On 02/27/2011 08:55 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Jed and Stephen, > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 1:08:21 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux >> >> >> >> On 02/25/2011 09:19 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: >> >>> Jed Rothwell wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The worst example was the Correa claim that a stationary gold leaf >>>> >> electroscope >> >> >>>> does work. No, it doesn't! It isn't a little guy standing with his arms >>>> out. >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> He claimed to have electrical evidence that a stationary gold leaf >>> >> electroscope >> >> >>> does work. >>> I assume your rejection is based on a critique of the evidence rather then >>> >> just >> >> >>> the belief that it is physical nonsense. >>> >>> >> Actually, the problem is deeper and simpler than that. The *fact* that >> the Correas were off in la-la land on that one is based directly on >> semantics and pure logic, not on anything else, and that is why it's a >> "fact" rather than an "opinion". >> > > If the premises of the other side not understood or recognised then it may > seem > illogical. >
Premises? No, just simple definitions. They're using well accepted and understood terms, and the definitions of those well understood terms simply rule out what they're saying -- it's as though they said, "Black is really white". It's false, by definition. If they've redefined common words and terms, they should bloody well say so -- that's not "premises" which are in question, it's plain old communication. What they were claiming was silly. If they actually meant something else, which wasn't silly, they should have claimed that, instead. If they said something other than what they meant, is it the fault of the listeners that they weren't understood?
