Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Wolter on peer review.

22 views
Skip to first unread message

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 11:32:11 PM2/1/06
to
Scott Wolter has asked that this email be posted here to help us
understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the
KRS received. It is from an email relating to his current work on
the Spirit Pond stones. Except for removing identifying
information about the original email's recipient and other
personal information, I haven't altered Wolter's email in any way.


-----------------------------------------------------
Begin Wolter's email:

> From: Wolter, Scott Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:37 AM
> Subject: Spirit Pond Investigation &
> Peer Review
>
> Dear -- -- ,
>
>
>
> I thought I would drop you both a note with a couple of points
> to consider during your discussions about our proposal to
> perform a forensic investigation of the Spirit Pond rune
> stones. The first point is relative to --'s comment
> about an apparent lack of peer review of the geologic work we
> performed and reported in our book. The fact of the matter of
> is that my report has been peer reviewed, in writing, by eight
> senior geologists and geological engineers. These individuals
> are Professor emeritus John Green, Professor emeritus Charles
> L. Matsch, Professor Richard Ojakangas, Professor emeritus G.
> B. Morey, Professor emeritus Paul Wieblen, Dr. Bryant Mather
> (now deceased), geological engineer Terrance Swor P.E. and
> Senior ACI International Fellow, Richard Stehly P.E. I have
> also presented my geological findings at the American
> Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) National
> Conference in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, in 2002, and have been asked
> to teach a half day short course on the KRS at the 2006 AIPG
> National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, this fall. Our
> local AIPG chapter is hosting the event and I am on the
> planning committee. Perhaps -- would like to attend the
> Convention?
>
>
>
> I should also add that when we took the KRS to Sweden in
> October of 2003, the Swedish government assembled a scientific
> testing team, headed by Runo Löfvendahl, to examine the KRS
> using "Popper's Falsification Principal" in an attempt to find
> an alternate explanation to my geologic findings. They were
> unable to do so. You can read about that investigation, which
> was a rather poor effort in my opinion, on pages 301, 317-318,
> 321-322, 326, 343-345, 361-364, 373-374.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day, my findings are published in the book
> you now have that anyone in the world can review, including
> --. I encourage him to do so and respectfully request
> that he puts his comments in writing. I should also mention
> that as a licensed professional geologist in the State of
> Minnesota (#30024) I am held accountable for all work that I
> perform by the geoscientists licensing board for the State of
> Minnesota. It is mandatory that I am objective and unbiased
> in my geologic investigations. I take this very seriously and
> only write opinions that I believe I have the data to support.
> I am frequently called to testify as an expert witness and
> have won many cases with far less geologic evidence than we
> have documented on the KRS. Keep in mind that I had never
> heard of the KRS when I was first approached to perform this
> work. I was convinced by my geologic findings that the
> inscription was old before I ever met Dick Nielsen, or learned
> that geologist Newton Winchell had worked on the KRS
> previously. He concluded in 1910 that the KRS was genuine.
>
>
>
> I realize that Birgitta Wallace is a personal friend of yours
> --, and personally, I like Birgitta and found her to be
> very gracious during our visit in April of 2004 (see pages
> 353-355). However, she has been allowed to accuse Olof Ohman
> of carving the KRS inscription without one shred of credible
> evidence, and apparently without any fear of professional or
> legal retribution. She has not backed up any of her claims
> regarding the KRS with supportable facts. Where was the peer
> review of her work? What kind of accountability is someone
> like Birgitta Wallace held to in her profession? It appears
> that her title and reputation has afforded her an implied
> credibility that needs no oversight. She has certainly not
> presented evidence to prove the KRS is modern, and I don't
> believe she or Einar Haugen have made a credible case to
> support their assertions that the Spirit Pond RS's are fake
> either. For that matter, where was the peer review of Einar
> Haugen? His fundamental error of incorrectly dating the
> Spirit Pond rune stones to the year 1010, threw his entire
> analysis of the inscriptions off from the very beginning. In
> fairness to him, he wasn't aware of the medieval dating
> practices using the Easter Table used to date the Spirit Pond
> (1401 and 1402 A.D.), the KRS (1362 A.D.) and the
> Kingigtorssuag (1314 A.D.) inscriptions.
>
>
>
> In fairness to all investigators of these artifacts in the
> past, none of them had access to the voluminous new source
> information that has only become available in the last couple
> decades. Specifically, the most relevant documents being the
> middle to late 14th century diplomas and the hundreds of
> medieval runic inscriptions on Gotland. These documents bear
> directly on the language, grammar, runes, and dialect on all
> four rune stones. The third volume of the "Gotlands
> Runinskrifter", which contain critical evidence relative the
> KRS (and Spirit Pond), was only published on the internet in
> 2004! See the following link:
>
>
>
> http://ariadne.uio.no/runenews/nor_2003/snaedalms.htm
>
>
>
> Dick and I are currently preparing a new paper on the Spirit
> Pond inscriptions which certainly do have many similarities to
> the KRS. However, your stones have many significant
> differences. Before we can finalize this report, there needs
> to be a microscopic digital photo-library of the inscriptions
> generated to accurately document exactly what is carved on
> those stones. It was this important procedure that led to the
> accurate documentation and evaluation of aspects of the KRS
> inscription that were previously unknown.
>
>
>
> We look forward to working with you on this exciting project.
> --
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> Scott Wolter P.G.
>
> Minnesota License # 30024
>
> Geologist/Petrographer/President
>
> American Petrographic Services
>
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
>
>

Tedd Jacobs

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 10:12:07 PM2/1/06
to

"Tom McDonald" wrote...

> Scott Wolter has asked that this email be posted here to help us
> understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the
> KRS received. It is from an email relating to his current work on
> the Spirit Pond stones. Except for removing identifying
> information about the original email's recipient and other
> personal information, I haven't altered Wolter's email in any way.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Begin Wolter's email:
>
> > From: Wolter, Scott Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:37 AM Subject:
> > Spirit Pond Investigation &
> > Peer Review
> >
> > Dear -- -- ,
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought I would drop you both a note with a couple of points
> > to consider during your discussions about our proposal to
> > perform a forensic investigation of the Spirit Pond rune
> > stones. The first point is relative to --'s comment
> > about an apparent lack of peer review of the geologic work we
> > performed and reported in our book. The fact of the matter of
> > is that my report has been peer reviewed, in writing, by eight
> > senior geologists and geological engineers.


in what journal was this geologic work published.

<snip remainder>


t(nospam)kavanagh

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 10:37:44 PM2/1/06
to
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>Scott Wolter has asked that this email

Have you asked him how he got the Verendryes to Alberta?

tk

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 1:40:21 AM2/2/06
to

I don't know whether it was so published or not. That does not
mean that Wolter's geological work on the KRS didn't receive
adequate review prior to his making it public.

Wolter isn't an academic, and he is apparently used to having
his work critiqued in the way he outlined--getting feedback from
other professionals in the relevant field(s). He gave the names
of eight folks who he says read and replied to his work on the
KRS in writing; and the looking-in-to by the Swedes.

It is useful to use peer reviewed journal articles. However,
that process is not the only way to knock the rough edges off of
a professional study, or to point out problems with the work. It
is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.

However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
Mather, of course).

Something that comes up often among non-archaeologists who get
involved in this sort of study is this question of peer review,
which ultimately is a question of whether it is possible to
verify that the work in question has been vetted by knowledgeable
professionals in the relevant field(s), and the author has made
appropriate changes in response to valid criticism. Many
non-archies feel that the requirement to publish in a peer
reviewed venue, when their work has in fact been critiqued by
them as knows their beans, is a cheap way to avoid dealing with
their material.

In most cases, it makes sense to require non-archies to make
their case via peer review, since many folks who want the
attention of professional archies haven't got the goods.

However, how do you evaluate the work of someone like Wolter? He
provides the names of the folks who did write reviews of the KRS
work. He has put his professional reputation on the line. He is
asking for feedback. Why not give him honest feedback and see if
he responds like a kook or like a professional?

I personally am not convinced by Wolter and Nielsen's book that
the KRS is legit; though it has given me pause--much pause.
However, without honest critique, I am not willing to write it
off, either. Let's give him a hearing on his own work, on its own
merits.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 1:42:08 AM2/2/06
to

I haven't communicated directly with him. I think he reads this
ng. You can ask him yourself. I think your question is a very
good one, and I hope he does answer it.

Tedd Jacobs

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 3:03:04 AM2/2/06
to

"Tom McDonald" wrote...

my work has been peer reviewed, in writing, by eight senior
anthopologists... irregarless of the grade i recieved.

i see alot of high-falutin, ad hom., and smoke & mirrors for a non-academic
with a state number (bwaa) and a liberal definition of peer review. jmho
w/o shooting the messenger. ;-)


Uwe Müller

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 3:35:45 AM2/2/06
to

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gaeEf.93$3z6...@fe02.lga...

> snip >


>> Keep in mind that I had never
>> heard of the KRS when I was first approached to perform this
>> work. I was convinced by my geologic findings that the
>> inscription was old
>

This is for me the hardest bit, that he states, that the major part of the
inscription was re-done, shows no sign of weathering, and still he insists
it was old, being convinced by his geologic findings.

For my taste, archaeologically speaking, the stone would have had to show
different stages of 'wear' or 'use', first from glaciation as bedrock, than
from glaciation as a loose boulder, than from being inscribed (and splitted
before?) and set up as a marker. If it had been used as a stepping stone
this too should show. So there should be at least four different stages of
use/weathering on the stone.

When the inscriptions (or major parts of it) is shown by geologic reasons to
be newly done, after all the other wear and tear, how can geologic findings
convince him of the old age? There may be good reasons to state, that the
inscription was only 'freshened up' or made more clear, but if there is no
sign of weathering insisde the runes, than they are modern.

Have I misunderstood something?

have fun

Uwe Mueller


Eric Stevens

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 3:38:33 AM2/2/06
to

Did you intend to omit '?'?.
>

Apart from that. peer review can exist outside of editorial
committees.

Eric Stevens

Daryl Krupa

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 3:54:26 AM2/2/06
to
One factor to consider in the process of peer review
is that professional journals tend to maintain the anonymity
of their reviewers, so that they will not shrink from making
unflattering comments for fear of personal repercussions
(which might include simple embarrassment, for either side).

-
Daryl Krupa

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 4:40:01 AM2/2/06
to

"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@go4more.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:drsgb2$knp$1...@online.de...

YES,
that part you could read about in detail in Barry Hanson's books. There you
also will find when and who 'freshened up' the runes which doesn't show any
weathering. IF you read that you will understand why.

Inger E
>
> have fun
>
> Uwe Mueller
>
>


Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 4:59:44 AM2/2/06
to
Tom McDonald wrote: s2gEf.126$234...@fe04.lga,

There is such a thing as project management,
with a lot of interim reports and feedback.
I am also used to work with advisory commissions.
If the commission is competent, the result is a
reliable, peer-reviewd, report.

> It is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
> competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
> is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
> to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.
>
> However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
> evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
> could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
> Mather, of course).

But, looking at what is presented and discussed here
in the group, the peers were not influential enough.


[...]

--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°


e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 5:13:01 AM2/2/06
to

"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43e1d80f$0$58490$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...

Peter,
how long will you and Tom tell lies about Scott Wolter?
He has an academic background, and you can't have missed that have you done
the minor search needed to have it confirmed!

Wolter got his first degree in geology in 1982. So don't try to sit on high
horses telling otherwise. He has more than 15 years of experience within the
company he founded and more before he founded the company in 1990.

Wolter's merits:
"Bachelor Degree - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1982
Honorary Masters - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1987"

"Professional Geologist (PG), MN Registration #30024
Certified Professional Geologist (CPG), Certification #8260"

above as a lot more you can read about in:
http://www.aipgmn.org/wolter_bio.htm

Inger E

Steve Marcus

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 5:27:13 AM2/2/06
to

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:56h3u1p6o4861kn7o...@4ax.com...

But, that ususally doesn't include a review by folks who were consulted
during the work being performed. The book isn't to hand as I type, and I
can't climb stairs willy-nilly to fetch it at this particular point in time.
But I recall that Ojakangas, whom Wolter lists as one of those who "peer
reviewed" the work, actually contributed suggestions (if not data) to Wolter
while the work was on-going.

Moreover, I find it incredible that if the work which was peer reviewed was
actually as presented in the book (still reading, still chugging along
around page 90 or so), that there would not have been questions raised and
clarifications resulting from those questions. There are issues with
respect to the dating by biotite, which I, as a layman, have raised
notwithstanding that I know little about geology. I suspect that even for
those knowledgeable in geology engaged in a true peer review process, those
questions would have come up, and as a result, the final work would have
been presented in a clearer, more complete form (if at all possible).
>
>
>
> 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


Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 5:52:29 AM2/2/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote: RrkEf.43707$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net,

> "Uwe Müller" skrev

>> Have I misunderstood something?

> YES,
> that part you could read about in detail in Barry Hanson's books.
> There you also will find when and who 'freshened up' the runes which
> doesn't show any weathering. IF you read that you will understand why.

Why what?

--
p.a.

Uwe Müller

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 6:04:10 AM2/2/06
to

"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:43e1e46e$0$94239$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...

> snip >

> Why what?

The one thing that I have missed in all the discussion is a sentence saying
'Inside rune xy at this'n' that specific point, a remainder of the original
surface has been discovered, that dates the cutting of the runes between the
scratch marks of the glaciation-moved boulder and the surface of the time,
the stone was used as a stepping stone."

That would have been the geological expertise needed for the KRS to be
considered an archaeological artefact. Everything else may be interesting to
geologists, but where is the archaeology?

have fun

Uwe Mueller


e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 6:22:18 AM2/2/06
to

"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@go4more.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:drsp1c$4ev$1...@online.de...

Which of the works where this is discussed have you read Uwe and which have
you only seen quoted by someone? The archaeology in the Kensington Runestone
case has been presented in many of the works discussing the Runestone.

Inger E
>
>


Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 6:21:24 AM2/2/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote: NWkEf.43708$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net,

>> [...]

> Peter,


> how long will you and Tom tell lies about Scott Wolter?
> He has an academic background, and you can't have missed that have
> you done the minor search needed to have it confirmed!
>

[More irrelevance snipped]>

So what? Can't you read? I was not talking about
Wolter's credentials and I certainly told no lies.
I said that there are more ways to get your work
(peer) reviewed than by publishing it in a pr journal.
And Tom wrote clearly in favour of Wolter's position.

But I forgive you because you have no positive
experience with publishing your work.

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 6:33:20 AM2/2/06
to

"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43e1eb94$0$52056$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Peter,
since when do you deny having written UNDER Tom's text "Wolter isn't an
academic,.." without protesting to it?
When you write within or under text without writing a correction or
protesting this juridical means that you don't object. Since you don't
object to the lines where this false information is feed, then you yourself
have written under same false information!
Thus you continue to present false information in your own 'answer' to my
posting!

Inger E


Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 6:33:16 AM2/2/06
to
Uwe Müller wrote: drsp1c$4ev$1...@online.de,

All this geology and petrology is about the
interpretation of a (controversial) archaeological
find. It goes far, but I think it is still on topic here.


--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°

Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 6:36:51 AM2/2/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote: 46mEf.43711$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net,

Bullshit!

Uwe Müller

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 7:03:01 AM2/2/06
to

"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:43e1ee03$1$76979$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...

I was not saying that it was off topic. It is just that I miss the basic
facts, as I would be used to have established before the discussion. And for
it to be an archaeological artefact, it should be established that it was
worked in the period in question or at what time the working had been done.
For me, and that is a personal thing, it is no arch. artefact as long as
that has not been established, as it did not come from a controlled
excavation with an established context.

If that can not be established, geologic and petrologic findings may still
confirm the basic story, that a rune stone was cut and erected from a
boulder, that had been carried there by glaciation. The base of the stone,
at that time underground, should show a different pattern of weathering from
those parts above ground, with a bit of luck even the basic orientation of
the stone while standing upright, could be shown according to differences in
weathering.

If that can not be established either, it would be a case for the
runologists only, having to decide wether the inscription would be credibel
for the purported date or not.

If there was no clear vote on this, then for all practical purposes the
stone would be useless. It could still have been inscribed and set up in
medieval times, but there would have been nothing left from the medieval
working, to connect it to those artefacts that can be proven to be medieval
in origin.

have fun

Uwe Mueller


e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 7:16:19 AM2/2/06
to

"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43e1ee03$1$76979$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...

While you do agree that it's on topic you seem to have missed that the
finding today isn't controversial the way it was less then one year ago.
More than one linguist has as been presented by Eric S and others turned to
lean to text being medieval and not modern. What seems to have been the
problem is that the clerical medieval texts and usage of words in King
Magnus Eriksson's court wasn't as known by the linguists as they themselves
thought. Neither were most of the protesting linguists especially
wellinformed about usage of words like 'ok', 'skip' and other words
believed to be modern frequently were used in mid 14th century. That's bad
that scholars of linguistic missed that for so long. But fortunatly more
than one changed their mind.

For those who still believe that 'ok' (=and) isn't ok for 14th century it
would be good to understand:
The word "och"(Eng. "and") are usually written "auk" in runes, but the early
change in pronunciation also made spelling "ok" possible. (ref. Wessén
Elias, Svensk Språkhistoria I ljudlära och ordböjningslära, page 24ff).
Examples of spellings in mid 14th century:
Swedish Diploma nr Text in Diploma
5838a "och"
5838b "och"
5840 "oc" (five times)
5842 "oc"
5848 "ok" (four times)
5849 "ok" (15 times)
5852b "och" (seven times)
5860 "och"(once), "ok"(five times)
5862 "ok" (11 times)
5864 "ok"( twice)
5867 "ok"(once)
5877 "oc" (four times)
5921 "ok" three times, "ock"(once) and
"och" (once).
for 'skip' you can check Svenskt Diplomatarium brevnr 8289: "for thet at the
huggo sundir mit skip thar i (b ) hold ."

Same can be shown for every other single word used on KRS. Tiunde-taka was
for example the name for the tithes collected from the dioceses under Gardar
See....

Inger E
>

>
>


e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 7:54:55 AM2/2/06
to

"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@go4more.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:drssfm$auf$1...@online.de...

The fact that the Kensington Runestone was carved before 1700 been
established very strongly. That a person tried to make the runes clean from
earth and thus removing mica is also established. Not to mention that
Hjalmar Holand in 1908 carved an 'H' which can be used as a control surface
when comparing the ageing of carved runes being more than 200 years older
than the 'H'.

What Wolter and Nielsen managed to do in the last year is show that it's
that the runestone not only was carved before 1700 but with now known data,
facts from documents and testing most likely was carved long before that
which points to 14th century more than 15th-18th. That the stone should have
been carved after 1700 is completely impossible from testings done and all
other facts taken into consideration. No matter which the runestone is an
artifact.

Inger E


Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 8:19:02 AM2/2/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote: nKmEf.43714$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net,
> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>> Uwe Müller wrote:
>>> "Peter Alaca" schrieb

>>>> snip >
>>>
>>>> Why what?
>>>
>>> The one thing that I have missed in all the discussion is a sentence
>>> saying 'Inside rune xy at this'n' that specific point, a remainder
>>> of the original surface has been discovered, that dates the cutting
>>> of the runes between the scratch marks of the glaciation-moved
>>> boulder and the surface of the time, the stone was used as a
>>> stepping stone."
>>>
>>> That would have been the geological expertise needed for the KRS to
>>> be considered an archaeological artefact. Everything else may be
>>> interesting to geologists, but where is the archaeology?

>> All this geology and petrology is about the


>> interpretation of a (controversial) archaeological
>> find. It goes far, but I think it is still on topic here.

> While you do agree that it's on topic you seem to have missed that the

What has this all to do with geology and petrology?

--
p.a.


prd

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 9:13:11 AM2/2/06
to
In sci.archaeology message
news:1138870466....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by "Daryl
Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> . . . :

People do write books and there is a review process; however, it
is generally at the advice and consent of the editor or authors of
the books. If the press is via a university mill, they might assign
or recommend people to review. Look at it like this, when you submit
a paper to a journal, there is a good chance that a competitor
(funding) may review your peice. When you write a book, chances are
the reviewers are your friends, after all joe-blow scientist does
not have time to read a 1000 page manuscript, if a editor started
randomly picking scientist to review a book, chances are the editor
gets alot of rejection letters.
A certain review journal, because the reviews tend to be so long
the author is advised to recommend 4 referrees and so discuss with
the 4 in advance and get permission. When the article is submitted 2
referees are picked.
The next level are books.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 11:35:18 AM2/2/06
to

I think that may be Wolter's experience as well. In addition, of
course, he has the experience of defending his work as an expert
witness, apparently in a venue in which he is cross examined as
well as merely giving his opinion.

>> It is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
>> competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
>> is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
>> to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.
>>
>> However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
>> evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
>> could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
>> Mather, of course).
>
>
> But, looking at what is presented and discussed here
> in the group, the peers were not influential enough.

I'm not competent to comment on that. However, I hope that this
ng may act as another source of review. If Wolter is wise, and if
valid (or even interesting) points are made here wrt his work, he
will take the opportunity to use the criticism he gets here to
re-think elements of his work.

I would hope that he wouldn't merely become defensive and defend
his work in the face of useful criticism.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 11:42:22 AM2/2/06
to

The book's original purpose was as a defense of Ohman against
the charge of hoaxery. Also, the book is in a very real sense
still a work in progress.

I think Wolter is interested in getting feedback about his work
now, as a sort of running peer review. I think he may have
underestimated the level of criticism he's gotten, but I also
think he's enough of a professional to take criticism to heart
and use it to improve his work; or to defend it where he thinks
it is solid.

So I think this is a prime time for those of us who call for
peer review and on-going openness to critique to offer that
service to Wolter in this ng. Seems reasonable to me.

Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 2:08:33 PM2/2/06
to
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:33:20 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
<inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:
[SNIP]

>since when do you deny having written UNDER Tom's text "Wolter isn't an
>academic,.." without protesting to it?
>When you write within or under text without writing a correction or
>protesting this juridical means that you don't object. Since you don't
>object to the lines where this false information is feed, then you yourself
>have written under same false information!

I can point out examples of posts where you have written text under
Seppo's libels of me and others without correcting them. That of course
makes you a party to them according to your lights and is surely a
criminal act in Sweden, right?

[SNIP]

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk


Eric Stevens

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 2:19:15 PM2/2/06
to
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:35:45 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:

>
>
>"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:gaeEf.93$3z6...@fe02.lga...
>
>> snip >
>>> Keep in mind that I had never
>>> heard of the KRS when I was first approached to perform this
>>> work. I was convinced by my geologic findings that the
>>> inscription was old
>>
>
>This is for me the hardest bit, that he states, that the major part of the
>inscription was re-done, shows no sign of weathering, and still he insists
>it was old, being convinced by his geologic findings.

