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

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.

You have to learn the language, you still demonstrate your inability
to grasp it. SALVAGE is not "trade items" you know. Look it up in a
dictionary.

In fact, a great deal of salvage soon becomes trade items.

It might not have been "trade goods"

So what the bloody hell did you INSIST it was? Was that just for the
same of heaping **** on other people, hmmm?

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.

Of course it does, go learn English!!

Apparently I have, and you seem to be both dishonest (see the
first above comment, which entirely ignores the context of the
entire sentence) and obtuse (the idea that a ship's manifest is
what determines whether a salvaged item can sold or not).

Amusing.

Go learn the language! How often does one have to say that before it
sinks in? You attempting to justify your rubbish claims only puts your
own credibility in question. The term "trade goods" has a VERY
specific meaning and cannot be applied to salvage, or lost property
which also have very specific meanings. If it wasn't so, then those
terms wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. Stop trying to redefine
the language.

It really is no point in dealing with the rest UNTIL you start using
English properly - NOT with stacks of your personal private
definitions.

Lets see you cite a dictionary which supports *your* definition
over mine!

trade goods
n : articles of commerce [syn: commodity, goods]

Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term. Your
restricted definition is merely the false assumption that
something which is once labeled as a commodity is always a
commodity, and something *not* labeled as such at one point can
never be called that at a later time.

Simply put, your English and your logic are both invalid.

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