On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:40:20 -0400, "stevewhittet"
wrote:


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

--- snip ----

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

I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the frames were wood or bone,
or the people in question were Dorset, Thule, Eskimo, Inuit or Beothuk.

I'm not arguing about the framing of boats. All I'm concerned with is
whether or not there were any inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago. By
definition, there weren't.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
"stevewhittet" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

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

I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the frames were wood or bone,
or the people in question were Dorset, Thule, Eskimo, Inuit or Beothuk.

I'm not arguing about the framing of boats. All I'm concerned with is
whether or not there were any inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago. By
definition, there weren't.

What an absurd thing to say. You have admitted that you are
well aware that for many people (and particularly those in
Greenland) the terms "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are interchangeable,
with the former preferred.

The quote that I referenced was this:

II. Origins of Sea Kayaking
A. Greenland
1. No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, from before the time the first Europeans
came (1600-1700s). Some archaeological evidence
indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old.

http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/...902-1notes.pdf

I *am* saying, clearly, that Eskimo people existed on Greenland
4000 years ago and were using wood to make kayaks. (And that
using the word Inuit to describe them is all of common, useful,
and acceptable.)

If you want to be asinine and argue that we are writing
technical documents here (which we are *not*) and therefore
should make the technical distinction between Eskimos in general
and Inuit Eskimos in specific, you can go right ahead. But it
will merely demonstrate the depth of your asininity, and not add
to any understanding of why Inuit people on Greenland during the
Norse period of colonization would indeed have been likely to
trade for a carpenter's plane.

Which is to say, go right ahead and line yourself up with Inger
and Seppo again. They *need* company. So do you.

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

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:11:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
"stevewhittet" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

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

I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the frames were wood or bone,
or the people in question were Dorset, Thule, Eskimo, Inuit or Beothuk.

I'm not arguing about the framing of boats. All I'm concerned with is
whether or not there were any inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago. By
definition, there weren't.

What an absurd thing to say. You have admitted that you are
well aware that for many people (and particularly those in
Greenland) the terms "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are interchangeable,
with the former preferred.

Complete and utter nonsense on your part. I'm arguing for precision in
the use of these terms and you claim I'm all for a woolly-thinking
blur.


The quote that I referenced was this:

II. Origins of Sea Kayaking
A. Greenland
1. No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, from before the time the first Europeans
came (1600-1700s). Some archaeological evidence
indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old.

http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/...902-1notes.pdf

I *am* saying, clearly, that Eskimo people existed on Greenland
4000 years ago and were using wood to make kayaks. (And that
using the word Inuit to describe them is all of common, useful,
and acceptable.)

.... and totally innapropriate in a sci. newsgroup. It might be OK in
your local bar or while discussing things at the bus stop.

Mind you, you are quoting from 'Fundamentals of Sea Kayak Design
Seminar - Notes, May 29, 2002 University of Washington Kayak Club'.
This is hardly an authoritative source about the history of the inuit.

If you want to be asinine and argue that we are writing
technical documents here (which we are *not*) and therefore
should make the technical distinction between Eskimos in general
and Inuit Eskimos in specific, you can go right ahead.

Thank you. I would go right ahead anyway. If you can't bring yourself
to use accurate terminology you should take yourself elswhere. You
certainly shouldn't take issue with anyone who wants to point out your
error, especially when they did not do it in malice.

But it
will merely demonstrate the depth of your asininity, and not add
to any understanding of why Inuit people on Greenland during the
Norse period of colonization would indeed have been likely to
trade for a carpenter's plane.

Which continues to have nothing to do with what I think originally was
Seppo's claim that inuit had been building kayak in Greenland for 4000
years. No matter who made that claim, its nonsense.

Which is to say, go right ahead and line yourself up with Inger
and Seppo again. They *need* company. So do you.




Eric Stevens

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

What an absurd thing to say. You have admitted that you are
well aware that for many people (and particularly those in
Greenland) the terms "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are interchangeable,
with the former preferred.

Complete and utter nonsense on your part. I'm arguing for precision in
the use of these terms and you claim I'm all for a woolly-thinking
blur.

You are arguing that we should play word games with other
people's statements. I am saying that we need to read it for
what they *meant* *to* *say*, and not pretend that there are no
variations in word meaning.

That is particularly true if you want to discuss Greenland,
where the accepted term is in fact "Inuit", not "Eskimo".

The quote that I referenced was this:

II. Origins of Sea Kayaking
A. Greenland
1. No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, from before the time the first Europeans
came (1600-1700s). Some archaeological evidence
indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old.

http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/...902-1notes.pdf

I *am* saying, clearly, that Eskimo people existed on Greenland
4000 years ago and were using wood to make kayaks. (And that
using the word Inuit to describe them is all of common, useful,
and acceptable.)

... and totally innapropriate in a sci. newsgroup. It might be OK in
your local bar or while discussing things at the bus stop.

This *is* a local bar, and not one with the best of clientele
either. Aim your conceited nose a bit closer to the ground.

Incidentally, if you want to set standards for cites, you will
also have to follow them. Here's one that you used, which is
unsuitable using any standard, simply because it is *wrong*:

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

There is of course no evidence at all of any "wave of people
from Alaska displacing Dorset peoples". There is evidence that
a *dramatic* change in the culture of existing people took
place... It appears to have been a migration of technology, not
people. You should be more careful about choosing who and what
you quote.

Mind you, you are quoting from 'Fundamentals of Sea Kayak Design
Seminar - Notes, May 29, 2002 University of Washington Kayak Club'.
This is hardly an authoritative source about the history of the inuit.

It was quoted as an authoritative source on kayaks. It is.

If you want to be asinine and argue that we are writing
technical documents here (which we are *not*) and therefore
should make the technical distinction between Eskimos in general
and Inuit Eskimos in specific, you can go right ahead.

Thank you. I would go right ahead anyway. If you can't bring yourself
to use accurate terminology you should take yourself elswhere. You
certainly shouldn't take issue with anyone who wants to point out your
error, especially when they did not do it in malice.

The terminology that I used through out this thread was
specifically selected, and is technically quite correct. You
are proving it. As noted, I switched back and forth between the
two terms *intentionally* (and more than once even noted the
difference) just to provide a basis to refute some jerk that
comes along and claims one or the other of those terms means
something other than what it was being used to mean.

There is no question that they *can* be used differently. That
is not the point. The point is that when we mix discussions of
Greenland, Canada and Alaska there *is* going to be the
interchangeable use of those terms, and anyone who wants to
differentiate them has to do so specifically.

And your previous claim that "Youv'e [sic] also been
interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and Siberia for
Greenland" is more nonsense. Perhaps you actually can't tell
when I'm switching between them, but I doubt that is the case.
You are just playing word games and being obstinate simply
because you have to face the fact that I've been *precisely*
correct in this discussion all along, and it is pretty much
obvious to everyone who has read it.

Look at the direction it has taken! Poor Seppo was reduced to
changing words in hopes to confuse issues. And now we have Eric
too, equally unable to make reasonable statements about the
topic of discussion, so he also tries to pick a fight over
terminology.

Just like Seppo choosing pictures of wood frames that are within
walking distance of where I sit, you've taken a flying leap off
a cliff too. It is fairly well known that I am about the most
pedantic poster on Usenet when it comes to correct usage of the
terms Inuit and Eskimo.

Which continues to have nothing to do with what I think originally was
Seppo's claim that inuit had been building kayak in Greenland for 4000
years. No matter who made that claim, its nonsense.

Only if you have some very poor communications skills, speak
English as second language, or have your head where the sun
don't shine.

But lets go look at quotes... like one from *you*, where you
started this nonsense:

"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, ..."

There were Eskimos 4000 years ago, but *none* of them were Inuit
Eskimos as a specific branch of Eskimos. Clearly then, if the first
sentence is correct, "inuit" references /Eskimos/ 4000 years ago.

Just as clearly you are confused in the second sentence, because
there were Eskimos in Greenland 4000 years ago.

(Or do we reverse the order, where we would have to determine
you were confused in the first sentence and didn't realize the
Inuit branch didn't exist 4000 years ago anywhere.)

The fact is, you were just greatly confused to begin with, and
now you are pulling a Seppo The Word Weasel act to get out of it.

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

Eric Stevens wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:11:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
"stevewhittet" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

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

I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the frames were wood or bone,
or the people in question were Dorset, Thule, Eskimo, Inuit or Beothuk.

I'm not arguing about the framing of boats. All I'm concerned with is
whether or not there were any inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago. By
definition, there weren't.

What an absurd thing to say. You have admitted that you are
well aware that for many people (and particularly those in
Greenland) the terms "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are interchangeable,
with the former preferred.

Complete and utter nonsense on your part. I'm arguing for precision in
the use of these terms and you claim I'm all for a woolly-thinking
blur.


The quote that I referenced was this:

II. Origins of Sea Kayaking
A. Greenland
1. No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, from before the time the first Europeans
came (1600-1700s). Some archaeological evidence
indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old.

http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/...902-1notes.pdf

I *am* saying, clearly, that Eskimo people existed on Greenland
4000 years ago and were using wood to make kayaks. (And that
using the word Inuit to describe them is all of common, useful,
and acceptable.)

... and totally innapropriate in a sci. newsgroup. It might be OK in
your local bar or while discussing things at the bus stop.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged...... People who live in glass houses
shouldn't throw stones...."


Mind you, you are quoting from 'Fundamentals of Sea Kayak Design
Seminar - Notes, May 29, 2002 University of Washington Kayak Club'.
This is hardly an authoritative source about the history of the inuit.

Doesn't matter if it came from Peter Pan, it is either correct or it
isn't.


If you want to be asinine and argue that we are writing
technical documents here (which we are *not*) and therefore
should make the technical distinction between Eskimos in general
and Inuit Eskimos in specific, you can go right ahead.

Thank you. I would go right ahead anyway. If you can't bring yourself
to use accurate terminology you should take yourself elswhere.

If that is a criteria, why are you still here?

You
certainly shouldn't take issue with anyone who wants to point out your
error, especially when they did not do it in malice.

But it
will merely demonstrate the depth of your asininity, and not add
to any understanding of why Inuit people on Greenland during the
Norse period of colonization would indeed have been likely to
trade for a carpenter's plane.

Which continues to have nothing to do with what I think originally was
Seppo's claim that inuit had been building kayak in Greenland for 4000
years. No matter who made that claim, its nonsense.


You have set such a high standards for Floyd that you are unable to
live up to them yourself. "I think...no matter who...nonsense..." are
"accurate terminology" on your ideal sci.group? Not only did you not
give a bad reference for your claim, but didn't give one at all. In
short, you are doing even less than what you are accusing others of.
Since you are so good at giving out advice to others and so poor at
following your own, I assume you will be voluntarily removing yourself
from this newsgroup and taking yourself elsewhere.


Which is to say, go right ahead and line yourself up with Inger
and Seppo again. They *need* company. So do you.




Eric Stevens

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:55:59 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

What an absurd thing to say. You have admitted that you are
well aware that for many people (and particularly those in
Greenland) the terms "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are interchangeable,
with the former preferred.

Complete and utter nonsense on your part. I'm arguing for precision in
the use of these terms and you claim I'm all for a woolly-thinking
blur.

You are arguing that we should play word games with other
people's statements. I am saying that we need to read it for
what they *meant* *to* *say*, and not pretend that there are no
variations in word meaning.

That is particularly true if you want to discuss Greenland,
where the accepted term is in fact "Inuit", not "Eskimo".

Which is why I have never used the term 'eskimo'. I'm also aware that
the inuit are assigned to a particular period in Greenland history and
that before them were the people known as 'dorset'.

The quote that I referenced was this:

II. Origins of Sea Kayaking
A. Greenland
1. No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has
existed for centuries among the Inuit people of
Greenland, from before the time the first Europeans
came (1600-1700s). Some archaeological evidence
indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old.

http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/...902-1notes.pdf

I *am* saying, clearly, that Eskimo people existed on Greenland
4000 years ago and were using wood to make kayaks. (And that
using the word Inuit to describe them is all of common, useful,
and acceptable.)

... and totally innapropriate in a sci. newsgroup. It might be OK in
your local bar or while discussing things at the bus stop.

This *is* a local bar, and not one with the best of clientele
either. Aim your conceited nose a bit closer to the ground.

Incidentally, if you want to set standards for cites, you will
also have to follow them. Here's one that you used, which is
unsuitable using any standard, simply because it is *wrong*:

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

There is of course no evidence at all of any "wave of people
from Alaska displacing Dorset peoples". There is evidence that
a *dramatic* change in the culture of existing people took
place... It appears to have been a migration of technology, not
people. You should be more careful about choosing who and what
you quote.

Good. I take your point. I'm glad I woke you up. :-)

I don't know anything much about it but I would question whether the
new culture was just a modification of the old or whether it
supplanted it at all levels. If it was just a modification, it could
be as you say, just a migration of technology. If it was more than
that I would suggest that it was a physical migration of people
bringing their new technology and culture with them.

Mind you, you are quoting from 'Fundamentals of Sea Kayak Design
Seminar - Notes, May 29, 2002 University of Washington Kayak Club'.
This is hardly an authoritative source about the history of the inuit.

It was quoted as an authoritative source on kayaks. It is.

Agreed. But not on the history of the inuit.

If you want to be asinine and argue that we are writing
technical documents here (which we are *not*) and therefore
should make the technical distinction between Eskimos in general
and Inuit Eskimos in specific, you can go right ahead.

Thank you. I would go right ahead anyway. If you can't bring yourself
to use accurate terminology you should take yourself elswhere. You
certainly shouldn't take issue with anyone who wants to point out your
error, especially when they did not do it in malice.

The terminology that I used through out this thread was
specifically selected, and is technically quite correct. You
are proving it. As noted, I switched back and forth between the
two terms *intentionally* (and more than once even noted the
difference) just to provide a basis to refute some jerk that
comes along and claims one or the other of those terms means
something other than what it was being used to mean.

There is no question that they *can* be used differently. That
is not the point. The point is that when we mix discussions of
Greenland, Canada and Alaska there *is* going to be the
interchangeable use of those terms, and anyone who wants to
differentiate them has to do so specifically.

Which I did when I took issue with the original reference to inuit in
Greenland 4000 years ago.

And your previous claim that "Youv'e [sic] also been
interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and Siberia for
Greenland" is more nonsense. Perhaps you actually can't tell
when I'm switching between them, but I doubt that is the case.

That was a direct quote from you.

You are just playing word games and being obstinate simply
because you have to face the fact that I've been *precisely*
correct in this discussion all along, and it is pretty much
obvious to everyone who has read it.

Then why are you spending so much time objecting to me pointing out
that there were NO inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago?

Look at the direction it has taken! Poor Seppo was reduced to
changing words in hopes to confuse issues. And now we have Eric
too, equally unable to make reasonable statements about the
topic of discussion, so he also tries to pick a fight over
terminology.

I wasn't picking a fight. Mind you, I'm not surprised that one should
emerge.

Just like Seppo choosing pictures of wood frames that are within
walking distance of where I sit, you've taken a flying leap off
a cliff too. It is fairly well known that I am about the most
pedantic poster on Usenet when it comes to correct usage of the
terms Inuit and Eskimo.

