Re: The Vinland Map's Ink


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sm1j71dq7qtfh7k01h39b6guv0rvqjme3n@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 19:39:46 -0500, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Steve Marcus wrote:
>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:jlnf71lmtgrqivf9fpjudrg6nm4k59ui3h@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> How will you ever *know* that you have all the information??
>>>
>>> I'll answer the question myself: You'll *know* that you have all the
>>> information when the information reaches a conclusion that you or your
>>> client (not necessarily the same thing) want to reach.
>>
>>Steve,
>>
>> I don't find evidence for this allegation. AFAICS, Eric appears
>>to be the consummate professional in his business dealings. Of
>>course, we only have his e-presence to judge from; but he seems
>>very consistent to me. The only thing I can recall that mars his
>>objectivity here was his reaction to the announcement of the fake
>>AVM stone.
>
> I took the announcement at face value. You will remember I immediately
> turned my back on it as soon as the truth was known.

But you will not take the current evidence on the bona fides of the VM at
"face value." I, and others, do. We reach the conclusion compelled by the
current state of the evidence. It's a given that such conclusion is
tentative, and if "the truth" becomes known next week (newly discovered
evidence is published next week that compels a different conclusion), then
I, and others, will accept it. That's known as "doing science."

My point remains: you'll accept any announcement or an archaeological
matter at "face value" provided that the announcement "pleasing" to you, but
you'll raise caveat after caveat re evidence on a matter if that evidence
points to a conclusion that is "displeasing" to you. I seriously doubt that
you operate that way in your professional life.


>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS - Possible news to come
    ... are told that only part of the evidence will be disclosed, ... people know all the evidence (like you, Inger) while others will have to ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Apple makes little girl cry
    ... Snit wrote: ... crime but never found guilty in a court of law? ... The question of determining guilt of another based on evidence is ... You, Steve, are so damned predictable and easy to manipulate! ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Steve Carrolls still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
    ... >> to" you commenting on a date is a lie. ... The evidence, of course, ... When Steve went away for a week 95% of the BS off topic trolling went away. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: McDonalds coffee - better than Starbucks!
    ... I think there is plenty of evidence to support his ... Steve has no obligation to look at the evidence I show him, ... Up to 10k for a mac when the equivalent top-o-the-line PC with all the ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Maccies resort to their typical dishonesty [was Re: You wanted an example of a price drop...]
    ... Snit wrote: ... Steve, for reasons he has not explained, asked me what you would think - ... Agreed - and that includes if you were to show evidence that showed someone ... I'm pretty convinced that, by now, Donald, though he may not like ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading