(urth) Pike's ghost

[David Stockhoff]

On 11/28/2011 7:37 PM, António Marques wrote:
> 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.

Quack!