Subject: KRS: Jan is proven wrong again From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) Date: 1997/08/08 Message-ID: <email@example.com> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org: > email@example.com (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=- 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.