Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what
he's talking about
Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2005−06/msg00564.html
• From: Eric Stevens
• Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:42:30 +1200
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:32:28 +0100, Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:01:57 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:16:55 +0100, Doug Weller
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Michael, if I've got you wrong here somehow, I apologise.
>>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:51:49 GMT, in sci.archaeology, IEJ wrote:
>>>
>>>>Philip and Doug are the ones who doesn't know what they are talking about.
>>>>No son of Ohman has said what they make believe he said. I take it that they
>>>>missed listen to the long radiointerview which at least a while ago still
>>>>was up to listen to. There are so many queer rumours spreading around.
>>>
>>>Well, this one doesn't come from me, it is Michael Zalar that you are
>>>saying doesn't know what he is talking about. Even with you problems with
>>>reading English you should have realised that −− here is what I wrote:
>>>"I am not advocating Ohman as a forger of the KRS, but the comment 'nor
>>>used to do any kind of stone work' must be wrong if Michael Zalar was
>>>right when he said "Arthur Ohman says that his father was
>>>never more than a fair stonemason"."
>>>
>>>Look again, maybe you will see that you are attacking Zalar, who is the
>>>source for that, not me.
>>
>>There seems to be some confusion here. AFAIK Zalar was perfectly
>>accurate in his quote of Arthur Ohman. What is being disputed by Inger
>>is whether or not Arthur Ohman was correct in what he said.
>
>No, Inger says 'no son of Ohman has said what they make believe he said'.
>
>First, it was Zalar who said it, not me. Either Inger just decided to
>abuse me or she is again having problems understanding English.
>
Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about 1
Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
>Secondly, she doesn't say that Ohman was wrong, she says, once again, 'no
>son of Ohman has said what they make believe he said'. That is accusing
>someone (she thought me, but Zalar) of making this up, in other words,
>lying.
>
>>
>>In fact, I suspect Arthur Ohman was correct over all but Inger is
>>correct if she is claiming that he was wrong as far as the time up to
>>the discovery of KRS is concerned. In other words, Olaf Ohman did not
>>work with stone and had no stone working tools until some time after
>>the KRS was discovered.
>
>She doesn't say Arthur Ohman was wrong, she says he didn't say that. Your
>interpretation may or may not be correct, we don't have enough evidence to
>be sure.
>
>>>>said earlier none of them has ever been able to correctly identify Ohman
>>>>here in Sweden, neither has most of the rest here, thus they haven't studied
>>>>the Churchbooks here. The occupation, were a person worked and which what,
>>>>reading and writing skill as well as a person's living and what he did in
>>>>the Army/Marine(also how well he did it), if he knew his Bible and Katekes
>>>>and many many other details are to be found in Churchbooks for every single
>>>>person here in Sweden. We also know well what Ohman did when he came to US
>>>>and all such. I suggest Philip and Doug to do their homework better.
>>>>
>>>You mean Michael Zalar, not me.
>>
>>
I've gone back and tried to unravel this thread. It hasn't helped that
one way or the other you have succeeded in starting a new one and
before that Inger first responded to what she saw as a wide range of
errors and then responded again to herself when she wrote the article
to which you have most recently responded. Nor does it help that Inger
has given no indication, neither quote nor header, of the article to
which she was responding.
I think you are quite right in that among other things she was
objecting to the quote from Arthur Ohman and I think she was wrong to
do so.
My understanding is that Arthur Ohman did make that statement (but
please don't ask me for the source) but that it referred to a period
later in the life of Olaf Ohman. I think Inger has since confirmed
this.
I wouldn't argue with what she generally said about Philip :−)
Eric Stevens
Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about 2
Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
.
• Follow−Ups:
♦ Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
◊ From: IEJ
• References:
♦ Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
◊ From: Doug Weller
♦ Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
◊ From: Eric Stevens
♦ Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
◊ From: Doug Weller
• Prev by Date: Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
• Next by Date: Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
• Previous by thread: Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
• Next by thread: Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about
• Index(es):
♦ Date
♦ Thread
Re: Inger says Michael Zalar doesn't know what he's talking about 3