Print

Print


On 7 September 2011 11:50, Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 7 Sep 2011, at 10:37, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
>
> >>> Anecdote is no proof, and without knowing the full situation we cannot
> say what is really happening there.
> >>
> >> Excuse me? Do you accuse me of lying?
> >>
> > No, and since you're taking this tone, this conversation is ending right
> now. I don't see why I should defend myself when you can't even make the
> distinction between evidence and anecdote.
>
> I read your "anecdote is no proof" as a clear suggestion that you doubt the
> veracity of my report.
>
>
Then you don't know the distinction between anecdote and proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

For the record, I have no reason to doubt what you say, but that's not the
point. The veracity of your report is irrelevant.


> And of course your suggesting that I cannot distinguish between evidence
> and anecdote is just an unnecessary insult.
>
>
See above.


> Still, I have plenty of other things to do than argue with you.
>
>
Clearly not, since you took the time to reply.
-- 
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/