doug weller

Kirsten has just emailed me with this link:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031129/COVINL29//?query=seaver

Doug

inger e johansson

Doug,
I disagree with Kirsten Seaver as so many times before. This time because
she hasn't done her homework regarding providency of the map,
apart from that Kirsten Seaver is a scholar of Humaniora and not in any
subject related to measurable value for example Chemistry etc. Her points
are weak very very weak no matter if the map is genuine or have been added
upon later on.

Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:1nq97ex4e5965$.cd1izhh61wnt.dlg@40tude.net...

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031129/COVINL2
9//?query=seaver

doug weller

And I am still waiting for your evidence for a providence pre-Nazi period
for the map.

[SNIP]

Doug

steve marcus

Ok, Inger, let's pin this down right now. Please note: A failure to
respond (and if necessary, I'll get someone else to repost this so that you
_will_ see it) will be an admission on your part that your post appearing
above is just so much hot air. A failure to respond with specific
references and sources (that means evidence, not your usual "some professor
told me that ...") will be an admission on your part that your post
appearing above is just so much hot air. Let's see if you can put any
evidence where your mouth is.

Which specific point(s) in the article linked by Doug, which reproduceds
Kristen Seaver's comments, is/are weak? And why?

Specifically:

1. On what basis do you contest this? "... the ink was carbon-based, and
utterly unlike the medieval iron-gall ink used elsewhere in the volume in
which the map had been found."

2. On what basis do you contest this? "When Ms. Olin claims that the lines
on the map got their black colour from iron-gall ink containing naturally
occurring anatase, she also overlooks the fact that anatase has been
reliably found on the map only in the yellow ink line that remains wherever
the black pigment has flaked and fallen off."

3. On what basis do you contest this? "The anatase in the ink's map is
nowhere associated with the black line, but only with the leftover yellow
one."

4. On what basis do you contest this? "The map's black pigment owes its
colour to carbon, not iron-gall."

5. Seaver claims that the watermarks on the paper used in the Tartar
Relation establish a date for the paper mill, which would correspond to a
15th century date, but that the Vinland Map isn't drawn on paper, but on
parchment. So, on what basis would you argue that the paper used in the
Tartar Relation establishes a date for the VM as a genuine artifact, but
that the fact that the ink used on the TR is totally different from that on
the VM does not argue against that date (and genuineness)?

6. As a bonus, please explain how it is, if you assume that the anatase on
the VM was either naturally or a result of the process of making the ink,
that anatase of _only_ the size and crystal regularity found on the VM to
the exclusion of anatase of larger crystal size and less regularity.

Here's the link to Seaver's comments: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031129/COVINL2
<snip Doug Weller's original post>

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

inger e johansson

Steve,
what ever you believe Kirsten Seaver's reputation for accuracy isn't
especially high in all corners among scholars here. Actually that's why I
first heard of her once because someone got real p... off when checking her
referenses against her 'sorted' quotations and assumptions.....

Pling plong dingelidong Good Night

Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:vqtyb.27007$Ac3.6355@lakeread01...

doug weller

This generalised smearing of Kirsten with no specifics is extremely rude,
Inger. Particularly from someone who won't even provide references to
check.


Doug

doug weller

Hi Steve


You listed 6 points, and she refused to answer, just replying with an
attempt to smear Kirsten without giving any specifics. I find this very
sad in some ways. And extremely irritating at the same time.

Doug

steve marcus

<Inger's rude, evasive post has been re-positioned to the bottom where it
belongs>


So Inger, you admit that you cannot refute anything that Seaver is quoted as
saying in this link (originally provided by Doug Weller):


http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031129/COVINL2

Well, there's a first. Inger admitting that she simply has no evidence at
all to put where her Big, Stupid Mouth is. Will she be ashamed of her
behavior, I wonder, perhaps even to the point of ceasing to post her
useless, invented nonsense which she cannot support with any evidence at
all? Nah ... Posting appears to be all that Inger has, even if she has
nothing of substance to say.


LOL. Is that some sort of magic Swedish incantation? Or is it simply the
sound of Inger tucking her tail between her legs as she trundles off to bed?

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

steve marcus

We, and by that I mean all who choose to tolerate Inger and grace her
nonsensical posts with replies, get what we deserve.

Inger belongs in the kill file with the other Trolls, unless one finds her
posts to be so humorous as to be entertaining. And if the latter, then she
either deserves no reply, or else the replies must be confined to inviting
her to supply specific answers to specific questions and to back those
answers up with specific citations. Her failure to do so will make her look
as silly as she really is, and will provide ample warning to those who might
otherwise consider that her posts have any merit at all.

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

michael kuettner

"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@notelia.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:skqyb.40073$dP1.150359@newsc.telia.net...

But who gives a **** about your worthless opinion, bonehead ?

See, K. Seaver knows what she's talking about while you can just
terrorize little children with religion, you "scholar" .

IOW, piss off.