The major part of the inscription indeed was 'redone' but there was
more than enough of the minor part remaining undamaged to allow the
extent of the weathering to be determined.


>
>For my taste, archaeologically speaking, the stone would have had to show
>different stages of 'wear' or 'use', first from glaciation as bedrock, than
>from glaciation as a loose boulder, than from being inscribed (and splitted
>before?) and set up as a marker. If it had been used as a stepping stone
>this too should show. So there should be at least four different stages of
>use/weathering on the stone.

Apparently the stepping stone story is one of those fictitious myths
which have grown around the KRS. It never happened.


>
>When the inscriptions (or major parts of it) is shown by geologic reasons to
>be newly done, after all the other wear and tear, how can geologic findings
>convince him of the old age? There may be good reasons to state, that the
>inscription was only 'freshened up' or made more clear, but if there is no
>sign of weathering insisde the runes, than they are modern.

As you pointed out at the beginning much of the original inscription
surface was damaged when the inscriptions were cleaned out by a nail.
However a significant portion of the original surface remained
undamaged.
>
>Have I misunderstood something?

There is nothing wrong with your logic. It merely is that the facts
are not quite what you have understood them to be.
>
>have fun
>
>Uwe Mueller
>
>

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 2:26:56 PM2/2/06
to

Wolter has made a complete set of macrophotographs of each character
individually. Some of these are used in the book. The so called
'retooled' areas are clearly visible in these photographs, as are the
undisturbed areas.

Eric Stevens

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 2:34:59 PM2/2/06
to

The stone was completely buried when it was found and there is no way
of knowing how long it had been in that state. If the stone was ever
erected upright, it would only have been for part of its total life
since carving. I suspect that the rate of weathering is so slow that
it will be difficult to detect a difference between that part which
spent some of its life above ground and that which had spent all of
its life below ground.


>
>If that can not be established either, it would be a case for the
>runologists only, having to decide wether the inscription would be credibel
>for the purported date or not.

I understand from the book that that time is much closer now than it
has ever been.


>
>If there was no clear vote on this, then for all practical purposes the
>stone would be useless. It could still have been inscribed and set up in
>medieval times, but there would have been nothing left from the medieval
>working, to connect it to those artefacts that can be proven to be medieval
>in origin.

If the KRS became accepted it might cause the cases of some of the
other similar artifacts in North America to be reconsidered.

Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 3:29:17 PM2/2/06
to
Eric Stevens wrote: ban4u1dfj58bgtefg...@4ax.com,

> The stone was completely buried when it was found and there is no way
> of knowing how long it had been in that state.
> If the stone was ever erected upright, it would only have been
> for part of its total life since carving.

If there is no difference in weathering
then it never stood upright, or only for
a very short time.

> I suspect that the rate of weathering is so slow that
> it will be difficult to detect a difference between that part which
> spent some of its life above ground and that which had spent all of
> its life below ground.

[...]

But despite of that, you also suspect that the
weathering /can/ be used to date the stone?

Eric Stevens

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 4:12:01 PM2/2/06
to
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:29:17 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote: ban4u1dfj58bgtefg...@4ax.com,
>
>> The stone was completely buried when it was found and there is no way
>> of knowing how long it had been in that state.
>> If the stone was ever erected upright, it would only have been
>> for part of its total life since carving.
>
>If there is no difference in weathering
>then it never stood upright, or only for
>a very short time.

There probably would be a difference in weathering but the question is
whether or not it would be detectable.


>
>> I suspect that the rate of weathering is so slow that
>> it will be difficult to detect a difference between that part which
>> spent some of its life above ground and that which had spent all of
>> its life below ground.
>[...]
>
>But despite of that, you also suspect that the
>weathering /can/ be used to date the stone?

I wouldn't accept a claim that the weathering had been used to date
stone in the sense that a particular date had been ascribed to it. I
do accept the general argument used by Wolter that the KRS is so much
more weathered than the tombstones that it clearly is older than they
are. I think he is being conservative in not claiming that it is
'much' older. The question is, how much is 'much'?

Eric Stevens

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 9:53:40 PM2/2/06
to

Wolter is not an academic. He is a practicing geologist with a
very good reputation, and to my knowledge produces an excellent
product for his clients.

I do not disrespect him. I think what he does is honorable and
useful, and I think he holds himself to a very high standard.

I don't think he is an academic; but that only goes to what his
experience is wrt peer review.

> When you write within or under text without writing a correction or
> protesting this juridical means that you don't object. Since you don't
> object to the lines where this false information is feed, then you yourself
> have written under same false information!

No.

> Thus you continue to present false information in your own 'answer' to my
> posting!

According to you, you just agreed with everything I wrote, and
everything Peter wrote. This makes you what you call us, but
twice as much.

Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 3:00:39 AM2/3/06
to

Tom McDonald wrote:
>
[..]

> It
> is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
> competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
> is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
> to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.
>
> However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
> evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
> could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
> Mather, of course).

Talk about preparing to prop up the pre-Columbian brick wall again!!
First sling baseless shit at Wolter personally (he doesn't know
competent people to review his work) and label 8 personas as
"INCOMPETENT" - then resort to a weak counter, in much lesser strength
than the shit slinging and TOM talks about "professionalism" - but he
doesn't resort to the same himself!

As he belatedly states "I don't think there is evidence of any of that
in this case" - then WHY make the totally baseless allegations in the
first place? It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers of
his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's odious implied
"Nazi supporter" view and like madness Tom has previously supported!


[..]

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

Alan Crozier

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 3:12:32 AM2/3/06
to
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote in message
news:43E30D54...@not.com.au...

Seppo, you yourself have made a baseless (and pretty base)
allegation against the authors of the book. To refresh your
memory:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/d73391bc9b3c011d?hl=en

Here you allege that the bits about the Templar code were
included as an economic consideration, "an aid to sell the
book".

I think that Tom has said much nicer things about Scott Wolter
than this low accusation of yours, which can only sow seeds of
doubt.

Alan

--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden

Hayabusa

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 5:59:08 PM2/3/06
to
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:00:39 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
wrote:

>As he belatedly states "I don't think there is evidence of any of that
>in this case" - then WHY make the totally baseless allegations in the
>first place? It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers of
>his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's odious implied
>"Nazi supporter" view and like madness Tom has previously supported!

Seppo, if you want to achieve anything, don't make such statements. I
don't know Tom that much, but I do know Doug from 10 years ago, and
there's a reason why I trust him.

fkoe

Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 6:50:13 PM2/3/06
to

....and if you recall I also drew an distinct line between the finding
of fact part (the major portion of the book) compared to the kite
flying/theorising on a MINOR part of the book. One part has little to
do with the other part. I have ALSO stated the finding of fact is NOT
diminished in any way by the theorising - and indeed, I still hold the
view that it was an aid to sell the book. Many people would also like
to know the "how" and the "why" - even if it is only theorising as
seen from this group alone. It IS an aid to selling the book - it
broadens the appeal. I see noting derogatory of the authors of the
book in those statements. I see it as IMPOSSIBLE to even arrive at
such conclusions logically!

I have also stated that the postulations about the Templar etc WILL be
used by some less than capable thinkers to allege the stone is fake -
eg se Deitiker's post confusing fact with theory, in this thread:

<XroEf.297$fM1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>



> I think that Tom has said much nicer things about Scott Wolter
> than this low accusation of yours, which can only sow seeds of
> doubt.

I see..... so you claim, stating a deliberate conspiracy by Wolter and
Nielsen to get favourable reviews dishonestly, that 8 peer reviewers
were "incompetent", is reasonable and "said much nicer things about
Scott Wolter"!

That compared to stating the 40 pages of postulation cannot be used
refute the findings of fact in the remainder of the book - you declare
as "low accusations" and the allegations of dishonesty levelled by Tom
are "nice things"! I think your sense of VALUES is arse about face,
big time. The only way you possibly COULD arrive at that "conclusion"
is via an illogical belief that the postulations are facts and the
fact are sheer fantasy!

Recall I also took issue with your FOCUS on the "Templars" portion
while you all but ignored the REAL IMPORTANT part of the book - the
findings of fact, the major portion. It does suggest YOU are also
falling foul of the problem, not being able to separate findings of
fact from postulation of possibilities that CANNOT be used to refute
ANY of the findings of fact.

If I was to really critisise Scott Wolter, would be to say it was an
error of judgement to include that portion of Templars etc in the book
- but then that criticism has already been implied by both me and
others.

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 7:04:09 PM2/3/06
to

"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:43E3EBE2...@not.com.au...

Seppo,
I am not sure that it was an error of judgement to include the Templars part
but to include it without presenting all the documentation that is to prove
it. And belive me it's much more than artifacts to prove it. But to come
closer to the secret text, which as stated were used elsewhere, and the
Templars one has to have more than good knowledge of the Swedish History and
have read a numerous amount of documents in Latin dealing with this
comparing it with information you can gain from the Ortodox Russian church
and elsewhere some of it you can have information from via the Tartars as
well as the Khazars...... it's a hugh field needed to be explained to
present the Templar part. It would have been better to wait with what those
who aren't familiar with all this will look upon as speculations.

Inger E

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 7:17:46 PM2/3/06
to

"Hayabusa" <pere...@t-online.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:h7m7u1t2i6didq2r7...@4ax.com...

There is a reason why many more than Seppo and me(Inger) don't trust Doug at
all. That reason comes from the simple fact that Doug never ever been able
to present any valid information in the Kensington Runestone case as well as
in any other case where Scandinavians in NA pre-Columbus outside L'anse
Meadows been on the agenda. It's a hugh mistake to lean to Birgitta Wallace.
Not only has she presented false information, misinterpreted and such as
well, but if she has a degree at all in Scandinavian History, she didn't
take that when studying here in Gothenburg before she left for Newfoundland.
She managed to write an acceptable article in an Danish work the other year.
Acceptable but not completely correct there either. She done a good work in
Newfoundland, but she is by no means an expert or scholar of Scandinavian
History. Thus it's outridges to put her assumptions forward at all in the
Kensington Runestone case.

Inger E


Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 12:07:33 AM2/4/06
to
Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> [..]

Let's see what that [...] contained before it was wrested from
its context by Septic:

"It is useful to use peer reviewed journal articles. However,
that process is not the only way to knock the rough edges off of
a professional study, or to point out problems with the work."

These two sentences begin the paragraph that the following
completes:

>>It
>>is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
>>competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
>>is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
>>to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.
>>
>> However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
>>evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
>>could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
>>Mather, of course).
>
>
> Talk about preparing to prop up the pre-Columbian brick wall again!!

Support your accusations against me, or STFU.

> First sling baseless shit at Wolter personally (he doesn't know
> competent people to review his work)

Didn't do that. Check.

> and label 8 personas as
> "INCOMPETENT"

Didn't do that. Check.

> - then resort to a weak counter, in much lesser strength
> than the shit slinging

Didn't do that. Check.

> and TOM talks about "professionalism"

Did do that. Septic got one right.

> - but he
> doesn't resort to the same himself!

Didn't do that. Check.

> As he belatedly states "I don't think there is evidence of any of that
> in this case" -

Didn't do this belatedly (as it still is not possible for more
than one thing to occupy the same screen space at the same
time--and be legible, anyway), but at precisely the correct
place--*after* the hypotheticals to the alternative. Check.

