t(nospam)kavanagh wrote:
David B wrote:

t(nospam)kavanagh <"tkavanag"@indiana.edu> wrote in message ...

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Thanks tk, the first paragraph was very informative but this the last

one

you found the source

*I* found the source? I quote Bakker, did you? If not your comment is
irrelevant.


which I actually gave the group two years ago. This was
one of three sources I refered to the other day when I spoke of the

first

explorers. One of the other sources is written by one who participated

in

Cartier's voyage.

This is getting surreal. Bakker's paper was introduced to this group
back
in 1995, mentioned repeatedly thereafter, and tk reminded readers of it
in
1998....

[Google Groups search "Bakker Basque" ]

David B.


I *knew* I had read that article before.
It actually came out in 1991. Peter Bakker_The mysterious link between
Basque and Micmac art_European review of Native American studies 5:1 1991.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:50:41 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> wrote:



I, personally, have no direct expertise in this matter, but I also see
no immediate reason to argue with Bakker's presentation.

By the 15th century the basque had gained notoriety as long
range fisherman so it is plausible that with a hint of
information from iberia they ventured further. Who knows,
There was an HLA paper that claimed it detected the presence
of orientals there.

I certainly would hold our for better sources of
information. However, I should also point out that measles
appeared to travel faster than the european inhabitants that
spread the disease, well maybe it didn't spread faster, its
just that one doesn't always see the fastest europeans.

I have no evidence to date that basque contributed
significiant recent amounts of HLA to native americans. Thus
if there was contact that contact would have to be during
post columbian times or of a non-genetic nature. There is
evidence of Norse HLA types in the eastern Inuit population,
much moreso than in the western inuit population. This could
be from recent inbreeding (last 100 years) or from norse
dispersion at the end of the greenland Norse period.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:13:19 +0500, <markovic@io.com> wrote:

many of the french/spanish sailors of the 1500s were ethnic basques.
therefore it doesn't seem like the presence of basque pidgin would be
an indication of pre-columbian contact.

Which is why the question of the earliest indications of its presence
is relevant.

For those interested in this subject, I recommend:

Bakker, Peter
1989 "'The Language of the Coast Tribes is Half Basque': A
Basque-American Indian Pidgin, 1540-1640." Anthropological Linguistics
31 (3-4, Fall and Winter), pp. 117-147.

Bakker is a widely published author on pidgins, especially Basque
pidgins. Anthropological Linguistics is a peer-reviewed journal
published by the Department of Anthropology and the American Indian
Studies Research Institute, Indiana University.

Bakker provides documentary sources for the existence of a Basque-based
pidgin specifically in Micmac and Montagnais; possibly in Beothuk,
Abnaki-Maliseet, and Laurentian Iroquois (e.g. Hochelaga); but it is
absent in Inuit.

As for dating the origins of the pidgins, Bakker argues that while the
earliest documentary evidence for a Basque-Indian pidgin is Jacques
Cartier (1542), because "Cartier met European fishing vessels during his
first voyage [1534] ... undoubtedly trade contacts between natives and
Europeans already existed" (p.134).

Moreover, he suggests that it is

"...even possible to speculate on a pre-Columbian existence of
European-based pidgins in the New World on the basis of the first word
recorded from the mouth of North American natives. The first documented
visit of a european to North America (after the Norse, to be sure) were
the voyages of the brothers John and Sebastian Cabot, in 1497 and 1507.
Their own records are lost, but Peter Martyr (1530), who possibly had
access to their documentation, wrote in 1512, 'Sebastian Cabot himself
named those lands /Baccalaos/ because in the seas thereabout he found so
great a multitude of certain big fish much like tuna (which the
inhabitants call Baccalaos)...' If what Martyr writes is true, then
Cabot recorded the first North American pidgin word. In none of the
native languages along the northeastern coast is there as word
resembling /baccalao(s)/ for what should be 'cod'. Although it remains
to be decided whether this is the Basque word /bacalau/ or the
Portuguese /bacalhau/, the latter is the more likely source, since by
1512 the Portuguese were already importing cod, and there is no evidence
of the presence of Basque fishermen at so early a date" (p. 134-5).

