Re: KRS: Final thoughts


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5626c1ddi95ahr3h6e8go9jr306gf8hahk@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:07:12 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Top posting here to save readers' time:
>>
>>What follows is yet another Stevens post in which he ignores a linked
>>article and does everything except discuss what the article says.
>>
>
> One of Steve's favourite tricks. If he is losing an argument, he
> changes the subject (in this case via the linked article) and then
> blames the other person if they are not interested in following him
> into the field of battle he prefers.
>
> Been there. Done that. Not interested anymore.

Just when I thought that you couldn't be any more dishonest than you've
been, you prove me wrong.

The entire discussion (which it started out to be, I initially posted
nothing that should have started an argument) initially revolved around some
very simple sentences in written in English, your native tongue:

Philip Deitiker provided a link to a paper that discussed the Inventio
Fortunata, and wrote this sentence:

"The accounts of Inventio Fortunata that I have seen suggests it did exist,
but that it was a collection of stories and favored myths of the time."

You then replied: " These words will come back to haunt you. :-( "

I commented on your reply as follows: "The words are not Philip's words.
They are the words of the person who
wrote the paper that Philip linked.

You replied: "Those words are not in the document referenced by the URL.
They are Philip's words and not to be found in a URL or anywhere else.
That's why I was puzzled by your statement 'The words are not Philip's
words'."

The matter is very simple, and should have required no explanation. Philip
Deitiker's sentence simply reported on the substance of the linked paper
(and, apparently, other sources). His report on the source(s) is very
plain: The Inventio Fortunata evidently once existed, but it was a
collection of stories and favored myths. Those words are what the source(s)
boil down to.

For clarity (not that I expect you to understand, or if you do understand,
to acknowledge that you do): If I reported to the newsgroup that Dr.
Richard Nielsen reached conclusion "ABC" regarding a particular rune found
on the KRS, then I am simply reporting what Dr. Richard Nielsen has said,
which is concludion "ABC" regarding that particular rune. The conclusion
"ABC" is not mine, it's my source's conclusion, in this case Dr. Nielsen's.
While the words on the monitor are "mine" in the technical sense, (if not in
enclosed within quotation marks), no honest person conversant with the
English language could fail to understand that the my message re that
particular rune is conveys Dr. Nielsen's position. And the same is true of
Philip Deitiker's sentence as quoted above. The only person(s) who could be
haunted by what Deitiker wrote is the author of the source(s) he linked.

My comment regarding words that were, and words that were not, Philip
Deitiker's words, and my reposting of the paper linked by Deitiker, were
intended to provoke a discussion of the paper. But I was way too
optimistic; there's no way that you would have cared to discuss what is
stated in that paper. Instead, _you_ sidetracked the discussion, threw in
an ad hominem for neatness, and converted what should have been a discussion
re a given topic into an argument about how someone whose native language is
English should interpret simple English language sentences.

No one who follows your posts can fail to understand that the sidetracking
occurred not because you didn't really understand what I meant, but because
you didn't want to discuss what Philip's source had written. In case you
don't realize it, the vast majority of people posting on sci.archaeology
understand your modus operandi, and consider you as something of a dishonest
flake. Just ask them.
>
>
> 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: Final thoughts
    ... >>Philip Deitiker provided a link to a paper that discussed the Inventio ... >>"The accounts of Inventio Fortunata that I have seen suggests it did ... His report on the sourceis very ... >>English should interpret simple English language sentences. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS: Final thoughts
    ... >Philip Deitiker provided a link to a paper that discussed the Inventio ... His report on the sourceis very ... >English should interpret simple English language sentences. ... >No one who follows your posts can fail to understand that the sidetracking ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: the strength of a rope
    ... It was one of your regular members that performed this cross posting ... beauty of carefully constructed english language, but as with physics, ... "Within 10 years, we will land a man on the moon, and return him ... Okay, if you want to learn English language construction, you really ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • A sure remedy for the malaise overtaking this NG
    ... The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. ... Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics ... time for a convention! ... original | Report this message | Find messages by this author ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)
  • Re: Expert Opinion: Mottershead Report Valid
    ... Opinion of Mottershead report submitted to the USCF ... the internal USCF member forums and their posting IP address. ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)