"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand..... they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

First of all you are not able to recognise levity even when a smiley
is used. Further to that YOU have NO IDEA what they used them for.

The fact is that yes I do have a very good idea of exactly what
they used them for.

Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why:


"All we know is that at least one "carpenter's plane" ended up in
the possession of Inuit people in Canada. Speculation about how
it got there is fine, but making assumptions about how it
*couldn't* have happened in ways that clearly *are* possible, is
absurd."

That passage makes it clear YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW with the "all we
know...." part. It includes how it got there or why, as well as what
it was used for.

And neither you nor Inger has even a hint.

Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either.

None what ever, and therefor cannot scoff and sneer at ANY suggested
use. Therefor YOU cannot be taken seriously. Further to that I haven't

Well it is an interesting concept coming from you that somebody
who doesn't know anything about what something would be used for
shouldn't be taken seriously.

There we are MORE blatant LIES n- and that is despite you having been
informed what a smiliey is about!! So despite that you LIE in the face
of evidence to the contrary =- now how stupid is that, eh?

Why are *you* posting?

Oh, are you delusional as well, and believe yourself to be some kind
of Net Nazi too - being able to order who can and can't post here?

Why is Inger posting?

....and why not?

Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning
of it is, not trying to tell others.

From you, who prefers fabrications in favour of facts..... one who
doesn't have more than a primary school grasp of the language! Get
real will you!


heard anything so absurd as suggesting "chain mail" being used "for
making tools"!!

Your lack of ingenuity did not limit what they may have used it
for.

I see.... and that was the very best you could come up with....
didn't think you had any idea whatsoever.

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

You are quoting... who exactly and from where? Are you saying there
were forests on Greenland - Ellesmere Island in particular?

You still haven't caught on that wood floats? And wind blows...

Does it? Have you ever seen a log of teak float, hmmm? No? Well,
neither has anyone else - and teak IS a wood, you know. In any event
who cares about the odd log or two - or a branch of a tree.

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames.

The "arctic" wasn't referred to - but GREENLAND was. There were no
trees on Greenland at the relevant time.

Each and every one of them with a wood frame.

Bull****! First of all provide some proof that boat building (using
WOOD) occurred on Greenland AND that is has been done "for at least
a few thousand years". You can't, can you.

Go do some very basic research on Inuit culture.

I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you
to prove your claims.

In particular
the difference between Dorset and Thule technology. Among other
differences is the increased importance of wood framed skin
boats. In Greenland, look for the different uses of an umiaq
and a kayaq compared to other Inuit cultures. Of course the first
thing you'll discover is that, indeed, *all* of those skin boats
used wood frames!

I'll do no such thing. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. I'm aware of
skin boats using whale bones. Nor do I discount boats using the odd
bit of wood - but I REJECT totally your claim of making boats out of
WOOD - which you now try and obfuscate with a lot of snake oil about
SKIN BOATS - not "wooden boats"!

Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your
benefit):

[snip mess]

http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html

What sort of crap is that? There is NIL evidence there of any boat
building at the relevant time - not a WORD!! The word "build" doesn't
exist in the whole text. Nor does "wooden boat" but this does, "Our
skin-boat" - note that SKIN boat.

And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

So, where is your evidence of your claims? Please tell us all what
"tool" one can make out of a small piece of chain mail.

A carpenters plane isn't a TRADE GOODS for the several simple reasons.

Only due to lack of imagination on your part.

Go learn the language!

But the evidence is pretty clear that at least one such item did
end up with Inuit people. Somewhere between being made by a
Norwegian and coming into its current ownership, it traded hands.
We can speculate on how many times... but once is all it takes.

- It was an essential tool for any ship's carpenter on a ship.
- The steel blade may have been of use as a knife or axe, but then why
not trade those - or any piece of scrap steel?

**** happens. The Master's watch might get traded too!

Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do!

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote:

Wood plane - shave bone. Shave Ice. Mostly Bone.
Remember they carve bone into figures and tools.
It is their wood and stone item.

You haven't used a plane much at all have you.

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Seppo,
Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he
would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King
Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the
Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than
usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand
not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what
this will lead to in the long run.

Inger E
"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet
...


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand.....
they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

First of all you are not able to recognise levity even when a smiley
is used. Further to that YOU have NO IDEA what they used them for.

The fact is that yes I do have a very good idea of exactly what
they used them for.

Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why:


"All we know is that at least one "carpenter's plane" ended up in
the possession of Inuit people in Canada. Speculation about how
it got there is fine, but making assumptions about how it
*couldn't* have happened in ways that clearly *are* possible, is
absurd."

That passage makes it clear YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW with the "all we
know...." part. It includes how it got there or why, as well as what
it was used for.

And neither you nor Inger has even a hint.

Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either.

None what ever, and therefor cannot scoff and sneer at ANY suggested
use. Therefor YOU cannot be taken seriously. Further to that I haven't

Well it is an interesting concept coming from you that somebody
who doesn't know anything about what something would be used for
shouldn't be taken seriously.

There we are MORE blatant LIES n- and that is despite you having been
informed what a smiliey is about!! So despite that you LIE in the face
of evidence to the contrary =- now how stupid is that, eh?

Why are *you* posting?

Oh, are you delusional as well, and believe yourself to be some kind
of Net Nazi too - being able to order who can and can't post here?

Why is Inger posting?

...and why not?

Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning
of it is, not trying to tell others.

From you, who prefers fabrications in favour of facts..... one who
doesn't have more than a primary school grasp of the language! Get
real will you!


heard anything so absurd as suggesting "chain mail" being used "for
making tools"!!

Your lack of ingenuity did not limit what they may have used it
for.

I see.... and that was the very best you could come up with....
didn't think you had any idea whatsoever.

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood
in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

You are quoting... who exactly and from where? Are you saying there
were forests on Greenland - Ellesmere Island in particular?

You still haven't caught on that wood floats? And wind blows...

Does it? Have you ever seen a log of teak float, hmmm? No? Well,
neither has anyone else - and teak IS a wood, you know. In any event
who cares about the odd log or two - or a branch of a tree.

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames.

The "arctic" wasn't referred to - but GREENLAND was. There were no
trees on Greenland at the relevant time.

Each and every one of them with a wood frame.

Bull****! First of all provide some proof that boat building (using
WOOD) occurred on Greenland AND that is has been done "for at least
a few thousand years". You can't, can you.

Go do some very basic research on Inuit culture.

I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you
to prove your claims.

In particular
the difference between Dorset and Thule technology. Among other
differences is the increased importance of wood framed skin
boats. In Greenland, look for the different uses of an umiaq
and a kayaq compared to other Inuit cultures. Of course the first
thing you'll discover is that, indeed, *all* of those skin boats
used wood frames!

I'll do no such thing. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. I'm aware of
skin boats using whale bones. Nor do I discount boats using the odd
bit of wood - but I REJECT totally your claim of making boats out of
WOOD - which you now try and obfuscate with a lot of snake oil about
SKIN BOATS - not "wooden boats"!

Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your
benefit):

[snip mess]

http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html

What sort of crap is that? There is NIL evidence there of any boat
building at the relevant time - not a WORD!! The word "build" doesn't
exist in the whole text. Nor does "wooden boat" but this does, "Our
skin-boat" - note that SKIN boat.

And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

So, where is your evidence of your claims? Please tell us all what
"tool" one can make out of a small piece of chain mail.

A carpenters plane isn't a TRADE GOODS for the several simple reasons.

Only due to lack of imagination on your part.

Go learn the language!

