Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:42:33 GMT,
nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Apparently on date Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:00:44 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>>On 29 Apr 2005 18:14:45 -0700, "Ken Towe" <ken.towe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Mr. Stevens:
>>>
>>>I'm truly sorry that you have concluded that I have resorted to ad
>>>hominems. I hope I have not. If you will reread what I wrote you will
>>>see that I asked you a question...essentially wouldn't one be justified
>>>in drawing such a conclusion from your reluctance to provide answers
>>>one way or the other.
>>
>>I did not appreciate you referring to me as a 'gad fly'. I
>>particularly did not appreciate it when the only reason I keep
>>responding in this thread is that you pose me yet another question.
>
>No, Ken's "gad fly" is probably an accurate description of your approach in
>this debate. "Persistent, irritating critic" sums it up very nicely.

Thank you very much. There is only the one thing _ I have not been
voluntarily criticising: Ken has been asking me to respond. Without
his repeated requests, I would have said nothing.
>
>You contribute no information to the debate but want to speak for the group in
>rejecting any evidence that weakens the case for the VM to be authentic.

My response is entirely personal. I don't speak for anyone else.

>What's
>most irritating about your approach is that you reject the case on the strength
>that it isn't absolute proof of the matter - which is inevitably true of all
>archaeological evidence ever dug up throughout the world. No matter what the
>quality of the evidence, it's always "not proven" in the Steven's Courtroom.

In this case, I have repeatedly pointed out the evidence that is
missing and explained why I do not want to respond while that remains
the case.
>
>But when Inger produces some incoherent babble that she claims proves there can
>be no more doubts, now or ever, in the authenticity of the VM, where is the
>stern test of unquestionable evidence? Strangely absent.
>
>It would be an ad hominem attack to call you a gadfly so that everyone can
>ignore your evidence, clearly there is no purpose in employing such a tactic
>because you haven't got any evidence and don't propose to bring any up.

I'm glad that that much has penetrated your mental processes. I don't
have sufficient evidence, I can't bring up any new evidence and for
what should be obvious reasons, I can't reach any conclusions.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is denying the facts of 911/2001 as bad asdenyingtheHolocaust?
    ... Logical constructs only matter ... I'm merely reporting their evidence. ... certain difficulties as to the necessary scale of the conspiracy. ... Several of the Arab ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: mechanism for planetary growth
    ... This claim is incorrect and not supported by the evidence simply ... there is no evidence that HH-30 is creating matter. ... object from its previous created accretion disk. ... If I point out that a closed e loop ought to display the features ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... > One common function in simple machines is just size and shape. ... > What we know about building signal processing devices is that the hardware ... > All this adds up to a huge body of evidence telling us that the solution to ... > AI is simply a matter of building a single processing device with the right ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)