Bakker sets up a paradigm for establishing a Basque origin of words:
-in older sources, absence from modern Micmac;
-close resemblance to Basque in form and meaning;
-probability of use in seasonal trading contexts;
-lack of resemblance to proto-Algonquian forms;
-use in Basque coastal dialects.

From this, Bakker rejected a number of "accidental similarities" and
then provides about 40 pidgin words and about 10 sentences from
sixteenth and seventeenth century sources with their Basque equivalents.

I, personally, have no direct expertise in this matter, but I also see
no immediate reason to argue with Bakker's presentation.

"Steve Glines" <sglines@is-cs.com

in 1995, mentioned repeatedly thereafter, and tk reminded readers of it

I *knew* I had read that article before. ;-)

It actually came out in 1991. Peter Bakker_The mysterious link between
Basque and Micmac art_European review of Native American studies 5:1 1991.


Hi Steve,
how are you? Wasn't it an other referens re. this sent to the group in a
previous debate.

Inger E

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Busque words

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

snip my post

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Sorry Seppo, but your memory has gone again.

A Google search on 'tkavanag Seppo Basque' produces only the thread from
Dec. 2002 titled "KRS author's ship not at Hudson Bay" in which you
severely mangled eastern Algonquian ethnography. That is what I called
you on, not the existence of Busque words in Micmac. Indeed, as David B.
pointed out, I referenced the Bakker article on Dec. 2, 1998, a little
more than four years before the "KRS author" thread.

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

snip my post

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Sorry Seppo, but your memory has gone again.

A Google search on 'tkavanag Seppo Basque' produces only the thread from
Dec. 2002 titled "KRS author's ship not at Hudson Bay" in which you
severely mangled eastern Algonquian ethnography. That is what I called
you on, not the existence of Busque words in Micmac. Indeed, as David B.
pointed out, I referenced the Bakker article on Dec. 2, 1998, a little
more than four years before the "KRS author" thread.

Facts remain as I stated them above!

Ah yes I do recall that exchange well enough

- it was the thread where you were provided with the definition of "forgery" remember.

It was a thread were you falsely accused me and resorted to fabrications on off topic issues when the issue > was Basque words in the Micmac language!

*I* originated that thread after all!

Indeed I consider it as pure mudslinging for the sake of big-noting yourself at my expense - or
attempting to at least.

You didn't learn much from that exchange back then, did you! Let me
remind you of what I said at the time:

3E026687.17177B57@not.ollis.com.au
"YOU were the one who started the fabrication of what I had said about
the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, and your mindless accusations"

You are now regurgitating your fabrications once more. Pull your
bloody head in and go and re-read that message!!

Electronic memories, aka Google, remain as I stated them. You are wrong.

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

snip my post

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Sorry Seppo, but your memory has gone again.

A Google search on 'tkavanag Seppo Basque' produces only the thread from
Dec. 2002 titled "KRS author's ship not at Hudson Bay" in which you
severely mangled eastern Algonquian ethnography. That is what I called
you on, not the existence of Busque words in Micmac. Indeed, as David B.
pointed out, I referenced the Bakker article on Dec. 2, 1998, a little
more than four years before the "KRS author" thread.

Facts remain as I stated them above!

Electronic memories, aka Google, remain as I stated them. You are wrong.

Ah yes I do recall that exchange well enough

And so you do recall that nowhere in that discussion did I dispute the
presence of Basque words in Micmac?

- it was the thread where you were provided with the definition of "forgery" remember.

Nope, sorry, Google does not find the word "forgery" in the 119 messages
in that thread.

And that was also the thread in which it was shown that your conclusion
that Kensington, Minnesota had a Micmac name, "Gategageneg," which was
actually the name of a location several hundred miles to the east, on
Prince Edward Island. You were proven wrong then, but refused to admit
it.

You didn't learn much from that exchange back then, did you! Let me
remind you of what I said at the time:

3E026687.17177B57@not.ollis.com.au
"YOU were the one who started the fabrication of what I had said about
the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, and your mindless accusations"

You are now regurgitating your fabrications once more. Pull your
bloody head in and go and re-read that message!!

Not only that, I have re-read the entire thread, and have re-read the
sources, and I stand with my position. You mangled Algonquian
ethnography then, and refuse to admit it now.

