Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evidence v Conclusions
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:38:32 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <818688cb71aff95c2b77b8dcc32905e7@www.novabbs.com>
References: <1tf21jdg30uru7c2ossq8j6ifrqdcefh0l@4ax.com> <86o7amocxq.fsf@example.com> <ecbdbe72b12496cecb6d807b77b50cd8@www.novabbs.com> <4pt31jt1v0knttfi94q1eq3j28vgmd30eu@4ax.com> <8167cdaf53d77604c76017eab67bfb27@www.novabbs.com> <frj41jteurkm5tclio84h119l44l5m5p58@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="92954"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 4550
Lines: 63

jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:25:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
> wrote:

>>jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 14:38:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> nothing below.  Apparently you have a problem with keeping context.
>>
>>There exist reasons to delete text that I'm not addressing. 
>>There are reasons to nevertheless leave in a few extra reference 
>>lines, even to deleted text, to maintain header integrity because
>>that affects how well some newsreaders manage threading. 
>>
>>How's that for context? 


> Since you asked:

> As you should know, I regularly delete text to focus on a point that's
> orthogonal to the larger context, so that isn't the problem here.  The
> OP comments you deleted are in fact central to the comments to which
> you replied, as that reply was a direct response to the OP.  And to
> the degree your reply is relevant to the comments to which you
> replied, so too are they relevant to the OP comments you deleted and
> to the OP topic generally.

> Also your alleged concern for header integrity would be better applied
> to a concern for context continuity IMO.  But since you thought some
> comments were so irrelevant to your comments, and/or so contrary to
> header integrity, that you went out of your way to delete them,
> consistency suggests you delete any references to those deleted
> comments, as said references are by definition also equally irrelevant
> and/or contrary.

> Given the above, I conclude your context above sounds like an excuse
> to delete text for reasons which have nothing to do with either
> context continuity or header integrity.

> You're welcome.

> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

I guess you're butt hurt that you and others didn't get to re-read
your OP. To me it was a distraction. I was focusing countering 
the claim that nobody has ever "seen" an electron. "seen" as
to avoid trite interpretations like 'with the naked eye'. 

This does not actually match to your original framing. You did
not discuss electrons. And I would disagree with you about your
rather over-simplified distinction between evidence and conclusions
but was not interested in picking that fight, not with you.
It's a philosophy argument with subtle refinements that I 
personally would hesitate to engage in within this forum.