Your halo seems to have slipped. :-)


Which continues to have nothing to do with what I think originally was
Seppo's claim that inuit had been building kayak in Greenland for 4000
years. No matter who made that claim, its nonsense.

Only if you have some very poor communications skills, speak
English as second language, or have your head where the sun
don't shine.

But lets go look at quotes... like one from *you*, where you
started this nonsense:

"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, ..."

There were Eskimos 4000 years ago, but *none* of them were Inuit.

Thank you. That was my point. Why has it taken so long for you to
acknowledge it?

Eskimos as a specific branch of Eskimos. Clearly then, if the first
sentence is correct, "inuit" references /Eskimos/ 4000 years ago.

Just as clearly you are confused in the second sentence, because
there were Eskimos in Greenland 4000 years ago.

But I said nothing about 'eskimos'. My remark only addressed 'inuit'.


(Or do we reverse the order, where we would have to determine
you were confused in the first sentence and didn't realize the
Inuit branch didn't exist 4000 years ago anywhere.)

The fact is, you were just greatly confused to begin with, and
now you are pulling a Seppo The Word Weasel act to get out of it.


Haw! :-)



Eric Stevens

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...
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.

As punishment for redefining the language, Seppo must
write all the Eskimo words for snow five hundred times.
(Yeah, I know, it's a myth, but still funny.)

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

That is particularly true if you want to discuss Greenland,
where the accepted term is in fact "Inuit", not "Eskimo".

Which is why I have never used the term 'eskimo'. I'm also aware that
the inuit are assigned to a particular period in Greenland history and
that before them were the people known as 'dorset'.

Then you are not using the correct terminology Eric. You are
the one who insisted that *I* should be using technically
correct terminology, and here you admit that *you* don't! What
a hoot!

The Thule Eskimo people were *not* Inuit. Or, at least if you
want to distinguish the Dorset Eskimo people as not being Inuit,
you'll have to be consistent and do the same for the Thule
culture.

The Thule people are the ancestors of "Modern Inuit" culture,
but they are *not* the identical people.

Hence, using your logic (if we could call it that), the Norse
colonists met perhaps Dorset people and perhaps Thule people,
and *you* can go to Greenland today and meet Inuit people.

Using sane logic, however, it *is* appropriate to reference
*any* of those people as either Inuit or as Eskimo.

Incidentally, if you want to set standards for cites, you will
also have to follow them. Here's one that you used, which is
unsuitable using any standard, simply because it is *wrong*:

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

There is of course no evidence at all of any "wave of people
from Alaska displacing Dorset peoples". There is evidence that
a *dramatic* change in the culture of existing people took
place... It appears to have been a migration of technology, not
people. You should be more careful about choosing who and what
you quote.

Good. I take your point. I'm glad I woke you up. :-)

You are admitting that you have, as others have pointed out, set
standards that you cannot and do not follow. It seems that the
one who needs to wake up, is Eric.

I don't know anything much about it but I would question whether the

Then cease making silly pompous statements in response to
someone who does.

new culture was just a modification of the old or whether it
supplanted it at all levels. If it was just a modification, it could
be as you say, just a migration of technology. If it was more than
that I would suggest that it was a physical migration of people
bringing their new technology and culture with them.

There is no physical evidence sufficient to demonstrate any
"wave of people". There is likewise no physical evidence to
demonstrate that there was no wave of people! So everyone uses
the common example of how Europeans typically changed their
cultu through violence marked by waves of people.

However in this case there is very good reason to reject that
model. There is a great deal of evidence that Thule and Dorset
cultures existed in the same areas at the same times. Adjacent
villages in various areas used different technologies and
co-existed for hundreds of years. That does suggest a number of
things. That they spoke the same language, had the same
religious beliefs and shared many other culture traits. It also
suggests that they almost certainly intermixed genetically, and
were probably a single genetic pool.

In fact, it appears to there would have been less distinction
between them than there was at the point when European contact
first occurred between Yupik and Inupiat cultures, and between
coastal and riverine and inland cultures of either Yupik or
Inupiat stock.

It also appears that the direct cause for the technological
changes that took place, not just from Dorset to Thule, but for
virtually all recognized changes beginning with the migration of
Small Tools Tradition people into Alaska and eventually all the
way to Greenland, are climate based. Every time there was a
major warming or cooling trend in the climate over a period of
500 or so years, the Eskimo people (and their ancestors) very
quickly adapted by developing a new and more appropriate
technology to deal with their environment.

Mind you, you are quoting from 'Fundamentals of Sea Kayak Design
Seminar - Notes, May 29, 2002 University of Washington Kayak Club'.
This is hardly an authoritative source about the history of the inuit.

It was quoted as an authoritative source on kayaks. It is.

Agreed. But not on the history of the inuit.

And as an authoritative source on kayaks, it *clearly* said
that there are authoritative sources on the history of Inuit
people which say there is evidence of Inuit kayaks going back
4000 years in Greenland.

Get your head out where the sun shines. It is a *fine* cite!

There is no question that they *can* be used differently. That
is not the point. The point is that when we mix discussions of
Greenland, Canada and Alaska there *is* going to be the
interchangeable use of those terms, and anyone who wants to
differentiate them has to do so specifically.

Which I did when I took issue with the original reference to inuit in
Greenland 4000 years ago.

I'm sorry, I don't seem to have made myself clear. I meant to
say that if *you* want to make a statement and make it distinct
that by "inuit" you mean the modern branch of Eskimo culture
known as Inuit, *you* will necessarily have to specifically note
that as your meaning. Otherwise you will be mis-understood.

Taking issue with someone who is using the terms otherwise is
*not* the same. It is just being asinine.

And your previous claim that "Youv'e [sic] also been
interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and Siberia for
Greenland" is more nonsense. Perhaps you actually can't tell
when I'm switching between them, but I doubt that is the case.

That was a direct quote from you.

No, that is a direct quote from *you*:

Message-ID:

Please do not claim I generated the nonsense you post.

You are just playing word games and being obstinate simply
because you have to face the fact that I've been *precisely*
correct in this discussion all along, and it is pretty much
obvious to everyone who has read it.

Then why are you spending so much time objecting to me pointing out
that there were NO inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago?

Because that is a word game. You can't argue facts (you don't
seem to have any), you can't argue theories (which you don't
understand, you can't argue the point (without missing it).
Instead you want to pretend that it is incorrect to refer to
Dorset people as Inuit.

You are wrong. What else is there to say?

Your halo seems to have slipped. :-)

I'll agree that compared to you and Seppo I might appear to
have a halo. Seems like you would make just about anyone
seem to have one...

There were Eskimos 4000 years ago, but *none* of them were Inuit.

Thank you. That was my point. Why has it taken so long for you to
acknowledge it?

And I could equally say, and still be equally correct, that there
absolutely were Inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago.

Now quite playing word games...

But I said nothing about 'eskimos'. My remark only addressed 'inuit'.

When you speak of Greenland, there is no difference... comprende?

The fact is, you were just greatly confused to begin with, and
now you are pulling a Seppo The Word Weasel act to get out of it.

Haw! :-)

Yeah, I think it's pretty funny too!

By the way, interesting that you can respond to a "go left"
command for a mule. Did your mother train you with Gee and Haw?

(And *you* thought word games would be fun... ;-)

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

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/s...C/1997/50.html


Apparently on date 18 Jul 2004 11:39:55 -0700, (Lee
Olsen) said:

Eric Stevens wrote in message . ..

squink snipped

Since you are so good at giving out advice to others and so poor at
following your own, I assume you will be voluntarily removing yourself
from this newsgroup and taking yourself elsewhere.

Do you want to place a bet on that?

(MIB529) wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...
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.

As punishment for redefining the language, Seppo must
write all the Eskimo words for snow five hundred times.
(Yeah, I know, it's a myth, but still funny.)

Might keep him out of our hair for a few years, while he tries to
find word numbers 50 and 51.

You know, what is really funny about his definition of "trade
goods" and "trade" is that somebody just posted a fairly neat
URL:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/s...C/1997/50.html

Which says, "SEPPO RENFORS (TRADING AS RENOWN FURNITURE)". I'm
wondering just what group of Norwegians he was "trading" with,
since by his definition he wouldn't be "trading" if he sold only
to other Aussies.

I suspect he's been taking sheep herding lessons from Eric...

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

Martyn Harrison wrote in message . ..
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/s...C/1997/50.html


Apparently on date 18 Jul 2004 11:39:55 -0700, (Lee
Olsen) said:

Eric Stevens wrote in message . ..

squink snipped

Since you are so good at giving out advice to others and so poor at
following your own, I assume you will be voluntarily removing yourself
from this newsgroup and taking yourself elsewhere.

Do you want to place a bet on that?


When I lose, will you take a check?

(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...

But net.loons are so fun. (At least creationists are
a challenge, only because they're such experts at
debate.)

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Aaaaaahhh but then he is another YANK, showing the kind of CULTURE
they cherish, one that includes the TORTURE of those who do not
conform to their views. Floyd is definitely one of those. He has
jumped on the band wagon to show what the YANKS believe is part of
their culture - the "fun" pointed to by Marcus already as part of the
YANK culture, and now supported by the loser Floyd in a copycat act of
other pond scum - ie TORTURE - or the VERY BEST best likeness they can
achieve on the net!

ATTA BOY FLOYD...... do your very best SHOW THE WORLD THE YANK CULTURE
you represent, in your pathetic copy cat establishment flunky manner.
After all you are on "show" here and what you lot are all about! I
note the passive approval of this demonstration of yours by your
"fellow" citizens of the Yank Culture we see on the TV screens
nightly, from the jails in Iraq, the coffins containing people of
Iraq! Floyd the loser is no longer so passive about it either and has
used the biggest GUN he is able to use on the net!

BUT, let us not forget to pay Homage the the person who instigated and
brought this particular method of intended MALICE - Zolota - HE did
that because HE was caught resorting to RACISM. I guess that is an
attraction it has to criminals like Martyn Harrison, Drew etc who
resort to the same rants, who cannot argue with actual KNOWLEDGE (it
has none) and INTELLIGENCE (it has none) and SANITY (it has none).
Floyd the copy cat is no different - but what else can one expect from
someone with the intelligence of a old oven mitten.

So report the abuser of his AUP's and the groups it spams with its
hate mail:

OrgName: TelAlaska
Address: 201 E56th Ave
City: Anchorage
StateProv: AK
PostalCode: 99518
Country: US
Phone: +1-907-563-2003

E-mail to:






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

"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.

Well.... even Barrow is allowed a village idiot!

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.)


Yep, that's the scumbag's established style - redefine words -
misrepresent and lie! Of course the loud mouthed windbag doesn't
understand the word "eskimo" in any case! How could he? "Eskimo" is an
Algonquian word, meaning something in the sense, "people speaking a
different language". Further to that it is considered an offensive
term nowadays by many. The reason is partly through the associations
of the discredited folk etymology of the word (myth) "one who eats raw
flesh".

But then what would that loser know.... not much that's what - a lot
of noise, very very little substance!

[..]

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

David Johnson wrote:

[..]

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."


More LIES.... this must be a SOCK PUPPET for the loser Floyd - whom I
have proven to have fabricated that claim on 6 different occasion out
of a far greater number of instances. This is the THIRD time the SOCK
PUPPET has been engaging in the same lies! This is now past history -
so WHY is it that this scoundrel wants to keep up the LIES for, if the
low-life isn't a SOCK PUPPET of Floyd's?


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

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/s...C/1997/50.html


Apparently on date 18 Jul 2004 20:25:10 -0700, (Lee
Olsen) said:

Martyn Harrison wrote in message . ..
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/s...C/1997/50.html


Apparently on date 18 Jul 2004 11:39:55 -0700, (Lee
Olsen) said:

Eric Stevens wrote in message . ..

squink snipped

Since you are so good at giving out advice to others and so poor at
following your own, I assume you will be voluntarily removing yourself
from this newsgroup and taking yourself elsewhere.

Do you want to place a bet on that?


When I lose, will you take a check?

Seeing as the odds would be so short that it wouldn't reach the price of a
stamp, it would be best to donate it to the charity of your choice...

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

Yep, that's the scumbag's established style - redefine words -
misrepresent and lie! Of course the loud mouthed windbag doesn't
understand the word "eskimo" in any case! How could he? "Eskimo" is an
Algonquian word, meaning something in the sense, "people speaking a
different language". Further to that it is considered an offensive
term nowadays by many. The reason is partly through the associations
of the discredited folk etymology of the word (myth) "one who eats raw
flesh".

You are aware of that *only* because I personally have posted
the information on Usenet dozens of times. Go to google and
just try to find where *anyone* else commonly posts that
particular etymology for "Eskimo". What you left out (and I
never do) is the cite for Jose Hotmail, the French-Canadian
anthropologist who provided the research.

http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html

Clearly *you* didn't read what I've written previously well
enough to understand it. So let me refresh your memory in terms
of what we are discussing here. Eric claims that it would not
be proper to say that there were Inuit on Greenland 4000 years
ago, because he says that only Thule Technology people are
properly called "Inuit".

Of course, both of you are saying that the term Eskimo is wrong.

Which leaves *no* proper term to connect all of the ancient
cultures on Greenland (or anywhere else in the Arctic)!

Or does it????

http://www.natmus.gl/en/museet/samli...seskimoer.html

"All Inuit cultures are represented:
Saqqaq
Independence I
Independence II
Early Dorset
Late Dorset
Thule"

It seems the Greenland National Museum & Archives, Tikilluarit,
disagrees with Eric's claim about proper terminology. I'll take
their word for it, because obviously Eric once again doesn't have
any idea what he is talking about.

As to the word Eskimo... Well, I have asked my children about
that! They tell me that Seppo The Word Weasel games are wrong.

They tell me *they* are Eskimos. Now, it happens that their
mother tells me she is too, as does her mother. (Oh, I believe
them too! They do speak an Eskimo language, and eat Eskimo food,
and well, you know... they even *look* like Eskimos!)

One of those children is two things of note in regard to that.
First she is a legal authority (JD in Indian Law) *and* she is
recognized by her own tribal people as both a leader and a
traditional teacher of Eskimo culture. (Sufficiently accredited
that the village where her mother was born hired her to give a
workshop to their teachers on how to bring Yup'ik culture into
the classroom in appropriate ways.)

Which is to say, if my kid says Eskimo is a proper word, and she
does say that, then who Seppo and Eric to say otherwise?

But then what would that loser know.... not much that's what - a lot
of noise, very very little substance!

Ah, but I *do* know what the words Inuit and Eskimo actually
mean, and when to use them properly. That's a trick you are
never going to master!

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

Looks like Seppo just went totally bonkers.

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

Aaaaaahhh but then he is another YANK, showing the kind of CULTURE
they cherish, one that includes the TORTURE of those who do not
conform to their views. Floyd is definitely one of those. He has
jumped on the band wagon to show what the YANKS believe is part of
their culture - the "fun" pointed to by Marcus already as part of the
YANK culture, and now supported by the loser Floyd in a copycat act of
other pond scum - ie TORTURE - or the VERY BEST best likeness they can
achieve on the net!

ATTA BOY FLOYD...... do your very best SHOW THE WORLD THE YANK CULTURE
you represent, in your pathetic copy cat establishment flunky manner.
After all you are on "show" here and what you lot are all about! I
note the passive approval of this demonstration of yours by your
"fellow" citizens of the Yank Culture we see on the TV screens
nightly, from the jails in Iraq, the coffins containing people of
Iraq! Floyd the loser is no longer so passive about it either and has
used the biggest GUN he is able to use on the net!

BUT, let us not forget to pay Homage the the person who instigated and
brought this particular method of intended MALICE - Zolota - HE did
that because HE was caught resorting to RACISM. I guess that is an
attraction it has to criminals like Martyn Harrison, Drew etc who
resort to the same rants, who cannot argue with actual KNOWLEDGE (it
has none) and INTELLIGENCE (it has none) and SANITY (it has none).
Floyd the copy cat is no different - but what else can one expect from
someone with the intelligence of a old oven mitten.

So report the abuser of his AUP's and the groups it spams with its
hate mail:

OrgName: TelAlaska
Address: 201 E56th Ave
City: Anchorage
StateProv: AK
PostalCode: 99518
Country: US
Phone: +1-907-563-2003

E-mail to:



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

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

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:11:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

[..]

But it
will merely demonstrate the depth of your asininity, and not add
to any understanding of why Inuit people on Greenland during the
Norse period of colonization would indeed have been likely to
trade for a carpenter's plane.

Which continues to have nothing to do with what I think originally was
Seppo's claim that inuit had been building kayak in Greenland for 4000
years. No matter who made that claim, its nonsense.

Leave me out of that one - it's not my claim. It is Floyd's. I have
been asking for proof - and he hasn't been able to produce it!


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

Martyn Harrison wrote:

Here we see the CLASSIC CRIMINAL type again. One who cares nothing
about actual laws - even less to MORALITY as Martyn Harrison indicates
an INTENT to commit Criminal Acts! Oh well POND SCUM is like that -
low life not worth wipimng ones feet on, lest one catches something of
it.

BUT, let us not forget to pay Homage the the person who instigated and
brought this particular method of intended MALICE - Zolota - HE did
that because HE was caught resorting to RACISM. I guess that is an
attraction it has to criminals like Martyn Harrison who cannot argue
with actual KNOWLEDGE (it has none) and INTELLIGENCE (it has none) and
SANITY (it has none).


So instead of messing around allowing him to destrioy the group with
hate mail, report any such CRIMINAL activity Martyn Harrison practises
to:

NTL Internet
Crawley Court
Winchester
Hampshire UK
SO21 2QA
+44 2920 305142

On-line abuse report form is he

http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport

Another avenue is:








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

Martyn Harrison wrote:
Here we see the CLASSIC CRIMINAL type again. One who cares nothing
about actual laws - even less to MORALITY as Martyn Harrison indicates
an INTENT to commit Criminal Acts! Oh well POND SCUM is like that -
low life not worth wipimng ones feet on, lest one catches something of
it.

BUT, let us not forget to pay Homage the the person who instigated and
brought this particular method of intended MALICE - Zolota - HE did
that because HE was caught resorting to RACISM. I guess that is an
attraction it has to criminals like Martyn Harrison who cannot argue
with actual KNOWLEDGE (it has none) and INTELLIGENCE (it has none) and
SANITY (it has none).


So instead of messing around allowing him to destrioy the group with
hate mail, report any such CRIMINAL activity Martyn Harrison practises
to:

NTL Internet
Crawley Court
Winchester
Hampshire UK
SO21 2QA
+44 2920 305142

On-line abuse report form is he

http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport

Another avenue is:








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

Eric Stevens wrote:

[..]
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)


Sorry, Eric but that is an old and now discredited definition given on
that site.


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

Lee Olsen wrote:

Martyn Harrison wrote in message

Here we see the CLASSIC CRIMINAL type again. One who cares nothing
about actual laws - even less to MORALITY as Martyn Harrison indicates
an INTENT to commit Criminal Acts! Oh well POND SCUM is like that -
low life not worth wipimng ones feet on, lest one catches something of
it.

BUT, let us not forget to pay Homage the the person who instigated and
brought this particular method of intended MALICE - Zolota - HE did
that because HE was caught resorting to RACISM. I guess that is an
attraction it has to criminals like Martyn Harrison who cannot argue
with actual KNOWLEDGE (it has none) and INTELLIGENCE (it has none) and
SANITY (it has none).


So instead of messing around allowing him to destrioy the group with
hate mail, report any such CRIMINAL activity Martyn Harrison practises
to:

NTL Internet
Crawley Court
Winchester
Hampshire UK
SO21 2QA
+44 2920 305142

On-line abuse report form is he

http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport

Another avenue is:







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

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

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

Yep, that's the scumbag's established style - redefine words -
misrepresent and lie! Of course the loud mouthed windbag doesn't
understand the word "eskimo" in any case! How could he? "Eskimo" is an
Algonquian word, meaning something in the sense, "people speaking a
different language". Further to that it is considered an offensive
term nowadays by many. The reason is partly through the associations
of the discredited folk etymology of the word (myth) "one who eats raw
flesh".

You are aware of that *only* because I personally have posted
the information on Usenet dozens of times.

You really have a bloody king sized ego and must kiss your mirror
image daily - I wouldn't take the word of a lying scumbag like you.
Not that I have seen you post anything like that - but IF you have,
why the bloody hell do you keep using a derogatory term of the Inuit
people, hmmmm - do you refer to Arabs with the derogatory term "sand
******s" too - it would be in keeping with your behaviour so far!

*I* am able to sus out the info I need - if I don't already know it.
YOU.... you are not worth ****ing on if you were on fire, let alone
taking notice of!


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

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

[..]

Chuckle. Nothing like Usenet kooks...

Yeah, you should know, you being one!


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

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:34:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

gibberish snipped

Man, you have some SERIOUS issues to work out...
Hope you are getting professional help...???



But in the meantime, P L O N K



Intrepid

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

You are aware of that *only* because I personally have posted
the information on Usenet dozens of times.

You really have a bloody king sized ego and must kiss your mirror
image daily - I wouldn't take the word of a lying scumbag like you.

However, what I said was true.

Not that I have seen you post anything like that - but IF you have,

Go use google, find out!

why the bloody hell do you keep using a derogatory term of the Inuit

So, you are too dumb to have figure out yet that 1) it is *not*
a derogatory term for the Inuit, and 2) there are lots of
Eskimos who are either A) not Inuit or B) are, but don't want to
be called Inuit.

That 1 is true is clear from 2. As far as 2B goes, you have
to realize Seppo that I live in the midst of 3000 (the largest
Eskimo community in the Arctic?) Inuit Eskimos who don't *ever*
use the term Inuit to describe themselves (they don't like the
term, and usually call themselves Inupiat). More over as far
as 2A goes, my whole family with the single exception of myself
just do happen to be Yupik Eskimo, and they *don't* like to be
called Inuit by some ignorant person such as yourself.

Of course, *all* of those Eskimos rather like the term Eskimo!

So I call them by the terms that *they* actually use.

people, hmmmm - do you refer to Arabs with the derogatory term "sand
******s" too - it would be in keeping with your behaviour so far!

You are disgusting.

*I* am able to sus out the info I need - if I don't already know it.
YOU.... you are not worth ****ing on if you were on fire, let alone
taking notice of!

I notice you didn't even know enough to provide any attribution
for the definition you gave. It comes from the work, as I said,
of Jose Mailhot. She publishes in French, and is little known
either in the US or on the Internet. (Which is how I know whose
articles you got the information from! Nobody else posts
that... just me.)

Mailhot, Jose, L'etymologie de *esquimau' revuew et
corrigee. In: Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2(2): 59-69.

Noteably, Mailhot's version is accepted by Chris Miller, an
Assistant Professor of Linguistics Gallaudet University who is
an expert on sign language.