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

snip my post

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Sorry Seppo, but your memory has gone again.

A Google search on 'tkavanag Seppo Basque' produces only the thread from
Dec. 2002 titled "KRS author's ship not at Hudson Bay" in which you
severely mangled eastern Algonquian ethnography. That is what I called
you on, not the existence of Busque words in Micmac. Indeed, as David B.
pointed out, I referenced the Bakker article on Dec. 2, 1998, a little
more than four years before the "KRS author" thread.

Facts remain as I stated them above!

Electronic memories, aka Google, remain as I stated them. You are wrong.

That is another lie - in the face of evidence to the contrary! Not
very honest are you!

Ah yes I do recall that exchange well enough

And so you do recall that nowhere in that discussion did I dispute the
presence of Basque words in Micmac?

LIAR:

3DFE031F.46CD79A9@indiana.edu
"You were the one who posted nonsense in the very first posting in
this thread, first that Kensington had a Micmac name,..."

The specific word that was at issue - the micmac name for a place
called Kensington. You refer to it in this post, though not
accurately! That is one (of many) post where you also resort to
fabrications of the meaning of what I have said.

Not very honest are you!

- it was the thread where you were provided with the definition of "forgery" remember.

Nope, sorry, Google does not find the word "forgery" in the 119 messages
in that thread.

LIAR!

But lets see now..... I bet you'll come back and say "only forge was
there, not forgery", as if that was somehow relevant to anything
(other than your attempt at fabrications), and attempt to claim I had
never said "definition of "forgery".." in fact! So go on, make my
day.... 'ave a go yer mug! Perhaps you are just going to run away
again eh?

Here it is from the quoted post (you claim to have read again - most
likely another lie):

"CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1899
Interpretation Application General Principles
CHAPTER 1 INTERPRETATION

"Definition of offence "

"forge" a document, means make, alter or deal with the document so
that the whole of it or a material part of it
(a) purports to be what, or of an effect that, in fact it is not; or
(b) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by a person who did not
make, alter or deal with it or by or for some person who does not, in
fact exist; or
(c) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by authority of a
person who did not give that authority; or
(d) otherwise purports to be made, altered or dealt with in
circumstances in which it was not made, altered or dealt with."


And that was also the thread in which it was shown that your conclusion
that Kensington, Minnesota had a Micmac name, "Gategageneg," which was
actually the name of a location several hundred miles to the east, on
Prince Edward Island. You were proven wrong then, but refused to admit
it.

Indeed, I made a mistake in the location but that is because of a NAME
CHANGE had occurred that is not included in my map. The fact remains
that it was indeed a "Kensington" as I had stated, only they added the
Micmac name to it and it is called "Gategageneg-Kensington". It was
this that could not be found on my map due to the name change, as I
said at the time. So you see you are not being honest at all in your
claims. You lie!

I also quite readily acknowledged this error at the time. Therefor you
LIE once more when you claim that I "refused to admit it"! You have an
amazing skill at cramming so many fabrications into a small text!

What I said then still applies:
"THAT is feverished panting of pretentious pap by a pathetic pompous
postulating pimple on the posterior of an arriviste."

You didn't learn much from that exchange back then, did you! Let me
remind you of what I said at the time:

3E026687.17177B57@not.ollis.com.au
"YOU were the one who started the fabrication of what I had said about
the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, and your mindless accusations"

That above is a FACT!

You are now regurgitating your fabrications once more. Pull your
bloody head in and go and re-read that message!!

Not only that, I have re-read the entire thread, and have re-read the
sources, and I stand with my position. You mangled Algonquian
ethnography then, and refuse to admit it now.

Considering you being caught lying above, I think it is quite fair to
say, I don't believe you, and have a VERY high probability of being
right (some 99.9%) - not that you would ever admit to it, considering
your track record in this post.

You are relying on a FORGERY you created to make those false claims
(hence the definition of forgery was posted). You ignored the reality
even when it was detailed to you them, and you do so now too! THAT is
the fabrication you continue with here. You really are not very honest
at all!

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

snip my post

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Sorry Seppo, but your memory has gone again.

