Message from discussion
Vineland
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-fusi.netcologne.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!peer02.cox.net!cox.net!p01!lakeread04.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@cox.net>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
References: <iru41152lhfoi81vo5m60ki8qj0fhe5gm2@4ax.com> <vnHQd.222792$w62.34834@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <oi7711tmcbttdur6mkcemf0nvk9h5pvb20@4ax.com> <Pg_Qd.42247$EG1.3459@lakeread04> <r3qa11l0e452lq1nt03u0147kb6e48m7ou@4ax.com> <cv42vc0sl@enews3.newsguy.com> <3rcb11tqhdcrf8fkvqk3pisv1k0uhdk2lh@4ax.com> <PVxRd.4823$nQ4.2780@fe03.lga> <cs3e119ssvpvn2ol0j33ou0unc2or5t444@4ax.com> <SRLRd.5176$hB2.3667@fe03.lga> <50MRd.52137$EG1.41900@lakeread04> <cv869902888@enews4.newsguy.com> <hogf11leivi0fbfukdoj2olb114mqr23lj@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Vineland
Lines: 275
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <qZ2Sd.52463$EG1.28130@lakeread04>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:33:26 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.179.83.97
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: lakeread04 1108917206 70.179.83.97 (Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:33:26 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:33:26 EST
Organization: Cox Communications
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hogf11leivi0fbfukdoj2olb114mqr23lj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:06:40 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
> <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>
>>"Steve Marcus" wrote...
>>[...]
>>> His original post was made because he didn't appreciate _me_ hammering
>>> Seppo's post on the nonsensical comment it contained re the dating and
>>> he
>>> didn't like the fact that the dating currently shows the Vinland Map to
>>> be
>>> a fake. His posts thereafter have been in accordance with his usual
>>> modus
>>> operandi when someone (or a plurality of someones) show(s) that some pet
>>> belief of his can not be supported on the existing evidence, and/or that
>>> the logic contained in one his posts is of the extremely fuzzy variety;
>>> he
>>> will nitpick something not particularly germane to the matter and
>>> generate
>>> volumes of squid ink about it.
>>>
>>> In this case, the point he is trying to cloud is that the VM appears to
>>> be
>>> a fake on the current state of the evidence. Why? Because this not
>>> only
>>> puts paid (at least for now) to one of his pet beliefs, it casts doubt
>>> on
>>> the veracity of his main squeeze, Inger, who has claimed both knowledge
>>> that the VM is authentic, and that some currently in progress Danish
>>> study
>>> will show the VM to be authentic. (Of course, one more cloud, more or
>>> less, on Inger's veracity is no big deal.) He's been doing this sort of
>>> thing for years. Now he's added a new twist with his so-called "putting
>>> me on ignore." Doing that enables him to choose to ignore posts which
>>> blow him up, like the one in which I posted a link to a site that
>>> demolishes his position about the expression of dates (including C14
>>> dates) in an archaeological context, while at the same time allowing him
>>> to reply to posts he thinks he can handle (or which require him to
>>> generate yet more squink) by claiming he's "taken me off ignore."
>>
>>maybe/maybe not. if i ever had to defend a (to be generous) borderline
>>subject or topic, i'd gladly take him (eric) on my team. if it was
>>something that challenged traditional ideology, was rejected en mass
>>out-of-hand, and did leave room to 'squink', he'd gladly do it. like a
>>dog
>>on a bone. as an attorney, you recognize why, and understand the value of
>>it. kinda like the old game of trying to define random and providing an
>>example just to watch how quickly it can be legitimatly convoluted.
>>
>>of course i'm probably doing the same thing as eric just as an attempt to
>>create an aside to see where it goes. or maybe it's just to take some of
>>the heat off him because he owes me a drink and i havent collected on it
>>yet. or more possibly because i'm part of the new underground conspiracy
>>'Fellowship to UnCover Knowledge Epistemized by Redundency'. ;^)
>>
> Steve Marcus and I are alike in some respects and totally different in
> others.
There's no need to insult me. I am like you in no respect.
>
> You will know from my mail header, that I am a Forensic Engineer. When
> giving evidence I am an officer of the court. No matter that I am
> called by one side in an argument, I have no specific interest in who
> is right or wrong. My primary interest is in ensuring that whatever I
> say is unassailable. That means I chase down all visible loose ends
> and even apparently trivial differences in matters of fact. Its
> amazing how often such things lead you to aspects which cause an
> entire argument to fall apart.
