nnalyd{at}yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>>Your arguments are nothing new.  THey are
>>weak and are based upon not only poor scholarship, but revisionistic
>>history.
>
> Um, prove it.

Right. "Prove my scholarship is poor."  If the scholarship
were not poor, it would be convincing, by definition.
Scholarship IS the proof, and one doesn't (logically)
demand proof that a proof is invalid.  The proof (and
scholarship) have to stand on their own merit.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/26/05 8:46:23 PM ---