> What some people here refuse to acknowledge is
> that I've made no "claim of fact" . . .
> . . . the growing amount of contradictory
> evidence, . . .
You couldn’t make it up, could you?
So, your implied claim that there is a growing amount of such evidence is not a factual claim. This must be so, as you have made no “claim of fact”.
Returning to that first paragraph as it continues:
> . . . I've made no "claim of fact" other than to
> state the fact [?] that if anyone claims something is
> indisputably true, then they damn well better be
> prepared to prove their claim to be
> indisputably true.
Even more so if they make no such claim, as you’ll just pretend that they did, as an excuse to impose on them an evidential burden which you admit is an impossible one.
Which is what you tried with me, remember?
Still waiting on this, Herr Doktor Wiesel:
“Explicit citation and verbatim quote of my claiming certainty, please.”
We are duly warned that in your imagination, deciding who has and has not made such claims is at your discretion, with no test in evidence whatsoever.
> . . . the lack of supporting evidence for a 3rd mill.
> BC provenance, . . . the contradictory [sic] evidence
> against a 3rd mill. BC provenance.
> Again, I make no definitive claims about the past . . .
No, just about the evidence of the past. Perhaps you’d like to outline the difference—but these are not “claims of fact”, so we may safely ignore them.
> since it's clear that we may never know with
> certainty (cf., my tagline, which is a
> principle that others seem to be embracing
> lately). . . .
Which is surely one of the more striking examples of hypocrisy ever to appear on this board.
For all of your faux-fallibilist posturing, you presumed to tax me with demands for “evidence speaking with certainty to the provenance”, “hard evidence” to make the provenance “indisputable”, “proof of provenance” etc.—on the spurious warrant of my making claims to certainty which you made up for the purpose.
This with the object of dishonestly evading a plain refutation of your crackpot claims: