On 11-09-15 03:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:
My concern is actually rather different.
My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the
flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry.
And that, in turn, leads me to question any testimony from Galantini.
You have made a high pile of unproven suppositions here!
Yes, I sure have.
Reasoning by pattern-matching against other known quantities is, of
course, not deductively valid, but in this case I find it convincing. I
haven't gone into all the details, just one small piece of the picture I
see.
It'll be interesting to see if who's right.
