Pike's ghost

Sergei SOLOVIEV · 29 Nov 2011, 18:49 · from 2011-November.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: soloviev at irit.fr (Sergei SOLOVIEV)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:49:06 +0100
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED51E51.4060809 at verizon.net>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>	<70C71EDFDC3B4AEBA0FD38FD41FB8551@Rover>	<4ED39725.9090804 at gmail.com>	<4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net>	<4ED3BEAA.1080107 at gmail.com>	<4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>	<4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com>	<4ED3DFF2.8050208 at verizon.net>	<4ED3F57B.8050104 at gmail.com>	<4ED40796.8030108 at verizon.net>	<4ED41277.9040204 at gmail.com>	<4ED41B0E.6050507 at gmail.com>	<4ED41F91.1020906 at gmail.com>	<4ED4276E.8040608 at gmail.com>	<4ED4293C.2010906 at gmail.com>	<4ED50482.8030804 at gmail.com>	<4ED5064C.8000004 at gmail.com>	<4ED50A58.7080100 at gmail.com>	<4ED50C1A.2060103 at gmail.com>	<4ED511BF.8050105 at gmail.com>	<4ED51769.7080001 at gmail.com>	<4ED51CFB.7010209 at gmail.com>
	<4ED51E51.4060809 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4ED52922.5040503 at irit.fr>

I think that there are still some "minimum requirements" to the people 
who advance
an extravagant new theory -

- if they claim that the theory is supported by the text, it would be 
fair to do the
work finding necessary quotations, and honestly present the context (not 
to make
the opponent to browse the whole book to find out that the next sentence 
to the
sentence just quoted is disproving the theory)

- to be polite, and not to present disagreement as stupidity

- not to try to intimidate the opponents presenting their hypotheses
as common knowledge and consensus

Regards

Sergei Soloviev

David Stockhoff wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 12:57 PM, James Wynn wrote:
>> If I am going to discuss a theory, I approach it from the position, 
>> "What if it were true? What would I expect?". I have never said to 
>> anyone, for an example, "This is /your/ theory. YOU come up with 
>> something that I will accept." I've been told that here in various 
>> ways by some people. I've seen people say it to others. That's 
>> expecting other people to prove you wrong. That's smug. That's a jerk. 
>
> Exactly.
>
> On the other hand, I do expect commenters who *assert* that I'm wrong 
> to *prove* me wrong. Sometimes they do in short order.
>
> Sometimes they don't and won't, and it takes forever to find that out.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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