On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
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.
How on earth can you assume this is the case? This discussion is
becoming rather boring, simply because we circle around the very same
point, is the evidence good enough or not. I don't have the book here,
so I simply cannot make the point. If you have doubts, read it. If after
that you still have doubts, ok. Then we can discuss it. Otherwise, no
point. I can't list the evidence anyway, and even if I did you would
doubt it, too, without the prove. Discussing this just for the sake of
fighting for ever so slightly different views is a waste of time.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
