Re: consensus KRS 23rd October

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:55:00 GMT, Seppo Renfors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>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"!

I should have written  'Date' perhaps but not necessarily the
'original date' of the inscription.
> 
>> 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.




Eric Stevens