----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:28 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: Commentary: Why Europe Sides Against the Jews / tim e.com
> > Sorry, Dan, but so far you have not shown anything that can be interpreted > as me saying that I should not have been expected to have read a specific post. Well, let me walk you through the trail. I will do it one step at a time to keep things short. In post 73988 (Aug. 15, 2001 at 5PM) I define debunk <quote> Debunking is usually used in contest of psychic phenomenon, haunted houses, astrology, etc. It is a rigorous falsification of a premise by showing that the phenomenon is actually explained by more conventional means. Citing web sites of people who claim something is false does not constitute a debunking. Even making a reasonable case for your point is not debunking. Debunking means proving your point beyond reasonable doubt. <end quote> Is is fair to say that this is a clear definition? IMHO, it shows why someone who uses the word debunk in an arguement should expect to have to meet a very high standard for proof. Do you argee? If not, why not? Dan M.
