26-07-2012, 02:06 PM
That is not what I said.
What I said was that this story started after the fact of her death and has not been nailed down.
But if it is true--and we don't know if it is--then to fit into Janney's construct, they had to be looking for the mythological diary. For if they were not, then it does not fit into Janney's construct.
As I proved in my 1997 work, there was no diary in the normal sense of the word. Therefore, logically thinking, it does not fit into what he is trying to convey.
Janney uses it because, relying on the unreliable Damore, he writes that the diary was found not once, not twice, but three times.
Just one problem there Peter: If that is so, where is it? And why has no one ever seen it. Not even a page of it. Not even a copy of a page.
See, this is the kind of stuff we oppose. You can't just say stuff like this. Just like you can't just say stuff like, "See, those joggers were spotters." Alright, what is that based on? What is your evidence for that? What did your investigation consist of? If its based on nothing but your theory, then what is that worth? Especially when your overall theory--and ultimately, that is all Janney has--is unproven and makes no sense anyway. Sort of like Lamar Waldron.
What I said was that this story started after the fact of her death and has not been nailed down.
But if it is true--and we don't know if it is--then to fit into Janney's construct, they had to be looking for the mythological diary. For if they were not, then it does not fit into Janney's construct.
As I proved in my 1997 work, there was no diary in the normal sense of the word. Therefore, logically thinking, it does not fit into what he is trying to convey.
Janney uses it because, relying on the unreliable Damore, he writes that the diary was found not once, not twice, but three times.
Just one problem there Peter: If that is so, where is it? And why has no one ever seen it. Not even a page of it. Not even a copy of a page.
See, this is the kind of stuff we oppose. You can't just say stuff like this. Just like you can't just say stuff like, "See, those joggers were spotters." Alright, what is that based on? What is your evidence for that? What did your investigation consist of? If its based on nothing but your theory, then what is that worth? Especially when your overall theory--and ultimately, that is all Janney has--is unproven and makes no sense anyway. Sort of like Lamar Waldron.