Re: Re[8]: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:16:57 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<BMScott@...> wrote:

>At 6:27:11 AM on Friday, March 21, 2008, fournet.arnaud
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> The issue was :
>> Did Miguel actually read Martinet
>> as he claimed he did ?
>
>> I consider that "I wouldn't be surprised"
>> is itself a clear indication He did not.
>
>And you're wrong, because he was talking about _something_
>_that_Martinet_did_not_write_about_.
>
>One more time: the thought process by which one arrives at a
>hypothesis can be *very* different from the way one presents
>that hypothesis for public consumption. Miguel was talking
>about the former; what's in Martinet's published works is
>evidence only of the latter.

If he didn't get the point after it was explained to him the
first couple of times, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't
understand it now either. Not that I care.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...