But did you have to leave off with the cliches?
<< Your argumentation style
is getting tiresome and lawyerly. Soon we will be talking about paragraph 5
subsection b.>>
Look, when you misquote a book in order to mischaracterize ME, I'm going to
set it straight. I'm not going to let you off the hook because I happen to be
hampered with the handicap of a legal education.
<<I fail to see why the finding of leopard paws and tail arranged as they
would be if they had been part of a Shaman's cape is not evidence deserving of
more discussion than your quick dismissal gives it. So what that Shreeve is
saying "two French archaeologists" reported in 1972". Are Frenchmen liars and
thus reporting false things? >>
No, of course not. I never said the report was false, and you know it. We
discussed this "cape" before. The question is one of interpretation.
And remember when you claimed there was a body under it? Sorry for my lawyery
instincts, but when false testimony gets introduced we barristers get a little
testy. What this showed me was the evidence was less suggestive than you
supposed. It is highly ambiguous. Modern shaman-art is not.
Maybe we can revisit this subject again someday. I'm off to my Lawyers
Anonymous meeting now.
Jim