<HTML>Hi, Derek:
You wrote:
"If the properly apllied methodology trips up the theory then its back to the drawing board, even if it is on a technicality"
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that sometimes we get bogged down in the trees, and never see the forest.
There are points that may not be absolutely essential to the final conclusion, and so throwing them out, or simply correcting them, can allow the conversation to continue. Sometimes, the amateur doing the presenting does not have all the evidence at his fingertips, and wouldn't it be a shame for him to be expelled from the proceedings while three debunkers in the audience HAD the evidence, but refused to bring it forth during the discussion simply because he wasn't on their team?
Until we admit that we are ALL on the same team, this kind of behaviour does and will continue to persist.
Of course, the same thing applies in reverse. If an alternative historian absolutely knows a piece of evidence is crap (i.e., the piri reis maps) than those need to be dropped tout suite.
Often, they are not. Both sides posture, and little gets accomplished.
Let me give you a real world example...
I am a financial advisor by trade. People come to me ALL the time with the hairbrained money making scheme du jour. I listen very carefully to absolutely every word they say. Once they have put every one of their cards on the table (and ONLY after they're done) do I then create my point by point counter argument... and blow it out of the water. This is a fair exchange. Of course, I am viewed as a professional, but I don't mind helping people to understand WHY things are the way they are. And just about every new client has to be started from ground zero... even the multi-millionaires in my practice.
If I stopped them at the first objectionable statement, two things would happen:
1. They would be frustrated because they weren't allowed to finish;
2. They would move their business elsewhere.
Once in a while, though, somebody brings in a gem. Some new company or new product or new financing vehicle... these make it all worth the wait. These new discoveries are then applied to everyone in my practice, as applicable.
And that is how I think the discussions should be carried out here. People like yourself and Greg and John who have boxes of knowledge can do so much to HELP neophytes like myself along... but instead, its turned into nitpicking arguments over details that SEEM like common sense to most people.
Again, I'm getting frustrated because I'm not allowed to finish;
and I might consider moving my business elsewhere.
That's not supposed to be a threat or a temper tantrum thing, it's just a statement that since I'm not compensated to be here (and who is?), I don't ever have to come here.
I just want to learn more. And since I have something of some practical application to people interested in building their own pyramids, I try to give back a bit.
Does that make sense?
Anthony</HTML>
