Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)

Tom, no I am not abusing Floyd who have continued to abuse me from the first mail he sent in this question. I have the right to defend myself especially against abusers and stalkers who continue to spread false information and funny comments about me and my writings! Defending oneself is never a crime. Abusing is. Writing stalking comments as Floyd when asking why I sent the lines, most certainly is a grave abuse and a stalking of me as a person. . Did you really think that I hadn't the right to defend me when attacked?????

Inger E

Inger,

So by you it's OK to abuse Floyd by agreeing with Seppo's abuse?

Tom McDonald

you don't know? OH DEAR..... I suppose we have to opt for the last explanation of why you said it.

Nothing at all to do with "trade goods"!

You have to learn the language, you still demonstrate your inability to grasp it. SALVAGE is not "trade items" you know. Look it up in a dictionary.

No, but a knowledge and understanding of the language - that which I point to you lacking, a demonstrated by your deliberate and continuing misrepresentation of terminology!

So what the bloody hell did you INSIST it was? Was that just for the same of heaping shit on other people, hmmm?

Of course it does, go learn English!!

Go learn the language! How often does one have to say that before it sinks in? You attempting to justify your rubbish claims only puts your own credibility in question. The term "trade goods" has a VERY specific meaning and cannot be applied to salvage, or lost property which also have very specific meanings. If it wasn't so, then those terms wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. Stop trying to redefine the language.

It really is no point in dealing with the rest UNTIL you start using English properly - NOT with stacks of your personal private definitions.

[..]

snipped-for-privacy@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) says in news: snipped-for-privacy@barrow.com:

Not that you deserve a heads up floyd, but it is generally agreed that Seppo is killfile fodder, only those who have an insatiable need to argue with delusional moronic idiots respond to Seppo on a regular basis.

So where is your proof? You open your mouth wide, but can't back it up.

This is the LIE you have been pushing "skin boat" = "wooden boat" - boat building of wood is what YOU have claimed that was part of the Inuit industry for thousands of years - on GREENLAND!!

I have asked you to BACK UP YOUR CLAIM - but you cut and run instead of responding to that request.

Not with misrepresentation like the garbage below.

Note the wording; "not the large Greenland timber" - as at best Greenland has had stunted small trees very sparsely even then. In comparison the "driftwood" they must be something not much bigger than TWIGS! Note also the reference to "We had, of course, fire-wood enough" - THAT is your "drift wood"!!

You already tried to get away with the BOGUS article - one that does NOT deal (A) with boat building as you have claimed - (B) is NOT about the relevant time (C) proves NOTHING about timber on GREENLAND! It is BULLSHIT and totally DISHONEST of you to even pretend that crap has any application at all here.

Try this instead:

"...we suggest that these plant remains represent a pioneer vegetation entirely without woody plants."

Unless of course you refer to the "Giant Sequoia" of the Cenozoic era, of some sixty-five million years ago where evidence of them having existed on Greenland and Iceland exists......

See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME!

But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland" that has nothing to do with the article.

Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort at getting to Inger!!

[..]

Seppo,

Inger said that I 'abused' her when I replied to another poster who had somehow offended her; and that my 'abuse' of her consisted of my not berating him for his 'abuse' of her.

I then asked her if she would refrain from abusing others by berating *your* abuse of other posters when she replied to you. She didn't answer directly, but did answer indirectly. She replied to a post of yours which abused another poster without telling you to stop your abuse of the other poster. Therefore, she also abused him. By her own definition. She clearly does not believe that the rules she insists upon for others do not apply to her. The Teflon Swede?

You seem to be under the delusion that you get to judge whether your words are abusive or not. That's not the case, and you know it. You've made it abundantly clear that the writer's own meaning is irrelevant; it's the reader's reaction that determines whether abuse exists or not. I saw your post as abusive, and Inger did nothing to check your venom. Therefore she is guilty, and should be held to account.

This isn't my invention, Seppo. You and Inger have defined the playing field, and you have been found guilty of gratuitous abuse of others, both directly and, equally culpably, indirectly.

Stop abusing me and others.

Tom McDonald

Are you still being silly enough to claim there was no wood available to Greenland Inuit?

And what do you mean "where is your proof". I've posted enough proof of that to swamp *your* boat! (And have added it, with notations, to the end of this article too.)

Actually, for more than 1000 years and maybe for as much as 4000 years, on GREENLAND. (See repeated cite at the end of this article.)

What, where've I run to Seppo? I'm right here, and I'm ready to repeat it again and again if you need to see it again and again.

Ah, first hand accounts that there is indeed driftwood on the beaches of Greenland and was in times past, don't influence you?

What would? Just how thick skulled are you?

I'm sorry that English is so difficult for you. That is *not* saying that large timber were growing on Greenland. It merely says that on the ocean beaches of Greenland there were "large" timbers. If you had a clue about ocean currents, and took a look at a map to see the comparison between which areas the statement was referencing, it would be obvious why the difference existed as described. (And note that the same difference applies here at Barrow, where there is *significantly* less driftwood than on Greenland's shores, for identical reasons.)

Now now Seppo, just because you can't read English nor can you logically add two and two, that doesn't mean that the article is "BOGUS". The article is quite genuine. It proves that there was indeed wood available to Greenland Inuit. Logically if that was true in the early 1800's we /can/ assume that it has been true for several thousands of years. Or do you know of some change in the wind and ocean currents that would have made it different?

The only thing dishonest is your blind eyed refusal to learn from what has been handed to you.

So? You cannot stretch that into some kind of proof that there was no wood available for building boat frames. All it does suggest is that none of the available wood is likely to have actually been grown on Greenland itself... (And in fact I have previously cited references which specifically say that is not true either.)

Whatever, let me just repeat a bit of real proof that does indicate that Inuit people on Greenland did in fact make skin boat frames from driftwood, just as did Canadian, Alaskan, and Siberian Eskimos, many of whom lived where there were no trees growing.

Indeed, you do realize that there are no trees growing within a couple hundred miles of Barrow! Yet people here used wood for not only boat frames but also as structural parts of their houses, and for a variety of other uses (tools, sleds, etc.). (And yes we have excavations of 800 year old houses to prove it.)

Driftwood is *far* more scarce here than it is on the ocean shores of Greenland! That is a simple given, due to ocean currents.

Whatever, one more time, here are a few references for you to read. This time I've added emphasis so that you won't miss the important parts again. And I've put a few notes at various points too.

"The light, seaworthy kayak is a canoelike hunting boat made of a *wood frame* completely covered with sealskin except for a round center opening, where the single occupant sits. In *Greenland* and Alaska the skin around the hole can be laced tightly around the occupant, making the kayak virtually watertight. The umiak, a larger, open boat about 9 m (about 30 ft) long and 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, and made of a *wooden frame* covered with walrus skins ..."

Note that the differences between Greenland construction and other locations is specified, and does not include any statement that wood was not used there.

"Kayak A hunting boat used *throughout the Eskimo world*, covered with skin stretched over a light *wooden frame*, ... Umiak A large, open boat, about 10 metres long, covered with skins over a *wooden frame* and propelled by paddles."

All across Canada and Greenland, the specific places where you and Inger think there was no wood, it seems that they made wood framed skin boats...

"Umiak A large Eskimoan boat with a wooden frame, usually covered with walrus or bearded seals skins."

Again, note the definition from a Canadian source and that no exception is made to say that in some areas there was no wood available. In fact, there was wood available...

"Round-bottomed, flat-bottomed or V-hulled, like the *Greenland kayak*, all the boats Were *essentially the same*: a *wooden frame* entirely covered with sealskin except for a hole in the top of the center into which man fits like a cork into a bottle. The frame was made of *driftwood* or *thumb-thick dwarf willow* ?trunks?. In regions, where wood was extremely scarce, small pieces were scarfed and pegged together with simple stone or copper tools and infinite patience, and joints in most kayaks were strenghtened with bone or ivory gussets. The boat was cvered with the wet, shaved skin of seals."

A source that specifically discusses Greenland boats. Once again, it specifies wood frames as universal. They even go into detail about the use not only of driftwood, but also of the locally grown willow!

"July 18, 1940 We past Upernavich today and are going up the *Greenland* Coast ... Our Latitude is 74° 51' 30" Longitude (approx.) 58° 01' 15" ... July 20, 1940 The kayaks are made of sealskin pulled tight over bone and a *wood frame*."

Another observation that traditional Inuit skin boats were made with a wood frame.

"Origins of Sea Kayaking Greenland No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has existed for centuries among the Inuit people of Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...

Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?

4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)

Basic construction: Seal-skin over *drift-wood* Wood bent into shape after steaming over fire Joints lashed together with seal sinew Seams of seal skin sewn with seal sinew, and sealed with seal blubber." students.washington.edu/~ukc/library/052902-1notes.doc

Well well, imagine that, these Greenland skin boats are made just like other Eskimo skin boats... with wooden frames!

