Peterson Misleading Again

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't like to disappoint anyone who thinks that I'm obliged to engage in discussions everywhere and at any time with anybody and everybody who challenges me on absolutely every issue, but it seems unavoidable.

[_Mister Scratch]

Incidentally, Bill Hamblin is spending the summer at Oxford University, but I sent "Arnold Friend's" purported Hamblin letter to him for his amusement. Here's his response, unedited and in full:

That's really funny. And completely insane.

Of course, I may have forged Professor Hamblin's response. That can't be altogether ruled out.

Or, alternatively, since it's fully two sentences long, I may have garbled it and completely misrepresented its contents in the act of copying it.

So it really counts for nothing at all.

In brief, to the best of your recollection, what did Hamblin's actual letter say?

[_beastie]

I don't like to disappoint anyone who thinks that I'm obliged to engage in discussions everywhere and at any time with anybody and everybody who challenges me on absolutely every issue, but it seems unavoidable.

You were already involved in the discussion. You bowed out when I repeatedly asked for the empirical evidence. That's when you decided my poor phrasing (although correct phrasing) was unacceptable.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In brief, to the best of your recollection, what did Hamblin's actual letter say?

I think I already gave you that information. Find it. (You may have it in one of your creepy "dossiers.")

If I were to summarize it here again and my summary differed in any way whatsoever from my prior summary, you'd milk that one for days as proof of my deceptiveness and my involvement in some sinister cover-up.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You were already involved in the discussion. You bowed out when I repeatedly asked for the empirical evidence. That's when you decided my poor phrasing (although correct phrasing) was unacceptable.

No, I bowed out when I realized that you were summoning me to a potentially lengthy discussion where I would be trying to have a reasoned exchange with somebody who thinks in terms of hostile caricatures and scoring points and who is plainly not up to speed on relevant issues in the philosophy and history of science.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I'm not interested.

[_beastie]

So, Daniel, at the end of the conversation between the snake handler and the skeptic, would you believe the snake handler actually had empirical evidence?

[_guy sajer]

Given a choice, I'd rather be not up to date on the history of science but reach valid conclusions than the converse.

[_Mister Scratch]

In brief, to the best of your recollection, what did Hamblin's actual letter say?

I think I already gave you that information. Find it.

Nope, sorry. You never gave the information. Care to try again?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nope, sorry. You never gave the information. Care to try again?

No, not really. It's been over fifteen years, and it wasn't very memorable.

You're just looking for materials to spin and to put in your creepy "dossiers" (which is to say, for rope to try to hang me with). Why should I help you? You've earned nothing from me.

[_antishock8]

Nope, sorry. You never gave the information. Care to try again?

No, not really. It's been over fifteen years, and it wasn't very memorable.

You're just looking for materials to spin and to put in your creepy "dossiers" (which is to say, for rope to try to hang me with). Why should I help you? You've earned nothing from me.

Oooooo... NOW the letter wasn't memorable, and the con man can't really recall the information contained in it other than it was definitely the 2nd Watson Letter.

So, we go from: It truly exists and you have to believe me when I tell you that it's in Mr. Hamblins messy office somewhere mislaid.

To: I can't really remember what was in the letter and it has been utterly destroyed.

Letter exists -> Unremarkable letter utterly destroyed.

Lol... These people... It never stops.