|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:17:15 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:kn7pm2l03vse6kciiujsrku89rr8rosbqh@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:17:03 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:lksnm21a7o2du0fkdnef2bpa78lsb13b9d@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On 27 Nov 2006 20:25:25 -0800, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:59:10 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> >This is nonsense Eric. If the tower is older then the
>>>>>> >17th century, there must be older remains to be found
>>>>>> >in an excavation, but they didn't. Therefore a garden
>>>>>> >area away from the tower is irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it's not nonsense and your conclusion that the area is a
>>>>>> garden is premature.
>>>>>
>>>>>See below.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If a team is going to carry out an archaeological examination of a
>>>>>> site one would expect that they would look where there were
>>>>>> indications of something to find.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is what they did. Folks have been yapping for years, decades,
>>>>>that the tower needs to be investigated to rule theory a or theory b or
>>>>>theory c in or out.
>>>>>
>>>>>That work is now done, and there is nothing about the tower to suggest
>>>>>that it pre-dates the Colonial period.
>>>>
>>>> Let's get this straight. An area outside the tower has been explored
>>>> with ground penetrating radar and tests of electrical conductivity
>>>> have been made. On the basis of the results the team have excavated
>>>> and found - the remains of 19th century paths. After consulting old
>>>> maps they have reached the conclusion that it is these old paths which
>>>> have been detected by their measurements.
>>>>
>>>> Now, what conclusions can you draw from that as to the builders of the
>>>> Newport Tower?
>>>
>>>Same old, same old. Now I can understand why it is better to be away from
>>>here than to be here....
>>>
>>>Well Eric, what conclusions can you draw if you one digs where you want
>>>them
>>>to, and finds "Norse remains"?
>>>
>>>My conclusion would be that "the Norse may have been here, or someone who
>>>had traded with them may have been here, or someone who had purchased
>>>Norse
>>>souvenirs may have been here." But if the first option, you can't
>>>necessarily tell whether for a day, a week, a month or a year. And more
>>>importantly, you can't tell whether or not the Norse, if they had been
>>>there, actually built the tower.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, if you want to know something about the tower, you
>>>examine, and excavate around, the tower. And amazingly, the Norse whom
>>>you
>>>propose may have been in the area where ground penetrating radar shows
>>>something you are hoping to receive for Christmas, somehow managed to
>>>leave
>>>nothing behind in the immediate vicinity of the tower.
>>>
>>
>> Same old, same old. Setting up straw men and knocking them down. Thank
>> you for demonstrating why it is better for you to be away from here
>> than to be here.
>
>Agreed. _You_ haven't changed one bit.
>>
>> You obviously haven't read much of the thread or you would have seen
>> where I wrote:
>
>You are assuming facts not in evidence, Eric. I've followed this, and other
>sci.arch threads, fairly closely in the recent 3-4 weeks.
>
>>
>> "I am quite specifically not arguing for the tower as being of Norse
>> construction and I for one would like the argument settled for
>> good. However leaving alone a longstanding conspicuous 'explore me'
>> cannot lead to finality."
>
>Yes it can, because for all of the reasons that I posted, finding anything
>in the nature of a "Norse artifact" away from the tower confirms nothing
>about whether they built the tower. Finding a "Norse artifact" associated
>with the tower, might well be another story.
>
>>
>> But, if excavation of the mysterious rectangular area should turn up
>> norse remains it may go part of the way to explaining the presence of
>> a stone bearing runes embedded in the upper levels of the tower.
>
>Or it might mean that the Norse were in the vicinity for about 15 minutes,
>and had nothing at all to do with your runes.
>
>I do agree with you, however, that for all of the reasons that I have not
>posted since they are personal to me, I do need to post as frequently as I
>have posted over the last 3-4 weeks. I'll try to adhere to that as closely
>as possible, but when you get to the point that you are posting whining
>drivel (as you have done in this thread; an example being what you quoted of
>your posts above), or simple-minded nonsense, it will be difficult to resist
>the urge to point that out.
... and Your Honour, that is the case for the prosecution. I know we
have not looked at all ofthe evidence but we didn't need to, we knew
he was guilty from the beginning. :-(
Eric Stevens
|
|