"t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
> Alan Crozier wrote:
> > Can anyone explain this difference in the assessment of unsubstantiated
> > speculation?
> One is her unsubstantiated speculation, the other isn't?
Sorry but it isn't mine speculation, I only present what my friends and I
discussed regarding the Picts and the red occra group. First time I heard of
it was back in 1993. Over the years several scholars of History, Ph.D and
MA; Archaeology same categories of scholars as well as scholars of Cultural
Geography discussed it. As I said I don't believe their theories are
speculation, neither do they.
Thus it's not correct to call the theories unsubstancial just because the
theories haven't been brought to your, Alan's or Doug's mind before.
What we are talking about is a grey area.
If all been presented and analyzed, then we would have a white area = such
theories fallen down or
a black area = it's theories that haven't been possible to falsify
before it's been up AFTER all facts and factors that needs to be taken into
consideration the area is grey: Neither you nor I can say for sure that we
know what the truth is in such cases.
It's too often people here in group make up their mind without taking
themselves time to read what's available, Prime sources as well as
excavation reports and works. I have taken time over and over after each
discussion and the more I read and listen the more I am certain that there
are a lot more than what's been assumed that needs to be looked closer on
before it's settled. I keep an open mind. If others don't their problem.