Re: consensus KRS 23rd October

Eric Stevens wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:55:15 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> >> >You claim to have documents of white people living somewhere in that
> >> >area - well if they were settled there, then the text on the stone
> >> >itself is evidence AGAINST any of them being the authors of it. In any
> >> >event until you publish your reasoning, there exists no evidence for
> >> >other than the original date on the stone.
> >>
> >> 'Date' perhaps but not necessarily 'original date'.
> >
> >I hope you are not suggesting it has been altered.
> 
> Don't be daft.

There seems to be no other reason to object to the term "original"!
 
> 2005 BC
> 
> That date in this message does not mean that this message was typed in
> 2005 BC.
> 
> Similarly, anyone can carve '1362' into a rock but that does not mean
> that they did it in 1362.

"Original date" refers to the date originally carved into the rock,
that is as clear as a bell after all "the text on the stone" is n t
the same as "calendar", is it. Had I intended referring to a CALENDAR,
I would have been required to also state that before it could possibly
refer to a calendar.

-- 
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------