Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
In fact, a great deal of salvage soon becomes trade items.

Wrong again. While salvaged good can be and probably are traded
internally within a particular people, they do NOT become "trade
goods" no matter what.

Nothing you have to say following a premise as dumb as that one
is worth listening to.

Of course then you follow it up with what has to be the most
abjectly *stupid* statement you've made yet:

Further to that INTERNAL trade between
individuals of the same people, eg Thule people, isn't considered
"trade" when discussing trade between different ethnic groups and
cultures.

Trade between Inuit people isn't trade. Hmmm...

You really need to learn the correct meaning of words - you
cannot communicate with your private secret definitions of terms! So
far you have wasted the majority of time attempting to "justify" your
abuse of others via these PRIVATE non standard, and unknown
definitions.

Nice projection Seppo, but nobody is missing the fact that you
are the one with a private dictionary.

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

Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term.

You just show you bloody ignorance more clearly, nothing more! It is
only so IF it has been INTENDED to be "trade goods" in the first
place, dufus! THAT is what your dictionary is telling you - IF you
could understand it!

Sorry Seppo, but while your private dictionary might say that,
there is no other dictionary of the English language which does.
The fact is that when goods enter into commerce, they are by
definition "trade goods". What they were considered at previous
times is irrelevant.

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