Brad Henderson wrote:where did i say it would be ‘just as easy’ to find out if some one was a gambler 100 years ago as opposed to a writer?
Wonderful, then you agree with me. That was my point. It is much harder on average to find out if somebody was a gambler than if somebody was a writer. Now that you agree let's see if you can follow this thought. If we do not find any evidence of writing, which should be relatively easy to find, it is a bigger problem for a case than if we find no evidence of gambling, which one is less likely to find.
Brad Henderson wrote:this idea that we would be able to find records of someone who was never known to be an author in their lifetime is utter nonsense. who would save such documents?
Now you confuse me. You were just arguing above that one ought to find records of gambling. But not of writing? And then you agreed that finding evidence of writing is easier than finding evidence of gambling. You are all over the place. I have no idea anymore what you are talking about. And you complain that Erdnase didn't explain clearly enough?
Brad Henderson wrote:so if i understand it we have two candidates with writing experience and only one of which can we put a deck of cards into their hands - and you are willing to say anything to ignore that.
I am not ignoring it, but you are misinterpreting the facts. First, back then essentially everybody had a deck of cards in their hands, because card playing was everywhere. Second, Gallaway had a deck of cards in his hands because he was interested in card magic. He owned a copy of Expert. Third, having writing experience is the lowest possible hurdle for a candidate to take. After that comes the linguistic fingerprint. The writing should be similar to Erdnase.
Roger M. wrote:But the exchange is still pleasant, and there's always room to learn something new.
No you don't want to have a discussion, and you certainly don't want to learn something. You reject the input from domain experts in areas you know little about, but you require that only people with card sleight-of-hand skills can offer anything relevant to the discussion of Erdnase. That is the definition of a hypocrite. No, you do not want to learn anything.