Of course you are also missing the competing definition, which
according to Ives Goddard is "snowshoe netter". Goddard is also
an expert on Algonquin languages, and is with the Smithsonian.
His claim is made in

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5 (Arctic), p6

Noteably, Goddard's version is accepted by Anne Fienup-Riordan,
another excellent anthropologist, who studies Alaskan Yupik
culture.


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

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...

selective snip so every-one can see that Seppo is arguing with
some-one who -is- on site


That 1 is true is clear from 2. As far as 2B goes, you have
to realize Seppo that I live in the midst of 3000 (the largest
Eskimo community in the Arctic?) Inuit Eskimos who don't *ever*
use the term Inuit to describe themselves (they don't like the
term, and usually call themselves Inupiat). More over as far
as 2A goes, my whole family with the single exception of myself
just do happen to be Yupik Eskimo, and they *don't* like to be
called Inuit by some ignorant person such as yourself.


It won't get through to him Floyd but it is interesting reading your
posts in reply to his strawmen....

Native peoples of the Northwest Coast of North America
http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/jcr/~vnat1.html
Repeat after me
Google is my friend

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:57:35 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Yep, that's the scumbag's established style - redefine words -
misrepresent and lie! Of course the loud mouthed windbag doesn't
understand the word "eskimo" in any case! How could he? "Eskimo" is an
Algonquian word, meaning something in the sense, "people speaking a
different language". Further to that it is considered an offensive
term nowadays by many. The reason is partly through the associations
of the discredited folk etymology of the word (myth) "one who eats raw
flesh".

You are aware of that *only* because I personally have posted
the information on Usenet dozens of times. Go to google and
just try to find where *anyone* else commonly posts that
particular etymology for "Eskimo". What you left out (and I
never do) is the cite for Jose Hotmail, the French-Canadian
anthropologist who provided the research.

http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html

Clearly *you* didn't read what I've written previously well
enough to understand it. So let me refresh your memory in terms
of what we are discussing here. Eric claims that it would not
be proper to say that there were Inuit on Greenland 4000 years
ago, because he says that only Thule Technology people are
properly called "Inuit".

No No NO NO!

I said the inuit arrived in Greenland circa 1000 AD with the arrival
of the Thule culture.

Before that there were the Dorset but they may already have vanished
bfore there was any sign of the Thule people.

Their remains the yet to be resolved question of whether it is proper
to call the Dorset inuit. [Don't worry, I have't forgotten it, I'm
working on it]

Of course, both of you are saying that the term Eskimo is wrong.

Which leaves *no* proper term to connect all of the ancient
cultures on Greenland (or anywhere else in the Arctic)!

Or does it????

http://www.natmus.gl/en/museet/samli...seskimoer.html

"All Inuit cultures are represented:
Saqqaq
Independence I
Independence II
Early Dorset
Late Dorset
Thule"

It seems the Greenland National Museum & Archives, Tikilluarit,
disagrees with Eric's claim about proper terminology. I'll take
their word for it, because obviously Eric once again doesn't have
any idea what he is talking about.

As to the word Eskimo... Well, I have asked my children about
that! They tell me that Seppo The Word Weasel games are wrong.

They tell me *they* are Eskimos. Now, it happens that their
mother tells me she is too, as does her mother. (Oh, I believe
them too! They do speak an Eskimo language, and eat Eskimo food,
and well, you know... they even *look* like Eskimos!)

One of those children is two things of note in regard to that.
First she is a legal authority (JD in Indian Law) *and* she is
recognized by her own tribal people as both a leader and a
traditional teacher of Eskimo culture. (Sufficiently accredited
that the village where her mother was born hired her to give a
workshop to their teachers on how to bring Yup'ik culture into
the classroom in appropriate ways.)

Which is to say, if my kid says Eskimo is a proper word, and she
does say that, then who Seppo and Eric to say otherwise?

But then what would that loser know.... not much that's what - a lot
of noise, very very little substance!

Ah, but I *do* know what the words Inuit and Eskimo actually
mean, and when to use them properly. That's a trick you are
never going to master!




Eric Stevens

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:33:16 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

[..]
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)


Sorry, Eric but that is an old and now discredited definition given on
that site.


You may well be right, but I've taken steps to dig a little further
using a source which I expect will be acceptable to you. :-)



Eric Stevens

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

Clearly *you* didn't read what I've written previously well
enough to understand it. So let me refresh your memory in terms
of what we are discussing here. Eric claims that it would not
be proper to say that there were Inuit on Greenland 4000 years
ago, because he says that only Thule Technology people are
properly called "Inuit".

No No NO NO!

I said the inuit arrived in Greenland circa 1000 AD with the arrival
of the Thule culture.

Before that there were the Dorset but they may already have vanished
bfore there was any sign of the Thule people.

First, the Dorset *were also* Inuit. Second, they had not
"vanished". There has been no time between about 4500 BC and
today that Inuit people have not exist on Greenland.

The Dorset and Thule people were the *same* gene pool. The
climate changed, and they rapidly adapted their technology to
match. Dorset culture existed on Greenland from about 900 BC
until about 1500 AD, which is *after* the Norse colony was gone,
and is hundreds of years after the initial Thule culture showed
up.

Why do you have to *continually* change what you claim, and then
every single time you fabricate some new scenario that is just
plain bull****.

http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html

If instead of making up what you think it might have been, you
would just sit back, and *ask*, you could learn something.

Their remains the yet to be resolved question of whether it is proper
to call the Dorset inuit. [Don't worry, I have't forgotten it, I'm
working on it]

You aren't working on it. It has long been resolved, and you are
not the arbitrator. You can't even figure out what the significance
is, much less question proper usage.

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

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:33:16 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

[..]
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)


Sorry, Eric but that is an old and now discredited definition given on
that site.


You may well be right, but I've taken steps to dig a little further
using a source which I expect will be acceptable to you. :-)

Just keep in mind, twit, that I've already pointed you at the *only*
two sources that are acceptable. You can read what Ives Goddard says,
or you can read what Jose Mailhot says.

Everything else either quotes one of them, or is unacceptable.

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

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:28:31 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

Clearly *you* didn't read what I've written previously well
enough to understand it. So let me refresh your memory in terms
of what we are discussing here. Eric claims that it would not
be proper to say that there were Inuit on Greenland 4000 years
ago, because he says that only Thule Technology people are
properly called "Inuit".

No No NO NO!

I said the inuit arrived in Greenland circa 1000 AD with the arrival
of the Thule culture.

Before that there were the Dorset but they may already have vanished
bfore there was any sign of the Thule people.

First, the Dorset *were also* Inuit. Second, they had not
"vanished". There has been no time between about 4500 BC and
today that Inuit people have not exist on Greenland.

The Dorset and Thule people were the *same* gene pool. The
climate changed, and they rapidly adapted their technology to
match. Dorset culture existed on Greenland from about 900 BC
until about 1500 AD, which is *after* the Norse colony was gone,
and is hundreds of years after the initial Thule culture showed
up.

Why do you have to *continually* change what you claim, and then
every single time you fabricate some new scenario that is just
plain bull****.

http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html

From that site:

"In Greenland only the earliest and latest phases are represented
in the material dated so far; approximately 700 BC - 200 AD, and
800 - 1300 AD."

See - no 4000 years ago.

The related site http://www.sila.dk/History/Thule/Start.html dealing
with the Thule culture says:

"The Thule culture is the latest of the so-called Neo-Eskimo
cultures. Developed around 1000 AD in North Alaska it spread
eastwards along the Arctic shores of North America to Labrador and
Greenland, which was reached approximately 1200 AD.".

See - two different cultures in two different places around 1000 AD
and with almost no opportunity to meet. Some believe they may never
have met.


If instead of making up what you think it might have been, you
would just sit back, and *ask*, you could learn something.



