Rick Sumner

Another effort at revisionism. I did justify them. I said they were employed solely for casual dismissal.

People do things like say "might" and then call it good.

Rick Sumner

No, I am discussing texts. You are discussing "might." You don't have any texts. You don't have any examples. The few you've tried to press you either failed to provide texts (Santa) or know nothing about (Augustus, Arthur) and then attempted to sidestep.

Texts would be great. I would love to see some texts. Anything, anything at all to demonstrate that you have any idea what you're talking about.

spamandham

And I agreed that when they are employed as such, they are silly. We're right back at the beginning. So now it's my turn to once again assert that Santa might be a good test case (so as not to confuse Roger again by misusing the word "analogy").

Good Lord Rick, I am not going to provide you with the text to The Night Before Christmas, nor am I going to apply to it the same quackery regularly applied to the Gospels to derive the numerous HJ's that have been published. Do you not get dizzy going around in circles?

Rick Sumner

And it's my turn again to say show me how. Don't tell me conclusions we "Might" reach. Show me how we get there.

Though, btw, you're being too strict in your definition of analogy. An analogy is comparing things that are alike in the respects in question, but different in other respects. The term is perfectly appropriate here.

spamandham

So now it's my turn to once again say this is an absurd demand. Tag.

It occurs to me that this would be more efficient if we simply make posts with links back to the original posts in this thread. Perhaps we could request an administrator to set it up so that it just goes in circles forever.

Rick Sumner

Which makes it my turn to take us back to the start. There's nothing absurd about it. I even explained how we can make the analogy work (or not work, depending). Come up with sources and show me the methods you use to reach the wrong conclusions.

If you can't do that, then you're wrong. Santa does not make a good test case, because we can't test it. Which brings us back to the start.

See, we could have demonstrated my point without demonstrating your ignorance about other figures. Would have saved you a lot of sidestepping.

It's a silly analogy.