Littlestone
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:17
|
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: ...desperate connections attempted, typical self published, unreviewed fare.
There’s nothing wrong with self-publishing (as opposed to vanity publishing). If it was good enough for Beatrix Potter it’s good enough for anyone. It’s those who claim they're working on this book or that book, and it’ll be out shortly but never is, that gets my goat. If you’re going to criticize Mr Goutté’s book at least have the courtesy of reading it first and then do it with his research in front of you.
|
juamei
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:23
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: Twin chambers and both with access points doesn't seem that strange to me, but that's just my opinion.
Me neither, its the sloping stone dividing the space I find weird I'm afraid.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:24
|
|
nigelswift wrote:
If you: well, pointing out SH is unique in order to illustrate that lack of precedents don't invalidate your theory is a totally valid thing to say.
A lack of precedents doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory but when that precedent also involves negating the most obvious and simpler explanation it does make it much less likely .
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:27
|
|
Littlestone wrote: It’s those who claim they're working on this book or that book, and it’ll be out shortly but never is, that gets my goat.
From now on, instead of just letting you do it repeatedly, as I have for ages, every single time you say anything that I think is aimed at me I shall put up this link http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=68269&message=867174 in order to discourage you.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:29
|
|
tiompan wrote: nigelswift wrote:
If you: well, pointing out SH is unique in order to illustrate that lack of precedents don't invalidate your theory is a totally valid thing to say.
A lack of precedents doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory but when that precedent also involves negating the most obvious and simpler explanation it does make it much less likely .
But the 'obvious and simpler explanation' is only valid if the other evidence against has been rejected first George. Reading the book for yoursel will tell you what it is before dismissing it.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:36
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: Twin chambers and both with access points doesn't seem that strange to me, but that's just my opinion.
I can't comment on the dividing stone but Belas Knap has 3 or 4 chambers with their own access points.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:40
|
|
You’re becoming paranoid Nigel, I was actually thinking of someone else, well-known to both of us, who has collaborated with at least two people on books which have never seen the light of day.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:46
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Twin chambers and both with access points doesn't seem that strange to me, but that's just my opinion.
I can't comment on the dividing stone but Belas Knap has 3 or 4 chambers with their own access points.
It's not the amount of chambers that is in question Nigel but the fact that I claim the two at Trethevy are divided by a sloping stone i.e. a lower and upper chamber. Both have there own 'doorways'.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:48
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: nigelswift wrote:
If you: well, pointing out SH is unique in order to illustrate that lack of precedents don't invalidate your theory is a totally valid thing to say.
A lack of precedents doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory but when that precedent also involves negating the most obvious and simpler explanation it does make it much less likely .
But the 'obvious and simpler explanation' is only valid if the other evidence against has been rejected first George. Reading the book for yoursel will tell you what it is before dismissing it.
What type evidence can there be to prove that the obvious backstone was not the backstone ? That problem is further exacerbated by then suggesting that the explanation involves accepting a feature that is unique .
The obvious and simple explanation involves one event that has been noted elsewhere , the alternatives involve more than one event ,and in this case features that are unprecedented .There is no reason that a complicated series of events didn't take place but the problem is providing evidence for them and also evidence to disprove the most obvious explanation .
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 11:54
|
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: nigelswift wrote:
If you: well, pointing out SH is unique in order to illustrate that lack of precedents don't invalidate your theory is a totally valid thing to say.
A lack of precedents doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory but when that precedent also involves negating the most obvious and simpler explanation it does make it much less likely .
But the 'obvious and simpler explanation' is only valid if the other evidence against has been rejected first George. Reading the book for yoursel will tell you what it is before dismissing it.
What type evidence can there be to prove that the obvious backstone was not the backstone ? That problem is further exacerbated by then suggesting that the explanation involves accepting a feature that is unique .
The obvious and simple explanation involves one event that has been noted elsewhere , the alternatives involve more than one event ,and in this case features that are unprecedented .There is no reason that a complicated series of events didn't take place but the problem is providing evidence for them and also evidence to disprove the most obvious explanation .
Exactly what evidence have you got to prove that the claimed backstone WAS the real backstone George. Have you seen it in place, has anyone? I've explained why I don't believe it was and actually shown an alternative. I think the ball is in your court with respect to prove your case.
|
