(urth) Pike's ghost

[António Marques]

James Wynn wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 5:56 PM, António Marques wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2011 5:00 PM, António Marques wrote:
>>>> - You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason
>>>> to believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds
>>>> are for X, it may well be otherwise".
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there are no odds-makers in literary criticism.
>>> Perhaps you mean "though THERE ARE REASONS for X, it may well be
>>> otherwise". Everybody thinks his theory is the most likely.
>>
>> This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like
>> a duck and quacks like a duck.
>
> If it is you own theory, it always quacks.

If this really is you talking, James, and the odds are it is, I'm 
beginning to understand you a lot better.