[tied] Re: Schöffe I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> 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.

Which ones? Example?

> 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.

'Insinuation', you said?

> 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.

Oh, nasty. ;-)
I see arguing a case as showing that it explains more evidence or better the existing evidence. I try to do that. If you have questions, please ask. How come you never do that if you're so dissatisfied?

> [...]
>
> >> 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.

That might be what is your problem, you decide beforehand that something is not important or not your field (of interest) so you ignore it, and then later on in a chain of arguments you have lost the thread and feel something must be wrong with the argument since it can't be you?


Torsten