Re: ancient name of Zeus

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

You (not surprisingly) misunderstood. I do not single out your favorite
interpretation as crackpottery. _Every_ attempt at the P.D. is
crackpottery, because there is insufficient information to decipher it.
--

You (not surprisingly) weasel out. I said you judge the book
by Derk Ohlenroth withouth having much as laid eyes on it.

Correct. See above.

Whereupon you replied 'There is no need to "lay eyes on"
crackpottery' (Sun, May 28 2006 3:03 pm). You called Derk
Ohlenroth's book crackpottery withouth having seen one
single page of it.

Correct. See above.

You resemble those cardinals who did not
look through Galileo's telescope.

You used that one already. Irrelevant, since D.O. has no additional
evidence.

And anyway, those alleged
effects of light and shadow Galileo believes to see playing
around Jupiter are insufficient to invalidate Aristotle's well
established understanding of the starry sky as revolving
crystal spheres. Irrelevant, as cardinal Brian Irrelephant
Scott would say. Peter T. Daniels: you can exert power as
an editor with Giorgias, but you can't exert power here, you
can't just drop silly statements and we have to duck before
your almightyness. You can do that in your publishing house,
but not here. Here you got to provide arguments. Arguments,
not prejudices.

No argument is necessary. D.O.'s decipherment is no more or less valid
than J.F.'s or hagen's.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ancient name of Zeus
    ... crackpottery, because there is insufficient information to decipher it. ... Peter T. Daniels: ... an editor with Giorgias, but you can't exert power here, you ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: ancient name of Zeus
    ... crackpottery, because there is insufficient information to decipher it. ... Irrelevant, as cardinal Brian Irrelephant ... an editor with Giorgias, but you can't exert power here, you ...
    (sci.lang)