Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a5jia19g87o82oeh3kpobp9ed6sjq4bsuk@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:29:13 +0200, "Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote: p6kha1t9fmuk6bhsr536sttfoaf8kmmsv0@xxxxxxx,
>>>"Alaca" wrote:
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Rather that argue around in circles with people who want to debate
>>>>>> trivia rather than what constitutes a good argument I have decided
>>>>>> to set this aside.
>>
>>>>> It's been pretty obvious that this is all you have wanted to do from
>>>>> the moment you first heard of the KRS.
>>
>>>> What, starting a clean thread?
>>
>>> Set the KRS aside.
>>>
>>> He's been agin it from the very first moment he heard of it. He
>>> arrived in this newsgroup labelling anyone who didn't want to reject
>>> it outright as 'KOOKS' or hyperdiffusionists.
>>>
>>> Go back through the threads and you will find a consistent pattern of
>>> bias and arguing from ignorance. What he calls 'trivia' are the facts
>>> of the matter. You watch him now build a fact-free argument against
>>> the KRS based on irrelevancies and what people haven't said.
>>
>>
>>All I know is that you two are natural opposits
>>and that Philip is the rational and you the woolly one.
>
> I'm disappointed you see it that way. I thought you were a rational
> person who could tell the difference betwen what is known, what is
> unknown and what might possibly be.

Your problem is that for you there is not quantification of "what might
possibly be", not to mention your firm bias in favor of anything that "might
possibly be" as an alternative to what is considered to be mainstream.

>
> I see me as the one who tries to find out the facts of the matter and
> what they *MIGHT* imply. That includes what they might *possibly*
> imply. I'm not necessarily arguing for the things I want to examine
> but I don't want to reject them before they are examined.
>
> Philip doesn't really need facts and has absolutely no doubt as to
> what the answer is.
>
> There is no point in debating this difference in attitudes. In the end
> our track records will speak for themselves.
>
>
>
> 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: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
    ... >Eric Stevens wrote: p6kha1t9fmuk6bhsr536sttfoaf8kmmsv0@xxxxxxx, ... What he calls 'trivia' are the facts ... >> the KRS based on irrelevancies and what people haven't said. ... Philip doesn't really need facts and has absolutely no doubt as to ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
    ... >I was neutral to the KRS. ... >> 'trivia' are the facts of the matter. ... >You can't seem to answer basic quetion and yet you claim to have the ... Eric Stevens ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>saying is that one constructs good arguments of good facts. ... >>buggering me for citations on the KRS, I am not a proponent for ... >>its authenticity, and by default it is a hoax]. ... >> However, again, someone has mentioned that the stone might ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>>saying is that one constructs good arguments of good facts. ... yours is a load ignorant bigotted rubbish. ... >> your atempts to discredit the KRS. ... >> favour of the authenticity of the KRS. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS - Possible news to come
    ... > Eric Stevens wrote: ... >> scenes discussion of on going work associated with the KRS. ... > would it be that the email group would decide to invite ...
    (sci.archaeology)