Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 10/22/04 

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:50:12 +1300

On 22 Oct 2004 18:02:07 GMT, Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam>
wrote:

>In sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens created a message ID
>news:3vkgn0l3r5mk2nrpap1i9i987orpki3htt@4ax.com:
>
>> What's that got to do with my criticism of what **you**
>wrote?
>
>Everything, you implied that the authors of the book could be
>confused as wantedly misrepresentative.

In some cases they were and this has been demonstrated.

>See this is what I
>don't like when you are directly confronted on what you say
>you become evasive, as if people don't remember. Your specific
>critique of that book is what _will_ catch the eye of anyone
>who read it, no matter how cleverly you try to disguise your
>accusation, we know what you meant.

You can make that accusation because you have snipped what I actually
said. You make a habit of doing that without even noting the fact.
When I ask you to support your claims by a quote you never do because
they almost always are wrong. The truth is that in this case was point
out that Steve's claim that the book was peer reviewed was false. Now
you want to inflate that into an attack by me on the book.
>
>> But you are not citing a peer reviewed source. Not even the
>article by
>> Gullov in the book was peer reviewed, was it? You tried to
>trump
>> Michael Zalar's sources with a superior source of your own.
>There is
>> nothing wrong with quoting Gullov but there is everything
>wrong with
>> claiming it was peer reviewed.
>
>Others have their sources of information. Truth lies at the
>insection of valid perspective, science is not composed of
>only one perspective but many. You don't claim one guy is
>villainous simply because he offers a perspective based on
>_sound_ information he is most familiar with even if it
>disagrees with yours. You have to take information from all
>sources and try to synthesis a 'best guess' approximation of
>science. Provided that Zalar can anchor his sources to the
>same relative degree as other professionals . . . .

BUt Steve was trying to claim that *his* source was better anchored
than Michaels. Well it wasn't and Steve's claim was a stupid bluff.
>
>> End of this. You've been caught out and nailed. I need say
>no more.
>
>The ultimate diversion here.
>
>> Take him down :-(
>
>This is supposed to have some meaning?

Yes. It's what the judge in some British courts says to the warders
after finding the prisoner guilty.

Eric Stevens

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More creationism in CA - Lebec class preliminary syllabus
    ... Michael Altarriba wrote: ... >>> and that's the foundation that all science is built on. ... > apply the obvious shaving implement and conclude no God exists. ... >> You are talking out of your ass on this one, Bobby. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... Michael J. Behe, "Molecular Machines," ... The problem in posting such quotes is that we only need to expose ... from him saying that the science "... ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: why evolutionist want to teach your kids
    ... Most Christians are not mentally ill, but people like you who reject ... I have no idea what you are referring to, but I want science ... I know that teaching religious lies in schools is forbidden in ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Stealing Design
    ... >> Michael R. James wrote: ... > For those of us those interested in honest science education, ... pitting science against religion, or bad science against good science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT:Greys Anatomy-Final Episode
    ... Close went on to bigger projects, but not Margaret Colin and she was ... the anchor of that show. ... daughter with the full knowledge that he was indeed their Michael. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
Loading