Originally Posted by
Jabba
- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?
My Dear Mr. Savage:
You do not need to "explain" your
hope that you can avoid facing reality by
pretending that this is a "trial", and that the proper standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (
neither of which, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly) is correct.
On the one hand, you have two renown fabric authorities, who examined the CIQ
in situ and found not a skerrick of evidence for any "...
patching".
On the other hand, you have a group of committed sidonists, who, needing to explain away the "wrong" date provided by the most observed bit of
14C dating ever, have
conjectured that there "may have been" "...some
patching", without ever once finding any actual evidence that such exists.
There is no evidence, none, of the "...
patching" you need to shore up your faith.
Trough it all, I remain,
Patiently yours, &ct.