Posted: Feb 02, 2012 10:43 pm
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:proudfootz wrote:
Really? I thought you were intimating that where I am posting [RationalSkepticism.ORG] 'affords me no possibility of interest'.
No. More specifically this thread. Which is a thread about history. Wherein we're all amateurs and, consequentlyproudfootz wrote:
Why would I take an interest in so much hand-wringing by people outside the discipline?
Of no interest to you.
I took an interest because this thread was about historian Richard Carrier and a proposed a possible solution to problems historians have encountered. So far no contradiction - though it seems you are intent on trying to find one.
Please do try to take the time to properly read and comprehend posts to which you respond.
Had your post not been so opaque, it would have been easier.
I post here because it's a topic of interest to me. I tried to help out a few posters whose misunderstanding of the paper was leading them to false assertions.
So you say. And I should believe your assessment because...?
It's every bit as qualified as Carrier's.
...and when will you be presenting your paper on Bayes' Theorem?
I've already had a chance to read Carrier's, and I understand he has a book on the topic coming out...