Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:29:35 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?
Of course its about right!
Whats more it makes rubbish of your claim that Dorset/inuit were
building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago. Can't you do arithmetic?
Where have I *ever* said that *Dorset* people where there 4000
years ago? Can't you follow a thread that extends past anything
within the last 10 lines you've read? The reference to the
Dorset was to demonstrate that your claims about the Thule and
Dorset people not being there at the same time are *clearly*,
according to *your* cite, wrong.
I'm trying to stick with my original point to which you took
exception.
Then don't be dishonest. Playing your Seppo The Word Weasel Game
is not appropriate behavior for adults.
You are hot on making these statements but very weak on supporting
them. How about trying to spell out exactly why you think I am wrong,
and why?
Are you actually claiming that you don't remember *any* of the now
dozens of articles that I've posted on this topic. It has been
*repeatedly* pointed out to you *exactly* were you are wrong, and
additionally where this type of dishonest response where you claim
not to know something that been stated 14 time.
Look at the above.
1) A. You say "your claim than Dorset/inuit were".
B. I've never said that Dorset/inuit were.
2) A. You said "can't you do the arithmetic".
B. The right numbers plugged in add up to more
than 4000 years. You plug in what are *clearly*
the wrong numbers to get less.
3) A. You make a statement that the Dorset and Thule
were not contemporaries.
B. I pointed out that your cited source says they
were.
C. Instead of applying that response to the referenced
statements you made, you apply them to a totally
different part of the discussion, to which they do
not match, and say it doesn't prove what it was not
meant to prove!
4) Now you claim I've not supported my statement that you
are being dishonest... and say that while quoting the
text that outlines the above 3 major points of dishonesty
on your part.
Looks like your claim that the support is weak, is just one more
dishonesty on your part. Which obviously is supported by some
exceedingly strong evidence.
That is absurd. The Thule and the Dorset cultures were in the
same areas for 300 years and suggesting they never met is just
insane.
I'm suggesting that the while the mixed artifacts show that the Thule
and the Dorset had both been in the same places, that is not evidence
that they had been there at the same time.
That is absurd. Over a *300* year period! Stop being silly.
I presume you have seen my other post on this subject in which I deal
with time and place?
I haven't seen you deal with time and place yet. Every time we
wait 10 minutes between statements, you become thoroughly confused
about everything that has taken place.
The *facts* are that the two cultures co-existed with each other
for at least 300 years on Greenland. That doesn't happen to be
unusual, because they also coexisted in Canada for an even longer
period of time.
So if that one site doesn't specifically say that they met in
January of 1309 to have the 40th Annual Arctic Winter Games, you
can't believe they ever met? (Do I really need to tell you what
that says, logically?)
It doesn't specifically say they met and leaves open the possibility
that they hardly ever met.
Does your birth certificate specifically say that they checked
and found you had a brain? If not, are we able to surmise that
it is possible that you hardly have any brain?
Do you see where your logic leads? You are claiming that one
site to be the total definition of what was or was not existing
on Greenland 800 years ago. Anything not specifically stated,
couldn't be. That is absurd. (You do a *lot* of absurd
thinking!) Regardless, the site *does* say they met, in so many
words that I can't imagine how you miss it. *Three hundred years*
worth of "intermingling"!
And I notice that you are about two move the goal posts again too.
Now you aren't saying "never" met, but "hardly ever met". How
do you define "hardly ever". I bet the Weasel's Dictionary says
that means "less than he says, whatever he says".
I'm not saying the odd traveller did not meet (rather like the
occasional Irish monk in 6th century Colorado). As I said in a
slightly exageratted way " It doesn't sound like a recipe for hearty
intermingling".
It *does* sound like a recipe for *very hearty* intermingling.
--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)