in Columbus'
signature has a completely different sound value from
the "hooked X" on the KRS (and may even not be "hooked"
at all, just finished off with a flourish, like the
accompanying "hooked Y")

The one at the upper right is an initial flourish, not a
final flourish, but yes, it's pretty clear to anyone with a
reasonable experience of late medieval and Renaissance hands
that all of the assorted hooks and spurs are ornamental. It
also doesn't hurt to compare several signatures; there are
three at <http://www.christopher-columbus.eu/signature.htm>.

was rather a let-down. So was finding that Nielsen was
using runic full-stops as a preecedent for KRS
O-umlauts.

I've never been able to decide whether Eric really doesn't
understand that such gross blunders legitimately cast doubt
on the value of a source as a whole, or whether he simply
doesn't recognize them as blunders. (And if it's the
latter, whether the failure limited to blunders that support
his favorite ... unorthodoxies ... or whether it's a general
failure.)

Brian,
My approach is based on the fact that I do not immediately reach a
final conclusion.

Unless, of course, you believe that some evidence conclusively
supports
one
of your pet beliefs. Then, as you did with the forged runestone found
near
the site that the KRS was discovered, you will immediately upon the
announcement that the forged runestone was "discovered" write a post
exclaiming that there is conclusive evidence to support the
authenticity
of
the KRS.

P.S. I can link the post, Eric, so please save your "liar" response -
no
need to embarrass yourself further.

Go on. Post it. Please also post my response when a few days later it
was revealed that the AVM stone had been created by local students a
few days previously. It will save me from having to dig them out.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/db4cdd5085f30641

or

http://tinyurl.com/66n4b

Thanks for finding it for me. It does an excellent job of showing how
you lie by twisting things.

I never claimed that it was "is conclusive evidence to support the
authenticity of the KRS." I actually said "That puts an end to the
arguments that the KRS lacks context!"

I'm sure you can understand the difference between what you tried to
have me say and what I actually said. You must have known from the
outset that I had not said what tried to make out I said.

I'll leave it to you to post your response to the admission of the hoax,
because, idiot, my point was:

That you will immediately accept, without any investigation or, for that
matter, any thought, any evidence which tends to support any of your
beliefs
in crackpottery; and

You will continue to do so, like a dog knawing at a bone, forever,
notwithstanding that to do so you are contradicting hard science,
logical
thinking, and just plain old common sense.

The AVM stone presents the rare exception (the hoaxers admitted the
hoax,
IIRC, some months after the stone was first "discovered") and so you
retracted your joyous acceptance, which was based on nothing more than a
newspaper report that the stone had been found in relatively close
proximity
to the location at which the KRS was found, and that it was inscribed
AVM.

The this incident, evidence by the above linked post, is only one
example.
There are others, ranging from Atlantis in the north Atlantic ...

I bet you CANNOT find any evidence for me supporting such a belief.

Was it the North Sea then? You're into every crackpottery possible, and
frankly, it's not worth my time keeping them straight.

That may explain why you seem to be making things up. You can only
remember the anger but you haven't the faintest idea of what you were
angry about.

I think it was indeed the North Sea. Or perhaps the Baltic. Or for that
matter the Aegean. What's the difference?. It was a crackpot theory that
you latched on to and spewed forth gallons of squink defending.



ze and uniformity only achievable circa 1920 being
found
on the Vinland map only in the areas of the yellowish lines on the
Vinland
Map somehow being produced, or found naturally, hundreds of years ago.

It wasn't me. I commented on someone elses theory to that effect.

Bullshit. You clearly and unequivocally posted to the effect that it
would
have been possible to collect (by appropriate sieving, IIRC), naturally
occurring particles of anatase of the appropriate size and uniformity.
But
let's not dance around it:

Hell no. Lets just take your unsubstantiated assertions for granted.

Are you seriously going to deny that you did precisely what I just posted re
anatase found on the Vinland Map? Do I really have to spend time again
digging up the precise post (actually there was more than one)?


Do you believe that the Vinland Map is authentic or not? Or that it is
more
likely authentic than not?


It
is interesting that I found the above link to your post in a discussion
in
which you spent weeks arguing that a book having over 700 inclusions of
peer
reviewed material in the articles in it did not rise to the level of
being
"peer reviewed."

What on earth are you talking about?

Seems like you can't even keep your various crackpot beliefs straight I'm
talking about the book published by the Smithsonian that dealt with
regarding Norse exploration. The one which I posted contained peer
reviewed
material (since it cited 700 or so instances of peer reviewed material
within the various articles in the book). And you spent many posts
arguing
with your usual brand of squink that the book wasn't peer reviewed,
notwithstanding that it contained gobs of peer reviwed material.

I finally worked that out and have responded separately on that. I'll
leave it to others to decide whether or not you are correct in
claiming that gobs of peer reviewed material is sufficient to justify
claiming that the book as a whole is peer reviewed.

Do you realise that every word I have written may be found in peer
reviewed articles? If you are correct all my responses to you are peer
reviewed. Idiot.

Really. Which words of Nielsen and Wolter, and which words of the post to
which I'm responding, contain information gleaned from a book or other
publication that was subject to peer review?



You may think that you are a scientist, or that you think like a
scientist.
Perhaps your relatives think that you are a scientist, or that you think
like a scientist. But there is no scientist on this planet who would
think
that you are a scientist, or that you think like a scientist. You are
all
dressed up, and a little less rough around the edges than the typical
fanatic/crackpot who believes in the historicity of the King Arthur
legend
(complete with Merline and the sword in the stone) or in the Roswell
UFOs,
but you are, nonetheless, a certified card-carrying crackpot. Period.

My record speaks for itself.

Indeed. And when it does, it shouts "crackpot."

So too does yours.

Indeed. And I'm proud that it does.

<snip


Brian



Eric Stevens

Steve



Eric Stevens

Steve



Eric Stevens

Steve



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


.

Relevant Pages