sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sailing round Greenland?

Subject: Re: Sailing round Greenland?
From: "Peter Alaca"
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:10:29 +0100
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
D. Patterson <proamer@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:

"Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4593d7a8$0$59324$dbd49001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
D. Patterson <proamer@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:

[...]

It took you eight days to get in this nasty mood and to find those
links? What a waste of time.
I am sure Erik has all the relevant links and publications in his
archive, as have I. So a simple question and a friendly attitude was
enough to get all you needed within the shortest if time. And btw, most of what
you found, and much more, is posted in this group before.

--
p.a.


Well, Peter, the readers can see for themselves that I tried the
"friendly attitude" with Erik in my first reposnes to his posts, only
to be treated very shabbily with a lot of lies and very shabby
innuendo from Erik ..

You are using the same wrong and insulting terminology as Inger.
Giving an opinion which is wrong, or at least an opinion you
perceive as wrong, is not telling lies.

... maligning my level of knowledge and understanding.
Having been to northern Greenland and seen the polynyas along the
northern coast of Greenland with my own eyes, it appears very
inappropriate of anyone to pretend they don't exist and try to
intimidate me with a lot of arrogant sounding lies about what I read
and understood on the NASA Website link or anywhere else. He was
given every fair opportunity to back off and and stop with the false
denials of the actual existence of those polynyas and the catty
remarks calculated to belittle and misrepresent my comments. If it
were true that the information I provided has all appeared here
before, which I am certain is untrue,

Thanks for calling /me/ a liar now.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote, and you didn't check.

then such would be all the more
reason to find that Erik was deliberately and willfully making false
statements to derail the discussion and mislead the readers.

Erik provided you with relevant links to publications,
but all you did was complaining. Remember?
No? Here it is:

   "As is so often the case, the tinyurl and pdf you provided
   as citations fail to load. Since you have failed to provide
   the name of the series for the volume and failed to
   indicate the particular text and/or images and their
   relevance to the discussion even if the volume could be
   found, your citations are meaningless and valueless to
   the discussion. They certaintly contribute nothing
   whatsoever to any claim by you in regard to such Norse
   journeys being "impossible" to accomplish."

And that was typical for your attitude right from the start.

I do not know why you find the eight days significant enough to make
a false and rather nasty comment about, but I'm sure the readers will
understand the priorities of the holidays preempted an immediate or
more timely reply.
What I find a waste of time is the necessity of correcting such
obvious disinformation

O, piss off with your "disinformation".

being disseminated by Erik, when we could all
be acknowledging the obvious existence of the polynyas and moving
forward with discussions of how the insufficient archeological
surveys in Northern Greenland may affect the current state of
research on interactions between the Norse, Dorset, and Thule
cultures in Northern Greenland. It's rather difficult to do so when
we have people like Erik being unable to acknowledge the nursery
school basics of a Norse presence in the High Arctic regions of
Canada and Northern Greenland.

Not only your vocabulary is like Ingers.

--
p.a.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>