At 12:14:00 PM on Monday, April 25, 2011, Torsten wrote:
> When you dogmatically and unreasoned restate standard
> opinions, you're wasting everybody's time.
'Dogmatically' and 'unreasoned' are merely your biasses
speaking: you ignore the arguments that are actually
offered. And even if they were accurate, you waste far more
of your readers' time. Regurgitating a Misthaufen of data
and tacking on a few words of 'This makes me think X' or the
like is not making a case for anything; it's much closer to
the sort of 'argument' by insinuation that I expect (and
get) from the likes of Erich von Däniken and Adrian Gilbert.
I realize that digesting your data and arguing a genuine
case would be significantly harder and more time-consuming
than dumping the output of an OCR to Cybalist, but you might
try it sometime, if only for the sake of novelty.
[...]
>> No real linguist can ignore such long time spans that
>> engulf tremendous linguistic transformations.
> And that's why I try to fill out those time spans with
> whatever information I can get.
Laudable, but it requires the ability to distinguish
information from conjecture and sheerest fantasy.
Brian