Re: Re[2]: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:18 PM
Subject: Re[2]: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]


> At 8:24:47 PM on Friday, September 23, 2005, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > Thank God that the obvious flatness of the earth was
> > eventually researched.
>
> It didn't have to be: despite popular myths to the contrary,
> the fact that the earth is roughly spherical was obvious at
> a rather early date to those who cared about such things.
>
> > I do not have a tin ear, and I have not noticed it among
> > GA speakers of middle class or better.
>
> > It was also obvious that the sun went around the earth.
> > "Obvious" has no weight whatsoever in a discussion that,
> > at least, pretends to be scientific.
>
> When, as here, it refers to readily available evidence, it
> does in fact carry some weight. You are confusing 'evidence
> sufficient to establish that the phenomenon not only exists
> but is quite common' with 'precise quantitative evidence of
> the extent of the phenomenon'.
>
> Brian

***
Patrick:

I am fully nauseated by your repeating, over and over again, as if to
propagate the "Big Lie', that evidence is "readily available" when, after
you have been repeatedly asked for it, you cannot produce it.

I am not confusing anything.

I want evidence that it exists outside of tiny enclaves like Long Gisland,
and is found in registers outside of the lowest classes and people faking
Britishness.

***