In article .com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
I do find it strange, though, that simply asking for someone to give
some evidence or details of what they say is taken by Andy as trying to
imply they are a liar or worse I do find it strange, though, that
simply asking for someone to give some evidence or details of what they
say is taken by Andy as trying to imply they are a liar or worse. His
'analogy' seems to take for granted that the statement questioned must
be a foul and deliberate lie. JLS

Oh, do get a grip Jim. I have said quite clearly (exact quote)

"I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as the
sort of person who would deliberately lie."

You witter on endlessly about being misrepresented and then come out
with the above. You're as bad as anyone, except you don't see it or
admit it.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what you are talking about. :-)

You gave an 'analogy' sic involving Clinton. That was the context of what
I wrote. The implication was in your attempt at an analogy and apply it
to what we had been discussing.

Once again, you have snipped the context and misunderstood/misrepresented
what I wrote, and are objecting to your own straw man inventions.


As noted elsewhere, and as you should well know, the history of science
is peppered with famous and acrimonious personal conflicts based
entirely on differences of opinion (and this applies to academic
circles, if you read ongoing duals-by-letter in academic publications).

I note that the above refers to "differences of opinion".

I have (repeatedly) explained that my interest was in evidence. Your
comment is about opinions. It's that straw man again...


Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html