Their remains the yet to be resolved question of whether it is proper
to call the Dorset inuit. [Don't worry, I have't forgotten it, I'm
working on it]

You aren't working on it. It has long been resolved, and you are
not the arbitrator. You can't even figure out what the significance
is, much less question proper usage.




Eric Stevens

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

First, the Dorset *were also* Inuit. Second, they had not
"vanished". There has been no time between about 4500 BC and
today that Inuit people have not exist on Greenland.

The Dorset and Thule people were the *same* gene pool. The
climate changed, and they rapidly adapted their technology to
match. Dorset culture existed on Greenland from about 900 BC
until about 1500 AD, which is *after* the Norse colony was gone,
and is hundreds of years after the initial Thule culture showed
up.

Why do you have to *continually* change what you claim, and then
every single time you fabricate some new scenario that is just
plain bull****.

http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html

From that site:

"In Greenland only the earliest and latest phases are represented
in the material dated so far; approximately 700 BC - 200 AD, and
800 - 1300 AD."

See - no 4000 years ago.

Eric, are you playing little boy games, or are you really this
dense?

First you say there were not Inuit people until the Thule
Technology appeared. Now you've finally gotten it through your
thick skull that Dorset technology was *also* Inuit people!
Wonderful... so you pull the same stupid stunt and say therefore
the first Inuit were Dorset.

Dorset was not the first.

If you read that site from one end to the other, and *remember*
what it says on each page, you'll find that the first Eskimos on
Greenland may have been either the Saqqaq or the Independence I
cultures. At present they have older Saqqaq artifacts than
Independence I, but they were clearly very close together. And
the oldest dates appear to put them there 4500 years ago.

Are they Eskimos???

"A few artefacts [sic] found in the area proves the existence
of older Palaeo-Eskimo [sic] groups, but it is unknown whether
they should be attributed to Independence I or to the northern
parts of the East Greenland Saqqaq culture."

Pretty much makes it clear that they are *both* identified as such.
And that particular web page says the Independence I artifacts date
to 2400 BC, and the Saqqaq artifacts to 2500 BC.

The related site http://www.sila.dk/History/Thule/Start.html dealing
with the Thule culture says:

"The Thule culture is the latest of the so-called Neo-Eskimo
cultures. Developed around 1000 AD in North Alaska it spread
eastwards along the Arctic shores of North America to Labrador and
Greenland, which was reached approximately 1200 AD.".

See - two different cultures in two different places around 1000 AD
and with almost no opportunity to meet. Some believe they may never
have met.

What the Hell are you talking about? *Nobody* believes they never
met! They lived in adjacent villages for hundreds of years. How
could a *very* mobile people, who traded with their neighbors for
hundreds of miles in every direction, not meet?

That web site says the Dorset culture continued be used by some
Inuit on Greenland until 1500 AD, or 300 years after they say
the Thule culture first arrived.

The idea that they never met is just another example of you
reading things into it that are not there. And worse yet you
ignore what they do tell you:

"The Eskimos of the Thule culture travelled [sic] throughout
the length of Greenland's coast."

Which is to say, over the 300 or so years when both Dorset and
Thule culture existed on Greenland, they *had* to have cross
paths not just occasionally, but with regularity.

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

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:36:04 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:33:16 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

[..]
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)


Sorry, Eric but that is an old and now discredited definition given on
that site.


You may well be right, but I've taken steps to dig a little further
using a source which I expect will be acceptable to you. :-)

Just keep in mind, twit, that I've already pointed you at the *only*
two sources that are acceptable. You can read what Ives Goddard says,
or you can read what Jose Mailhot says.

Everything else either quotes one of them, or is unacceptable.

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

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

But then, in the context of Mailhot, you should read
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Innu.htm and follow the link to
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Inuit.htm which says

"Inuit (singular, Inuk; also, generally vulgarly, Eskimo) is a
general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous
peoples of the Arctic who descended from the Thule. The
Inuit Circumpolar Conference defines its constitutency to
include Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Greenland's Kalaallit
people, Alaska's Inupiat and Yupik people, and Russian Yupik".

The first link cites a politically derived definition (who was it
cited Godwin's law?) of inuit and the second confines itself to
"culturally similar indigenous peoples of the Arctic who descended
from the Thule".

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





Eric Stevens

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:56:47 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

First, the Dorset *were also* Inuit. Second, they had not
"vanished". There has been no time between about 4500 BC and
today that Inuit people have not exist on Greenland.

The Dorset and Thule people were the *same* gene pool. The
climate changed, and they rapidly adapted their technology to
match. Dorset culture existed on Greenland from about 900 BC
until about 1500 AD, which is *after* the Norse colony was gone,
and is hundreds of years after the initial Thule culture showed
up.

Why do you have to *continually* change what you claim, and then
every single time you fabricate some new scenario that is just
plain bull****.

http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html

From that site:

"In Greenland only the earliest and latest phases are represented
in the material dated so far; approximately 700 BC - 200 AD, and
800 - 1300 AD."

See - no 4000 years ago.

Eric, are you playing little boy games, or are you really this
dense?

One of us is. :-)

How do you derive from the above that I equate Dorset and Inuit in
Greenland?

First you say there were not Inuit people until the Thule
Technology appeared. Now you've finally gotten it through your
thick skull that Dorset technology was *also* Inuit people!
Wonderful... so you pull the same stupid stunt and say therefore
the first Inuit were Dorset.

Dorset was not the first.

If you read that site from one end to the other, and *remember*
what it says on each page, you'll find that the first Eskimos on
Greenland may have been either the Saqqaq or the Independence I
cultures. At present they have older Saqqaq artifacts than
Independence I, but they were clearly very close together. And
the oldest dates appear to put them there 4500 years ago.

Are they Eskimos???

"A few artefacts [sic] found in the area proves the existence
of older Palaeo-Eskimo [sic] groups, but it is unknown whether
they should be attributed to Independence I or to the northern
parts of the East Greenland Saqqaq culture."

Pretty much makes it clear that they are *both* identified as such.
And that particular web page says the Independence I artifacts date
to 2400 BC, and the Saqqaq artifacts to 2500 BC.

The related site http://www.sila.dk/History/Thule/Start.html dealing
with the Thule culture says:

"The Thule culture is the latest of the so-called Neo-Eskimo
cultures. Developed around 1000 AD in North Alaska it spread
eastwards along the Arctic shores of North America to Labrador and
Greenland, which was reached approximately 1200 AD.".

See - two different cultures in two different places around 1000 AD
and with almost no opportunity to meet. Some believe they may never
have met.

What the Hell are you talking about? *Nobody* believes they never
met! They lived in adjacent villages for hundreds of years. How
could a *very* mobile people, who traded with their neighbors for
hundreds of miles in every direction, not meet?

But in Greenland?

That web site says the Dorset culture continued be used by some
Inuit on Greenland until 1500 AD, or 300 years after they say
the Thule culture first arrived.

The idea that they never met is just another example of you
reading things into it that are not there. And worse yet you
ignore what they do tell you:

"The Eskimos of the Thule culture travelled [sic] throughout
the length of Greenland's coast."

Which is to say, over the 300 or so years when both Dorset and
Thule culture existed on Greenland, they *had* to have cross
paths not just occasionally, but with regularity.




Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:56:47 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

First, the Dorset *were also* Inuit. Second, they had not
"vanished". There has been no time between about 4500 BC and
today that Inuit people have not exist on Greenland.

The Dorset and Thule people were the *same* gene pool. The
climate changed, and they rapidly adapted their technology to
match. Dorset culture existed on Greenland from about 900 BC
until about 1500 AD, which is *after* the Norse colony was gone,
and is hundreds of years after the initial Thule culture showed
up.

