Eric Stevens wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:11:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
"stevewhittet" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote:
So, you are still saying inuit were making wood-framed kayaks 4000
years ago in Greenland.
I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the frames were wood or bone,
or the people in question were Dorset, Thule, Eskimo, Inuit or Beothuk.
I'm not arguing about the framing of boats. All I'm concerned with is
whether or not there were any inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago. By
definition, there weren't.
What an absurd thing to say. You have admitted that you are
well aware that for many people (and particularly those in
Greenland) the terms "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are interchangeable,
with the former preferred.
Complete and utter nonsense on your part. I'm arguing for precision in
the use of these terms and you claim I'm all for a woolly-thinking
blur.
The quote that I referenced was this:
II. Origins of Sea Kayaking
A. Greenland
1. No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, from before the time the first Europeans
came (1600-1700s). Some archaeological evidence
indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old.
http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/...902-1notes.pdf
I *am* saying, clearly, that Eskimo people existed on Greenland
4000 years ago and were using wood to make kayaks. (And that
using the word Inuit to describe them is all of common, useful,
and acceptable.)
... and totally innapropriate in a sci. newsgroup. It might be OK in
your local bar or while discussing things at the bus stop.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged...... People who live in glass houses
shouldn't throw stones...."
Mind you, you are quoting from 'Fundamentals of Sea Kayak Design
Seminar - Notes, May 29, 2002 University of Washington Kayak Club'.
This is hardly an authoritative source about the history of the inuit.
Doesn't matter if it came from Peter Pan, it is either correct or it
isn't.
If you want to be asinine and argue that we are writing
technical documents here (which we are *not*) and therefore
should make the technical distinction between Eskimos in general
and Inuit Eskimos in specific, you can go right ahead.
Thank you. I would go right ahead anyway. If you can't bring yourself
to use accurate terminology you should take yourself elswhere.
If that is a criteria, why are you still here?
You
certainly shouldn't take issue with anyone who wants to point out your
error, especially when they did not do it in malice.
But it
will merely demonstrate the depth of your asininity, and not add
to any understanding of why Inuit people on Greenland during the
Norse period of colonization would indeed have been likely to
trade for a carpenter's plane.
Which continues to have nothing to do with what I think originally was
Seppo's claim that inuit had been building kayak in Greenland for 4000
years. No matter who made that claim, its nonsense.
You have set such a high standards for Floyd that you are unable to
live up to them yourself. "I think...no matter who...nonsense..." are
"accurate terminology" on your ideal sci.group? Not only did you not
give a bad reference for your claim, but didn't give one at all. In
short, you are doing even less than what you are accusing others of.
Since you are so good at giving out advice to others and so poor at
following your own, I assume you will be voluntarily removing yourself
from this newsgroup and taking yourself elsewhere.
Which is to say, go right ahead and line yourself up with Inger
and Seppo again. They *need* company. So do you.
Eric Stevens