> then WHY make the totally baseless allegations in the
> first place? It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers of
> his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's odious implied
> "Nazi supporter" view and like madness Tom has previously supported!

Didn't do that. Check.

So, of the seven possible places for Septic to misrepresent my
post, he did in fact misrepresent me six times.

I have been entirely up-front about my views of Wolter and
Nielsen's book. In addition, I have expressed my interest in
seeing that it gets a fair hearing, and useful feedback, in this ng.

I may not have said it before, but I will say it now:

I want W&N's book to get the attention it deserves, to test
possible problems with it, and most especially to get useful
input from intelligent and trained people who can point out
deficiencies in the work so that W&N can correct them.

This work has the potential to advance the knowledge of the KRS
issue more than any other work, IMHO. Whether this turns out to
support its authenticity or the reverse, knowledge will have been
advanced IFF the result of the 'sifting and winnowing' is a body
of tested information that can be generally relied on in the
wider discussion.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 12:13:04 AM2/4/06
to

I wonder whether anyone can point me to peer reviewed work by
Birgitta Wallace relating to the KRS, or associated studies in
the region? I have heard complaints against Wallace in this
regard, but I will not accept assertions by Inger as evidence
without reading the original peer reviewed work.

As for Inger's attack on Doug, well she has long maintained that
it takes one to know one. 'Nuff said.

Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 10:18:40 PM2/3/06
to

Doug Weller wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:33:20 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
> <inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> >since when do you deny having written UNDER Tom's text "Wolter isn't an
> >academic,.." without protesting to it?
> >When you write within or under text without writing a correction or
> >protesting this juridical means that you don't object. Since you don't
> >object to the lines where this false information is feed, then you yourself
> >have written under same false information!
>
> I can point out examples of posts where you have written text under
> Seppo's libels of me and others without correcting them.

Is it any wonder Douggie attracts a convicted criminal and stalker to
"advise" him, like one of his own kind! The puppy farmer is a habitual
LIAR - this is another such instance - I have NOT libelled the puppy
farmer (which is not a "libel" contrary to what the silly old fart
thinks) at all.

Further more the poor bastard doesn't even understand English.
"Written UNDER Tom's text" (and then quoting what that person wrote
UNDER Tom's text) DOES NOT mean that TOM wrote it, as the senile old
fart alleges. In the puppy farmer's rush to vilify Inger once again,
it ends up accusing it's own puppy TOM, of defamation!

> That of course
> makes you a party to them according to your lights and is surely a
> criminal act in Sweden, right?

Only, the real point here is that we see Douggie DEFEND the defamation
of Scott Wolter (and falling foul of his own allegations by including
it in the post) - and this is NOT the first such instance Douggie has
been involved in - after all HE, Douggie, has implied that Wolter is a
"nazi sympathiser" in the past!! This IS what Douggie does in order to
preserve the dogma and the pre-Columbian brick wall!

Of course simultaneously we see Douggie's puppy, Tom, jump in, yapping
to DEFEND the defamation and add to it - no doubt to protect its
"master". Oh and this is AFTER Inger has posted the following, but
secretly deleted by both the puppy farmer and its puppy in their
replies:

[restore Inger's text]
Wolter's merits:
"Bachelor Degree - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1982
Honorary Masters - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1987"

"Professional Geologist (PG), MN Registration #30024
Certified Professional Geologist (CPG), Certification #8260"

above as a lot more you can read about in:
http://www.aipgmn.org/wolter_bio.htm
[end restore]

In this post we have again seen the "whatever it takes" attitude once
more, but how the hell do either expect to be taken seriously when
they resort to downright dishonest tactics such as those seen above!

t(nospam)kavanagh

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 10:57:51 PM2/3/06
to

Do you have access to JSTOR? If so, do a search on "Birgitta Wallace". A
number of hits show up re Norse in America but none apparently directly
on
the KRS.

That is, Wallace has apparently never written specifically on the KRS.
Rather,
she has apparently been somewhat conservative in her connection of Norse
and
North America; that seems to be Inger's problem.

Thus, Inger's connection of Wallace and the KRS is itself "outridges"
(snort, snicker).

tk

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 12:18:49 AM2/4/06
to
Seppo,
I don't like the way you express yourself,
but you are correct. What Doug and Tom using others to lean to tried to do
more than once is defamation of Wolter by presenting false information.
Contrary to Doug and Tom Wolter are a scholar in the subject geology.
Contrary to them Wolter is an Academic scholar in the subject which in
almost all countries belong to the natural science field. According to some
of the people here the natural science field's results are stronger in every
other case but KRS than the humaniora science field.

And you are correct.
I have written following before text deleted by them and I write it again:


Wolter's merits:
"Bachelor Degree - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1982
Honorary Masters - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1987"

"Professional Geologist (PG), MN Registration #30024
Certified Professional Geologist (CPG), Certification #8260"

above as a lot more you can read about in:
http://www.aipgmn.org/wolter_bio.htm

It's incredible that anyone tries to put forward false information about
Wolter leaning to someone who definitely hasn't his Academic and Scientific
meriths in any of the fields where KRS can, could, should and has been up
for discussion!

Inger E


"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet

news:43E41C9B...@not.com.au...

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 2:23:39 AM2/4/06
to

I don't have access to JSTOR, although I may be able to finagle
access if the local university has it.

I have access to EBSCOhost through my public library, but a
quick search found only Wallace's 1998 review of Seaver's _The
Frozen Echo_.

>
> That is, Wallace has apparently never written specifically on
> the KRS.

She has written about the rock, but apparently not for peer review.

> Rather, she has apparently been somewhat conservative
> in her connection of Norse and North America; that seems to be
> Inger's problem.
>
> Thus, Inger's connection of Wallace and the KRS is itself
> "outridges" (snort, snicker).

Not entirely; but that's apparently true wrt peer reviewed
papers. Makes me think that her (Wallace's) pronouncements on the
KRS may not have had the critique that would have made them more
reliable.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 3:00:00 AM2/4/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote:
> Seppo, I don't like the way you express yourself, but you are
> correct.

No, he is not. Yes, you are as complicit in slander and other
abuse as anyone else who writes their 'lines' under such abuse.

But please, go on to explain what in Seppo's way of expressing
himself gives you discomfort? Help him become a mensch.

> What Doug and Tom using others to lean to tried to do
> more than once is defamation of Wolter by presenting false
> information. Contrary to Doug and Tom Wolter are a scholar in
> the subject geology. Contrary to them Wolter is an Academic
> scholar in the subject which in almost all countries belong to
> the natural science field. According to some of the people
> here the natural science field's results are stronger in every
> other case but KRS than the humaniora science field.
>
> And you are correct. I have written following before text
> deleted by them

Peter deleted it. I wasn't replying to that part, and neither
was Doug.

For clarity, Inger defames me with false information. I have the
highest regard for Wolter. I am adequately familiar with his CV,
and do not require a woman from Sweden (or anywhere else) to
provide a partial version of it to impress upon me his
professionalism.

And Inger is wrong, at least as far as the term 'academic' is
used in my world. An academic is one who teaches and does
research in a university or institute-level institution.
Wolter is a working man, using his training, experience and
intelligence, along with continuing education, to offer services
for sale to clients who need those services. I know he has done
research, and that, too, is part of a professional working man's
life if he has the slightest curiosity about what he does for a
living.

That said, the type of peer review one gets as an academic who
is required to publish in peer reviewed venues is not the same as
that someone in Wolter's position gets, in general, when s/he
does his/her daily work.

This is not a criticism of Wolter; quite the reverse. It is
clear-cut when an academic gets published in a peer reviewed
journal. Everyone who reads it knows that it has been checked and
re-checked for a variety of possible faux pas, and has survived
the process.

However, with someone writing a report that was later included
in a book, it is not necessarily clear that the work has been
checked for accuracy, precision and logical consistency. That
Wolter did in fact take the trouble to have his work reviewed by,
among others, relevant academics suggests something very good
about his character and his motives.

I think Inger believes that only academics should be trusted in
important technical matters. This is an insult to non-academics
who do excellent technical work, and who go through other, more
difficult channels to gain the feedback that gives their work an
extra measure of utility.

> and I write it again: Wolter's merits: "Bachelor Degree -
> Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1982 Honorary
> Masters - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1987"
>
> "Professional Geologist (PG), MN Registration #30024 Certified
> Professional Geologist (CPG), Certification #8260"
>
> above as a lot more you can read about in:
> http://www.aipgmn.org/wolter_bio.htm
>
> It's incredible that anyone tries to put forward false
> information about Wolter leaning to someone who definitely
> hasn't his Academic and Scientific meriths in any of the
> fields where KRS can, could, should and has been up for
> discussion!

Good job I didn't do so, then.

But Inger, why do you look down your long noses on your high
horse? Why do you not use evidence, and valid
argument/counterargument to make your case? You are not acting
like a scholar.

No matter. Not everyone has the advantage of having finished
graduate school and having their master's paper accepted. Sad.

Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 1:49:38 AM2/4/06
to
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 05:18:49 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
<inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:

>Seppo,
>I don't like the way you express yourself,
>but you are correct. What Doug and Tom using others to lean to tried to do
>more than once is defamation of Wolter by presenting false information.
>Contrary to Doug and Tom Wolter are a scholar in the subject geology.

Excuse me? Where do I come in on this? I may well have forgotten something
I wrote, but exactly what did I say or are you just bringing me in for
casual abuse. I see you have also reposted Seppo's lies, and reposting
surely means you approve of them.

>Contrary to them Wolter is an Academic scholar in the subject which in
>almost all countries belong to the natural science field. According to some
>of the people here the natural science field's results are stronger in every
>other case but KRS than the humaniora science field.

Since you have brought my name in I will comment on this claim. In English
speaking countries an 'Academic' is someone who teaches at a university. I
don't think Wolter would claim to be an academic. Exactly why do you give
him this status?

He is clearly an expert petrographer, I would never deny this.

You are claiming that I have put forward false information about him. This
is abuse and illegal under Swedish law, which makes your posts criminal
according to your standards I believe.

And I'm not going to go back through past posts, but what exactly did Tom
say that was false?

Doug

Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 1:57:08 AM2/4/06
to
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:00:00 -0800, in sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald
wrote:

>Inger E.Johansson wrote:
>> Seppo, I don't like the way you express yourself, but you are
>> correct.
>
> No, he is not. Yes, you are as complicit in slander and other
>abuse as anyone else who writes their 'lines' under such abuse.

I missed that. So, she also claims I'm a puppy farmer. This is clearly
libel (not slander, Tom, as it is written it's libel I believe).

[SNIP]

>
> For clarity, Inger defames me with false information. I have the
>highest regard for Wolter. I am adequately familiar with his CV,
>and do not require a woman from Sweden (or anywhere else) to
>provide a partial version of it to impress upon me his
>professionalism.

She has chosen to abuse both of us on the basis of things we haven't said/
:-)

> And Inger is wrong, at least as far as the term 'academic' is
>used in my world.
>An academic is one who teaches and does
>research in a university or institute-level institution.

True. Wolter isn't an academic. Inger isn't. I was an academic (of
course, not in archaeology or geology).

[SNIP]


>
> However, with someone writing a report that was later included
>in a book, it is not necessarily clear that the work has been
>checked for accuracy, precision and logical consistency. That
>Wolter did in fact take the trouble to have his work reviewed by,
>among others, relevant academics suggests something very good
>about his character and his motives.

Agreed.
[SNIP]


>
> No matter. Not everyone has the advantage of having finished
>graduate school and having their master's paper accepted. Sad.

Ah, good point, perhaps she is jealous of those of us have have achieved
this level. :-)

[SNIP Seppo's lies here]

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 2:03:55 AM2/4/06
to
Doug,
1A protocol: I returned your lines where you illegaly by taking away my
lines tried to make believe I had said what I didn't.
Protocol 1B: Do you deny that you and Tom put forward false information re.
Wolter's meriths?


Inger E
>


Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 2:57:55 AM2/4/06
to
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 07:03:55 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
<inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:

>Doug,
>1A protocol: I returned your lines where you illegaly by taking away my
>lines tried to make believe I had said what I didn't.

And now you've illegally deleted mine? Exactly what did I try to make
believe you said what you didn't say?

There are no such laws, by the way. If there were, most people posting on
Usenet would be in trouble and surely someone somewhere would have been
prosecuted.

>Protocol 1B: Do you deny that you and Tom put forward false information re.
>Wolter's meriths?

Yes. Maybe it's failing memory, but I don't think I did. Perhaps you
could refresh my memory with some quotes from me.

Doug

Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 3:01:55 AM2/4/06
to
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:17:46 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
<inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:

>
>"Hayabusa" <pere...@t-online.de> skrev i meddelandet
>news:h7m7u1t2i6didq2r7...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:00:39 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >As he belatedly states "I don't think there is evidence of any of that
>> >in this case" - then WHY make the totally baseless allegations in the
>> >first place? It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers of
>> >his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's odious implied
>> >"Nazi supporter" view and like madness Tom has previously supported!
>>
>> Seppo, if you want to achieve anything, don't make such statements. I
>> don't know Tom that much, but I do know Doug from 10 years ago, and
>> there's a reason why I trust him.
>>
>> fkoe
>
>There is a reason why many more than Seppo and me(Inger) don't trust Doug at
>all. That reason comes from the simple fact that Doug never ever been able
>to present any valid information in the Kensington Runestone case as well as
>in any other case where Scandinavians in NA pre-Columbus outside L'anse
>Meadows been on the agenda.

In other words, you don't trust me at all because I disagree with you and
have at times argued that you haven't been presenting valid information in
the KSR case or other cases where Scandinavians in NA pre-Columbus outside
L'Anse Meadows been on the agenda.

>It's a hugh mistake to lean to Birgitta Wallace.

So? I haven't done that.

I note once again you support Seppo's libels against me by posting under
them.

Doug

>Not only has she presented false information, misinterpreted and such as
>well, but if she has a degree at all in Scandinavian History, she didn't
>take that when studying here in Gothenburg before she left for Newfoundland.
>She managed to write an acceptable article in an Danish work the other year.
>Acceptable but not completely correct there either. She done a good work in
>Newfoundland, but she is by no means an expert or scholar of Scandinavian
>History. Thus it's outridges to put her assumptions forward at all in the
>Kensington Runestone case.
>
>Inger E
>

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 3:13:58 AM2/4/06
to
Sorry Doug,
when and if you learn what's legal and what's not legal at all, then you
might be worth a discussion.
As it is and this been shown and proven during the last year numerous times,
you belive that you have the right to spread rumors, false information,
accusations around. AND YES I CAN PROVE THIS. If I hadn't had my accident
30th October you would have known that I could because after presenting the
case on phone and in mail the Police asked me to come down and file a more
detailed complain. Now that couldn't be because I spent days in hospital and
couldn't travel by bus or car for a long time. So don't try what you seems
to be trying below, and especially not on me!

Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:6gn8u15fn0s0j752b...@4ax.com...

Eric Stevens

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 3:14:17 AM2/4/06
to

Her contribution on the KRS etc to the Smithsonian's 'Viking'
publication should never have survived a competent peer review.

Eric Stevens

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 3:19:15 AM2/4/06
to
Doug,
do you really deny that you leaned on B Wallace in the past? How about
looking around in the last five years discussions?

Inger E

"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet

news:fnn8u15iqs3hhhl8e...@4ax.com...

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 3:22:59 AM2/4/06
to

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:r4n8u11enqronaleq...@4ax.com...

Apart from that she was and is a good example of only one thing -
non-specialist scholars in the field they try to use against KRS. That's
probably why her contribution on the KRS etc to the Smithsonian's 'Viking'
publication looked as it did!

Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>


Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 4:22:49 AM2/4/06
to
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 08:13:58 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
<inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:

>Sorry Doug,
>when and if you learn what's legal and what's not legal at all, then you
>might be worth a discussion.
>As it is and this been shown and proven during the last year numerous times,
>you belive that you have the right to spread rumors, false information,
>accusations around. AND YES I CAN PROVE THIS. If I hadn't had my accident
>30th October you would have known that I could because after presenting the
>case on phone and in mail the Police asked me to come down and file a more
>detailed complain. Now that couldn't be because I spent days in hospital and
>couldn't travel by bus or car for a long time. So don't try what you seems
>to be trying below, and especially not on me!

I assume from your lack of response that you have no evidence that I put
forward false information about Wolter. What gives you the right to
spread false information around about me? You've also been spreading the
lie that I am a puppy farmer, remember.

If you can't provide evidence I've spread false information about Wolter,
that is clear proof you don't have it and you are falsely accusing me.

Doug

Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 4:24:38 AM2/4/06
to
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 08:19:15 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
<inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:

>Doug,
>do you really deny that you leaned on B Wallace in the past? How about
>looking around in the last five years discussions?

If you meant that far back, yes, I've quoted Wallace on some claims for
Scandinavian artefacts. I understood you to be tallking about recent
discussions. And I still don't think I quoted her on the KRS.

Doug

Alan Crozier

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 5:02:40 AM2/4/06
to
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote in message
news:43E3EBE2...@not.com.au...

You have repeated a lot of irrelevant verbiage here, presumably
as a smokescreen to avoid answering my charge against you,
namely:

that you have bad-mouthed Wolter and Nielsen more than Tom
McDonald has, by implying that they put in the Templar theory
solely for crass financial reasons, because they want to sell
more copies. Have you ever considered the possibility that they
sincerely believe they have come upon a secret code? Or don't
honest people exist in your mindset?

Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 5:47:38 AM2/4/06
to
Tom McDonald wrote: 6pXEf.298$bu...@fe04.lga,
> Inger E.Johansson wrote:

>> Seppo, I don't like the way you express yourself, but you are
>> correct.

> No, he is not. Yes, you are as complicit in slander and other
> abuse as anyone else who writes their 'lines' under such abuse.
>
> But please, go on to explain what in Seppo's way of expressing
> himself gives you discomfort? Help him become a mensch.
>
>> What Doug and Tom using others to lean to tried to do
>> more than once is defamation of Wolter by presenting false
>> information. Contrary to Doug and Tom Wolter are a scholar in
>> the subject geology. Contrary to them Wolter is an Academic
>> scholar in the subject which in almost all countries belong to
>> the natural science field. According to some of the people
>> here the natural science field's results are stronger in every
>> other case but KRS than the humaniora science field.
>>
>> And you are correct. I have written following before text
>> deleted by them
>
> Peter deleted it. I wasn't replying to that part, and neither
> was Doug.

Nor was I. It was completedly irrelevant.

>[...]
Also agreed with the rest

--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°


Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 6:12:10 AM2/4/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote: anZEf.155223$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net,


> Sorry Doug,
> when and if you learn what's legal and what's not legal at all, then
> you might be worth a discussion.
> As it is and this been shown and proven during the last year numerous
> times, you belive that you have the right to spread rumors, false
> information, accusations around. AND YES I CAN PROVE THIS. If I
> hadn't had my accident 30th October you would have known that I could
> because after presenting the case on phone and in mail the Police
> asked me to come down and file a more detailed complain. Now that
> couldn't be because I spent days in hospital and couldn't travel by
> bus or car for a long time. So don't try what you seems to be trying
> below, and especially not on me!
>
> Inger E

This again is a great one.
'I can't prove it to the police because I was two
days in hospital three month ago'

--
p.a.

Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 6:22:34 AM2/4/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote: DvZEf.155225$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net,
> "Eric Stevens" skrev

>> Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> t(nospam)kavanagh wrote:
>>>> Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>>> Inger E.Johansson wrote:
>>>>>> "Hayabusa" skrev
>>>>>>> Seppo Renfors wrote:

>>>>>>>> As he belatedly states "I don't think there is
>>>>>>>> evidence of any of that in this case" - then WHY make
>>>>>>>> the totally baseless allegations in the first place?
>>>>>>>> It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers
>>>>>>>> of his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's
>>>>>>>> odious implied "Nazi supporter" view and like madness
>>>>>>>> Tom has previously supported!

>>>>>>> Seppo, if you want to achieve anything, don't make such
>>>>>>> statements. I don't know Tom that much, but I do know
>>>>>>> Doug from 10 years ago, and there's a reason why I trust
>>>>>>> him.

>>>>>> There is a reason why many more than Seppo and me(Inger)

And you are a good example of a non-specialist
in every field except the fields boasting, lying and
insulting.

--
p.a.


Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 5, 2006, 8:46:32 PM2/5/06
to

Doug Weller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 05:18:49 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
> <inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> >Seppo,
> >I don't like the way you express yourself,

Ugly truths, stripped of all the niceties and expressed in their
nakedness for all to see can indeed be quite embarrassing to see, but
it doesn't change truth them.

> >but you are correct. What Doug and Tom using others to lean to tried to do
> >more than once is defamation of Wolter by presenting false information.
> >Contrary to Doug and Tom Wolter are a scholar in the subject geology.
>
> Excuse me?

No, and that was the point of my post!

> Where do I come in on this?

By taking my name in vain, and lying about me.

> I may well have forgotten something
> I wrote, but exactly what did I say or are you just bringing me in for
> casual abuse. I see you have also reposted Seppo's lies, and reposting
> surely means you approve of them.

Oh dear - that is more evidence of Doug Weller being a habitual liar
once more. He must also be a VERY slow learner - slow, because he
hasn't caught on to the fact *I* don't NEED to lie, unlike him!



> >Contrary to them Wolter is an Academic scholar in the subject which in
> >almost all countries belong to the natural science field. According to some
> >of the people here the natural science field's results are stronger in every
> >other case but KRS than the humaniora science field.
>
> Since you have brought my name in I will comment on this claim.

...and the resultant incompetence displayed in the language by Douggie
is quite hilarious in one way, but really sad at the same time! To
think a person who claims an "education" will be so poorly educated!
Then again, it could be his habitual lying that we see once more.....

> In English
> speaking countries an 'Academic' is someone who teaches at a university. I
> don't think Wolter would claim to be an academic.

Douggie's lies are quite academic, as he demonstrates his own
illiteracy by the above.

The term "academic" has a plethora of meanings - of which only ONE
(and not even the primary meaning) refers to a "teacher or scholar in
a university or institute of higher education." The most common
meaning simply relating to a person's higher education.

Of course "scholar" refers to a specialist in a particular branch of
study, not necessarily a teacher, as a further meaning it points to a
person who is highly educated or one who has an aptitude for study,
thereby eliminating "teacher" as the sole meaning claimed by the
Douggie.

Oh and if he starts pissing into people's pockets about "Academic"
spelled with "A", as opposed to "a", there IS NO SUCH DISTINCTION in
the English language!

> Exactly why do you give him this status?

...because he has earned it, maybe?? But why is it that Douggie would
DENY his academic status?

> He is clearly an expert petrographer, I would never deny this.

Oh but Douggie most definitely has when he runs a strong defence of
the false allegation: "Wolter isn't an academic,.."


