Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DecentChanceOfLousy t1_iy5jjjk wrote

You said it was blatantly obvious, but I simply don't see how it can be obvious at all, much less blatantly so.

Thin depressions in a writing surface, with no pigment, show up constantly because the pressure of something else being written overtop of it travels through to the writing surface below.

I find it much easier to believe that that is what happened here, rather than a scribe writing and doodling with imperceptibly shallow scratches that they can't see even as they're writing. Perhaps I'm missing something; maybe this particular parchment was prepared such that it had a thin, easily scraped off layer of dried surface that would show the marks to the doodler for a few minutes before becoming imperceptible for the next 1300 years. Maybe this was a palimpsest, and the marking had pigment present on the parchment before being scraped off, and only the slight compression that carried through into the lower layers remains. Perhaps there is evidence of it being scraped (surface abrasion, or similar) that would rule out pressure carrying through from an upper layer. Perhaps.

But none of that is in the article, only the statement that it was written with a drypoint stylus (with no mention of how certain that was, or what evidence supported it), so I don't see how it's "blatantly obvious" that the simplest, most mundane explanation is incorrect.

But you find it blatantly obvious. I'm curious as to your reasoning. "I'm going to state that the person above me is missing something blatantly obvious and refuse to elaborate when politely questioned" is a much sillier game to play than "please, explain".

12

Delicious-Day-3614 t1_iy5slv3 wrote

I'm not wasting my time reading that. Find a better use for your time.

−19

myrddyna t1_iybyz32 wrote

My man needs some debate prep.

0

Delicious-Day-3614 t1_iydk3nk wrote

I really don't. Someone else made a claim, and I responded with the same amount of evidence they had - none. Someone else, who believed their claim without evidence asked me for evidence (absurd). I pointed out that the burden of evidence isn't on me (burden of evidence is a debate term, look it up). Some 18 people who don't understand burden of evidence or confirmation bias decided to side with someone presenting no evidence for their position, while being displeased I refused to show evidence for the opposite position. Meanwhile both claims are largely unverifiable, making it a stupid thing to debate over in the first place.

I simply decided to short circuit a pointless conversation, about something unimportant, with morons.

Since you opened your mouth about debate, and clearly don't understand burden of evidence, you're with the morons. Happy Wednesday.

0