GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1187199866
From: WJhonson <>
Subject: Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Events [FPE]
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:44:26 -0700
References: <email@example.com>, <46C3354D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
<<In a message dated 08/15/07 10:19:10 Pacific Standard Time, writes:
You have moved on to discussing the lunacy. Are you not
interested in the evidence?>>
I keep waiting for the evidence?
Let's start by discussing, on the SAME web page or site where you present your findings.... HOW the set was recruited, and what possible skewing that might present.
Stating it here, does nothing for the science of the findings. It hides those salient details in an obscure list which no one, reading the web page, will ever find.
And remove the reference whatsoever to Pierre Plantard's fictitious descent from some 9th century Plantard's who may or may not have even passed this name to current descendents. It's ridiculous, based on the raving lunacy of people who could not tell Old French from Swahili.
It's like saying that because some guy in the 6th century was named Dagobert Schweinbottom that everyone today named Schweinbottom is descended from him. Completely spurious logic. It doesn't deserve a mention in a purportedly scientific paper.