Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

Having invoked Goddard you should read
http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifeskimo.shtml

"In the 1970s in Canada the name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo
in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media,
largely in response to demands from Eskimo political
associations.

Which contradicts *everything* you've been claiming about usage
of the term Inuit. I notice you are not against a little creative
editing either... you left off the last part of that text.

"The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska,
in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all
Eskimos, regardless of their local usages [...]."

'Creative editing' yourself. I at least quoted a coherent body of text
and did not make a selective quote from elsewhere.

Selective quote from "elsewhere"? It was last (of only three)
sentences in the paragraph. You quoted only the part that
appears to support what you say, and left out the part that
doesn't. That's creative. It just isn't honest.

On top of that you have completely changed what I was saying by
entirely separating the first part of my argument from the second part
commencing with 'But'.

Oh, my goodness. Can you imagine that! I interspersed my
comments where they are pertinent. Amazing! You don't seem to
understand that *your* article was your statement. It either
made your case or it didn't. *My* article is my statement. The
only part of your comment that I need to leave in place is that
portion which provides sufficient context that a reader can
understand what my point is. You've already made your point.

Regardless, you've basically forfeited with this article, and
aren't even trying to argue your points. Instead it's nothing
but a whine about how your illogic has been exposed.

Note it does *not* say "all Eskimo descended from Thule
culture", but *all* Eskimos, period. That includes (for those
scientific publications) their ancestors too.

What scientific purposes? That was a political conference.

Stuff like that. *You* quoted something which said "in
governmental and scientific publication and the mass media", and
then whine because I make reference to it.

But then, in the context of Mailhot, you should read
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Innu.htm

What has that link go to do with anything? Did you actually
read it? Or are you so confused that you don't realize they are
talking about an Indian tribe, not Eskimos.

It is merely the place from which you should follow the link ...

You posted a link that has nothing to do with anything, and call
it a place holder??? Oooohh. That's wonderful logic.

(I don't believe you, BTW. I suspect you didn't know or notice
that Innu are not Inuit.)

In fact the site you are quoting is not correct (and is also in
no way authoritative either, so you aren't making points by
quoting it) in what it says. And you are adding to the
inaccuracy. And, you are also trying to relate the cite you
give to the authoritative sources that I mentioned. But of
course none of the text at that site comes from either Goddard
or Mailhot.

You are turning this into an argument from authority.

There is *no* point in posting non-authoritative cites.

Jeeze, we could post references to the bull**** you and Seppo
have posted and claim that means something using your criteria
for the usefulness of a cite.

I believe I've already pointed out that the vast majority of
information on the Internet about Eskimo/Inuit people is just a
faulty as everything you and Seppo have claimed.

You do understand that when someone says that I am a direct
descendant of my father, that does not mean I am not also a
descendant of my grandfathers, and my great-grandfathers???
That is the argument you are making. It is logically flawed.

Nor does it mean that you are a descendednt of you great-grandfather's
neighbours.

Why do you continue to inject irrelevant points like that?
We are *not* talking about great-granddad's neighbors (that
would be the Norse and other Europeans, or the Innu that you
posted a link to above as a place keeper for confusion.

The Dorset were the ancestors of the Thule people, and the
Saqqaq and Independence I were the ancestors of the Dorset.

They were all what can be called Eskimos or Inuit, and the
ones who were there 4000 years ago were making wood framed
skin boats.

You can bull**** all you like, but the quote which said there
was evidence of Inuit making wood framed kayaqs 4000 years ago
in Greenland was *exactly* correct.

The claims that there was no wood or that the people there were
not Eskimo/Inuit people have been thoroughly demonstrate as
false.

Yet here you are insisting that any use of a term that isn't
exactly the same means that half of what is in the dictionary is
wrong.

Your logic is faulty. Your facts are no better.

Now what was it we were arguing about? How did I define Inuit in the
very first place? It was in terms of people descended from the Thule.

And then you claimed that it does *not* apply to their
ancestors. You are wrong.

I have always been talking about inuit in Greenland.

And you have been denying that they had ancestors, who were also
Eskimo/Inuit, in Greenland going back 4000 years.

You know, this is a lot of argument from you just to support the
*clearly* false notion that nobody was building wood framed
kayaqs on Greenland 4000 years ago. The claim that there was no
wood is false.

The claim that I have been arguing that is nonsense.

Seppo and Inger claimed there was no wood. You claimed there
were no Inuit people. You are all three logically impaired.

The claim that there were no Inuit is false.

Not if you use the term in strict sense and confine your discussion to
Greenland.

The quote that I provided was not from someone who didn't
understand the words. You don't understand, but the author of
the quote did. The quote was correct. There were Eskimo/Inuit
people in Greenland 4000 years ago, and they were building wood
framed skin boats.

Now, I understand that there are other possible ways to use a
number of the words which appeared in that quote, including the
word Inuit. But the question is not how do we intentionally
misconstrue what the author had to say. That seems to be your
one and only real purpose. The fact is, the author was correct
in the message that was intended to be conveyed, and the word
usage is indeed common usage. Nobody with half a brain is
likely to misunderstand what was said.

The claim that they used only whale bone is false. The claim
that they would have no use for a wood plane is just as false.
The claim that no Norseman would think of trading his trusty
plane is not just false, it's so damned funny as to be insane.

Not as insane as a carpenter who would deliberately trade away his
carefully crafted tools with no immediate prospect of replacing them.

That is simply not true. Any carpenter faced with starvation
would do that in an instant *if* he could not see where the
tools were going to be his salvation and something for which he
could trade would indeed be beneficial.

Stop making up false scenarios that are not universally valid and
claiming they fit universally. They don't.

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