8.5 out of 10 isn't bad. The point I was trying to make was that precise assertions, no matter how confidently made, are no better than the evidence for those assertions. Whenever anyone (myself included) makes an assertion, the reader is fully in the right to ask: How can he (the writer) possibly know that? When Nick states that Tom McLaury lived about 7 minutes after the gunfight ended, the question is begged as to how exactly Nick could know this. For some reason, which is unclear, Nick likes to present his ideas as if they are, unquestionably, the ultimate truth. But, it remains unclear why saying Tom lived for about 7 minutes is any better than saying Tom McLaury lived for about 8 or 9 minutes. Frankly, there is a great deal that we don't "know" concerning the street fight. Acknowledging that simple truth is required of anyone who wishes to be taken seriously. Why Nick has such a pronounced proclivity to speak as if he knows the ultimate truth about the street fight is difficult to understand.
Bruce, Well, I don't understand Nick's tendency to make assertions without providing proper sources for those assertions. For instance, on several occasions, Nick has dogmatically claimed that Doc... more
At times, however, it amuses me, how pathologically obsessive certain folks are about such issues. But that's just me. I reckon we wouldn't be here, on this site, if we all weren't pathologically... more
Bruce, Perhaps I am "pathologically obsessive" while Nick is "obsessively pathological" when it comes to documentation. So, how did the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" originate? When I put my tongue in my... more