"The kayak, engineered of *driftwood* and animal skins, was ideally suited to marine hunting and has been adopted virtually without change in design for modern international sporting competition."

Pretty good technology, eh?

You don't need to apologize for your lies and insults Seppo, but it would be a very good idea if you stopped saying things that you cannot support. The fact is that I can and have provided proof for exactly what I said, and *you* haven't.

I am well aware of the similarities between yourself and both Inger and Seppo.

Even idiots from the killfile require correction occasionally.

He posted it in a public forum, which makes the above statement somewhat amusing (for English speakers). It wasn't "behind" anyone's back.

Abuse? Isn't that when you do things like make up false quotes ("timber boat building on greenland") and claiming it was something another person said or supported, when they *didn't*.

I'll pass on your strange idea of the English language... but you really should stop the fabrications and claims that other people are doing things that only *you* are doing.

Hmmm .... :-(

Eric Stevens

In fact, a great deal of salvage soon becomes trade items.

Apparently I have, and you seem to be both dishonest (see the first above comment, which entirely ignores the context of the entire sentence) and obtuse (the idea that a ship's manifest is what determines whether a salvaged item can sold or not).

Amusing.

Lets see you cite a dictionary which supports *your* definition over mine!

trade goods n : articles of commerce [syn: commodity, goods]

Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term. Your restricted definition is merely the false assumption that something which is once labeled as a commodity is always a commodity, and something *not* labeled as such at one point can never be called that at a later time.

Simply put, your English and your logic are both invalid.

Hey, Floyd! Where were you on alt.native when I needed you to school Red Cloud?

That isn't even true. It was for NOT deleting the abuse, and posting an apparent "me too" message in support of the abuser, is the reason she said what se did. Deal with that as that is your issue!

If you have a beef with Inger, take it up with her, DON'T use her as a vehicle for gratuitous abuse of ME. If you have a beef about something I say, ADDRESS ME - if you are man enough.

[..]

Oh, Seppo. I'm a man, and don't have to prove it. Sorry about your little ego.

Tom McDonald

We have seen your "skills" in the language - they are lacking! As it is a "public forum", are you implying that it is only "public" for SOME people and others are not allowed to take issue with what is said?

Sure, I have seen it!

You are the one who suggested quotation marks can be used in more ways than one, remember - further to that it is paraphrasing your claim and quite legitimate to use "quotes" for. You have NOT denied it has been your claim, despite numerous opportunities - nor have you provided the evidence of your claim! NOW you are resorting to a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the claim you have made!

You have to first learn it before you will pass - so much is true.

There we are again - more LIES from you. *I* don't NEED to lie, you have been shown to NOT be able to support your claims - and shown to LIE about others, just remember that, *I* don't NEED to lie!

This is brought to you by the bottle washer and STALKER who's aim is to CENSOR those who do not think of Dopey Deitiker as a GOD! Please killfile Dopey Deitiker to reduce NOISE! It only says crazy things anyway!

--- snip ----

Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the south,

Eric Stevens

Where should we draw the line between skin boats like kyaks and coracles, birch bark canoes, plank canoes, and boats that are essentially the same dimensions like piroutes, dories, longboats and wheries but are designed to be poled rowed or sculled rather than paddled or those that could fall in either of the preceeding categories but are rigged for a sail.

To my eye the type of craft has more to do with the methods of construction and its seaworthiness, draft, and usage than the materials used. I could easily imagine a kyack, canoe or coracle having a hull made out of the leather from a walrus instead of a bull and being framed with whalebone instead of wood.

I'm not sure whether the first people to reach the Americas sailed here, rowed or paddled but its a pretty good bet they didn't walk across all of North America to reach New England by c 10,600 BP when they had only just arrived in the Aleutians c 11,700 BP

"Museum documentation indicates that these human remains (Berry Collection number 4256) are of a cremated individual from a grave with ocher-stained soil that was exposed by WPA workers in the 1930s during road construction on a terrace above the Merrimack River in Manchester, NH. The radiocarbon date from associated charcoal is 8490 +/- 60 B.P."

"The Debert site in Nova Scotia, dating back 10,600 years and Bull Brook, in Ipswich, Massachusetts, dating back 9,000 years are among the Gulf of Maine's largest and earliest human encampments on land. Both sites contained similar signs of Paleo-Indian cultures. "

regards,

steve