On 17 Jan 2007 at 17:02, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: > > I don't have his book, so I can't immediately read it. But there is > > a problem with interpretation of the evidence here. If you're > > conveying Parrot's case correctly, he's giving the surviving sources > > more weight than they can bear. > > I am not conveying Parrot's case, in fact he makes his own case very > convincingly. Please read the book, then tell me whether you think he > doesn't have enough factual evidence.
No amount of evidence improperly interpreted can prove a case, so it's not how much evidence he accumulates, but how interprets the evidence that is available. I'll put it on my list of things to read, but I don't believe it's fair to attempt to shut off discussion of the issues involved by simply claiming there's a book that proves your position without citing the actual line of reasoning from that book. You've given some examples, and objections to the line of reasoning you present have been given, but you seem to me to be simply insisting that the book proves that these objections are unwarranted. I don't see that as a particularly good-faith approach to discussion. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