But the evidence is pretty clear that at least one such item did
end up with Inuit people. Somewhere between being made by a
Norwegian and coming into its current ownership, it traded hands.
We can speculate on how many times... but once is all it takes.

- It was an essential tool for any ship's carpenter on a ship.
- The steel blade may have been of use as a knife or axe, but then why
not trade those - or any piece of scrap steel?

**** happens. The Master's watch might get traded too!

Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do!

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Tom,
stop continue to abuse me, you are doing so by writing under George abuse
without adding that you don't support his abuse.

Inger,

Then you abuse every person Seppo abuses when you write under
his lines. But you won't accept your responsibility for that.
Or will you?

secondly what I, you and George might have or haven't today or our relatives
had in 19th-20th century has nothing at all to do with what Scandinavians
living on Greenland and in Vinland owned and appreciated as valuable tools
in 9th - 15th century.

I didn't address that at all. Why not take it up with someone
who might have?

Or are you able to prove otherwise?????

I have no need to prove a damned thing on this issue.

Tom McDonald




Inger E
"Tom McDonald" skrev i meddelandet
...

George wrote:


(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message

...

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:


stevewhittet,
if you belive the Norse type of carpenter plane to be common among
Scandinavians in Viking Age to Late Medieval Age in Greenland, then you
obviously don't know much. It wasn't a tool you traded. It wasn't a

tool you

You can't support that statement with facts. Every carpenter,
shipwright, and cooper had not just one plane, but probably a
number of them.


The old carpenters and cabinet makers had anywhere between 20 and 30
different planes. Many were used to shape ogees.
I have 2 wooden planes one 8 inches long for little jobs and the other
nearly 30 inches. great for doors and other long accurate cuts.
http://jonzimmersantiquetools.com/tools/woodlist.htm
Whats the betting inger has a grandfather who was a carpenter ?

George,

Interesting site. I wonder whether the prices asked on that
site are, adjusted for inflation, similar to the price paid by
the original owners. They seem pretty reasonable, for the age
and type of tools being sold.

Tom McDonald

Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
is used. Further to that YOU have NO IDEA what they used them for.

The fact is that yes I do have a very good idea of exactly what
they used them for.

Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why:


"All we know is that at least one "carpenter's plane" ended up in
the possession of Inuit people in Canada. Speculation about how
it got there is fine, but making assumptions about how it
*couldn't* have happened in ways that clearly *are* possible, is
absurd."

That passage makes it clear YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW with the "all we
know...." part. It includes how it got there or why, as well as what
it was used for.

Seppo, are you literate?

I said in one place that I have a very good idea what the tools
were used for, right? You say that contradicts where I said
previously that I don't know all the means by which they
acquired them????

Can you connect the dots on that?

And neither you nor Inger has even a hint.

Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either.

Oh, no not a bit... just tell me again how there ain't a single
stick of wood to be used for making boat frames anywhere in all
of Greenland.

Or is your current stupid claim that you didn't really mean
that?

Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning
of it is, not trying to tell others.

From you, who prefers fabrications in favour of facts..... one who
doesn't have more than a primary school grasp of the language! Get
real will you!

You are the one who doesn't seem literate...

You still haven't caught on that wood floats? And wind blows...

Does it? Have you ever seen a log of teak float, hmmm? No? Well,
neither has anyone else - and teak IS a wood, you know. In any event
who cares about the odd log or two - or a branch of a tree.

Ahhhhh... teak does not float, and therefore Seppo The Great
says it is obvious that the wood which does float cannot
possibly float to Greenland (despite having read first hand
accounts of "large Greenland timber" on the beaches...

In addition to not being literate, you ain't exactly being
logical there either, Bubba.

Go do some very basic research on Inuit culture.

I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you
to prove your claims.

If you would simply do the research, you'd find the evidence.
Boat building is part of the culture. You won't find it without
looking into the culture...

In particular
the difference between Dorset and Thule technology. Among other
differences is the increased importance of wood framed skin
boats. In Greenland, look for the different uses of an umiaq
and a kayaq compared to other Inuit cultures. Of course the first
thing you'll discover is that, indeed, *all* of those skin boats
used wood frames!

I'll do no such thing. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. I'm aware of
skin boats using whale bones.

Liar. You are *not* aware of skin boats using whale bones! You
just made it up on the spot, hoping it makes sense. It doesn't.
They used primarily wood, though there are some boats that used
some whale bone... but more likely the used walrus ribs!

Nor do I discount boats using the odd
bit of wood - but I REJECT totally your claim of making boats out of
WOOD - which you now try and obfuscate with a lot of snake oil about
SKIN BOATS - not "wooden boats"!

Ah, Seppo The Great, who has spent his entire adult life avoiding
Eskimos, knows all about their history, and says they used the odd
bit of wood and primarily used whale bone as the frame for kayaks
and umiaqs (neither of which you've ever even seen first hand).

The fact is, you've got it backwards. They used the odd bit of
bone, but the primary material for making a skin boat frame was
(and still is!) wood.

Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your
benefit):

[snip mess]

http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html

What sort of crap is that? There is NIL evidence there of any boat
building at the relevant time - not a WORD!! The word "build" doesn't
exist in the whole text. Nor does "wooden boat" but this does, "Our
skin-boat" - note that SKIN boat.

Did you note the reference to the large timbers seen on the
beaches of Greenland (in the early 1800's)? Now what does that
say about your claim that there is no wood there to use for
boats?

You refuse to do any of your own research, which is the exact
reason for your demonstrated ignorance. Here's just enough to
give you a boot where it counts:

"The light, seaworthy kayak is a canoelike hunting boat
made of a wood frame completely covered with sealskin
except for a round center opening, where the single
occupant sits. In Greenland and Alaska the skin around the
hole can be laced tightly around the occupant, making the
kayak virtually watertight. The umiak, a larger, open boat
about 9 m (about 30 ft) long and 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, and
made of a wooden frame covered with walrus skins ..."
http://encarta.msn.com/text_761561130___7/Inuit.html

"Kayak
A hunting boat used throughout the Eskimo world, covered
with skin stretched over a light wooden frame, ...
Umiak
A large, open boat, about 10 metres long, covered with
skins over a wooden frame and propelled by paddles."
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/north/h16-4109-e.html

"Umiak
A large Eskimoan boat with a wooden frame, usually covered
with walrus or bearded seals skins."
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/ar...sary/body.html

"Round-bottomed, flat-bottomed or V-hulled, like the
Greenland kayak, all the boats Were essentially the same: a
wooden frame entirely covered with sealskin except for a
hole in the top of the center into which man fits like a
cork into a bottle. The frame was made of driftwood or
thumb-thick dwarf willow ?trunks?. In regions, where wood
was extremely scarce, small pieces were scarfed and pegged
together with simple stone or copper tools and infinite
patience, and joints in most kayaks were strenghtened with
bone or ivory gussets. The boat was cvered with the wet,
shaved skin of seals."
http://www.greenlandkayak.hu/english/fokaborkajak.php


"July 18, 1940
We past Upernavich today and are going up the Greenland
Coast ... Our Latitude is 74° 51' 30" Longitude (approx.)
58° 01' 15"
...
July 20, 1940
The kayaks are made of sealskin pulled tight over bone and
a wood frame."
http://www.ernestina.org/history/JPi...rcticTrip.html


"Origins of Sea Kayaking
Greenland
No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Basic construction: Seal-skin over drift-wood Wood bent
into shape after steaming over fire Joints lashed
together with seal sinew Seams of seal skin sewn
with seal sinew, and sealed with seal blubber."
students.washington.edu/~ukc/library/052902-1notes.doc

"The kayak, engineered of driftwood and animal skins, was
ideally suited to marine hunting and has been adopted
virtually without change in design for modern international
sporting competition."
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg8_e.html


Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do!

