Quote from: Hyena on February 27, 2016, 03:50:41 PM

Quote from: LMGTFY on February 27, 2016, 03:35:03 PM

Except there's not a lack of evidence ("Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.", "One who bears witness."). I've provided evidence - an observation from someone who was there, someone who was there bearing witness - stating what the design goals were - and were not. I've also provided evidence (facts and observations around the presentation to the UK's NPL in 1968) of the "discovery" of the utility of packet-switching in resisting nuclear attack (albeit in voice telecommunications rather than data), after the inception of ARPANET.

I'm not asking you to accept this uncritically. I'm asking you to accept that your claim is, as it stands, without merit - there is no evidence to support your claim, and you have to date provided no evidence to disprove Charles Herzfeld's claim. You're asking us to accept a claim made by someone with no connection to the events over the claim of people who were present, either at the inception of ARPANET or at the later NPL packet-switching demo. Without supporting evidence, and with evidence to the contrary, that's a really big ask.

False. I'm not asking anything, it is you who insist on me agreeing with you. You have to learn that it is normal to have people disagreeing with you. If you want to pose yourself as an evolved being you should try to stop the urge to convert others into your religion (whatever the idea is that you fanatically hold on to). You are now bringing the matter to the court, but courts do not seek out truth, you should know that. If courts did that there would be no innocent people convicted, ever. Tell me honestly, what do you believe, does NASA tells us the truth? Because the spokespersons of NASA are also providing us an observation from someone who was there, someone who was there bearing witness. So if your only requirement for evidence was that a person must have been around the object of discussion in some way, then you must have a REALLY distorted and manipulated description of the world. I'd even call it a hopelessly far developed pathology and refuse to cure it.

Are you effectively saying "there is nothing you can do that will make me change my mind"? If that's the case I'd be happy to walk, nay, run away and leave you to it.

I'm honestly not bringing this matter to court. I just happen to believe that intellectual and forensic vigour have a role in discourse.