On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> It means we acknowledge the possibility of error or fraud, and *then we
> move on* to the rest of the discussion.
>
Lawrence already showed how silly this claim is. You repeatedly say there
is no chance of fraud; that the claims are proven o
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Really, Jed? You acknowledge the possibility of error or fraud, and just
> assume it's all real "for the sake of argument"?
>
You misunderstand. This is not about my beliefs. I expect *other
people*who take part in an academic discussion to accept assertions
for the
On 11-12-09 08:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
comments with the other person's, I counted 4 or 5 instances where you
> repeated the same basic point, but 5 different ways. Yeah, we
get it, ok?
>
Fine. But apparently a lot of peop
>From Jed:
...
> I believe Cude threatened to expose the fact that years ago I expressed
doubts
> about Piantelli, whereas I am now more persuaded by his claims. Cude
thinks it
> is shameful for me to reconsider the evidence, and two-faced for me
to change
> my mind. I do not think so.
If that
Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> comments with the other person’s, I counted 4 or 5 instances where you
> > repeated the same basic point, but 5 different ways. Yeah, we get it,
> ok?
> >
>
> Fine. But apparently a lot of people don't get it because they keep
> assuming Rossi is necessarily or most likely
5 matches
Mail list logo
