Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Like I said, *anything* that could be traded for was by
definition a "trade item".

It has already been rejected as nonsense - and it remains nonsense.

Rejected by *you*! (Which is clearly bogus by definition...)

What they thought was a trade item
when they loaded the cargo is one thing; and what they thought
was a trade item when they were shipwrecked and planning an
overland trek is a different thing. And what was a trade item
to the first Eskimo that picked it up off the beach is another
thing too!

So you are suggesting Norse sailors wouldn't know the difference
between essential tools and trade goods? Care to provide the proof, or
do we just accept it as ignorance on your part?

Where did I say that?

What I said is that circumstances change, and people adapt.

Shipwrecked sailors, as one example, are *very* creative. While
it is true that Europeans in general were known for their
hide-bound stubbornness as Arctic adventurers and Norwegians, in
particular those in Greenland, seem to have been true to that
form, it still doesn't follow that something useful as a trade
item is not going to be traded just because when sitting in the
home port while the ship was being loaded that item was
manifested as a maintenance tool rather than as cargo for trade.

Something picked up "off the beach" doesn't qualify as "trade goods",
you know. It is merely finding lost property.

Such limited imagination! It might not have been "trade goods"
to the ship from which it came, but that has *nothing* to do
with how the person who finds it washed up on the beach
classifies it. Perhaps that person, being particularly sharp of
eye, has found another tool just like it and therefore has no
need for a second one! Bingo, it is "trade goods" in the eye of
that particular beholder, and he proceeds very quickly to make a
deal to trade for something he does need.

And we don't even know if the beach comber was Norwegian or
Inuit! (Nor does it make a bit of difference.)

More over, *none* of these ships were uniquely "traders". They
carried explorers, the carried colonists, they carried military,
and perhaps other classification.

How do you know that? Which ships are you talking about? WHEN are you
referring to? Why wouldn't ships of ANY kind also carry some trade
goods - you know gifts, to impress powerful people? Your claims are
founded on quicksand!

Your statement is founded on inability to read English. I said
none of them were uniquely traders. That says they had other
purposes, but in *no way* says that none of them carried trade
goods. The only quicksand is that which *you* brought to the
discussion and splattered on your pant legs.

All we know is that at least one "carpenter's plane" ended up in
the possession of Inuit people in Canada.

So after all that dribble you now admit you don't have any idea if
they were trade goods or not - and that you have been full of the
proverbial all the while!

You aren't reading well today. I've simply said that claiming
it was not and could not be considered "trade goods", and
therefore would not have been acquired by that means by Inuit
people, is purely fiction. I've *never* said that every wood
plane that arrived off the coast of Greenland was there as trade
goods. What I've been doing is laughing at *your* suggestions
that you know *none* of them ever were. Particularly the idea
that it would be so because Eskimos had no use for a wood plane,
what with there supposedly being no wood available in Greenland!

As has been pointed out, the entire basis for your statements
exists solely in your imagination, and is simply wrong.

Your circular arguments defending that bit of idiocy are just as
hilarious.

Speculation about how
it got there is fine, but making assumptions about how it
*couldn't* have happened in ways that clearly *are* possible, is
absurd.

Oh really..... but you weren't speculating, you were claiming FACTS
even in this post - which you state above CANNOT BE as you haven't a
clue!

Oh. Like the facts that Inuit people used wood frames, and
therefore 1) had access to wood as a raw material and 2) used
wood cutting tools?

Those are the FACTS that I brought to this conversation. *You*
are the one making assumptions about what could or not be
traded.

Further more where is the sanity in claiming something cannot be said
NOT to have occurred?

Seems pretty sane indeed, when it is clear enough that all of the
assumptions used as a basis for that claim are invalid.

After all it is much, much simpler to define
what CANNOT have occurred and be correct, that what has occurred.
After all without a single shred of evidence, not even sound logic,
you claimed something as a fact - despite now saying it cannot be
done! I think you've got things base over apex - again!

But the only evidence anyone has presented here is what I've
shown to be true regarding the use of wood in Greenland by Inuit
people. You and Inger can claim all you like that wood working
tools were of no use to Inuit people, but it just flies in the
face of well known facts.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)