At 5:57:18 AM on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, tgpedersen
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> wrote:
>> At 5:24:53 AM on Thursday, March 13, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>> > wrote:
>>>>>> * You treat a known forgery (Trithemius's Hunibald) as a
>>>>>> serious source
>>>>> Where does the "known forgery" get 'Wectam' from then?
>>>> I have no idea; it's not out of the question that
>>>> Trithemius simply invented it, you know. But
>>>> mind-reading is beyond me, especially 400 years after
>>>> the fact.
>>> "I don't know what you're talking about"? I note that
>>> you didn't answer the question.
>> (1) I have no idea whom you think you're quoting before
>> the the question mark.
>> (2) I did answer the question: 'I don't know' is a
>> legitimate answer. Indeed, I commend it to your serious
>> consideration.
> You would make a good lawyer. And you still didn't answer
> the question. "I don't know" is not a legitimate answer in
> this situation. I wasn't asking you for information on a
> fact. If you believe 'Hunibald' is a forgery, you will
> have to come up with an explanation of where he got
> 'Wechtam' from.
No, Torsten. That is the whole point. You're the one
making unusual claims.
While it would be nice to know how he came up with the name,
those who accept that his Hunibald is a forgery are under no
obligation to come up with an explanation of what is no more
than a curiosity. On the contrary, the onus is on those who
offer explanations to provide adequate justification. You
have not done so for yours; your justification amounts to
pointing to a couple of surface resemblances and observing
that your explanation fits into your grand scheme.
And there's still less here than meets the eye. It is
certainly conceivable that Trithemius's <Wechtam> is based
on one or another of the names/epithets that you would like
to relate; I do not think that it's particularly likely, but
in that it's no different from any of the other explanations
that have occurred to me. But it really doesn't matter,
because even if he did get the name from one of those
sources, his having done so provides no support for
connecting the names/epithets themselves. If you think
otherwise, you're welcome to try to make a real case; what
you've offered so far is all smoke and mirrors à la Barry
Fell.
> And the whole problem with your postings is that you
> always, instead of argument, refer to your own points of
> view as common sense.
The complaint is inaccurate. I have offered arguments --
indeed, you accepted one earlier in this post -- and I have
requested justification of unsubstantiated claims; both of
these fall under the heading of argument. Finally, it is
certainly not just *my* notion of (linguistic) common sense
according to which you place undue reliance on superficial
resemblances. You can hardly fail to be aware that your
views are somewhat idiosyncratic.
Brian