>  > Conceivable, yeah, I suppose so, they'd've had to be very lucky, but
>>  why not. Actually, noone I've read has disputed the vague
>>  possibility, they've just pointed out the absence of any real
>>  evidence ie something not easily explained by another hypothesis or
>>  testable in some way. Personally, I wouldn't put it past those Latin
>>  folk, they were seriously resourceful, (criss-cross Europe, North
>>  Africa, and western Asia with highways, somehow hold together an
>>  empire in the early first millennium for 400 years in the west, more
>>  like a thousand in the east, compare with modern European Powers.
>>  Hmmm, seriously resourceful) but that's a long way from evidence.
>>  Sorry.
>
>yeah, but them romans never really were all that sea-going: someone is now
>making claims for evidence on the canary islands, but they never conquered
>ireland, so how did they suddenly make a really big jump over to
>mexico...? even
>when they wandered around the mediterannean they tended to stick to
>the coasts,
>sometimes even going the long way around from greece so they could cross by
>sicily and go up the boot...
>         doesn't jive on that count, at any rate
>
>geoff carver
>http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
>[log in to unmask]

Yeah, I totally agree. If I gave anyone the impression that I was
tempted to credit this story please disabuse yourselves of the idea.
Just wanted to point out that I didn't think it was being rejected
unreasonably. Quite the contrary.