>
> You are claiming that I have put forward false information about him.

Yep! I have seen lesser matters successfully litigated for defamation
than the denial of a person educational level.

> This
> is abuse and illegal under Swedish law, which makes your posts criminal
> according to your standards I believe.

....and if Douggie is of THAT opinion, the Douggie is HIMSELF a
"criminal" under the same Law! Why would he be stupid enough to commit
the same "crime" while accusing another of a being a "criminal" for
the very same reasons? The man is obviously a more than one slice
short of a full loaf!

> And I'm not going to go back through past posts, but what exactly did Tom
> say that was false?

The issue was (A) DOUGGIE falsely accusing TOM - (B) Douggie resorting
to libel (C) committing the "crime" he accuses another of committing!


>
> Doug
> >
> >And you are correct.
> >I have written following before text deleted by them and I write it again:
> >Wolter's merits:
> >"Bachelor Degree - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1982
> >Honorary Masters - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1987"
> >
> >"Professional Geologist (PG), MN Registration #30024
> >Certified Professional Geologist (CPG), Certification #8260"
> >
> >above as a lot more you can read about in:
> >http://www.aipgmn.org/wolter_bio.htm
> >
> >It's incredible that anyone tries to put forward false information about
> >Wolter leaning to someone who definitely hasn't his Academic and Scientific
> >meriths in any of the fields where KRS can, could, should and has been up
> >for discussion!
> >
> >Inger E

[not a single denial of allegations made of Douggie]

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 5, 2006, 11:05:30 PM2/5/06
to
Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> Doug Weller wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 05:18:49 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
>><inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Seppo,
>>>I don't like the way you express yourself,
>
>
> Ugly truths, stripped of all the niceties and expressed in their
> nakedness for all to see can indeed be quite embarrassing to see, but
> it doesn't change truth them.
>
>
>>>but you are correct. What Doug and Tom using others to lean to tried to do
>>>more than once is defamation of Wolter by presenting false information.
>>>Contrary to Doug and Tom Wolter are a scholar in the subject geology.
>>
>>Excuse me?
>
>
> No, and that was the point of my post!
>
>
>>Where do I come in on this?
>
>
> By taking my name in vain, and lying about me.
>
>
>>I may well have forgotten something
>>I wrote, but exactly what did I say or are you just bringing me in for
>>casual abuse. I see you have also reposted Seppo's lies, and reposting
>>surely means you approve of them.
>
>
> Oh dear - that is more evidence of Doug Weller being a habitual liar
> once more.

Septic will be once more be brought to the bar of the Department
of Redundancy Department yet again. And it slobbers that it can
correct others' use of the English language!

> He must also be a VERY slow learner - slow, because he

> hasn't caught on to the fact *I* don't NEED to lie....

No, Septic does not need to lie. He is an amateur here. He does
it for the love of the thing.

He clearly loves lying a great deal.

<snip>

Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 5, 2006, 10:55:11 PM2/5/06
to

Your "charge"..... Pffftttt.... I showed that it was a delusion and
unsustainable in a SANE word.

Further more I responded FULLY to your quite frankly INSANE allegation
- where, in your opinion, blatant defamation of numerous people, in
many ways, is OK, but realistic and relevant commentary on the book is
somehow less than honest - according to your warped view.

See my message:
news:43E3EBE2...@not.com.au

> namely:
>
[snip repetition of the same insane claims as previously]

I note that you do not deny that MY findings of your views are
correct.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 1:11:51 AM2/6/06
to

[restore quite accurate observations that Septic failed to address]:

"that you have bad-mouthed Wolter and Nielsen more than Tom
McDonald has, by implying that they put in the Templar theory
solely for crass financial reasons, because they want to sell
more copies. Have you ever considered the possibility that they
sincerely believe they have come upon a secret code? Or don't
honest people exist in your mindset?"

The correct answer to Alan's last question is, "No. The world is
populated by frauds and liars and temporary, limited allies. No
one is honest, except me, Seppo, the Knight Protector of All that
is True and Right and Just; wielding the Sword of Libel, and the
Shield of Dictionary to DiSPELL the HOrde of ThE EVIl
BastARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

>
> I note that you do not deny that MY findings of your views are
> correct.

To quote an eminent Knight KPoAtiTaRaJ who wtSoLatSoDtDtHoTEB:

Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 5, 2006, 11:27:50 PM2/5/06
to

"Inger E.Johansson" wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet

> Seppo,
> I am not sure that it was an error of judgement to include the Templars part
> but to include it without presenting all the documentation that is to prove
> it.

The postulation and theorising may well be "of interest" to some
readers who may like the some "explanation" of how the KRS came to be
where it is. It has no more support than the Da Vinci Code has, and
may well hitch ride on the popularity of that book.

However, the less than scrupulous WILL use it to tarnish all other
findings of fact. The evidence is in the commentary in reply to me by
Alan Crozier. Tom's defamatory comments, Deitker's use of that part to
smear the findings of fact by Nilsen and Wolter, just to start with.
Yes it was a mistake to include what amounts to little else than
fiction at present at least.

> And belive me it's much more than artifacts to prove it. But to come
> closer to the secret text, which as stated were used elsewhere, and the
> Templars one has to have more than good knowledge of the Swedish History and
> have read a numerous amount of documents in Latin dealing with this
> comparing it with information you can gain from the Ortodox Russian church
> and elsewhere some of it you can have information from via the Tartars as
> well as the Khazars...... it's a hugh field needed to be explained to
> present the Templar part. It would have been better to wait with what those
> who aren't familiar with all this will look upon as speculations.

First of all I'm not convinced there ever was any "secret text/code"
by the Templars. Sure there were secret rituals, but then that isn't
unusual for certain organisations/religions. Sure there is a lot of
OPINION that there was such - but then you will find "secret messages"
in almost anything from alphabet noodle soup to Leonardo Da Vinci's
paintings. I know of no hard evidence that there actually IS any such
"code" - many can no doubt, conveniently argue that this, that and
something else, is "code" for whatever they wish to say it represents.

The more something relies on "secrets", "code"", conspiracies and
unrealistic intrigue, the LESS likely it is to be true.

Tony Smith

unread,
Feb 5, 2006, 11:43:40 PM2/5/06
to
Tom McDonald wrote:

>
> [restore quite accurate observations that Septic failed to address]:
>
> "that you have bad-mouthed Wolter and Nielsen more than Tom
> McDonald has, by implying that they put in the Templar theory
> solely for crass financial reasons, because they want to sell
> more copies. Have you ever considered the possibility that they
> sincerely believe they have come upon a secret code? Or don't
> honest people exist in your mindset?"
>
> The correct answer to Alan's last question is, "No. The world is
> populated by frauds and liars and temporary, limited allies. No one
> is honest, except me, Seppo, the Knight Protector of All that is True
> and Right and Just; wielding the Sword of Libel, and the Shield of
> Dictionary to DiSPELL the HOrde of ThE EVIl BastARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>
> >
> > I note that you do not deny that MY findings of your views are
> > correct.
>
> To quote an eminent Knight KPoAtiTaRaJ who wtSoLatSoDtDtHoTEB:
>
> "Pffftttt.... I showed that it was a delusion and unsustainable in a
> SANE word."


The views of the Resident Village Idiot, Seppo (the clown) Renfors can
be safely ignored.


Tony Smith

--

Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 1:20:35 AM2/6/06
to

Hayabusa wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:00:39 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
> wrote:
>

> >As he belatedly states "I don't think there is evidence of any of that
> >in this case" - then WHY make the totally baseless allegations in the
> >first place? It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers of
> >his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's odious implied
> >"Nazi supporter" view and like madness Tom has previously supported!
>

> Seppo, if you want to achieve anything, don't make such statements.

....and allow such rampant allegations be propagated unhindered? Why -
specially when there is no demonstrable truth in such?

> I
> don't know Tom that much, but I do know Doug from 10 years ago, and
> there's a reason why I trust him.

Oh. I "trust" him as well. I trust him to follow his standard routine
as observed - eg one such thing is resort to fabrications that I have
"libelled" him. BTW, much can change in 10 years.

Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 1:21:41 AM2/6/06
to

Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Inger E.Johansson wrote:

> > "Hayabusa" <pere...@t-online.de> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:h7m7u1t2i6didq2r7...@4ax.com...
> >

> >>On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:00:39 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>As he belatedly states "I don't think there is evidence of any of that
> >>>in this case" - then WHY make the totally baseless allegations in the
> >>>first place? It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers of
> >>>his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's odious implied
> >>>"Nazi supporter" view and like madness Tom has previously supported!
> >>

> >>Seppo, if you want to achieve anything, don't make such statements. I


> >>don't know Tom that much, but I do know Doug from 10 years ago, and
> >>there's a reason why I trust him.
> >>

> >>fkoe


> >
> >
> > There is a reason why many more than Seppo and me(Inger) don't trust Doug at
> > all. That reason comes from the simple fact that Doug never ever been able
> > to present any valid information in the Kensington Runestone case as well as
> > in any other case where Scandinavians in NA pre-Columbus outside L'anse
> > Meadows been on the agenda. It's a hugh mistake to lean to Birgitta Wallace.
> > Not only has she presented false information, misinterpreted and such as
> > well, but if she has a degree at all in Scandinavian History, she didn't
> > take that when studying here in Gothenburg before she left for Newfoundland.
> > She managed to write an acceptable article in an Danish work the other year.
> > Acceptable but not completely correct there either. She done a good work in
> > Newfoundland, but she is by no means an expert or scholar of Scandinavian
> > History. Thus it's outridges to put her assumptions forward at all in the
> > Kensington Runestone case.
>
> I wonder whether anyone can point me to peer reviewed work by
> Birgitta Wallace relating to the KRS, or associated studies in

> the region? I have heard complaints against Wallace in this
> regard, but I will not accept assertions by Inger as evidence
> without reading the original peer reviewed work.

Not only have you "heard", but I note that TWICE in the last few days,
you have posted criticism of her allegations regarding the KRS
yourself - her unsupported and fabricated claims made to discredit the
KRS and research by others.

> As for Inger's attack on Doug, well she has long maintained that
> it takes one to know one. 'Nuff said.

I see.... so Tom's "logic" here is - to know one has been hit in the
face with a clenched fist, first requires the hitting ANOTHER in the
face with a clenched fist....... well...... that IS Tom's so called
"logic" in that last part! Shhheeeeezzzz.........

Seppo Renfors

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 2:17:59 AM2/6/06
to

Doug Weller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 08:19:15 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
> <inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:
> >

[..]


>
> >Doug,
> >do you really deny that you leaned on B Wallace in the past? How about
> >looking around in the last five years discussions?
>
> If you meant that far back, yes, I've quoted Wallace on some claims for
> Scandinavian artefacts. I understood you to be tallking about recent
> discussions. And I still don't think I quoted her on the KRS.

Hmmm, I know he'll lean on "I didn't quote..", but by hell, he most
certainly has leant on her claims in the past - eg as seen in these
messages:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.archaeology/msg/a10cdb0f16ddfb44
"... my only source I have on hand is from Birgitta Wallace..."

Oh, the subject was "KRS: funding...?"

