Re: Barbara Thiering Refuted!

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:37:39 +0000, me@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:




Eric Stevens wrote:

My subsequent comment stems from an experience I had some years ago
when I asked persons qualified to read a particular script, to test a
hypothesis that a number of petroglyphs employed a precursor subset of
the particular script. [I'm being coy here because I do not want to
reopen old arguments.]

I COULD NOT GET THESE PEOPLE TO TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS for the simple
reason that they could not bring themselves to even consider the
possibility that it might just be correct. THEY WOULD NOT DO IT.

I would like to make what I belueve to be a reasobable request.
Could you and those who are responding to you please create a
thread for this discussion and move it out of the current thread?

Don't worry, I have no intention of turning this into a diversion. My
point is that gaining insight into what Thiering seems to be doing is
not a simple mechanistic process but requires much insight and
considerable groping around before one can identify a set of
allegories which make consistent sense over the wider body of the
text. Someone who is determined to prove the error of Thierings pesher
theory is unlikely to make the necessary effort. To do it successfully
requires at least a suspicion that she might be right.

An analogy might be that it is a bit like trying to crack the Enigma
code when one is convinced that it is not a code.

Discussing another hypothesis by someone else clouds the issuue
of of Barbara Thiering's crackpottery, especially if, as appears
to be the case, this other hypothesis *was* explained well enough
that it is possible for someone else to test it.

Thanks!





Eric Stevens
.

Quantcast