A Google search on 'tkavanag Seppo Basque' produces only the thread from
Dec. 2002 titled "KRS author's ship not at Hudson Bay" in which you
severely mangled eastern Algonquian ethnography. That is what I called
you on, not the existence of Busque words in Micmac. Indeed, as David B.
pointed out, I referenced the Bakker article on Dec. 2, 1998, a little
more than four years before the "KRS author" thread.

Facts remain as I stated them above!

Electronic memories, aka Google, remain as I stated them. You are wrong.

That is another lie - in the face of evidence to the contrary! Not
very honest are you!

Ah yes I do recall that exchange well enough

And so you do recall that nowhere in that discussion did I dispute the
presence of Basque words in Micmac?

LIAR:

3DFE031F.46CD79A9@indiana.edu
"You were the one who posted nonsense in the very first posting in
this thread, first that Kensington had a Micmac name,..."

The specific word that was at issue - the micmac name for a place
called Kensington. You refer to it in this post, though not
accurately! That is one (of many) post where you also resort to
fabrications of the meaning of what I have said.

Not very honest are you!

- it was the thread where you were provided with the definition of "forgery" remember.

Nope, sorry, Google does not find the word "forgery" in the 119 messages
in that thread.

LIAR!

But lets see now..... I bet you'll come back and say "only forge was
there, not forgery", as if that was somehow relevant to anything
(other than your attempt at fabrications), and attempt to claim I had
never said "definition of "forgery".." in fact! So go on, make my
day.... 'ave a go yer mug! Perhaps you are just going to run away
again eh?

Here it is from the quoted post (you claim to have read again - most
likely another lie):

"CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1899
Interpretation Application General Principles
CHAPTER 1 INTERPRETATION

"Definition of offence "

"forge" a document, means make, alter or deal with the document so
that the whole of it or a material part of it
(a) purports to be what, or of an effect that, in fact it is not; or
(b) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by a person who did not
make, alter or deal with it or by or for some person who does not, in
fact exist; or
(c) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by authority of a
person who did not give that authority; or
(d) otherwise purports to be made, altered or dealt with in
circumstances in which it was not made, altered or dealt with."


And that was also the thread in which it was shown that your conclusion
that Kensington, Minnesota had a Micmac name, "Gategageneg," which was
actually the name of a location several hundred miles to the east, on
Prince Edward Island. You were proven wrong then, but refused to admit
it.

Indeed, I made a mistake in the location but that is because of a NAME
CHANGE had occurred that is not included in my map. The fact remains
that it was indeed a "Kensington" as I had stated, only they added the
Micmac name to it and it is called "Gategageneg-Kensington". It was
this that could not be found on my map due to the name change, as I
said at the time. So you see you are not being honest at all in your
claims. You lie!

I also quite readily acknowledged this error at the time. Therefor you
LIE once more when you claim that I "refused to admit it"! You have an
amazing skill at cramming so many fabrications into a small text!

What I said then still applies:
"THAT is feverished panting of pretentious pap by a pathetic pompous
postulating pimple on the posterior of an arriviste."

You didn't learn much from that exchange back then, did you! Let me
remind you of what I said at the time:

3E026687.17177B57@not.ollis.com.au
"YOU were the one who started the fabrication of what I had said about
the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, and your mindless accusations"

That above is a FACT!

You are now regurgitating your fabrications once more. Pull your
bloody head in and go and re-read that message!!

Not only that, I have re-read the entire thread, and have re-read the
sources, and I stand with my position. You mangled Algonquian
ethnography then, and refuse to admit it now.

Considering you being caught lying above, I think it is quite fair to
say, I don't believe you, and have a VERY high probability of being
right (some 99.9%) - not that you would ever admit to it, considering
your track record in this post.

You are relying on a FORGERY you created to make those false claims
(hence the definition of forgery was posted). You ignored the reality
even when it was detailed to you them, and you do so now too! THAT is
the fabrication you continue with here. You really are not very honest
at all!

And where in that thread do I dispute your claim of Basque words in
Micmac?

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

snip my post

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Sorry Seppo, but your memory has gone again.

A Google search on 'tkavanag Seppo Basque' produces only the thread from
Dec. 2002 titled "KRS author's ship not at Hudson Bay" in which you
severely mangled eastern Algonquian ethnography. That is what I called
you on, not the existence of Busque words in Micmac. Indeed, as David B.
pointed out, I referenced the Bakker article on Dec. 2, 1998, a little
more than four years before the "KRS author" thread.

Facts remain as I stated them above!

Electronic memories, aka Google, remain as I stated them. You are wrong.

That is another lie - in the face of evidence to the contrary! Not
very honest are you!

Ah yes I do recall that exchange well enough

And so you do recall that nowhere in that discussion did I dispute the
presence of Basque words in Micmac?

LIAR:

3DFE031F.46CD79A9@indiana.edu
"You were the one who posted nonsense in the very first posting in
this thread, first that Kensington had a Micmac name,..."

The specific word that was at issue - the micmac name for a place
called Kensington. You refer to it in this post, though not
accurately! That is one (of many) post where you also resort to
fabrications of the meaning of what I have said.

Not very honest are you!

- it was the thread where you were provided with the definition of "forgery" remember.

Nope, sorry, Google does not find the word "forgery" in the 119 messages
in that thread.

LIAR!

But lets see now..... I bet you'll come back and say "only forge was
there, not forgery", as if that was somehow relevant to anything
(other than your attempt at fabrications), and attempt to claim I had
never said "definition of "forgery".." in fact! So go on, make my
day.... 'ave a go yer mug! Perhaps you are just going to run away
again eh?

Here it is from the quoted post (you claim to have read again - most
likely another lie):

"CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1899
Interpretation Application General Principles
CHAPTER 1 INTERPRETATION

"Definition of offence "

"forge" a document, means make, alter or deal with the document so
that the whole of it or a material part of it
(a) purports to be what, or of an effect that, in fact it is not; or
(b) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by a person who did not
make, alter or deal with it or by or for some person who does not, in
fact exist; or
(c) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by authority of a
person who did not give that authority; or
(d) otherwise purports to be made, altered or dealt with in
circumstances in which it was not made, altered or dealt with."


And that was also the thread in which it was shown that your conclusion
that Kensington, Minnesota had a Micmac name, "Gategageneg," which was
actually the name of a location several hundred miles to the east, on
Prince Edward Island. You were proven wrong then, but refused to admit
it.

Indeed, I made a mistake in the location but that is because of a NAME
CHANGE had occurred that is not included in my map. The fact remains
that it was indeed a "Kensington" as I had stated, only they added the
Micmac name to it and it is called "Gategageneg-Kensington". It was
this that could not be found on my map due to the name change, as I
said at the time. So you see you are not being honest at all in your
claims. You lie!

I also quite readily acknowledged this error at the time. Therefor you
LIE once more when you claim that I "refused to admit it"! You have an
amazing skill at cramming so many fabrications into a small text!

What I said then still applies:
"THAT is feverished panting of pretentious pap by a pathetic pompous
postulating pimple on the posterior of an arriviste."

You didn't learn much from that exchange back then, did you! Let me
remind you of what I said at the time:

3E026687.17177B57@not.ollis.com.au
"YOU were the one who started the fabrication of what I had said about
the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, and your mindless accusations"

That above is a FACT!

You are now regurgitating your fabrications once more. Pull your
bloody head in and go and re-read that message!!

Not only that, I have re-read the entire thread, and have re-read the
sources, and I stand with my position. You mangled Algonquian
ethnography then, and refuse to admit it now.

Considering you being caught lying above, I think it is quite fair to
say, I don't believe you, and have a VERY high probability of being
right (some 99.9%) - not that you would ever admit to it, considering
your track record in this post.

You are relying on a FORGERY you created to make those false claims
(hence the definition of forgery was posted). You ignored the reality
even when it was detailed to you them, and you do so now too! THAT is
the fabrication you continue with here. You really are not very honest
at all!

And where in that thread do I dispute your claim of Basque words in
Micmac?

DO try to read the post! It will NOT go away no matter how often you
play dumb.

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

snip my post

VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

Sorry Seppo, but your memory has gone again.

A Google search on 'tkavanag Seppo Basque' produces only the thread from
Dec. 2002 titled "KRS author's ship not at Hudson Bay" in which you
severely mangled eastern Algonquian ethnography. That is what I called
you on, not the existence of Busque words in Micmac. Indeed, as David B.
pointed out, I referenced the Bakker article on Dec. 2, 1998, a little
more than four years before the "KRS author" thread.

Facts remain as I stated them above!

Electronic memories, aka Google, remain as I stated them. You are wrong.

That is another lie - in the face of evidence to the contrary! Not
very honest are you!

Ah yes I do recall that exchange well enough

And so you do recall that nowhere in that discussion did I dispute the
presence of Basque words in Micmac?

LIAR:

3DFE031F.46CD79A9@indiana.edu
"You were the one who posted nonsense in the very first posting in
this thread, first that Kensington had a Micmac name,..."

The specific word that was at issue - the micmac name for a place
called Kensington. You refer to it in this post, though not
accurately! That is one (of many) post where you also resort to
fabrications of the meaning of what I have said.

Not very honest are you!

- it was the thread where you were provided with the definition of "forgery" remember.

Nope, sorry, Google does not find the word "forgery" in the 119 messages
in that thread.

LIAR!

But lets see now..... I bet you'll come back and say "only forge was
there, not forgery", as if that was somehow relevant to anything
(other than your attempt at fabrications), and attempt to claim I had
never said "definition of "forgery".." in fact! So go on, make my
day.... 'ave a go yer mug! Perhaps you are just going to run away
again eh?

Here it is from the quoted post (you claim to have read again - most
likely another lie):

"CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1899
Interpretation Application General Principles
CHAPTER 1 INTERPRETATION

"Definition of offence "

"forge" a document, means make, alter or deal with the document so
that the whole of it or a material part of it
(a) purports to be what, or of an effect that, in fact it is not; or
(b) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by a person who did not
make, alter or deal with it or by or for some person who does not, in
fact exist; or
(c) purports to be made, altered or dealt with by authority of a
person who did not give that authority; or
(d) otherwise purports to be made, altered or dealt with in
circumstances in which it was not made, altered or dealt with."


And that was also the thread in which it was shown that your conclusion
that Kensington, Minnesota had a Micmac name, "Gategageneg," which was
actually the name of a location several hundred miles to the east, on
Prince Edward Island. You were proven wrong then, but refused to admit
it.

Indeed, I made a mistake in the location but that is because of a NAME
CHANGE had occurred that is not included in my map. The fact remains
that it was indeed a "Kensington" as I had stated, only they added the
Micmac name to it and it is called "Gategageneg-Kensington". It was
this that could not be found on my map due to the name change, as I
said at the time. So you see you are not being honest at all in your
claims. You lie!

I also quite readily acknowledged this error at the time. Therefor you
LIE once more when you claim that I "refused to admit it"! You have an
amazing skill at cramming so many fabrications into a small text!

What I said then still applies:
"THAT is feverished panting of pretentious pap by a pathetic pompous
postulating pimple on the posterior of an arriviste."

You didn't learn much from that exchange back then, did you! Let me
remind you of what I said at the time:

3E026687.17177B57@not.ollis.com.au
"YOU were the one who started the fabrication of what I had said about
the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, and your mindless accusations"

That above is a FACT!

You are now regurgitating your fabrications once more. Pull your
bloody head in and go and re-read that message!!

Not only that, I have re-read the entire thread, and have re-read the
sources, and I stand with my position. You mangled Algonquian
ethnography then, and refuse to admit it now.

Considering you being caught lying above, I think it is quite fair to
say, I don't believe you, and have a VERY high probability of being
right (some 99.9%) - not that you would ever admit to it, considering
your track record in this post.

You are relying on a FORGERY you created to make those false claims
(hence the definition of forgery was posted). You ignored the reality
even when it was detailed to you them, and you do so now too! THAT is
the fabrication you continue with here. You really are not very honest
at all!

And where in that thread do I dispute your claim of Basque words in
Micmac?

DO try to read the post! It will NOT go away no matter how often you
play dumb.

Let me remind you again, you wrote:
VERY interesting..... specially considering how you poo-pooed me
pointing to Basque words existing in the Micmac language, that this
predated Columbus.... etc etc....

And where in that thread did I dispute ("poo-pooed") your claim of
Basque words in Micmac?