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.archaeology/msg/300c5138561d5ac9
"This is what Michael Zalar wrote, criticising Birgitta Wallace:"

Subject: "KRS in Sweden to 1/25/04" and is in direct relation to the
KRS.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.archaeology/msg/b41c08728e35fe6c

...and this is a direct response to a reference to Birgitta Wallace.
Further more it is so understood by other than myself:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.archaeology/msg/90461e16c1e37f8b

Oh, and if I recall the recent "interpretation" by Douggie, of the
meaning of "academic" (teacher in a university), then this passage
shows hoe dishonest that was considering his own use of the term:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.archaeology/msg/52151ddcc1c1c118
SIR wrote:
Doug, it is not more serious to question and doubt an academic as Eric
did, than it is of accusing Ohman of forgery. If fact I suggest it is
far more offensive to accuse a dead man who cannot defend themselves.
An academic has no special privileges at all in that respect - none
whatsoever.

Doug responded:
"I still don't see suggesting that Ohman perpetuated a hoax as being
that offensive. And he [Ohman] wasn't someone whose academic
statements we expect to be truthful."

Further "clarification" by Doug:
"I was just saying that there is a difference between accusing Ohman
of a practical joke and an academic of lying." - where "academic"
refer back to my quoted words and "academic" there is Birgitta Wallace
as defined by Doug and seen here - (his defence of her):

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.archaeology/msg/8acab8e8a004b734


So no we see how "conveniently" short Douggie's memory is..... oh,
there are a lot more of these out there, this is but a sample!

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 6:59:37 AM2/6/06
to
Seppo,
it's obvious that Doug either can't comprehend or haven't tried to look up
what Academic means.....

adj.
"5. Based on formal education."

n.
2. One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academic
http://www.answers.com/topic/academic


adj.
"2. scholarly: scholarly and intellectual"

noun
"2. scholarly person: somebody with a scholarly background or attitudes"
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/academic.html

So once again one thing is clear, not all English-speakers know their
first-language.

Inger E


"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet

news:43E6AA24...@not.com.au...

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 7:14:31 AM2/6/06
to

"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:43E6CFF2...@not.com.au...

Not only I but many scholars around the world disagrees with you. Contrary
to the Da Vinci Code there are hard evidence. Context and where-abouts known
since 14th century. That's not the question. Question is if that the
Templars DID bring with them to mid-NA were and are the real thing or not.
And it's not one item we are talking about. It's the full set.

As I told one of the other here in group privately I don't doubt that the
Templars might have believed it to be the genuine artifacts. But looking
back on 1100's astonishing speciality to produce bone-parts from Saints and
forged document proving that this or that origined from almost every
important religious person and/or Roman Emperor....

On the other hand when item(s) still have direct contact with 'the Holy
Spirit' and helps where nothing else helps....who knows.

Inger E

Inger E


Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 7:17:34 AM2/6/06
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:59:37 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger E.Johansson"
<inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:

>Seppo,


>it's obvious that Doug either can't comprehend or haven't tried to look up
>what Academic means.....

I assumed you meant more than that he had a degree. I was clearly wrong.


>
>adj.
>"5. Based on formal education."

Looking again, maybe you were trying to say that he is a scholar with a
formal education in his subject.

I guess I can understand someone for whom English is not their first
language saying this, but you still are pretending I said that he was not
an expert in geology. I never said that. I never denied he had a formal
background in the subject.

We agree then that he is not an academic, but that he has had an academic
education and is an expert in geology. So why are you abusing me and
putting words in my mouth I never said?

>
>n.
>2. One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academic
>http://www.answers.com/topic/academic
>
>
>adj.
>"2. scholarly: scholarly and intellectual"
>
>noun
>"2. scholarly person: somebody with a scholarly background or attitudes"
>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/academic.html
>
>So once again one thing is clear, not all English-speakers know their
>first-language.

If you use words in ways not normally used by English-speakers you are
going to continue to have this problem. I said he wasn't 'an academic'
and I am correct. As a noun, 'academic' has only one meaning in the Oxford
Dictionary of English.

Part of the problem is trying to translate what you write into normal
English. 'Academic scholar' is redundant in normal English unless you
think there can be non-academic scholars, ie scholars without academic
attitudes.

The bottom line is that I never said Wolter didn't know his subject
discipline, and that you are still supporting Seppo's abusive lines and
thus breaking Swedish law.

Doug

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 7:18:03 AM2/6/06
to
Seppo,
it's not use to explain to Tom that no matter if it's he or anyone else who
tried to spread insinuations regarding me or anyone else calling us racists
and or nationalists,
that is and always have been a criminal act to call someone that. I never
been racist nor a nationalist and that type of rumors that some here spread
around they better know that they are against the laws inside EU as well as
in US, Australia and many other countries.

Inger E


Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 7:45:13 AM2/6/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote: JSGFf.155383$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net,

> Seppo,
> it's obvious that Doug either can't comprehend or haven't tried to
> look up what Academic means.....
>
> adj.
> "5. Based on formal education."

> n.
> 2. One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academic
> http://www.answers.com/topic/academic

> adj.
> "2. scholarly: scholarly and intellectual"
>
> noun
> "2. scholarly person: somebody with a scholarly background or
> attitudes" http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/academic.html
>
> So once again one thing is clear, not all English-speakers know their
> first-language.
>
> Inger E
>

Doug wrote "In English speaking countries *an* 'Academic'


is someone who teaches at a university."

(my emphasis)
Therefore adjectives are not relevant here and you very
convieniently ommitted anything that doesn't suit you.


Form your own sources:
http://www.answers.com/topic/academic
Noun
1. A member of an institution of higher learning.


2. One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly
background.

Noun
scholar or university/college teacher

From wordNet (which is the moste authoritative)
The noun academic has one meaning:
Meaning #1: an educator who works at a college
or university
Synonyms: academician, faculty member

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academic
Noun 1. academic - an educator who works at a
college or university .


From my own directly available sources
apart from WordNet

From The Sage
Noun
An educator who works at a college or university.
> Synonym: academician, faculty member.
> Hypernym: educator, pedagogue.
> Hyponym: prof, professor.

From WordWeb
Noun
An educator who works at a college or university

So once again one thing is clear, not all 2L English-speakers
know their second language, and not all 2L English-speakers
have the modesty to accept that native English speakers
know better then them.
And some 2L English-speakers are even dishonest and try
everything to abuse their superiors.

Inger, you are a terrible.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 11:35:59 AM2/6/06
to

So...you don't know of any peer-reviewed work by Wallace on the KRS?

prd

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 9:41:57 AM2/6/06
to
In sci.archaeology message
news:kseeu11kgfrcsemk6...@4ax.com by Doug Weller
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> . . . :

> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:59:37 GMT, in sci.archaeology, "Inger
> E.Johansson" <inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>>Seppo,
>>it's obvious that Doug either can't comprehend or haven't tried
>>to look up what Academic means.....
>
> I assumed you meant more than that he had a degree. I was
> clearly wrong.
>>
>>adj.
>>"5. Based on formal education."
>
> Looking again, maybe you were trying to say that he is a scholar
> with a formal education in his subject.
>
> I guess I can understand someone for whom English is not their
> first language saying this, but you still are pretending I said
> that he was not an expert in geology. I never said that. I
> never denied he had a formal background in the subject.

Here they f-ing go again.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 11:46:07 AM2/6/06
to

Thanks, Peter (and Doug, in another post). This is exactly what
I meant when I first used it. That Septic and the Madam have been
using this to avoid looking at the issues surrounding how various
folks look at peer review is instructive. Do they really think
that only a university or institute-level educator can do work at
a high-quality level? It would seem so.

I have a great deal more respect for Wolter than that.

<snip>

Alan Crozier

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 10:06:29 AM2/6/06
to
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in
message news:iiJFf.132$U35...@fe02.lga...

... which is what I have been trying to say.

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 10:47:34 AM2/6/06
to
Peter,
you obviously don't understand in English speaking countries the definition
for 'Academic' isn't limited to a person working at a University, teacher or
not!

And the one who said that I was something is it himself!!
He who said it is it!

Inger


e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 11:00:32 AM2/6/06
to
Alan,
Tom and Peter deliberatly misinterpret and misunderstand what I wrote. First
of all Wolter and his work is Academic in every sence when testing of the
stone is at hand. And I never ever tried to make believe that only persons
with Academic meriths had skills.
On the contrary I several times written that the best Historian I ever met
or heard of was a look-keeper(in Trollhättan). There are numerous people
like him who hold up Academic standards, scholarly behavior and scholarly
validation to and of the material, documents, artifacts etc etc they are
doing research in,
BUT
and that's essential - neither of the above was the question when Doug and
Tom deliberatly tried to make believe that Wolter wasn't academic. Then I
showed that he had academic background. You had already in your review shown
that he held up academic standard in those part of his and Nielsen's book
where the analyse of the stone itself were at hand. Hadn't you.

What you don't know is that both persons before tried to make believe that a
Geologist, professor btw, wasn't up to Academic standard and merits

Inger E


Alan Crozier

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 11:04:23 AM2/6/06
to
"Inger E.Johansson" <inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote in
message news:AoKFf.43975$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...


You have misundertstood Tom.

Alan Crozier

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 11:04:23 AM2/6/06
to
"Inger E.Johansson" <inger e.joh...@telia.com> wrote in
message news:qcKFf.43974$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...

> Peter,
> you obviously don't understand in English speaking countries
the definition
> for 'Academic' isn't limited to a person working at a
University, teacher or
> not!

Yes, in English-speaking countries that's exactly what "an
academic" means. Peter is right.

In Sweden, on the other hand, "en akademiker" is anyone with a
university education, not necessarily working in academia.

I think you are letting your native Swedish influence your
interpretation of English.

> And the one who said that I was something is it himself!!
> He who said it is it!

Exactly

Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 11:56:30 AM2/6/06
to

No, it is not against the law to call someone a racist or a nationalist.
That would be a pretty stupid law.

We even have nationalist parties -- the ultra right BNP, the Scottish
National Party, etc.

Doug

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 12:14:49 PM2/6/06
to
Sorry Alan,
no matter that you are an linguist you are completely wrong here. Academic
in the phrase 'x isn't academic' (Please observe not 'x isn't an academic')
means exactly what I wrote.
In the sentence on which I protested 'Academic' wasn't a noun.

Inger E

"Alan Crozier" <name1...@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:bsKFf.43977$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...

e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 12:16:39 PM2/6/06
to
Alan,
no I didn't misunderstand Tom.
You are relatively new here. Same phrase been used against Wolter and other
geologist here before. One of those who same persons said wasn't academic
was btw a Prof emeritus specialist in the area.

Inger E


k.r....@east.uio.no

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 12:42:00 PM2/6/06
to

Inger E.Johansson wrote:
> Sorry Alan,
> no matter that you are an linguist you are completely wrong here. Academic
> in the phrase 'x isn't academic' (Please observe not 'x isn't an academic')
> means exactly what I wrote.
> In the sentence on which I protested 'Academic' wasn't a noun.

While commendably bottom-posting, you did not indicate the offending
sentence, but the only occurrence of the word "academic" in what you
quoted as offensive on Feb 2, at 12:13 pm, was

"Wolter isn't ***AN*** academic [...]"

(capitalisation etc. mine). I'd eat some humble pie if I were you.

Alan Crozier

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 1:26:13 PM2/6/06
to
<k.r....@east.uio.no> wrote in message
news:1139247720.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Inger E.Johansson wrote:
> > Sorry Alan,
> > no matter that you are an linguist you are completely wrong
here. Academic
> > in the phrase 'x isn't academic' (Please observe not 'x
isn't an academic')
> > means exactly what I wrote.
> > In the sentence on which I protested 'Academic' wasn't a
noun.

Not true. See below.

