<HTML>>> > You advocate derision every time someone makes a mistake?
>>No. However, I do advocate it for the adherents of Maier's Law.
So anyone who disposes of evidence which doesn't fit their theory should be derided. OK, but in this statement:
>>Mind you, anyone who can assume that the printers accidentally reversed the map but somehow managed to leave the writing on that map unreversed deserves all the derision he gets.
... you are suggesting that RB is simply too inept to realise the obvious, ie. he made a mistake, an error. You then bolster this by saying further down the thread:
>>I'll accept your analogy as being valid when Bauval corrects his errors
...which indicates (in order for the analogy to work) that you believe his statement about the printers is an error.
My conclusion from this is that you believe that RB deserves all the derision he gets for apparently making an error with regard to the 'printers' line, which flies in the face of your statement:
>>I have already told you that my opinion is that derision is applicable to adherents of Maier's Law.Which bit of that did you not understand? Nowhere did I state that it is applicable to the making of simple mistakes. Please do not attribute to me things that I have not said/written.
So, is this line...:
>>I presume that the printers put the photograph the wrong way."
1. a case of discarding evidence
2. an error
3. a touch of sarcasm?
From what you write I conclude that you assume it is 2. Only 1. deserves derision, therefore your statement regarding RB deserving all the derision he gets is unwarranted.
As I've shown, we were both wrong. The actual answer is 3.
Shall we call this a draw?
Bryan.</HTML>