Adam Haun writes: >>>>>> Tom O'Toole writes: >>>>>>> Ashley Hatch writes: >>>>>>>> However, different people require different levels of proof before they >>>>>>>> accept a theory. Some may think the theory is plainly obvious and >>>>>>>> requires little proof. While some will require almost infinite proof >>>>>>>> before they accept it. >>>>>>> And one certain person is 'using' this, by expecting inordinate levels of >>>>>>> proof about specifically dissected parts of others postings, in order to >>>>>>> attack other's statements and to avoid having to defend their own. >>>>>> Ah, the usual unsubstantiated claim. When somebody claims that IBM >>>>>> dropped OS/2 PPC, what is wrong with "specifically dissecting" this claim >>>>>> from a posting and request substantiation for it? How does a request for >>>>>> such substantiation represent an attack on that statement? Why does such >>>>>> a request for substantiation require any defense of its own? >>>>> Irrelevant, OS/2 PPC is not the topic of discussion here. >>>> On the contrary, an example of what I have engaged in here, as opposed to >>>> the inappropriate scenario of Tom, is quite relevant. >>> But whenever I give an example, its irrelevant, right? >> Only when the example is irrelevant, Adam. Not all examples are >> necessarily relevant. > Whatever. Are you agreeing with me? >>>>>>> This person shouldn't be surprised when thery are given a taste of their >>>>>>> own medicine in the form of someone else bringing up that nothing can be >>>>>>> proved; >>>>>> How does a stupid statement like that represent a "taste of the their own >>>>>> medicine", Tom? Does a request for substantiation of a claim like IBM >>>>>> dropping OS/2 PPC represent anything remotely similar to a stupid claim >>>>>> that "nothing can be completely proven"? >>>>> Irrelevant. >>>> On the contrary, a discussion about what I have engaged in here, as opposed >>>> to the inappropriate scenario of Tom, is quite relevant. >>>>>>> indeed the only way to argue with such a person is to show them that [383 lines left ... full text available at <url:http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/go?choice=message&table=05_1997&mid=3225516&hilit=HYPNOSIS> ] -------------------------------- Article-ID: 05_1997&3156001 Score: 80 Subject: [07-03-95] CEIV: Alien Abduction, UFOs, and the Conference at M.I.T.