Re[8]: [tied] Re: Monovocalism: sequel

At 4:06:05 PM on Saturday, July 10, 2004,
enlil@... wrote:

> Brian:

>> [... angry accusatory rant ...] Secondly, I see nothing
>> particularly confrontational in pointing out an apparent
>> error, [... more anger ...]

What I wrote was neither angry, nor accusatory, nor a rant,
though the charges are mildly amusing considering their
source.

> Error? <:\ Yes, I do think you're being emotional here.

Funny; it's not I who cut all of the substance of a post and
inaccurately and emotionally characterized what was cut.

> It is a _fact_ that not one language has been identified
> by you or anyone showing an exclusive use of non-lexical
> vowels.

Had you been paying the slightest attention, you'd know that
I agree with you about this. It is, however, irrelevant to
the point that I was making: that was a *general* point
about methodology. Please keep your discussions straight.

Unless you have something to say about the proper use of
statistical reasoning in reconstruction, I'm done.

Brian