[Spellyans] the tone of debate here

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Nov 22 13:00:03 GMT 2010

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 8:45 PM

"WHether you believe it or not, Eddie, Keith Bailey is a person. I have many times invited him to back up his claims with concrete examples which might prove his case. He has always chosen to fail to do so. But my view that his arguments (based as he says on the evidence) don't convince in the absence of evidence is perfectly correct.


If Dan makes similar claims and does not back them up (as Nicholas does) with reference to the texts, then Dan is doing the same sort of thing as Bailey. Pointing this out is not a polemic. It's suggesting that the same standard of academic proof that I have suggested Bailey should meet is the same standard of academic proof that Dan should meet. Nicholas has been meeting that standard for many years now. Indeed I suggest that he set the standard. 


This is not a "ploy". Nor is it polemics. It's asking Dan to prove his case, or try, with facts, not just argument."  


I have given examples. Several of them. You just don’t accept them. OK, I haven’t written a thesis on this yet, but I hope to. I only brought it up recently and can’t shake something like that out of my wrist. I also have a job and a private life. There’s only so much I can do in a matter of days. Be patient and don’t trash me just yet.

I’ve also seen that we have to accept the we’s opinion here until we have written a paper countering their theories. All fair, but that tells me this isn’t the place anymore to offer a working hypothesis and what-ifs. The KS.1 list used to be, but I guess that spirit of cooperation is over. I shall not do so again.    




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101122/c9631f0e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list