Subject:      KRS: Jan is proven wrong again
From:         yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1997/08/08
Message-ID:   <5sfhsf$c64$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,
			soc.culture.nordic,sci.skeptic


Jan.Bohme@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote on 1997/08/04 
in 5s4plv$48g$2@news.datakom.su.se:
> bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> >As far as Jan's "unanimity of Scandinavian runic experts contra the
> >authenticity", I can assure him that it exists only in his own seemingly
> >rather overheated imagination. I don't know why people sometimes wish to
> >distort reality where the truth is obviously otherwise... Jan's
> >credibility is the only victim of such self-evident attempts to forge a
> >fake "consensus". And then he has the nerve to chide you for not
> >respecting experts' opinions! Indeed...
>
> Could you then provide me with _one single instance_ of a Scandinavian
> scholar with a degree in nordic language history or runology who has
> ever even left open the possibility that the inscription be genuine?
>
> Yours, impatiently
>
> Jan Böhme

Yes, Jan, I know how impatient you are to see yourself PROVEN WRONG. Wait
no longer, my poor misguided friend...

This should put paid to more of your uninformed claims about Kensinton
Rune Stone (KRS). I hope at some point you will realize just how
wrongheaded you're being, and how ignorant you sound when you so
arrogantly pretend to pronounce opinions on the subject you apparently
know so little about.

Writing about Wahlgren, the main recent "debunker" of the KRS, Nilsestuen
(1994) says the following about this quite an unscrupulous character:

"In his reviews [of Hall:1982], Wahlgren did not discuss a single fact
regarding the linguistic and runic elements that Hall brought forth. He
ignored an impressive part of the professional community who have defended
Kensington, including [listen carefully, Jan!] the Swedish philologist and
lexicographer Hjalmar Lindroth, the Norwegian philologist Gustav Indrebo,
and William Thalbitzer of Copenhagen, who was an accomplished linguist,
and researched the Greenland runes, and was very familiar with medieval
Scandinavian languages. In addition, Professor of Old Icelandic Stefan
Einarson was very open-minded about the possibility that Kensington was
genuine" (p. 95)

So, Jan, how about admitting it when you're proven "ded" wrong? How about
swallowing your pride for once, eh?

In addition, I've found the following bibliographic reference:

Thalbitzer, William Carl, TWO RUNIC STONES, FROM GREENLAND AND MINNESOTA,
Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections 116/3. [A translation of
TO FJAERNE RUNESTENE FRA GRONLAND OG AMERIKA, Danske Studier, 1946-1947.]

In this runological study, Thalbitzer compared a west Greenlandic stone
with the KRS, and found significant resemblances between the two. Aware of
the controversies with the KRS, he preferred, in this article, not to take
a clear position in support of the KRS, but he leaves open the possibility
that it is genuine.

I hope that now you can see the error of your ways, Jan, and will admit
so in public...

Respectfully,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious editing
of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- [24]http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
   _________________________________________________________________


Click here to go one level up in the directory.