I assume you are not a native speaker of English. I won't pick
on your language use.

However, your causual fabrication of facts is unacceptable.
The idea that no driftwood exists on the beaches of Greenland
and northern Canada is just hilarious. Tying that to the fact
that teak does not float is beyond hilarious...

You do realize that there *are* trees growing on Greenland,
don't you?

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

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Seppo,
Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he
would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King
Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the
Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than
usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand
not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what
this will lead to in the long run.

Inger E

Inger,

Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing
him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to
stop it.

Tom McDonald

"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet
...


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?


Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand.....

they

are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

First of all you are not able to recognise levity even when a smiley
is used. Further to that YOU have NO IDEA what they used them for.

The fact is that yes I do have a very good idea of exactly what
they used them for.

Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why:


"All we know is that at least one "carpenter's plane" ended up in
the possession of Inuit people in Canada. Speculation about how
it got there is fine, but making assumptions about how it
*couldn't* have happened in ways that clearly *are* possible, is
absurd."

That passage makes it clear YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW with the "all we
know...." part. It includes how it got there or why, as well as what
it was used for.


And neither you nor Inger has even a hint.

Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either.


None what ever, and therefor cannot scoff and sneer at ANY suggested
use. Therefor YOU cannot be taken seriously. Further to that I haven't

Well it is an interesting concept coming from you that somebody
who doesn't know anything about what something would be used for
shouldn't be taken seriously.

There we are MORE blatant LIES n- and that is despite you having been
informed what a smiliey is about!! So despite that you LIE in the face
of evidence to the contrary =- now how stupid is that, eh?


Why are *you* posting?

Oh, are you delusional as well, and believe yourself to be some kind
of Net Nazi too - being able to order who can and can't post here?


Why is Inger posting?

...and why not?


Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning
of it is, not trying to tell others.

From you, who prefers fabrications in favour of facts..... one who
doesn't have more than a primary school grasp of the language! Get
real will you!


heard anything so absurd as suggesting "chain mail" being used "for
making tools"!!

Your lack of ingenuity did not limit what they may have used it
for.

I see.... and that was the very best you could come up with....
didn't think you had any idea whatsoever.

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood

in the

Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

You are quoting... who exactly and from where? Are you saying there
were forests on Greenland - Ellesmere Island in particular?

You still haven't caught on that wood floats? And wind blows...

Does it? Have you ever seen a log of teak float, hmmm? No? Well,
neither has anyone else - and teak IS a wood, you know. In any event
who cares about the odd log or two - or a branch of a tree.

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames.

The "arctic" wasn't referred to - but GREENLAND was. There were no
trees on Greenland at the relevant time.

Each and every one of them with a wood frame.

Bull****! First of all provide some proof that boat building (using
WOOD) occurred on Greenland AND that is has been done "for at least
a few thousand years". You can't, can you.

Go do some very basic research on Inuit culture.

I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you
to prove your claims.


In particular
the difference between Dorset and Thule technology. Among other
differences is the increased importance of wood framed skin
boats. In Greenland, look for the different uses of an umiaq
and a kayaq compared to other Inuit cultures. Of course the first
thing you'll discover is that, indeed, *all* of those skin boats
used wood frames!

I'll do no such thing. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. I'm aware of
skin boats using whale bones. Nor do I discount boats using the odd
bit of wood - but I REJECT totally your claim of making boats out of
WOOD - which you now try and obfuscate with a lot of snake oil about
SKIN BOATS - not "wooden boats"!

Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your
benefit):


[snip mess]

http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html

What sort of crap is that? There is NIL evidence there of any boat
building at the relevant time - not a WORD!! The word "build" doesn't
exist in the whole text. Nor does "wooden boat" but this does, "Our
skin-boat" - note that SKIN boat.


And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

So, where is your evidence of your claims? Please tell us all what
"tool" one can make out of a small piece of chain mail.

A carpenters plane isn't a TRADE GOODS for the several simple reasons.

Only due to lack of imagination on your part.

Go learn the language!


But the evidence is pretty clear that at least one such item did
end up with Inuit people. Somewhere between being made by a
Norwegian and coming into its current ownership, it traded hands.
We can speculate on how many times... but once is all it takes.


- It was an essential tool for any ship's carpenter on a ship.
- The steel blade may have been of use as a knife or axe, but then why
not trade those - or any piece of scrap steel?

**** happens. The Master's watch might get traded too!

Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do!

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Tom,
no I am not abusing Floyd who have continued to abuse me from the first mail
he sent in this question. I have the right to defend myself especially
against abusers and stalkers who continue to spread false information and
funny comments about me and my writings!
Defending oneself is never a crime. Abusing is. Writing stalking comments as
Floyd when asking why I sent the lines, most certainly is a grave abuse and
a stalking of me as a person. .
Did you really think that I hadn't the right to defend me when attacked?????

Inger E

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Tom,
no I am not abusing Floyd who have continued to abuse me from the first mail
he sent in this question. I have the right to defend myself especially
against abusers and stalkers who continue to spread false information and
funny comments about me and my writings!
Defending oneself is never a crime. Abusing is. Writing stalking comments as
Floyd when asking why I sent the lines, most certainly is a grave abuse and
a stalking of me as a person. .
Did you really think that I hadn't the right to defend me when attacked?????

Inger E



Inger,

So by you it's OK to abuse Floyd by agreeing with Seppo's abuse?

Tom McDonald

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

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

Like I said, *anything* that could be traded for was by
definition a "trade item".

It has already been rejected as nonsense - and it remains nonsense.

Rejected by *you*! (Which is clearly bogus by definition...)

What they thought was a trade item
when they loaded the cargo is one thing; and what they thought
was a trade item when they were shipwrecked and planning an
overland trek is a different thing. And what was a trade item
to the first Eskimo that picked it up off the beach is another
thing too!

So you are suggesting Norse sailors wouldn't know the difference
between essential tools and trade goods? Care to provide the proof, or
do we just accept it as ignorance on your part?

Where did I say that?

you don't know? OH DEAR..... I suppose we have to opt for the last
explanation of why you said it.

What I said is that circumstances change, and people adapt.

Shipwrecked sailors, as one example, are *very* creative.

Nothing at all to do with "trade goods"!

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.

Something picked up "off the beach" doesn't qualify as "trade goods",
you know. It is merely finding lost property.

Such limited imagination!

No, but a knowledge and understanding of the language - that which I
point to you lacking, a demonstrated by your deliberate and continuing
misrepresentation of terminology!

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!!

Perhaps that person, being particularly sharp of
eye, has found another tool just like it and therefore has no
need for a second one! Bingo, it is "trade goods" in the eye of
that particular beholder, and he proceeds very quickly to make a
deal to trade for something he does need.

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.

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

(Floyd L. Davidson) says in
:

Not that you deserve a heads up floyd, but it is generally
agreed that Seppo is killfile fodder, only those who have an
insatiable need to argue with delusional moronic idiots respond
to Seppo on a regular basis.

--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd,
you are abusing me. Since you obviously aren't familiar at all with what was
common and what wasn't in Scandinavia before 1500 AD, there is no use
discussing it with you at all. You simply have no clue. Let's leave it at
that and don't continue to abuse me. You ARE the one who hasn't done your
homework when you believe that what's common in other parts of the world
must be common here in Scandinavia and especially among Scandinavians in
Greenland.

Good Night until you done your homework and at least send valid OBS valid
contra-argument from Scandinavia and Greenland.

Plonk

Inger E

No wood available to Greenland Inuit people! What a hoot.

So where is your proof? You open your mouth wide, but can't back it
up.

The
mainstay of their culture is a pair of skin boats made with
wooden frames, and you say they have no use for wood working
tools...

This is the LIE you have been pushing "skin boat" = "wooden boat" -
boat building of wood is what YOU have claimed that was part of the
Inuit industry for thousands of years - on GREENLAND!!

Looks like *you* had best be doing some homework.

I have asked you to BACK UP YOUR CLAIM - but you cut and run instead
of responding to that request.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Get the drift yet?

It *still* hasn't sunk in yet, has it!

Not with misrepresentation like the garbage below.

3d. ... The country looked pleasant,
with many berry-bearing plants and bushes. There was,
likewise, *plenty* *of* *drift*-*wood* *all* *along* *the* *coast*; *not* *the*
*large* *Greenland* *timber*, *but* *small* *trees* *and* *roots*, evidently
carried out of the great rivers of the Ungava by the ice. We
had, of course, fire-wood enough, without robbing the graves
of their superstitious furniture. Our Esquimaux pitched ...


Note the wording; "not the large Greenland timber" - as at best
Greenland has had stunted small trees very sparsely even then. In
comparison the "driftwood" they must be something not much bigger than
TWIGS! Note also the reference to "We had, of course, fire-wood
enough" - THAT is your "drift wood"!!

http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html

You already tried to get away with the BOGUS article - one that does
NOT deal (A) with boat building as you have claimed - (B) is NOT about
the relevant time (C) proves NOTHING about timber on GREENLAND! It is
BULL**** and totally DISHONEST of you to even pretend that crap has
any application at all here.

Try this instead:
http://www.geocities.com/davidbofinger/vinland_h.htm

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin....t01-1-00315.x

"...we suggest that these plant remains represent a pioneer vegetation
entirely without woody plants."

Unless of course you refer to the "Giant Sequoia" of the Cenozoic era,
of some sixty-five million years ago where evidence of them having
existed on Greenland and Iceland exists......




--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Tom McDonald wrote:

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Seppo,
Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he
would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King
Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the
Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than
usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand
not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what
this will lead to in the long run.

Inger E

Inger,

Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing
him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to
stop it.

See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their
back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME!

But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged
in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms
contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting
misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland"
that has nothing to do with the article.

Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the
attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with
you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort
at getting to Inger!!



[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Seppo Renfors wrote:


Tom McDonald wrote:

Inger E Johansson wrote:


Seppo,
Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he
would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King
Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the
Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than
usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand
not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what
this will lead to in the long run.

Inger E

Inger,

Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing
him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to
stop it.


See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their
back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME!

But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged
in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms
contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting
misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland"
that has nothing to do with the article.

Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the
attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with
you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort
at getting to Inger!!



[..]

Seppo,

Inger said that I 'abused' her when I replied to another poster
who had somehow offended her; and that my 'abuse' of her
consisted of my not berating him for his 'abuse' of her.

I then asked her if she would refrain from abusing others by
berating *your* abuse of other posters when she replied to you.
She didn't answer directly, but did answer indirectly. She
replied to a post of yours which abused another poster without
telling you to stop your abuse of the other poster. Therefore,
she also abused him. By her own definition. She clearly does
not believe that the rules she insists upon for others do not
apply to her. The Teflon Swede?

You seem to be under the delusion that you get to judge whether
your words are abusive or not. That's not the case, and you
know it. You've made it abundantly clear that the writer's own
meaning is irrelevant; it's the reader's reaction that
determines whether abuse exists or not. I saw your post as
abusive, and Inger did nothing to check your venom. Therefore
she is guilty, and should be held to account.

This isn't my invention, Seppo. You and Inger have defined the
playing field, and you have been found guilty of gratuitous
abuse of others, both directly and, equally culpably, indirectly.

Stop abusing me and others.

Tom McDonald

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

No wood available to Greenland Inuit people! What a hoot.

So where is your proof? You open your mouth wide, but can't back it
up.

Are you still being silly enough to claim there was no wood available
to Greenland Inuit?

And what do you mean "where is your proof". I've posted enough
proof of that to swamp *your* boat! (And have added it, with
notations, to the end of this article too.)

The
mainstay of their culture is a pair of skin boats made with
wooden frames, and you say they have no use for wood working
tools...

This is the LIE you have been pushing "skin boat" = "wooden boat" -
boat building of wood is what YOU have claimed that was part of the
Inuit industry for thousands of years - on GREENLAND!!

Actually, for more than 1000 years and maybe for as much as 4000
years, on GREENLAND. (See repeated cite at the end of this
article.)

Looks like *you* had best be doing some homework.

I have asked you to BACK UP YOUR CLAIM - but you cut and run instead
of responding to that request.

What, where've I run to Seppo? I'm right here, and I'm ready to
repeat it again and again if you need to see it again and again.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Get the drift yet?

It *still* hasn't sunk in yet, has it!

Not with misrepresentation like the garbage below.

Ah, first hand accounts that there is indeed driftwood on the
beaches of Greenland and was in times past, don't influence you?

What would? Just how thick skulled are you?

3d. ... The country looked pleasant,
with many berry-bearing plants and bushes. There was,
likewise, *plenty* *of* *drift*-*wood* *all* *along* *the* *coast*; *not* *the*
*large* *Greenland* *timber*, *but* *small* *trees* *and* *roots*, evidently
carried out of the great rivers of the Ungava by the ice. We
had, of course, fire-wood enough, without robbing the graves
of their superstitious furniture. Our Esquimaux pitched ...

Note the wording; "not the large Greenland timber" - as at best
Greenland has had stunted small trees very sparsely even then. In
comparison the "driftwood" they must be something not much bigger than
TWIGS! Note also the reference to "We had, of course, fire-wood
enough" - THAT is your "drift wood"!!

I'm sorry that English is so difficult for you. That is *not*
saying that large timber were growing on Greenland. It merely says
that on the ocean beaches of Greenland there were "large"
timbers. If you had a clue about ocean currents, and took a look
at a map to see the comparison between which areas the statement
was referencing, it would be obvious why the difference existed
as described. (And note that the same difference applies here
at Barrow, where there is *significantly* less driftwood than
on Greenland's shores, for identical reasons.)

http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html

You already tried to get away with the BOGUS article - one that does
NOT deal (A) with boat building as you have claimed - (B) is NOT about
the relevant time (C) proves NOTHING about timber on GREENLAND! It is
BULL**** and totally DISHONEST of you to even pretend that crap has
any application at all here.

Now now Seppo, just because you can't read English nor can you
logically add two and two, that doesn't mean that the article is
"BOGUS". The article is quite genuine. It proves that there
was indeed wood available to Greenland Inuit. Logically if that
was true in the early 1800's we /can/ assume that it has been true
for several thousands of years. Or do you know of some change in
the wind and ocean currents that would have made it different?

The only thing dishonest is your blind eyed refusal to learn
from what has been handed to you.

Try this instead:
http://www.geocities.com/davidbofinger/vinland_h.htm

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin....t01-1-00315.x

"...we suggest that these plant remains represent a pioneer vegetation
entirely without woody plants."

So? You cannot stretch that into some kind of proof that there
was no wood available for building boat frames. All it does
suggest is that none of the available wood is likely to have
actually been grown on Greenland itself... (And in fact I have
previously cited references which specifically say that is not
true either.)

Whatever, let me just repeat a bit of real proof that does
indicate that Inuit people on Greenland did in fact make skin
boat frames from driftwood, just as did Canadian, Alaskan, and
Siberian Eskimos, many of whom lived where there were no trees
growing.

Indeed, you do realize that there are no trees growing within a
couple hundred miles of Barrow! Yet people here used wood for
not only boat frames but also as structural parts of their
houses, and for a variety of other uses (tools, sleds, etc.).
(And yes we have excavations of 800 year old houses to prove
it.)

Driftwood is *far* more scarce here than it is on the ocean
shores of Greenland! That is a simple given, due to ocean
currents.

Whatever, one more time, here are a few references for you to
read. This time I've added emphasis so that you won't miss the
important parts again. And I've put a few notes at various
points too.

"The light, seaworthy kayak is a canoelike hunting boat
made of a *wood frame* completely covered with sealskin
except for a round center opening, where the single
occupant sits. In *Greenland* and Alaska the skin around the
hole can be laced tightly around the occupant, making the
kayak virtually watertight. The umiak, a larger, open boat
about 9 m (about 30 ft) long and 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, and
made of a *wooden frame* covered with walrus skins ..."
http://encarta.msn.com/text_761561130___7/Inuit.html

Note that the differences between Greenland construction and
other locations is specified, and does not include any statement
that wood was not used there.

"Kayak
A hunting boat used *throughout the Eskimo world*, covered
with skin stretched over a light *wooden frame*, ...
Umiak
A large, open boat, about 10 metres long, covered with
skins over a *wooden frame* and propelled by paddles."
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/north/h16-4109-e.html

All across Canada and Greenland, the specific places where you
and Inger think there was no wood, it seems that they made wood
framed skin boats...

"Umiak
A large Eskimoan boat with a wooden frame, usually covered
with walrus or bearded seals skins."
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/ar...sary/body.html

Again, note the definition from a Canadian source and that no
exception is made to say that in some areas there was no wood
available. In fact, there was wood available...

"Round-bottomed, flat-bottomed or V-hulled, like the
*Greenland kayak*, all the boats Were *essentially the same*: a
*wooden frame* entirely covered with sealskin except for a
hole in the top of the center into which man fits like a
cork into a bottle. The frame was made of *driftwood* or
*thumb-thick dwarf willow* ?trunks?. In regions, where wood
was extremely scarce, small pieces were scarfed and pegged
together with simple stone or copper tools and infinite
patience, and joints in most kayaks were strenghtened with
bone or ivory gussets. The boat was cvered with the wet,
shaved skin of seals."
http://www.greenlandkayak.hu/english/fokaborkajak.php

A source that specifically discusses Greenland boats. Once
again, it specifies wood frames as universal. They even go into
detail about the use not only of driftwood, but also of the
locally grown willow!

"July 18, 1940
We past Upernavich today and are going up the *Greenland*
Coast ... Our Latitude is 74° 51' 30" Longitude (approx.)
58° 01' 15"
...
July 20, 1940
The kayaks are made of sealskin pulled tight over bone and
a *wood frame*."
http://www.ernestina.org/history/JPi...rcticTrip.html

Another observation that traditional Inuit skin boats were made
with a wood frame.

"Origins of Sea Kayaking
Greenland
No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Basic construction: Seal-skin over *drift-wood* Wood bent
into shape after steaming over fire Joints lashed
together with seal sinew Seams of seal skin sewn
with seal sinew, and sealed with seal blubber."
students.washington.edu/~ukc/library/052902-1notes.doc

Well well, imagine that, these Greenland skin boats are made
just like other Eskimo skin boats... with wooden frames!

"The kayak, engineered of *driftwood* and animal skins, was
ideally suited to marine hunting and has been adopted
virtually without change in design for modern international
sporting competition."
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg8_e.html

Pretty good technology, eh?

You don't need to apologize for your lies and insults Seppo, but
it would be a very good idea if you stopped saying things that
you cannot support. The fact is that I can and have provided
proof for exactly what I said, and *you* haven't.

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

Philip Deitiker wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) says in
:

Not that you deserve a heads up floyd, but it is generally
agreed that Seppo is killfile fodder, only those who have an
insatiable need to argue with delusional moronic idiots respond
to Seppo on a regular basis.

I am well aware of the similarities between yourself and both
Inger and Seppo.

Even idiots from the killfile require correction occasionally.

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

Seppo Renfors wrote:
See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their
back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME!

He posted it in a public forum, which makes the above statement
somewhat amusing (for English speakers). It wasn't "behind"
anyone's back.

But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged
in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms
contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting
misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland"
that has nothing to do with the article.

Abuse? Isn't that when you do things like make up false quotes
("timber boat building on greenland") and claiming it was
something another person said or supported, when they *didn't*.

I'll pass on your strange idea of the English language... but
you really should stop the fabrications and claims that other
people are doing things that only *you* are doing.

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

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:40:01 GMT, Philip Deitiker
wrote:

(Floyd L. Davidson) says in
:

Not that you deserve a heads up floyd, but it is generally
agreed that Seppo is killfile fodder, only those who have an
insatiable need to argue with delusional moronic idiots respond
to Seppo on a regular basis.


Hmmm .... :-(



Eric Stevens

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)

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...
Seppo Renfors wrote:
See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their
back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME!

He posted it in a public forum, which makes the above statement
somewhat amusing (for English speakers). It wasn't "behind"
anyone's back.

But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged
in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms
contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting
misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland"
that has nothing to do with the article.

Abuse? Isn't that when you do things like make up false quotes
("timber boat building on greenland") and claiming it was
something another person said or supported, when they *didn't*.

I'll pass on your strange idea of the English language... but
you really should stop the fabrications and claims that other
people are doing things that only *you* are doing.

Hey, Floyd! Where were you on alt.native when I needed you to
school Red Cloud?

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

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.

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. 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. 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.

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,

More bull****.... you demonstrate you inability to grasp it above -
AGAIN!

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).

Bull**** won't even get you there - and THAT lot is BULL****!

Amusing.

Go learn the language!

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!

It isn't needed - only COMMON SENSE is, and that is something you are
lacking.

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!

You speak about "salvage" - you ignore that the different people are
talked about as a single entity and the TRADE is BETWEEN the different
people groups. Wriggle for all it is worth, it won't alter anything.

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.

You bull**** is noted - and your reason is noted, to DEFEND and
JUSTIFY harassing others using misrepresentations. THAT is what this
is about!!

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Seppo Renfors wrote:


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

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.


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. 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. 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.


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,


More bull****.... you demonstrate you inability to grasp it above -
AGAIN!


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).


Bull**** won't even get you there - and THAT lot is BULL****!

Amusing.


Go learn the language!

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!


It isn't needed - only COMMON SENSE is, and that is something you are
lacking.


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!

You speak about "salvage" - you ignore that the different people are
talked about as a single entity and the TRADE is BETWEEN the different
people groups. Wriggle for all it is worth, it won't alter anything.


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.


You bull**** is noted - and your reason is noted, to DEFEND and
JUSTIFY harassing others using misrepresentations. THAT is what this
is about!!


Seppo,

Are you facing me? I wouldn't want to say this to your ass.
Or your arse (just in case you are monolingual in English). OK.

You're always funny; but this is really wonderful comedy.
Don't ever change.

Tom McDonald

Seppo,
it's funny :-) the way some still can't grasp the word trade-goods.....
anyhow I wonder who in their ...... mind can believe that a cabinett-maker
would have traded his working tool for anything the Inuits, Thule, Dorset
etc could have given in return. Neither of those groups were the Ojibwas
with which the Greenlanders definitly traded copper and silver items.......
nor did any of the three groups live in a land of woods!

As for the other funny comments some tried to imply drift-wood. I would like
to see any of the suggesters trying to use a plane on wood that have been
drifting in water....... that type of wood and the steel in the plane
doesn't go well together....

Inger E

Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:


Tom McDonald wrote:

Inger E Johansson wrote:


Seppo,
Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he
would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King
Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the
Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than
usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand
not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what
this will lead to in the long run.

Inger E

Inger,

Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing
him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to
stop it.


See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their
back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME!

But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged
in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms
contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting
misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland"
that has nothing to do with the article.

Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the
attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with
you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort
at getting to Inger!!



[..]

Seppo,

Inger said that I 'abused' her when I replied to another poster
who had somehow offended her; and that my 'abuse' of her
consisted of my not berating him for his 'abuse' of her.

That isn't even true. It was for NOT deleting the abuse, and posting
an apparent "me too" message in support of the abuser, is the reason
she said what se did. Deal with that as that is your issue!

If you have a beef with Inger, take it up with her, DON'T use her as a
vehicle for gratuitous abuse of ME. If you have a beef about something
I say, ADDRESS ME - if you are man enough.


[..]

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Seppo Renfors wrote:


Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:


Tom McDonald wrote:


Inger E Johansson wrote:



Seppo,
Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he
would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King
Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the
Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than
usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand
not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what
this will lead to in the long run.

Inger E

Inger,

Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing
him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to
stop it.


See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their
back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME!

But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged
in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms
contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting
misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland"
that has nothing to do with the article.

Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the
attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with
you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort
at getting to Inger!!



[..]

Seppo,

Inger said that I 'abused' her when I replied to another poster
who had somehow offended her; and that my 'abuse' of her
consisted of my not berating him for his 'abuse' of her.


That isn't even true. It was for NOT deleting the abuse, and posting
an apparent "me too" message in support of the abuser, is the reason
she said what se did. Deal with that as that is your issue!

If you have a beef with Inger, take it up with her, DON'T use her as a
vehicle for gratuitous abuse of ME. If you have a beef about something
I say, ADDRESS ME - if you are man enough.


[..]


Oh, Seppo. I'm a man, and don't have to prove it. Sorry about
your little ego.

Tom McDonald

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:
See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their
back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME!

He posted it in a public forum, which makes the above statement
somewhat amusing (for English speakers). It wasn't "behind"
anyone's back.

We have seen your "skills" in the language - they are lacking! As it
is a "public forum", are you implying that it is only "public" for
SOME people and others are not allowed to take issue with what is
said?

But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged
in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms
contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting
misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland"
that has nothing to do with the article.

Abuse?

Sure, I have seen it!

Isn't that when you do things like make up false quotes
("timber boat building on greenland") and claiming it was
something another person said or supported, when they *didn't*.

You are the one who suggested quotation marks can be used in more ways
than one, remember - further to that it is paraphrasing your claim and
quite legitimate to use "quotes" for. You have NOT denied it has been
your claim, despite numerous opportunities - nor have you provided the
evidence of your claim! NOW you are resorting to a desperate attempt
to wriggle out of the claim you have made!

I'll pass on your strange idea of the English language...

You have to first learn it before you will pass - so much is true.

but
you really should stop the fabrications and claims that other
people are doing things that only *you* are doing.

There we are again - more LIES from you. *I* don't NEED to lie, you
have been shown to NOT be able to support your claims - and shown to
LIE about others, just remember that, *I* don't NEED to lie!

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Deitiker wrote:

(Floyd L. Davidson) says in
:

Not that you deserve a heads up floyd, but it is generally
agreed that Seppo is killfile fodder, only those who have an
insatiable need to argue with delusional moronic idiots respond
to Seppo on a regular basis.

This is brought to you by the bottle washer and STALKER who's aim is
to CENSOR those who do not think of Dopey Deitiker as a GOD! Please
killfile Dopey Deitiker to reduce NOISE! It only says crazy things
anyway!

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:26:26 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

--- snip ----

"Origins of Sea Kayaking
Greenland
No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,



Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:26:26 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

--- snip ----

"Origins of Sea Kayaking
Greenland
No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,

Where should we draw the line between skin boats like kyaks and coracles,
birch bark canoes, plank canoes, and boats that are essentially the same
dimensions like piroutes, dories, longboats and wheries but are
designed to be poled rowed or sculled rather than paddled or
those that could fall in either of the preceeding categories
but are rigged for a sail.

To my eye the type of craft has more to do with the methods of
construction
and its seaworthiness, draft, and usage than the materials used. I could
easily
imagine a kyack, canoe or coracle having a hull made out of the leather
from
a walrus instead of a bull and being framed with whalebone instead of wood.

I'm not sure whether the first people to reach the Americas sailed here,
rowed or paddled but its a pretty good bet they didn't walk across all
of North America to reach New England by c 10,600 BP
when they had only just arrived in the Aleutians c 11,700 BP

"Museum documentation indicates that these human remains (Berry
Collection number 4256) are of a cremated individual from a grave with
ocher-stained soil that was exposed by WPA workers in the 1930s during
road construction on a terrace above the Merrimack River in Manchester,
NH. The radiocarbon date from associated charcoal is 8490 +/- 60 B.P."

"The Debert site in Nova Scotia, dating back 10,600 years and Bull Brook,
in Ipswich, Massachusetts, dating back 9,000 years are among the Gulf of
Maine's
largest and earliest human encampments on land. Both sites contained
similar signs of Paleo-Indian cultures. "

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/times/fal...arrowheads.htm

http://aurora.ak.blm.gov/arctic/cultural/mesa3.htm

regards,

steve







Eric Stevens

"stevewhittet" skrev i meddelandet
news

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:26:26 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

--- snip ----

"Origins of Sea Kayaking
Greenland
No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,

Where should we draw the line between skin boats like kyaks and coracles,
birch bark canoes, plank canoes,

I thought everyone knew that you are talking about two ethnic groups when
you speak of Pre-Columbian kyaks and coracles on one side and birch bark
canoes and plank canoes on the other. The former used in Arctic areas by the
Arctic people Inuits and other, the later from NA south of the Arctic and
always Indians.

Inger E

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

Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,

Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is
some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously
if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands
of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact.

Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland)

Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland)

Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland)

Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland)

Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.)

Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.)

Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland)

You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture
as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the
most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with
which the Norse had significant contact.

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

(MIB529) wrote:

Hey, Floyd! Where were you on alt.native when I needed you to
school Red Cloud?

Leo Lee in disguise?

A waste of time who is even worse that Seppo.

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

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)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:24:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,

Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is
some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously
if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands
of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact.

I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo
and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset.

In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your
introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is
a red herring.

Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland)

Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland)

Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland)

Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland)

Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.)

Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.)

Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland)

You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture
as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the
most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with
which the Norse had significant contact.




Eric Stevens

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

Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,

Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is
some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously
if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands
of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact.

I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo
and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset.

That probably would not be a smart argument for a fellow from
New Zealand to get into with an old Alaskan who lives in Barrow.

In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your
introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is
a red herring.

So you are going to say that in *your* vocabulary the terms are
not the same? (I'll point out that the only reason you even know
there is a difference is from reading what I've posted to Usenet.)

Regardless, you'll note that I've been interchanging the word
"Eskimo" with "Inuit" in this thread with regularity right from
the start. That is being done specifically to ward off some
nitwit who wants to argue that everyone using the word "Inuit"
means *only* the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture or language,
and does not intend it to mean all Eskimos (which may not be
technically a correct usage, but never the less if a very common
usage).

Generally most people who reference Greenland "Inuit" believe
that is a proper synonym for the term "Eskimo". I believe
*everyone* engaged in this conversation has used the terms in
that sense.

