Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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) |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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) |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian ArcticformerCopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
|
#288
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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) |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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? |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian
(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) |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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? |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
|
#293
|
|||
|
|||
ZOLOTA's POND SCUM in action again.
"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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
"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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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... |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
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) |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
ZOLOTA's POND SCUM in action again.
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) |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Zolota's criminal POND SCUM is back again
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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Zolota's Criminal POND SCUM is back again
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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic formerCopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
"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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic
"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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Zolota's Criminal POND SCUM is back again
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 |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic
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) |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic formerCopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
|
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
Native peoples of the Northwest Coast of North America
http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/jcr/~vnat1.html Repeat after me Google is my friend |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
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) |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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) |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
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) |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
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) |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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) |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Determining Geologic Sources of Native American Copper | Metalworking | |||
Copper plating | Metalworking |