In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:54:29 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > > >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:42:02 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> >Zick again exhibits his penchant for seeing things which do not exist. > >> >I am critical of your general claim, as you have not been able to > >> >bolster it with anything other than mere restatement of the claim itself. > >> > >> Which you appear unwilling or unable to evaluate. > > > >I tend to resist acceptance of claims which are presented, as Zick's > >are, without persuasive evidence in support of them. > > > >If one presents an axiom system and says "IF we assume this system such > >and such follows", and then presents some evidence the such and such > >actually does follow, I am much more accepting. > > > >Zick claims to have things follow from nothing at all, and then presents > >no evidence. > > > >I do not find his lack of evidence persuasive. > > As previously noted, which you are unwilling or unable to evaluate. > Not my problem.
It is precisely Zick's problem if he is trying to convince anyone else that he has anything worthwhile to say.