In the case of the 4000 year history, the source that I cited used
the word "Inuit", and there is *no question* that they meant Eskimos,
not the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture group.

Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland)

You can make a febble argument that Independence I was
Pre-Eskimo and not genuinely Eskimo. You'll get laughed at, but
you can try it.

Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland)

From the Saqqaq on down the list, it may not have always been clearly
agreed that they were indeed "Eskimo", but today there is virtually
total agreement that they in fact were. Hence, not even a feeble
argument is possible.

Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland)

Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland)

Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.)

Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.)

Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland)

You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture
as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the
most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with
which the Norse had significant contact.

There really is no need for you to pull an Inger-Seppo move here.
You made a simple mistake because that information just is not something
which you would or should be expected to know. If it was a mistake
that I made, it would indeed be significant. Of course, it's a fact
that if I wanted to know about the history of your part of the world,
I'd be asking you rather than telling you about it. Probably a point
you should have learned a long time back Eric.

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

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...
Hey, Floyd! Where were you on alt.native when I needed you to
school Red Cloud?

Leo Lee in disguise?

A waste of time who is even worse that Seppo.

He had a whole thread about Eskimos a couple
months ago. Here's the best Engrish I've seen
in ages:

"Brother! You surely need more foots :-))"

Truly, all his base are belong to us.

(MIB529) wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...
Hey, Floyd! Where were you on alt.native when I needed you to
school Red Cloud?

Leo Lee in disguise?

A waste of time who is even worse that Seppo.

He had a whole thread about Eskimos a couple
months ago. Here's the best Engrish I've seen
in ages:

"Brother! You surely need more foots :-))"

Truly, all his base are belong to us.

yeah yeah, that's just like Seppo too! Except instead of
mangling the words he writes, Seppo mangles the words others
write.

Chuckle. Nothing like Usenet kooks...

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

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:45:20 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,

Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is
some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously
if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands
of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact.

I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo
and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset.

That probably would not be a smart argument for a fellow from
New Zealand to get into with an old Alaskan who lives in Barrow.

Where either of live has diddly squat to do with who knows what about
the ancient peoples of GREENLAND. I thought it was generally known
that the Thule/inuit entered Greenland and displaced the Dorset at
about the same time (give or take a century) that the norse were
arriving in the south.

See, for example:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/resear...ic/history.htm

"Between A.D. 900–1300, a wave of people from Alaska displaced the
Dorset peoples. These newcomers, known as the Thule culture,
migrated along the Arctic coast, through the High Arctic islands
and eastward as far as northwestern Greenland. Highly dependent
on the bowhead whale, remnants of whale bones can still be found
on the sites of old camps. Villages of six to thirty houses made
of stone slabs, whale bone and sod were common. Snow houses
were used as temporary dwellings in the winter. This culture of
"Eskimo" survived until about A.D. 1750 when the "little ice age"
forced many people to withdraw from villages in the Arctic
islands. The cooling climate covered the seas with ice, limiting
the range of the bowhead whale. A more nomadic way of life evolved
with small groups hunting seal and walrus. This change marked the
end of the Thule culture and the beginning of the modern Inuit
culture."

.... which is why I say that whoever was building boats in Greenland
4000 years ago, it wasn't the inuit.

In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your
introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is
a red herring.

So you are going to say that in *your* vocabulary the terms are
not the same?

No, the terms are not the same.

(I'll point out that the only reason you even know
there is a difference is from reading what I've posted to Usenet.)

That's humility for you.

Regardless, you'll note that I've been interchanging the word
"Eskimo" with "Inuit" in this thread with regularity right from
the start. That is being done specifically to ward off some
nitwit who wants to argue that everyone using the word "Inuit"
means *only* the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture or language,
and does not intend it to mean all Eskimos (which may not be
technically a correct usage, but never the less if a very common
usage).

Youv'e also been interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and
Siberia for Greenland. All I've been doing is pointing out that it is
wrong to claim that the inuit were doing anything in Greenland 4000
years ago. I don't know why you want to argue with that.


Generally most people who reference Greenland "Inuit" believe
that is a proper synonym for the term "Eskimo". I believe
*everyone* engaged in this conversation has used the terms in
that sense.

What you believe is irrelevant. This is a 'sci' news group where
precise usage takes precedence.

In the case of the 4000 year history, the source that I cited used
the word "Inuit", and there is *no question* that they meant Eskimos,
not the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture group.

I'm not sure what source you are referring to but the best that I can
see refers to the 'Thule inuit' and a date of 1050. Which source did
you mean?

Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland)

You can make a febble argument that Independence I was
Pre-Eskimo and not genuinely Eskimo. You'll get laughed at, but
you can try it.

I wouldn't even consider it. I would refer to it as the 'independence'
culture and express the uncertainty as to whether it was an
intermediary stage between Late Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset or an
Early Dorset phase. See
http://www.sila.dk/History/Independe...ndence_II.html

Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland)

From the Saqqaq on down the list, it may not have always been clearly
agreed that they were indeed "Eskimo", but today there is virtually
total agreement that they in fact were. Hence, not even a feeble
argument is possible.

Both the meaning of the word 'Eskimo' and your usage of it is
uncertain. See
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Eskimo+(Esquimaux)

Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland)

Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland)

Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.)

Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.)

Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland)

You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture
as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the
most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with
which the Norse had significant contact.

There really is no need for you to pull an Inger-Seppo move here.
You made a simple mistake because that information just is not something
which you would or should be expected to know. If it was a mistake
that I made, it would indeed be significant. Of course, it's a fact
that if I wanted to know about the history of your part of the world,
I'd be asking you rather than telling you about it. Probably a point
you should have learned a long time back Eric.


So, you are still saying inuit were making wood-framed kayaks 4000
years ago in Greenland.



Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:45:20 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,

Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is
some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously
if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands
of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact.

I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo
and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset.

That probably would not be a smart argument for a fellow from
New Zealand to get into with an old Alaskan who lives in Barrow.

Where either of live has diddly squat to do with who knows what about
the ancient peoples of GREENLAND. I thought it was generally known
that the Thule/inuit entered Greenland and displaced the Dorset at
about the same time (give or take a century) that the norse were
arriving in the south.

See, for example:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/resear...ctic/history.h
tm

"Between A.D. 900-1300, a wave of people from Alaska displaced the
Dorset peoples. These newcomers, known as the Thule culture,
migrated along the Arctic coast, through the High Arctic islands
and eastward as far as northwestern Greenland. Highly dependent
on the bowhead whale, remnants of whale bones can still be found
on the sites of old camps. Villages of six to thirty houses made
of stone slabs, whale bone and sod were common. Snow houses
were used as temporary dwellings in the winter. This culture of
"Eskimo" survived until about A.D. 1750 when the "little ice age"
forced many people to withdraw from villages in the Arctic
islands. The cooling climate covered the seas with ice, limiting
the range of the bowhead whale. A more nomadic way of life evolved
with small groups hunting seal and walrus. This change marked the
end of the Thule culture and the beginning of the modern Inuit
culture."

... which is why I say that whoever was building boats in Greenland
4000 years ago, it wasn't the inuit.

In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your
introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is
a red herring.

So you are going to say that in *your* vocabulary the terms are
not the same?

No, the terms are not the same.

(I'll point out that the only reason you even know
there is a difference is from reading what I've posted to Usenet.)

That's humility for you.

Regardless, you'll note that I've been interchanging the word
"Eskimo" with "Inuit" in this thread with regularity right from
the start. That is being done specifically to ward off some
nitwit who wants to argue that everyone using the word "Inuit"
means *only* the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture or language,
and does not intend it to mean all Eskimos (which may not be
technically a correct usage, but never the less if a very common
usage).

Youv'e also been interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and
Siberia for Greenland. All I've been doing is pointing out that it is
wrong to claim that the inuit were doing anything in Greenland 4000
years ago. I don't know why you want to argue with that.


Generally most people who reference Greenland "Inuit" believe
that is a proper synonym for the term "Eskimo". I believe
*everyone* engaged in this conversation has used the terms in
that sense.

What you believe is irrelevant. This is a 'sci' news group where
precise usage takes precedence.

In the case of the 4000 year history, the source that I cited used
the word "Inuit", and there is *no question* that they meant Eskimos,
not the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture group.

I'm not sure what source you are referring to but the best that I can
see refers to the 'Thule inuit' and a date of 1050. Which source did
you mean?

Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland)

You can make a febble argument that Independence I was
Pre-Eskimo and not genuinely Eskimo. You'll get laughed at, but
you can try it.

I wouldn't even consider it. I would refer to it as the 'independence'
culture and express the uncertainty as to whether it was an
intermediary stage between Late Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset or an
Early Dorset phase. See
http://www.sila.dk/History/Independe...ndence_II.html

Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland)

From the Saqqaq on down the list, it may not have always been clearly
agreed that they were indeed "Eskimo", but today there is virtually
total agreement that they in fact were. Hence, not even a feeble
argument is possible.

Both the meaning of the word 'Eskimo' and your usage of it is
uncertain. See

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en...=define:Eskimo
+(Esquimaux)

Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland)

Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland)

Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.)

Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.)

Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland)

You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture
as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the
most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with
which the Norse had significant contact.

There really is no need for you to pull an Inger-Seppo move here.
You made a simple mistake because that information just is not something
which you would or should be expected to know. If it was a mistake
that I made, it would indeed be significant. Of course, it's a fact
that if I wanted to know about the history of your part of the world,
I'd be asking you rather than telling you about it. Probably a point
you should have learned a long time back Eric.


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.

4,000 years ago or c 2000 BC before any of them were around
there were people living on Monhegan Island engaged in Bluewater fishing
as evidenced by the swordfish bones and copper tools in their middens
and they had been there for millenia.

http://www.civilization.ca/archeo/hnpc/npvol14e.html

Why would the northern maritimes boats being wood framed using something
like artic birch which grows large enough to make knife handles and butt
stocks for rifles
or made of whalebone which is just as strong be raised as an issue?

Are you thinking that you can't use a metal plane on bone or settle
someplace
where there is wood and fish someplace where there isn't?

As to the artic small tool tradition extending from Norway across Siberia
to Alaska and Greenland thats a fact. The Paleo Eskimo, Dorset, Thule,
Pacific Eskimo, Inuit, Dene and other early peoples who lived on the
mainland as archaic or paleo indians interfaced with the maritime cultures
as far south as England on one side of the Atlantic and New England
on the other for thousands of years and that's a fact.

Haven't you all agreed on that yet?

The names for the cultures depend on who studied what, where and when
and should not be assumed to mean the cultures themselves and their
traditions
were unrelated.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage...nd/archeo.html

Eric Stevens

regards,

steve

"stevewhittet" wrote in
:

[big snip]

Why would the northern maritimes boats being wood framed using
something like artic birch which grows large enough to make knife
handles and butt stocks for rifles
or made of whalebone which is just as strong be raised as an issue?

Are you thinking that you can't use a metal plane on bone or settle
someplace
where there is wood and fish someplace where there isn't?

As to the artic small tool tradition extending from Norway across
Siberia to Alaska and Greenland thats a fact. The Paleo Eskimo,
Dorset, Thule, Pacific Eskimo, Inuit, Dene and other early peoples who
lived on the mainland as archaic or paleo indians interfaced with the
maritime cultures as far south as England on one side of the Atlantic
and New England on the other for thousands of years and that's a fact.

Haven't you all agreed on that yet?

You may have missed the beginning of this thread.

Quick synopsis is that Seppo or Inger (I'm not sure which - but they're
pretty much interchangeable when it comes to posting drek here) said that
Greenland Inuit would not have a use for a wood plane because "they had
no wood."

Floyd (and others - but Floyd's supplied some of the most interesting
info, what with actually _living_ in the Arctic and all) then proceeded
to show that, yes, they _did_ have and _use_ wood.

At which point Seppo tried to pretend that all those nice wooden frames
for kayaks (which were one of the examples of wood use - not the only
ones, of course, but in typical Seppo/Inger fashion, he feels if he can
"disprove" one example, he's "disproved" all of them) were _actually_
whale bone. This in spite of the fact that Floyd could _walk_ about ten
minutes from his home and _see_ the example Seps tried to use the picture
of to "prove" it was bone - and see that, yes, it was _wood_.

Or, IOW, this has been a typical Inger/Seppo-class fudging so that they
can pretend they didn't make (yet) a(nother) mistake.

David

--
__________________________________________________ _____________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"

"David Johnson" wrote in message
. 125.204...
"stevewhittet" wrote in
:

[big snip]

Why would the northern maritimes boats being wood framed using
something like artic birch which grows large enough to make knife
handles and butt stocks for rifles
or made of whalebone which is just as strong be raised as an issue?

Are you thinking that you can't use a metal plane on bone or settle
someplace
where there is wood and fish someplace where there isn't?

As to the artic small tool tradition extending from Norway across
Siberia to Alaska and Greenland thats a fact. The Paleo Eskimo,
Dorset, Thule, Pacific Eskimo, Inuit, Dene and other early peoples who
lived on the mainland as archaic or paleo indians interfaced with the
maritime cultures as far south as England on one side of the Atlantic
and New England on the other for thousands of years and that's a fact.

Haven't you all agreed on that yet?

You may have missed the beginning of this thread.

Nah, I was there for the beginning of it.

I have been seeing it in one form or another since before the end of the
last millenium.
It started about ninety and four I think. Every couple of years I pop in to
see if its still going on
and who the latest players to take it up are.

Quick synopsis is that Seppo or Inger (I'm not sure which - but they're
pretty much interchangeable when it comes to posting drek here) said that
Greenland Inuit would not have a use for a wood plane because "they had
no wood."

There was a little more to it than that, and of course they are just the
latest
to join in. They wouldn't member the way it was in the day.

Floyd (and others - but Floyd's supplied some of the most interesting
info, what with actually _living_ in the Arctic and all) then proceeded
to show that, yes, they _did_ have and _use_ wood.

Yeah, although its interesting that they moved from an area where wood
was plentiful because subsistence was easier where they could fish
for swordfish, whales and seals. Swordfish tend to be a bluewater species.

At which point Seppo tried to pretend that all those nice wooden frames
for kayaks (which were one of the examples of wood use - not the only
ones, of course, but in typical Seppo/Inger fashion, he feels if he can
"disprove" one example, he's "disproved" all of them) were _actually_
whale bone.

Some kayaks used whale bone, some used wood, what does that prove?

This in spite of the fact that Floyd could _walk_ about ten
minutes from his home and _see_ the example Seps tried to use the picture
of to "prove" it was bone - and see that, yes, it was _wood_.

You have to realise that the rules of this group prohibit you from arguing
that what the other guy is saying is counter to fact. That is to say I'm
sure
that if there were a FAQ that rule would be in there. Everybody in here
spins their ass off all the time.

Or, IOW, this has been a typical Inger/Seppo-class fudging so that they
can pretend they didn't make (yet) a(nother) mistake.

Why respond and encourage them?


David

--
__________________________________________________ _____________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"

regards,

steve