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


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ssb3q4hulp1b3olhj2ilajdt0u9ar5pr5n@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:56:17 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1942q4l72hq5vdml20elj0cmsr1a2ap2mh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:28:49 -0500, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:01:36 -0500, Steve Marcus
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:xB0ol.24135$nu6.19589@xxxxxxxxxxxx> in
sci.archaeology:

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ouaup4po229joqodbiktj8g9mpb9b1mvk5@xxxxxxxxxx

[...]

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 be giving Eric too much credit. I shouldn't be
surprised if the idiot were actually equating use of
individual words that happen to occur in peer-reviewed
publications with referenced use of information contained in
them.

I was trying to highlight Steve's stupidity. I'm surprised you
couldn't work that out for yourself.



Even now, you don't understand Brian's point, let alone concede it. Your
inability to comprehend simple sentences written in your native tongue
boggles the mind.

In the context of the argument that you are provoking (on a point that is,
as usual, inarguable), Brian's statement to which you responded simply
means
this: The articles in "Vikings, The North Atlantic Saga" are in fact
articles that include "referenced use of information contained in 'them'
(where them refers back to the phrase "peer-reviewed publications").
Brian's comment means that the book in question includes "peer reviewed
information," and uses it in the way that it should be used (i.e.,
provides
citations for the material).

This is where we part company. From here on you are writing nonsense.

Saying that the book "is not peer-reviewed" is
as much a non-sequitur as saying that a given volume of the an
encyclopedia
is not peer-reviewed because the volume was published without itself being
brought before a panel of reviewers, notwithstanding that the articles in
the volume are include voluminous citations to peer-reviewed material.

1. As you have just described, the book as a whole has not itself
been peer reviewed.

2. I am not aware that any of the single articles in the book have
been peer reviewed although it is possible that some may have
been.

3. Some of the references cited in the book have been peer reviewed.

The single articles in the book number about 23 or so, IIRC. There are over
700 citations to peer reviewed work. I would venture to say that the
articles are essentially surveys, broken done by topic, of peer reviewed
material on each topic.


There is no evidence given that independent reviewers have verified
that material drawn from citations has not been misused or that
material drawn from non-peer-reviewed sources is correct.

How can you misuse a citation?? If you write a paper and state a fact,
citing X as a source for the fact, then you are either lying or telling the
truth. You presume that the authors were lying? I don't.

There is no
evidence that materials contributed by authors is correct. Your claim
that the book is peer reviewed is insanely ludicrous.


The only thing insane is your conclusion that the material contributed by
the authors might be incorrect. It might have been rebutted subsequent to
the publication of the book, based on new work. But the default position is
that the material is correct. Of course, you are free to **demonstrate**
otherwise, by reference to sourced material. But you never did that; you
just confined yourself to arguing that the book wasn't peer reviewed. Sort
of strange behavior for someone who loves to state that argument by
authority is improper. In your case, you are arguing here that the book is
not authoritative. Which leaves the question of exactly what type of
argument you *will* accept. The answer is, of course, only an argument that
fits your desired position on any given topic.

---------------

By now it is apparent that you are driven by a desire, not to enter a
rational discussion of the hooked-X or anything related to it but, to
attack me. As so often has happened in the past, I have ceased to be
amused by this game and will ignore you once again.

LOL. Your claim that there is anything like a rational discussion of the
hooked-X being presented by you (and your demi-gods Wolter and Nielsen) is
laughable. A beginning flourish on Christoper Columbus' signature is
somehow related to a hooked X-rune?? Priceless.



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


.

Quantcast