- Mar 6, 2008Well, let me make my last post than.
> 1) I don't have a hypothesis. My standpoint is that the Waspshould be tested a) on the general principle that more information is
better than less and b) because the provenance is questionable to say
the least. >
> 2) No, I'm afraid I haven't [read my article], but unless you canproduce a genuine provenance (and an explanation of why Sotheby's
didn't) nothing in it would affect my position. >
So all that about the scientific method was just blather. You have
no idea if "more information is better" because you haven't even
bothered to collect all the available information. My article
contains new information regardless of my own interpretation and
conclusions. I allow the readers to make up their own minds as
well. Your answer to number 2 contradicts your own position in
You fail to collect "more information." If you had, you wouldn't
have made the most terrible and embarrassing blunder in your second
post, that bit about Wasp coming in BEFORE Knight (your point number
One has to wonder what other strange beliefs you hold in this case.
Surely if you believed that bit above, you would have added it to
your provenance argument. More information is better, right? So
what other beliefs do you hold that my article could help you with,
strengthen or weaken? Well, you don't care to know as you don't care
to read my article. But wait, more information is better. Hang on.
This must be difficult for you, this contradiction.
You spoke of arrogance, a door you opened. What could possibly be
more arrogant than your position shown in these posts?
Let me pull out my old Ben Johnson quotation, in 1775, he
wrote: "When we enquire into any subject, the first thing we have to
do is know what books have treated of it."
People, especially the owners of the Wasp galleys, don't want to
hear "more information is better than less" from someone who hasn't
studied the case. It may be a fine principle but only when applied
by the informed.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>