Why do you have to *continually* change what you claim, and then
every single time you fabricate some new scenario that is just
plain bull****.

http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html

From that site:

"In Greenland only the earliest and latest phases are represented
in the material dated so far; approximately 700 BC - 200 AD, and
800 - 1300 AD."

See - no 4000 years ago.

So now you say you were not referring to the Dorset with that
statement? You quoted text about the Dorset, so what did you
expect readers to associate it with?

You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?

Eric, are you playing little boy games, or are you really this
dense?

One of us is. :-)

How do you derive from the above that I equate Dorset and Inuit in
Greenland?

If you *don't*, then you are still to ignorant too even talk about
this subject!

When are you going to get it figured out?

What the Hell are you talking about? *Nobody* believes they never
met! They lived in adjacent villages for hundreds of years. How
could a *very* mobile people, who traded with their neighbors for
hundreds of miles in every direction, not meet?

But in Greenland?

Of course in Greenland. Did you *read* what that site says?
They've found artifacts from Thule culture people all along the
entire coast of Greenland.

That web site says the Dorset culture continued be used by some
Inuit on Greenland until 1500 AD, or 300 years after they say
the Thule culture first arrived.

The idea that they never met is just another example of you
reading things into it that are not there. And worse yet you
ignore what they do tell you:

"The Eskimos of the Thule culture travelled [sic] throughout
the length of Greenland's coast."

What part of that did you misunderstand? Or do you just intend
on making sure you misunderstand *everything*.

I have a really hard time believing you can actually type and
still use the logic you do. Who puts your clothes on for you?

The Dorset people lived in one particular area for 300 years while
the Thule people (using Umiaqs had greater mobility) were traveling
the entire length of Greenland's coast, including where the Dorset
lived. Just how do you think they did that for 300 years without
stopping by for coffee and trading a few Norse tools? ;-)

Which is to say, over the 300 or so years when both Dorset and
Thule culture existed on Greenland, they *had* to have cross
paths not just occasionally, but with regularity.

In Greenland. We aren't taking about raiding the English coast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, while I can find a lot of references which say that
the 1977 ICC passed such a resolution, I can't find that it ever
actually happened!

http://www.ebenhopson.com/icc/ICCBooklet.html

Read through the resolutions actually passed in that first
ICC, and you won't find it. It *is* clear that they agreed
to use that term for the purposes of that conference though.

And, in fact that is exactly what they did. This is from the
_Charter_ adopted for the ICC. It is not a resolution, it is
not and was never meant to apply to anything other than the
documents produced by the ICC, principally the Charter itself!

But it does provide a good example of how things become distorted
by others looking to grind an axe.

ARTICLE 1 - DEFINITIONS

6. "Inuit" means indigenous members of the Inuit homeland
recognized by Inuit as being members of their people and
shall include the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit,
Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik
(Russia).

7. "Inuit homeland" means those arctic and sub-arctic areas
where, presently or traditionally, Inuit have Aboriginal
rights and interests.

http://www.inuit.org/textonly.asp?lang=eng&num=209

Whatever, not that paragraph 7 basically includes *all*
traditionally Eskimo cultures. Hence it clear includes Dorset
and Arctic Small Tools Tradition cultures...

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

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

and follow the link to
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Inuit.htm which says

"Inuit (singular, Inuk; also, generally vulgarly, Eskimo) is a
general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous
peoples of the Arctic who descended from the Thule. The
Inuit Circumpolar Conference defines its constitutency to
include Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Greenland's Kalaallit
people, Alaska's Inupiat and Yupik people, and Russian Yupik".

The first link cites a politically derived definition (who was it

If you mean the first link to the www.almudo.com site, it does
not cite *any* definition of Inuit. When are you going to learn
to read. If you are talking about the one above that and think
it is unique in citing a "politically derived definition", you
are still wrong.

cited Godwin's law?) of inuit and the second confines itself to
"culturally similar indigenous peoples of the Arctic who descended
from the Thule".

So? *All* existing Eskimo cultures today *are* in fact
descended directly from the Thule people. They are also
descended from the predecessors of the Thule people. That would
be the Dorset. And they are all descended from the Arctic Small
Tools tradition culture too, which preceded the Dorset culture.
We are talking a continuous line of descent, not a new migration
from Asia or the Pacific Island or from where ever. One line of
people, though it does have multiple branches.

All of those people have traditionally been called "Eskimo", and
what the Canadians and Greenlanders wanted to stop was the
common use of that term because of the racist undertone it had
taken on in Canada and to a lesser degree in Greenland.

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

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

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

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


You know, this is a lot of argument from you just to support the
*clearly* false notion that nobody was building wood framed
kayaqs on Greenland 4000 years ago. The claim that there was no
wood is false. The claim that there were no Inuit is false.
The claim that they used only whale bone is false. The claim
that they would have no use for a wood plane is just as false.
The claim that no Norseman would think of trading his trusty
plane is not just false, it's so damned funny as to be insane.

You, Seppo, and Inger... what a group!

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 01:05:04 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:56:47 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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

First, the Dorset *were also* Inuit. Second, they had not
"vanished". There has been no time between about 4500 BC and
today that Inuit people have not exist on Greenland.

The Dorset and Thule people were the *same* gene pool. The
climate changed, and they rapidly adapted their technology to
match. Dorset culture existed on Greenland from about 900 BC
until about 1500 AD, which is *after* the Norse colony was gone,
and is hundreds of years after the initial Thule culture showed
up.

Why do you have to *continually* change what you claim, and then
every single time you fabricate some new scenario that is just
plain bull****.

http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html

From that site:

"In Greenland only the earliest and latest phases are represented
in the material dated so far; approximately 700 BC - 200 AD, and
800 - 1300 AD."

See - no 4000 years ago.

So now you say you were not referring to the Dorset with that
statement? You quoted text about the Dorset, so what did you
expect readers to associate it with?

You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?

Of course its about right!

Whats more it makes rubbish of your claim that Dorset/inuit were
building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago. Can't you do arithmetic?

Eric, are you playing little boy games, or are you really this
dense?

One of us is. :-)

How do you derive from the above that I equate Dorset and Inuit in
Greenland?

If you *don't*, then you are still to ignorant too even talk about
this subject!

I am getting annoyed. I have spent all this time **carefully**
differentiating between Dorset and Inuit/Thule culture in Greenland
and you still keep on pretending you don't understand what I say.

When are you going to get it figured out?

What the Hell are you talking about? *Nobody* believes they never
met! They lived in adjacent villages for hundreds of years. How
could a *very* mobile people, who traded with their neighbors for
hundreds of miles in every direction, not meet?

But in Greenland?

Of course in Greenland. Did you *read* what that site says?
They've found artifacts from Thule culture people all along the
entire coast of Greenland.

Oh good. There are also radar domes. Does that mean the Dorset culture
was familiar with radar domes?

That web site says the Dorset culture continued be used by some
Inuit on Greenland until 1500 AD, or 300 years after they say
the Thule culture first arrived.

The idea that they never met is just another example of you
reading things into it that are not there. And worse yet you
ignore what they do tell you:

"The Eskimos of the Thule culture travelled [sic] throughout
the length of Greenland's coast."

What part of that did you misunderstand? Or do you just intend
on making sure you misunderstand *everything*.

I have a really hard time believing you can actually type and
still use the logic you do. Who puts your clothes on for you?

The Dorset people lived in one particular area for 300 years while
the Thule people (using Umiaqs had greater mobility) were traveling
the entire length of Greenland's coast, including where the Dorset
lived. Just how do you think they did that for 300 years without
stopping by for coffee and trading a few Norse tools? ;-)

Which is to say, over the 300 or so years when both Dorset and
Thule culture existed on Greenland, they *had* to have cross
paths not just occasionally, but with regularity.

In Greenland. We aren't taking about raiding the English coast.




Eric Stevens