Blaine: Anthon, not Anthod, may have done as you say, but denial
after the fact happens all the time--proves nothing, as usual for your
attack on an otherwise valid story.
Then if your assertion is correct. eg "denial after the fact" proves
nothing.
1) the "fact" was never established in the first place we only have the
"evidence" of Martin Harris' words. Now when you consider that Joe
called him a LIAR, why should I trust his words?
2) If as you say, "denial after the fact proves nothing", I can accuse
you of any sort of VILE behavior and you should not attempt to clear
your name, since it would be meaningless.
3) The evidence is
A)Harris an accused Liar said Anthon approved
B) Anthon said he did not
This does NOT make for a VALID story!
Your statement is a logical Fallacy.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/11/2005 10:45:23 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Anthod denied the whole story. He maintained that he told Harris
> that he (Harris) was a victim of a fraud. In fact NO ONE at the time
could decipher Egyptian.
>
>
> Blaine: Anthon, not Anthod, may have done as you say, but denial
> after the fact happens all the time--proves nothing, as usual for
your attack on an otherwise valid story.
>
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
