Message from discussion Vineland

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Vineland
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:00:15 +1300
Organization: Forensic Engineer
Message-ID: <vpfc11pjj7oggn6g00p15vh5j4hnbb09sn@4ax.com>
References: <42119FA8.796F5974@not.com.au> <HskQd.124087$Jk5.17986@lakeread01> <iru41152lhfoi81vo5m60ki8qj0fhe5gm2@4ax.com> <vnHQd.222792$w62.34834@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <oi7711tmcbttdur6mkcemf0nvk9h5pvb20@4ax.com> <Pg_Qd.42247$EG1.3459@lakeread04> <fR0Rd.48245$Th1.6931@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <eDbRd.42428$EG1.10616@lakeread04> <Xns9600D985F8106prd@128.249.2.19> <5tra11plhrkn2kuhqu6mkdjm5s9nq183qj@4ax.com> <vGjRd.44403$EG1.43655@lakeread04>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 105

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:44:47 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamo...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message 
>news:5tra11plhrkn2kuhqu6mkdjm5s9nq183qj@4ax.com...
>> On 18 Feb 2005 03:23:00 GMT, Philip Deitiker <Nopdei...@att.net.Spam>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I don't know that the parchment is 17th century.
>>
>> I understand that it is generally accepted that the parchment comes
>> from this period.
>>
>>>It doesn't
>>>seem to me conclusive. Troubling with this document is the
>>>nature of the Ink and differences in the inks used in the
>>>document.
>>>
>>>> I would quibble with the word "necessry", saying instead
>>>that the the
>>>> failure to provide provenance should alert the interested
>>>purchaser to an
>>>> increased possibility that the document *may not* be
>>>authentic.  Nota bene
>>>> the qualifier "may not."
>>>
>>>Right, may not, but you are not a buyer, you are looking at
>>>this from a scientific point of view, should it be added to
>>>the knowledge database or rejected.
>>>
>>>> Agreed, but that wasn't the burden of Seppo's original post,
>>>or my reply
>>>> thereto, or Eric's reply to my reply.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter what the burden of Seppo's post was, the
>>>reality is that there are independent factors that create
>>>reasoning for not entertaining this map as of scientific
>>>value.
>>>
>>>> No.  At least I'm not.  I'm participating in this branch of
>>>the thread
>>>> because of Seppo's obviously erroneous post, and Eric's
>>>equally obvious
>>>> attempt to cloud the issue regarding the meaning of the
>>>anatase crystals
>>>> that are present, solely in the yellow lines, on the VM.
>>>
>>>I don't think this time he is clouding it, and in any case I
>>>am unclouding the issue by arguing that the map lacks proper
>>>historical documentation to take seriously. In any case there
>>>are scenarios in which it was forged, and that is a great
>>>matter for a historical group to discuss, but this is
>>>archaeology and the map pertains to settlement, and in this
>>>regard it becomes a bit impertinent.
>>>
>>>>> So we can heed Eric's
>>>>> point for the moment,
>>>>
>>>> I think not, since Eric's point was that saying that the ink
>>>hasn't been
>>>> dated is an absurd statement.  It certainly has been dated
>>>in the sense that
>>>> many archaeological/anthropological artifacts have been
>>>dated.(See * below)
>>>> Specifically, it was dated to a range:  not older than the
>>>20th century.  As
>>>> per info provided by Doug McDonald, I'll generously claim
>>>the range to be
>>>> not older than the 17th century.
>>>
>>>I don't disagree with that but the papers I read did not set
>>>an exact date,
>>
>> That was the point made by Seppo.
>
>But since setting an exact date is something that quite often isn't done 
>when dating an artifact (dating is often given as a range of dates), and is 
>wholly irrelevant to the present scientific evidence quite clearly 
>demonstrating that the VM is a fake, what precisely was the value or purpose 
>of Seppo's point other than to mislead?? 

You now seem to be conceding that Seppo's statement was correct. I
find it difficult to see how even you can claim to be mislead by
correct statements.

>For that matter, what was the 
>value or purpose of your defense of Seppo's point, other than to mislead??

Seppo's statement was correct. Your argument against it wasn't.

Why should you use an incorrect argument for any reason other than to
mislead?


Aaaagh .... never mind.

You are back on ignore for the time being.




Eric Stevens