MedLawPlus.com®
|
User Comments Upon
The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell by John Crawford
- From: Dan
State of residence: (unknown)
Subject: Josephus Ancestry
Date: 9-15-2010
You rest too much the absence of evidence, and unsubstantiated assumption.
The absence of evidence is not proof.
The probability of some of your speculations, which are very well argued, is not the issue I have, it is your assumption and skewing the gaps in your data, the absences of data, in support of your theories, and ignoring simple commonsense that refutes most of those assumptions, that is at issue for me.
e.g. It is unlikely for a 71 year old to father children, especially having a limp 70 year old member, and not having Viagra?
That is your argument?
It doesn’t appear to be tongue and cheek…if it is.
I could offer numerous counter arguments for why an Aristocrat (in any age, regardless of culture, many of which lived well into their 60s and older), who as a male was married repeatedly throughout their lives, who didn't necessarily have to practice polygamy to father many children, and well into their twilight years.
Even, by tradition, Jesus' father was supposed to have been much older than Mary, who was reportedly, by tradition, to have been a teen-ager.
And Abraham is reported to have been 100 years old when he fathered his last child.
It appears that if there is a question as to whether a tradition was, or not (e.g. whether or not Priests practiced Polygamy or not, etc.) you don't seek out an expert as to validate or refute that tradition to fill the gap in your own knowledge, it appears as you just take that absence of clarification or any information and assume the data will support your theories, I notice you do this often.
I don't disagree with all of your conclusions, a few are argued quiet solidly IMO, but it appears as though you have tunnel vision on some of your data, and have been lazy in other parts (the reason why I haven’t bought your book).
You can't rest on the absence of evidence, or assume the lack of information and or clarification leans in your favor.
Just because a puzzle piece appears to fit a gap, doesn't mean the puzzle piece fits the picture.
Just something to consider.
- From: JJR
State of residence: MO
Subject: The
Date: 9-15-2010
Well Dan, thanks for the comment. You have taken swings at me so I hope you don't mind a few counter punches.
Hey Smokes, there was this little thing called the Vietnam War back in the 60s & 70s. Maybe you heard of it? Well, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The number of Americans who served in Vietnam was proportionately higher (way higher) than those serving in Iraq this go around. At one point there were more than 500,000 US soliders in country in Vietnam. 55,000 KIA! Admittedly, the number of young men and women maimed but surviving their wounds is high from Iraq ... but still not to Vietnam numbers. The entire population of the United States in the 1960s was roughly 2/3rds of what it is today, therefore, the effects per capita were more devastating.
Not to diminish what is going down with Gulf War II but it does have historical precedence and those of us who saw the drugged out zombies come home from the 'Nam only to end up on the streets have a clue. Perhaps not the up close and personal level of insight you profess but a dose of understanding what is behind the curtain.
Appreciate your comments on the Crawford book. I have no idea what may have become of John Crawford. Your thoughts on his whereabouts may be close to the truth. If so, on August 3, 2005 Mr. Crawford put on a tremendous acting job during his appearance on "The Daily Show with John Steward". If Crawford was broken by his time in Iraq, he had me fooled in the Daily Show appearance. Then again, one never knows the torments endured by others behind closed doors.
Add Comment
Index to Reader Comments
|
|
|
|
