I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”
which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”
That is simply a lie.
I said “the most likely answer” is that it was bullshit due to only being oral history without any corroborating evidence. I did not even remotely imply that all oral history is made up.
I’m thinking, since it wasn’t written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.
Your basis for discounting it is “it wasn’t written down.” That’s all oral tradition. I wasn’t trying to argue with you, I just wanted to see an amendment to your statement that recognized that this sentence is inaccurate. Seeing as you’re rolling back on it, I’ll take it as such.
That is another lie. You said I assumed it was all made up.
This is what you said:
I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”
Absolutely nothing I said indicated that all oral history was made up, as I demonstrated by quoting it.
Sort of like those dastardly words “most likely” which is what your “seemed” was linked to?
Because I doubt you’re so stupid that you think “most likely” means “every other possibility is wrong.”
Again, what I said:
I’m thinking, since it wasn’t written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.
What you said:
I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”
Actually all my comments were peer reviewed by a liguist with experience in oral histories and they said my statements were accurate and clear, and that yours were definitely discounting oral history as a whole with your statement. I’ll not be commenting any more as you seem fixed on a bad faith argument.
I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”
That is simply a lie.
I said “the most likely answer” is that it was bullshit due to only being oral history without any corroborating evidence. I did not even remotely imply that all oral history is made up.
Your basis for discounting it is “it wasn’t written down.” That’s all oral tradition. I wasn’t trying to argue with you, I just wanted to see an amendment to your statement that recognized that this sentence is inaccurate. Seeing as you’re rolling back on it, I’ll take it as such.
Yet again, “most likely answer” does not imply in any way that all oral history is made up. That’s simply a lie.
I recognized nothing I said as inaccurate. That is another lie.
Stop lying.
I didn’t say it did! I said that you’re overly discounting oral history.
That is another lie. You said I assumed it was all made up.
This is what you said:
Absolutely nothing I said indicated that all oral history was made up, as I demonstrated by quoting it.
Just tell the truth for one fucking post.
Oh no, that dastardly word seemed is being ignored in my quote!
Sort of like those dastardly words “most likely” which is what your “seemed” was linked to?
Because I doubt you’re so stupid that you think “most likely” means “every other possibility is wrong.”
Again, what I said:
What you said:
Actually all my comments were peer reviewed by a liguist with experience in oral histories and they said my statements were accurate and clear, and that yours were definitely discounting oral history as a whole with your statement. I’ll not be commenting any more as you seem fixed on a bad faith argument.