>
> While commendably bottom-posting, you did not indicate the
offending
> sentence, but the only occurrence of the word "academic" in
what you
> quoted as offensive on Feb 2, at 12:13 pm, was
>
> "Wolter isn't ***AN*** academic [...]"
>
> (capitalisation etc. mine). I'd eat some humble pie if I were
you.

Might be better to refer to the original post by Tom, so that
Inger can
see her mistake clearly:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/11813a212e873c82?hl=en&

As I read that, and if it hasn't been changed by Google's
archivist, Tom wrote "Wolter isn't an academic".

Inger wrote:
"In the sentence on which I protested 'Academic' wasn't a noun."

In Tom's phrase, "Wolter isn't an academic", the word "acadmeic"
is clearly a noun. The use of the indefinite article "an" shows
that it is a noun.

Inger correctly cited this nominal use in her protest against
Peter:
"since when do you deny having written UNDER Tom's text "Wolter
isn't an academic,.." without protesting to it?"

So I wasn't completely wrong here, as Inger says I was.

bogar...@uwlax.edu

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 1:30:30 PM2/6/06
to

And just to be *perfectly* clear:


Inger E.JohanssonFeb 2, 5:33 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: "Inger E.Johansson" <inger e.johans...@telia.com> - Find messages
by this author
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:33:20 GMT
Local: Thurs, Feb 2 2006 5:33 am
Subject: Re: Correct info re Wolter's academic merits! Re: Wolter on
peer review.
Reply |Reply to Author| Forward| Print| Individual Message| Show
original| Report Abuse

[snip]
Peter,


since when do you deny having written UNDER Tom's text

"Wolter isn't an academic,.." without protesting to it?

Now, *I* see the word "an" just before the word "academic",
and I think most people do. If Inger insists on removing the
word "an" from her own quote, she's (in her own mind) illegally
changing someone's wording, and the meaning of the original,
and she should turn herself in to the authorities. ;-)

(Why, I wonder, do conversations and discussions with Inger
so often result in these absurdly stupid attempts at re-defining
standard English to fit Inger's inadequate understandings?)

Ah! The answer is to be found in the question!)

Lloyd
*****

Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 1:49:34 PM2/6/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote:
>Peter Alaca wrote
[restored what Inger deleted]
>> Inger E.Johansson wrote:

>>> Seppo,
>>> it's obvious that Doug either can't comprehend or haven't tried to
>>> look up what Academic means.....
>>>
>>> adj.
>>> "5. Based on formal education."
>>
>>> n.
>>> 2. One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.
>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academic
>>> http://www.answers.com/topic/academic
>>
>>> adj.
>>> "2. scholarly: scholarly and intellectual"
>>>
>>> noun
>>> "2. scholarly person: somebody with a scholarly background or
>>> attitudes" http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/academic.html
>>>
>>> So once again one thing is clear, not all English-speakers know
>>> their
>>> first-language.
>>>
>>> Inger E

----------------------------------------------
>> Doug wrote "In English speaking countries an 'Academic'

----------------------------------------------

> Peter,
> you obviously don't understand in English speaking countries the
> definition for 'Academic' isn't limited to a person working at a
> University, teacher or not!

OK, I spell it out for you again

Nobody says that 'academic' is restricted to
*An educator who works at a college or university*
As an adjective it has different meanings.

" - Hypothetical or theoretical and not expected
to produce an immediate or practical result

- Marked by a narrow focus on or display of
learning especially its trivial aspects

- Associated with academia or an academy "
(Where 'academia' stands for the academic world)

But you still deny your mistake. The discussion was
about someone being an academic or not. Based
of his CV you said that he is an academic, which he
is not. Nothing wrong with him, a lot wrong with
you there, and not because you are no academic.

> And the one who said that I was something is it himself!!
> He who said it is it!
> Inger

It is becoming worse and worse with you.
I don't blame you for a mistake in a strange
language, but I blame you very much for your
behaviour. For the lies and for the manipulation
of facts. For your insults and for your haughtiness.
With thia behaviour you are asking for trouble.

But I pity you because your fraud is so in the open,
visible for the whole wide world.
Your behaviour is not only very unscholarly, you are
a very clumsy fraudster as well.

Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 2:09:00 PM2/6/06
to
Inger E.Johansson wrote: AoKFf.43975$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net,

Tom wrote on 02/02:
"Wolter isn't an academic, ...."

And you protested with

"Peter,
how long will you and Tom tell lies about Scott Wolter?
He has an academic background, and you can't have
missed that have you done the minor search needed to
have it confirmed! "
Followed by part of W's CV, which was irrelevant because
it was not part of the discussion.

So, in your lines above you are distorting the facts again.
For your own good: stop it.

Alan Crozier

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 2:24:54 PM2/6/06
to
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> wrote in message
news:43e79ed1$0$21855$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...

Peter, I think it was an innocent mistake. Inger must have
misread "Wolter isn't an academic" as "Wolter isn't academic".
It can happen easily enough.

Peter Alaca

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 2:42:30 PM2/6/06
to
Alan Crozier wrote: aoNFf.43994$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net,

> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>> Inger E.Johansson wrote:

Yes it can, but as you know, that is not the point.
She still blames others for the mistake, with the
usual fuss and insults, and not herself.
I have no problems admitting mistakes, but Inger
does.

I said it already in another recent post:


"I don't blame you for a mistake in a strange
language, but I blame you very much for your
behaviour."

--

Doug Weller

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 2:58:48 PM2/6/06
to

I would agree, except that as Lloyd points out, Inger actually wrote
"Peter,
since when do you deny having written UNDER Tom's text "Wolter isn't an
academic,.." without protesting to it? "

She hasn't just misread it, she's written it again. I think that the
suggestion that she is using a Swedish meaning for an English word is the
most likely explanation.

And she is accusing me of saying things I never said.

Ditto Tom.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 8:10:14 PM2/6/06
to

Yes, you did misunderstand me. If you have evidence that someone
here called a professor emeritus not an academic, you will of
course present it.

Now, do you have anything to say about whether the reviews
Wolter solicited from his peers and mentors was the equivalent of
the sort of peer review a journal article must pass to be
published in a peer reviewed journal? That's what the topic was
about before you and Seppo side-tracked it with your ignorance
and abuse.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 8:29:42 PM2/6/06
to

The worst of it is that this contretemps has distracted from the
discussion of what peer review means in in a setting where it is
not clearly defined, as it is in peer-reviewed journals, and
similar venues.

One of the slams against folks coming into highly polarized
topics, especially if there is evidence of shoddy work and/or
bias on one or both sides (or all sides, sometimes), is whether
what they have written could withstand the normal process of peer
review.

Peer review is an excellent sign that there is nothing obviously
wrong with the logic, presentation, etc. It's not proof against
the article being wrong in whole or part; and it's clearly not
proof against the article being the veriest crap. We've all seen
many examples of sorry, silly peer reviewed articles.

However, without that peer review, I shudder to think where we
would be today. It's an beginning point. It is not an end in itself.

So, can we discuss whether the peer review Wolter got, as he has
detailed, in the case of his geological work on the KRS, is
sufficient for the ante? I think it would be good to hash this
out, because it might help us judge other works which have not
had what we are used to as peer review, yet have been reviewed by
relevant peers.


t(nospam)kavanagh

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 11:50:14 PM2/6/06
to

Tom (et al):

In the above, I think your use of the phrase above "solicited from his
*peers* (my emphasis) and
mentors" is going to cause confusion with what
"peer review" does and does not comprise.

Therefore, I think we should once again remind ourselves of the steps in
the (dare I say it) "academic" journal/book
peer-review process.

That is (at least this is my experience; if someone
else has had a different experience in publishing in peer reviewed
journals, please let us know your experience) )-:

-you plan/draft a paper/book manuscript, trying your best
to keep your citations and references in order (there are lots of new
software programs which can help);

-you contact the editor of the relevant journal/manager of the press
asking if such a submission would be welcome
(cold submissions seldom are);

-if greeted with mild enthusiasm, you submit it.

-the editor sends it out to a number (how many depends) of peer (e.g.
knowledgeable) reviewers, selected by the press (by the press's
knowledge; you might be asked to suggest readers)) for their knowledge
of the subject at hand;

-The reviewers read the text. There is often a set form asking if the
work is a contribution, if there have been recent similar works, etc.
Reviewers then send their
reports back to the publisher, who, in turn, forwards the comments to
the authors, either for revision, or in the extreme, for rejection. One
of the questions on the reviewer's sheet is whether they want their
identities revealed to the authors. To my knowledge, most do (in one
case, I didn't).

-Reviewers can be as critical as they like, but they must
substantiate their criticisms.

-The publishers send the review on to the authors, sometimes with
suggestions.

-Authors can, and do, take exception to the reviewers, and
write back to the publisher with their own rebuttals; I
have. But they may also (as I have) take some comments to mind and
change the text.

Back and forth

Some disciplines/reviewers are harder than others. In spite of the
claims that anthropology is a "soft science", and in contrast to the
recent Korean 'stem cell' controversy in which _Science_ reviewers
apparently did not check references/data, I am a hard critic of
historical articles:
I do check archival citations [but then y'all on s-a know that anyway]
resulting in my rejection of a number of papers and monographs.

There is a qualitative and professional difference between (1) this
pre-publication peer-review process, initiated by a publisher, with
compensation to his knowledgeable reviewers to ensure the scholarly
quality of his publication,

and (2) an author passing around a draft manuscript amongst his
colleagues, who might include professor emerita.

The latter might help, but it won't, of itself, get it published, and it
ain't "peer review".

But then, Ms. Johansson should already know this: She has had so many
peer-reviewed articles published already, eh.

Now, going back to the top, and repeating,

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Now, do you have anything to say about whether the
> reviews Wolter solicited from his peers and mentors was
> the equivalent of the sort of peer review a journal
> article must pass to be published in a peer reviewed > journal?

I have above described two processes:

(1) strict peer review for a journal and/or monograph;
(2) passing a draft paper around one's "mentors"

What we apparently know is that Wolter may have have done the latter;

W&N certainly didn't do the former, or they wouldn't have placed the
Verendrye fils in Alberta.

tk

Daryl Krupa

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 11:56:48 PM2/6/06
to

Tom McDonald wrote:
><snip>

> So, can we discuss whether the peer review Wolter got, as he has
> detailed, in the case of his geological work on the KRS, is
> sufficient for the ante? I think it would be good to hash this
> out, because it might help us judge other works which have not
> had what we are used to as peer review, yet have been reviewed by
> relevant peers.

Has he provided sufficient detail?
He has not indicated that what has appeared in print under his name
was specifically submitted for review.
He has not indicated just what it was that was submitted.
Hypothetically speaking, if he had sent jpegs of microphotographs
that he had captured to the "reviewers", that might satisfy his
criteria
for "peer review", without their having seen his conclusions re:
specific
aspects of the physical character of the KRS, much less his conclusions

re: the relative weathering characteriestics of the KRS (upon which
I do not believe that any of the august personages listed would be
an expert).
So, what, exactly, was reviewed?
And how, exactly, are the named persons "peers" in the sense that
they are recognised authorities on a particular subject?

The definition of "peer review" that I would use has not, to my
awareness,
been satisfied, for Wolter's latest book.
Not least, his unsupported identification of all-but-one face of the
KRS
as being "glacial" obviates a supposition of effective peer review.

-
Daryl Krupa

Tedd Jacobs

unread,
Feb 7, 2006, 12:25:49 AM2/7/06
to
[top posted for brevity]

thanks tk.


"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote...

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages