Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- From: RICLAND <riclanders@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:37:47 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 22, 11:23 pm, Brian Pears <bpe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RICLAND <ricland...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've presented my evidence. What part of it do you dispute?
Oh for goodness sake - what is wrong with you?
I'm presenting information you've never heard of and this causes smoke
to come from your ears?
You produce images of three portraits and label two of them
forgeries without anything to support your assertion that any
of them are forgeries.
Only one is an accurate likeness. What part of that don't you
understand, Brian?
You assert that it's "evidence that people in high places were
motivated to commission a different likeness" with nothing
to support that position.
Deduction.
Only one is an accurate likeness; therefore, the other two were meant
to be inaccurate likenesses.
Elementary, friend.
You assert that the first image is evidence that she had a
black father with nothing to support that position.
I do not.
Present the text where I say this.
And so it goes on, assertion after assertion with nothing
to support your position. And buster, that ain't evidence.
It's the stuff of lunatic conspiracy theories - of fanciful
fiction like the Da Vinci Code. Just because you can weave
a narrative which touches reality at a number of points does
not attest to the truth of that narrative.
And just because you make sweeping generalizations, that doesn't make
them true.
Present one assertion I make that is not supported.
So there are three images of the young lady which differ
slightly in facial features - so what? Which one is the most
faithful - the most "photographic"? We simply don't know.
Of course we know.
The question was never "which one is most faithful?" That question is
a product of your poor secondary schooling. We know the first image
comes from Allan Ramsay's original. The question was why did someone
feel to need to alter the original.
Were the artists trying to be accurate, or working to an
agenda? We don't know. Were the artists who painted images 2
and 3 trying to make her look less 'black' than was really
the case, or was the artist who produced image 1 trying to
make her look more 'black' than was really the case? Or
were the artists each trying to accurately paint what they
saw? We simply don't know.
Using that kind of enfeebled logic, we don't know anything.
So are the three images "evidence"
of an original, faithful image followed by two forgeries
commissioned by 'people in high places' to hide the awful
truth. No mate - they are not.
--Brian Pears, Gateshead, UK
"No, mate -- they are not."
-- Brian Pears
And after his rant about why he can't deduce anything from the
paintings, he ends by telling us anything I deduce from them must
therefore be untrue.
Priceless...
Which brings us back to cuckoldry.
Tell us, Brian, if your wife gave birth to a baby that shared the
features of the woman in the first image, what wouldn't you be able to
deduce from that?
ricland
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- From: Brian Pears
- Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- References:
- Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- From: RICLAND
- Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- From: Graeme Wall
- Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- From: RICLAND
- Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- From: Graeme Wall
- Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- From: RICLAND
- Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- From: Brian Pears
- Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- Prev by Date: Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- Next by Date: Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- Previous by thread: Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- Next by thread: Re: Want more Evidence -- HERE!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|