--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It wasn't even a side claim -I WAS MAKEING- it was > > simply in response > > to that discussion. So, still, if you want > > references for that I know > > you can find them, If you already do not believe > > that then I doubt > > you will trust them anyway. I watch a lot of history > > channel, > > (sometimes I need brackground noise, and it might as > > well be somewhat > > informative, other times it's Science Channel, or > > wings or TLC). The > > subject came up on one of those docs so I recognized > > the reference > > when OTHERS brought it up. > > The history channel is not always a reliable source. I > often catch them in errors or over-broad > generalizations. Some of the programming is good but I > would be cautious before taking everything at face > value. > > It doesn't matter whether this particular point was a > focus for your argument or not. QUestionable evidence > can lead to "interesting" or flawed conclusions. This > is part and parcial to the study of history, and one > of the many things I learned is to be considerate of > the sources being used, and to evaluate their > legitimacy, bias, or factualness before using them to > support an argument.
That's the point I wasn't using it to support and argument. > > If you snip that part, you alter my whole statment > > to mean almost the > > oposite of what I was saying. Asking me to cite > > something I was > > saying the validity of which was inconsequential is > > ludircous. > > I dissagree; you should be prepared to defend your > evidence no matter how inconsequential it is. > Otherwise, if its not reliable, why use it as evidence > to begin with? I wasn't using it as evidence, I was trying to say that that whole buisness didn't matter, the evedence didn't need support, becouse my argument was that the truth of the evidence did not matter. > Besides, for myself, I personally am questioning the > statement IN AND OF ITSELF, completely divorced from > the arguments. Good. > > If you are personaly that interested in the topic, > > why ask someone > > else to do the research for you? > > Because you are the one who made the statement, and > were asked for your sources? Hay, if I am responding to -others- suggestions, and knowing that there are historians who have made simmilar suggestions, and if I am saying that the information which is questionable makes no difference, then why would -I- spend any time tyring to show references for it? I'm saing "hay, even if that were true, it still doesn't matter." So why would I care to spend any time trying to prove it to be true? This is just silly! _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
