the prime calcula/his citadel and other quotes

António Pedro Marques · 19 Jan 2011, 16:00 · from 2011-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:00:01 +0000
Subject: (urth) the prime calcula/his citadel and other quotes
In-Reply-To: <4D36F911.1010700 at gmail.com>
References: <609292.90378.qm at web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com><00c201cbb68c$7229a680$b5cf4a0c@rclackey>	<4D34B7A5.3060607 at gmail.com><004901cbb6f6$cc7327a0$7bd04a0c@rclackey>	<4D358382.8020301 at gmail.com><BC6150592C554CC9AB4637B073047F5D@jill>	<4D361381.9030603 at gmail.com><AA17E2BBFA234D198BDD6CB0BCB34938@jill>	<4D362F78.5040301 at gmail.com><13D936C085A441C785BDFB8877B2AB0E@jill>	<4D363D57.6090902 at gmail.com>	<58C03303FF2E4E93B46D58A1A0A1E7C9@jill>	<4D365278.3000100 at gmail.com><4D36602E.4090704 at gmail.com>	<4D36E501.2000700 at gmail.com>	<EDE49B9E04AE4050807DD0F892575174@jill>
	<4D36F911.1010700 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D370A81.3030108 at gmail.com>

James Wynn wrote (19-01-2011 14:45):
>> Gerry Quinn wrote-
>> James... read Antonio's first line carefully!
>
> Hmm...I confess I don't know exactly what his argument is now. I'll wait
> for him to elaborate when he corrects me.

I originally meant to show how you were imposing an unreasonable demand on 
the text to dispell the notion that Silk might be Typhon's clone - i.e., 
that you were saying that he was, and that the absence of textual support 
was irrelevant because there was no explicit textual refutation. I tried to 
show how one can't reasonably demand a text to explicitly contradict 
something which it didn't say in the first place. But then you took my 
imagined explicit refutation and explained how it was in fact in your view 
not a refutation but a confirmation. Whence now?

NB I don't dispute that Silk may be related to Typhon somehow, and that 
informed the way I wrote the 'quote'. What I don't find convincing at all is 
that he is a clone.

And not even to mention that I'm not sure whether someone as vain as Typhon 
would want a clone in the first place.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net