--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <snip> > > > > Thanks for your speculations (about the Celts, at > > > > any rate). >>> > > > > > > Another intelligent discussion at FFL is strarved of light and > > > bites the dust. > > > > Did you want to discuss your speculations that > > I had assumed the Celts coming to America was a > > sectarian myth, that because the Pilgrims were > > vulnerable the Celts were also, and that because > > they arrived they did not go back and forth?>>> > > You seem to confuse speculation and common sense. Perhaps your > experience with the latter is limited.
??? I didn't *make* any speculations. > > Did I starve intelligent discussion of light by > > telling you they weren't correct? >>> > > You didn't tell me anything wasn't correct, you just made an array > of assumptions based on a meagre grasp of the topic in hand. ??? I didn't make *any* assumptions! *You* decided I had made several assumptions, which you proceeded to knock down. Fine, except that I'd never made those assumptions. That's what I told you wasn't correct, your speculations that I had made those assumptions. > Should I have > > pretended they were correct? Should I have > > added my own speculations about the Celts > > themselves, about whom I know next to nothing?>>> > > Yes, you know next to nothing about the Celts and should not > speculate about them until you have studied them for 25 years as I > have. Then you may be ready for some common sense speculations. That's what I figured. That's why I didn't *make* any speculations, you see. I still have no idea what you're on about here. > >>> Should I have argued with your speculations? > > > > What? >>> > > Seen the deeper significance which you have yet to grasp. The "deeper significance" of what, your speculations about my assumptions? Your accusation that I had starved the discussion of light? I *asked* what the "deeper significance" was, and instead of giving me a clue, you accuse me again of having all kinds of assumptions I just got done telling you I don't have. Do you really wonder why you're making me crosseyed? Or do you mean I should have seen the deeper significance of your speculations about the Celts? I'm sorry that I don't have a clue about that either; didn't realize there was any. If you'd like to expand on it, I'm happy to listen and learn. But I don't see why my not seeing the deeper significance of your speculations about the Celts should constitute starving the discussion of light. I don't have any to shed, but I didn't take away any of yours. If you have some, by all means shed away. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
