<HTML>Bryan wrote:
> So your derision is as selective as GH's evidence for a
> LC. Well, I guess there's some sort of balance there.
?????
Surely you can see the distinction between selecting criteria for cheering or chiding (in this case I have selected the criterion of adherence to Maier's Law for chiding) and selectively ignoring inconvenient evidence?
>
> I'm not into red herrings
I will, of course, take your word for this, but I am still struggling to see the relevance of your comment on Hiwass to the <b>specific point</b> of my original post which is <b>whether or not Bauval's pronouncement on the map in the S&T article was justifiable or defensible</b>. I'm sure you wouldn't have commented without actually having seen the map in question, so perhaps you could be so kind as to look at it again and then put an end to my struggle.
As regards Hiwass, no, I didn't mention what you call his 'stupid things'. Neither did I mention the enormous number of 'stupid things' that numerous other people have said. (As someone once said, <i>The most abundant element in the universe isn't hydrogen; it's stupidity</i>.) As a bear of little brain [1] I find it much easier to concentrate on one thing at a time and to open a new topic for the discussion of another (in this case Hiwass' alleged 'stupid things') point and to treat them, if not separately, at least distinctly. IMNSHO this makes it much easier to concentrate on issues.
You see, Bryan, no matter how many 'stupid things' I mention, you could always find yet another example that I haven't mentioned. It doesn't really illuminate the original point and it is in danger of appearing to be an attempt to muddy the waters by tossing in those herrings that we both purport to abhor, and which is a favourite tactic of pseudoscientists [2] [3].
> and I'm not a promoter of
> alternative views either,
I really can't comment on this as I must have missed the post/thread where someone suggested that you were such a promoter. However, I am again struggling to see the relevance of this comment to the topic.
>before you start.
???
Before I start what? Yet again I am struggling to see the relevance of this to the topic.
[1] Apologies to the Pooh-challenged <g>.
[2] I am merely giving my opinion of pseudoscientific argument and am not
accusing you of beinga pseudoscientist.
[3] See separate topic <i>Flaws of Argumentation</i></HTML>
