Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- From: al <alee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:31:59 -0700
On Nov 3, 6:07 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:52?pm, al <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Wrong. Your reasons for doubt are too superficial.
You seem very sure about that. I thought it was simple rather than
superficial. Perhaps you can elaborate on that?
Your reasons are not supported by evidence from within the context of
playing card nor between playing cards and other subject areas. The
lack of direct supportive evidence severely weakens your reasons.
Hence they lack rigour. Hence they are supericial.
Dose that mean any hypothesis, different from the existing hypotheses
that are supposedly "supported by evidence from within the context of
playing cards or between plying cards, is superficial?
Do 'superficial' hypots. have any validity that is worthy of
consideration?
What if the supporting base (such as possibly the cash-base) was built
on loose sands? How valid would the existing hypots be?
It is unnecessary. It was not a quote from yours.Please cite the name of the thread and who posted it.I recall I was told that the "money-base" or "cash-base" had been long
established through extensive studies.
Please answer this request.
What are you saying here, Michael? You have argued vigorously for it.Thank you. If by 'established' you mean that the hypothesis has been
accepted uncritically and been accepted as certainty, then that would
be totally incorrect.
You never accept it uncritically as certainty, is that what you mean?
What degree of certainty did you accept critically then?
It was hard for me to tell by the way you have defended it.Whatever you say, Michael. I got the impression that cash was pretty
much a "sure thing".
Your impression is wrong.
It was not intended to mean "established" whatever.
Thank you.
Are we on the same discussion topic, Michael? The 'assumption of cash'The context in this case is with the assumption of 'CASH' and the
extension to Strings of cash; therefore ten thousand more cash. Logic
is fine, if and only if the assumption was correct. And I think it is
incorrect, Michael.
What is the "assumpton of 'Cash'"? I do not know what this refers to.
refers to the naming of the suit of cards with circle symbols.
You and many mahjong people assumed Wilkinson and others were correct
in calling those concentric circles 'cash'. Wilkinson and others
assumed their contacts gave the corrects names. Their contacts assumed
what they heard from their ancestors or senior players were correct,
(i.e. circles were cash). The fact of the matter is that 'cash' could
have been a result of step-wise assumptions for centuries. (A simple
evidence for that is the fact that other names have been attributed to
the same symbol; just like the Mouse is not a mouse).
Regards++++++++++++
Cheers......al
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- From: mstanwick
- Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- References:
- Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- From: al
- Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- From: mstanwick
- Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- From: al
- Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- From: mstanwick
- Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- Prev by Date: Re: Mahjong Cash : Real or Mistaken Translation?
- Next by Date: Re: Origin of Mahjong (MJ) / other Hu Pai Design
- Previous by thread: Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- Next by thread: Re: Mahjong & Matiao Related? How and Why?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading