But Straggler THEN says or asks how the fact (or evidence) does not support the theory? In response I have repeatedly asked "What theory?"
You are reading an extra word into Straggler's mouth. 'The' is not included in the sentence Straggler has written.
quote:
Please explain to me how an observed specific measured result predicted by the theory can be interpreted in ANY way other than to support that {same} theory?
If you and Straggler are unable to reach an agreement on what is trying to be communicated then I do suggest one of you take the initiative in exiting the merry-go-round since they have a tendency to bog down threads. I think Straggler has done well at trying to phrase it in different ways to help communication, and I urge him to try different ways of saying it, perhaps going into further detail otherwise step off the merry-go-round. As for you, Ray, I urge you to try reading Straggler's posts from a different angle - if you aren't able to discern an alternative meaning to what he is trying to say, then step off.
Also, Ray, I think you should read
Message 50 wherein Straggler concedes your points, acknowledges the confusion, and explains why the concession does not detract from his point.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
