Re: Larry Athy and His Logical Analyses.

"Eric Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:27:09 -0000, "JMB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Eric Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:24:41 -0000, "JMB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Eric Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:39:57 -0000, "JMB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Eric Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--SNIP--
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The CISP site gives as much as is needed to at least get the
> >basics.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As you _well_ know it does not have images of all of the relevant
> >> >> >> inscriptions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It gives more than enough information for you to have found out
basic
> >> >things
> >> >> >such as Larry's idea of "conventional reading" are BS, if you were
> >really
> >> >> >interested.
> >> >>
> >> >> So - you want me to be able to confirm your argument but don't think
> >> >> it necessary for me to examine Larry's?
> >> >
> >> >If you were examining Larry's argument, you would check out his
claims.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> This is getting silly. You have rejected every part of Larry's
> >> >> hypothesis from the outset and seem to think I should do the same. I
> >> >> will reach my conclusions AFTER  I have checked the evidence and not
> >> >> before.
> >> >
> >> >You will never check the evidence.  You  will continue to ignore it.
The
> >> >example of Larry's "conventional reading" shows that.  you have had
all
> >the
> >> >evidence necessary since the start to have been able to realise that
it
> >is
> >> >BS, yet you continue to ignore it.  If you genuinely have ordered the
> >Ogham
> >> >CD-ROM and the McManus book, then it is unlikely that you will
suddenly
> >> >change.  Instead I am almost willing to bet that you will simply try
to
> >pick
> >> >out partial quotes, references, and maybe one of two exceptional
items,
> >and
> >> >try to pass them off as standard in order to support Larry.
> >>
> >> You really don't understand, do you? Larry was considering a
> >> possibility outside the conventional scholarship so the standard works
> >> are a base but not necessarily a restrictive guide.
> >
> >Some of the possibilities (such as his idea of the only conventional
reading
> >of Oghams) have been proven wrong before he even started.  Yet you
continue
> >to ignore that, and I doubt you will change now.
>
> But was he not correct in that the vast majority of Oghams are read as
> he said. I only recall a few exceptions being raised. He set up the
> manner of reading as part of his filter, not as an absolute statement
> as to the rules of Ogham.

No, he wasn't correct.  He didn't say the most common way of reading the
surviving Oghams, he said the only conventional way of reading them.  The
most common surviving inscriptions are memorial inscriptions, and they are
most commonly written in a certain way.  Once you move away from the
standard memorial formula, the common way of reading them is no longer
applicable, and for Larry to claim that there is something wrong with them
for being read in a conventional way that does not agree with his uneducated
theory is BS.  That is something that you have had access to the information
via the CISP website since the start.  But you have not been interested in
learning anything valid about Ogham, you have only been interested in
creating a load of fudge in the hopes that someone might think that Larry
had done something worthwhile.

> >
> >>
> >> I can assure you you I will spell out exactly what I have done and why
> >> and (hopefully) will be able to back it all up with images so that my
> >> treatment will be made clear.
> >>
> >> FYI, the CD-ROM and 'A Guide to Ogham' by McManus have arrived. I have
> >> not yet had time to study them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric Stevens
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

-- 
John Byrne
www.iol.ie/~archaeology
To email me use the feedback form on the website.
The address attached to this post is just a spam trap.