> You seem to have a block to seeing my point. An argument on
> the character of the lines does not warrant Creighton’s (or
> anyone else’s) “telling” readers (by way of a drawing) that
> there are no such lines. I can not see any legitimate
> objection to telling the reader the truth about the evidence.
I see both your points on the matter. One you are saying the lines are deliberate and the other you are saying Scott is pretending the lines do not even exist. The former I can speak on, the latter I cannot as I have not read his article. Regardless, there are obviously lines there, this is nothing to argue about, your point I have addressed is whether they are deliberate or not which I am reasonably certain they are not. If Scott is just "pretending" they do not even exist and makes no effort as I have to explain what they actually are then obviously you are correct in this regard and Scott has every right to be taken to task on the matter. Granted, it does not change his theory, but of course the onus would be on him if he has not done so to explain on a technical level how he came to this conclusion.
> You are certainly welcome to draw some circles, scan the
> drawings and show us what you have in mind.
> If a dot, so what? Yes! That the circle is dotted is a
> necessary but not sufficient condition of Creighton’s
> conjecture being correct. Were it ever so clearly a dotted
> circle, it would be open to other, entirely innocuous
This may be important to Scott, but to me as it relates to the overall context of the graffiti in the relieving chambers as a whole, and construction of G1 in general, I fail to see how it makes any difference. You get that right?
Scott is not being playful so I understand you want to argue his ideas vicariously through someone else, but I honestly have no interest.
Post Edited (30-May-14 20:24)