Re: Larry Athy and His Logical Analyses.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:53:05 -0000, "JMB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"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.  

Presumably he said 'conventional' is the reason I said 'most common'.

>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 he said there is something wrong with them is one of the figments
arising from your own misunderstandings.

>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.

While you have been determined from the very beginning that he has
not.

>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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




Eric Stevens