All of which has nothing to do with this thread. The issue of whether a
given poster spoke correctly about the matter of whether the ink (as you
choose to define "the ink") has been dated (as you choose to define "dated")
was right or wrong is not the issue that was under discussion, until you
made it so. No one doubts that by "the ink", people dealing with the matter
of the Vinland Map mean "the yellow and black lines that appear on the VM."
No one doubts that under that definition, (one which comes from the
literature on the subject, BTW, as shown by the links of posted several
times today), "the ink" has been tested. Further, by "dated", all
discussing this topic (all who are rational, anyway), understand that
"dated" means within a certain period as opposed to an exact year (let alone
to an exact day and time).
Chasing down "visible loose ends" has nothing to do with introducing your
own definition for terminology that witnesses giving evidence may have used,
and which have been understood and accepted in the context of the matter
being discussed. Try to pull that crap in Court, and as an "officer of the
Court", you would be bounced out on your arse and probably end up doing some
sort of penance for contempt. Yet that's precisely what you've done in your
present squink campaign in this thread.
>
> People accuse me of nit-picking and in a sense they are right. What I
> am trying to do is, in the end, produce an argument which I believe to
> contain no error or uncertainty. Alternatively, if uncertainties
> exist, I feel obliged to point them out. I am sure that this is one
> reason why some people in this news group think I am biased to one
> side of the argument or another.
There are nits that are properly picked, and nits that are improperly
picked. And there are uncertainties that are rational, and uncertainties
that are not rational.
Nits of the sort that you are picking in this thread (introducing your
interpretation of "the ink" which is unique in the context of this topic and
your interpretation of "dated" which is irrelevant in the context of this
topic) are not properly picked nits. Why? Because they have nothing to do
with what those discussing the topic mean in the discussion; those terms are
understood a certain way in the context of the discussion and have been used
that way in the discussion, and in the published literature.
Inconsistencies in what a poster might have writtten, unsupportable or
questionable interpretation of data by a poster, alternative **rational**
interpretations of data, are all examples of properly picked nits. None
exist on this topic, except perhaps a typo where someone wrote "ink dated
after 1930" when probably "ink dated after 1920" was intended.
Uncertainties that are rational on this topic are those which involve the
understanding that new evidence might be discovered which undercuts the
conclusions reached on the current state of the evidence. Uncertainty
regarding the conclusion that is compelled by the current evidence bearing
upon the authenticity of the VM is an irrational uncertainty. Nothing more,
and nothing less.
>
> [I am equally sure that the question I have raised as to whether the
> titanium in the parchment of the VM is in the same form as the
> titanium in the ink will cause people to accuse me of arguing for the
> authenticity of the VM].
What titanium in the parchment?? And, to pick a nit, we are discussing
anatase, not titanium. See:
http://webexhibits.org/vinland/paper-clark02.html
"Anatase was identified in the yellow lines and, in some cases, in the
vicinity of the black ink, presumably from the underlying yellow line. It
was not found elsewhere on the surface, as would be expected if its presence
were to be attributed to outside contamination from, for example, dust from
white ceiling paint, which might conceivably contain (just) detectable
quantities of anatase."
>
> On the other hand, Steve Marcus is a patent attorney and used to
> constructing arguments on behalf of his client.
Incorrect. I am not a patent attorney. While it's not often one can prove
a negative, if you doubt that I'm not a patent attorney, I'm prepared to
prove it.
> By the nature of his
> job he is skilled at constructing argumentslines of questioning,
> glosses, distortions, partial truths, paraphrased quotes etc to lead
> to the end at which he has been aiming from the very beginning.
Oh bulls--t, Eric. An attorney is required to represent clients zealously
by the ethics of the profession and the enforcement by bar associations and
courts of those ethics. But, as an "officer of the Court", an attorney can
engage in zealous representation only within certain bounds, again as
enforced by bar associations the courts. (An example is that if aware of a
case precedent contrary to the position of his/her client, an attorney is
compelled to cite the precedent to the Court. The attorney can't conceal
the precedent.)
