GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1166053014


From: "R. & G. Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ellen's Paper
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:36:54 -0500
References: <26890099.1166011759082.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml05.mgt.cox.net><REME20061213144100@alum.mit.edu>


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Chandler" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ellen's Paper


John wrote:
> Regardless of what Aaron's objections are, I think it's safe to say
> that David's objection (if true) is entirely fatal.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems to me "if true" is an extremely significant qualification. The mere
assertion that a thing is so, however, does not make it so. Since this
particular assertion is bald, that is, offered without any real evidence
that post mortem damage actually occurred, it seems more like an instance of
"poisoning the well" of an argument with which the one making the assertion
disagrees.

Rich


This thread: