> SC: What I imagine is irrelevant.

> MA: My point exactly. Your "I can imagine it - so it must be
> true" is irrelevant. We agree at last.

> SC: Er – no.

You need to make up your mind.

> SC: You don’t get away that easily. You cannot just
> clip and post my statement out of context. What MATTERS is that
> we have a ‘testimony’ from Brewer/Allen that alleges fraud.

What matters is - can we find something that supports that claim. Like an inscription that Vyse could have copied.

> SC: THAT is what you should be concerned about. And that the
> imperative is to obtain the truth of the matter. Are you
> interested in obtaining the truth?

Personalizing.

> MA: The discussion I engaged in is already settled. I asked you
> to provide an example of an inscription Vyse could have copied.
> You could not. What I got was an insight into your lively
> imagination - an imagination that we agree is
> irrelevant.

> SC: Hilarious. You say that because those of us with an
> imagination can imagine the ways of perpetrating such a fraud
> that the likes of your good self, without an imagination, could
> not.

I say that because imaginary evidence is just that - imaginary.

> SC: To you perpetrating such a fraud was deemed “impossible”.

I have deemed nothing impossible. Yet.

> SC: The use of imagination from myself and others has shown that it
> wasn’t.

It has shown that you let your imagination, rather than facts, guide you.

> SC: But then you don’t want to use any imagination you
> might have because it might reveal to you possibilities you
> rather wouldn’t want to consider. In short – you are running
> scared of the truth and are merely here attempting to help
> shore up a thoroughly untenable position.

Personalizing.

> SC: Asks the person who is happy to accept a stone box in the
> early giant pyramids is a sarcophagus when no remains of any
> king have ever been found. Do you imagine a dead king in those
> stone boxes? Do you imagine just when it suits you?

I use logic. An example follows here under.

> SC: Your argument is like saying a person found dead with a bullet in
> them wasn’t shot because no one has found the gun. The gun is
> the logical conclusion even in its absence.

If you insist on using analogies, do try to come up with something that makes some sense.

The logical conclusion when you find a person with a bullet in him is that he was shot. The logical conclusion when you find an inscription on a stone is not that it was faked.

There you have it - the difference between logic and imagination.

> SC: If fraud was
> committed as the Brewer/Allan ‘testimony’ implies then Tricky
> Dicky would have to have had found something to copy. That
> isn’t imagined – it is the logical conclusion.

That is the point that I have been making all along. Where is it? An answer based on facts rather than on your imagination if you please.

Do you understand the difference between "If fraud was committed he would have to have had something to copy" and "Fraud was commited therefore he had something to copy"?
You write the former but argue from the later.

Morten



Post Edited (22-May-13 11:49)