Zealous representation by an attorney involves picking precisely the same
sort of nits that I mentioned above. Examples of "properly picked nits"
include pointing out inconsistencies in what a witness might have writtten
or testified to by cross examination or presentation of testimony by a
countering witness; pointing out unsupportable or questionable
interpretation of data by a witness through cross-examination or the
presentation of testimony by a countering witness; presentation of
alternative **rational** interpretations of data through cross-examination
or by presention of testimony of another witness; presentation of
alternative **rational** conclusions compelled by the data based upon
cross-examination or presention of testimony of another witness.
Zealous representation doesn't involve distorting anything, paraphrasing
quotes, supplying partial truths or presentation of **irrational**
interpretations or conclusions. As an "officer of the Court", an attorney
doing that sort of crap would get booted out on his/her arse, and probably
held in contempt, even more quickly than you would if you pulled that sort
of crap in a Court.
What's hilarious about your characterization of how you claim to work and
how you think that I work is that what you've done on this thread is,
precisely, to construct a line of argument based on distortion of the term
"the ink" as it is understood in the context of the topic, distortion of the
term "dated" as it is understood in the context of the topic, and lately,
confusing the terms "titanium" and "anatase." These things (and others)
were done in order to construct distortions in an attempt to conceal the
truth by directing attention away from the truth, **since even if your
definition of "the ink" and "dated" are applied, it changes not one whit the
truth that is compelled by the present state of the evidence re the
authenticity of the VM**. But you would far rather that there be a
discussion of the irrational nits you've picked than that attention be
directed to the status of the VM.
>
> On the other hand, it rarely is that in my work I know where I am
> going to end up. I don't know whether my report is going to be
> favourable to my client, or not, until I have completed it. The only
> end to which I am working is getting at what I believe to be the
> truth.
The only end to which you are working in sci.archaeology is to buttress "the
truth" **as you see it** with respect to any number of crackpot beliefs
regarding history that you happen to hold. This very thread is one example
which proves the truth of that statement; recourse to Google's archives
yields countless other examples. As to the present campaign you've
undertaken:
a. It is clear on the present evidence (even though that clarity may change
tomorrow with the introduction of new evidence or the destruction of the
validity of the current evidence) that the VM is a fake; it almost certainly
could not have been produced prior to the 20th century and definitely could
not have been produced earlier than the 17th century (a generous dropping
back of the date).
b. You, who claim to be working only to get at the truth, have managed to
generate a week (or is it more now, I've lost track) of squid ink on a
matter which at most revolves around someone's error in saying that "the ink
dated after 1930" rather than "1920" (probably a typo and one which does not
change the status of the VM as a fake on the current evidence) and Seppo's
nonsensical reply about "the ink" not having been "dated." In the course of
the discussion you've managed to introduce smokescreens such as "absolute
date" and "exact date" which neither the OP nor Seppo, nor anyone else
responding to their exchange "employed" and which, to my knowledge, nobody
discussing the VM in any forum has ever employed. You've gone off on
confidence levels, statistics, etc., when it is clear that not only has no
one in the discussion ever needed to be involved in that because the VM ink
has indeed been dated to a range which, even allowing for your twaddle, is
safely later than the date required for theVM to be authentic, but it is
also clear that many of your arguments are nonsense since dates in
historical/archaeological/anthropological/geological contexts (to mention a
few) are in fact quite frequently given in such ranges and when given, do
indeed mean "X years before or after Y date." Of course, your spurious
claim that I'm "on ignore" gives you scope to dishonestly ignore the post in
which I linked an article that clearly states that.
c. It is clear that the evidence referred to in a. above shows that the
material which is often referred to as "the ink" on the VM is what has been
"dated" in the sense of "not earlier than ..." to the 20th century, and that
the conclusion that the VM is a fake as stated in a. above cannot be
gainsayed (without additional evidence that you haven't provided). Yet your
contribution for a week, or more, is as described in b. above. **And your
contribution is irrelevant to the truth of the only rational conclusion
currently possible**: the VM is a fake because the anatase lying under the
black pigment, and not detected on the blank portions of the parchment,
dates to the 20th century.
Looking for the truth? I think not. And you could probably count on the
fingers of one hand anyone else posting on sci.archaeology who thinks so
either.
>
> You would do better to hire Steve to argue for you while keeping me in
> the background to find out what has been going on.
On the evidence of how you perform on sci.archaeology, he would do better to
hire me to do almost anything rather than hire you to do it.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
|
