Makes perfect sense. :o)

>How about if I reword the statement: in reasonable debate, unsubstantiated assertions require no debate, because there is nothing yet to debate. Substantiated assertions require debate on the substantiating points, not the assertion itself.
>
>I was aware that it applied more generally, but was taken aback by astounding arrogance of those (not you) who would put their loosely substantiated assertions on a par with the carefully substantiated assertions of people with demonstrated ability (and I did mention fields of study, which would leave out the list of individuals on the link you provided) in a field a study, without first having dealt with the substantiating points of the assertion they would disprove.
>
>Hank
>
>PS: I think Jimmy Carter did a great job bugging Arafat's and Begin's rooms to figure out how to get them to agree. I didn't think he had that crooked a bone in him. <s>
>
>>SNIP
>>
>>>Nobel winners, in particular, have earned that kind of respect, to be disagreed with based on their analyses, not on their conclusions. One can disagree with that also, but then one has passed beyond the pale, and genuine discussion on that topic is no longer possible with that person.
>>
>>That statement is disturbing to me. (and prompted me to change my signature block)
>>
>>Just for fun:
>>http://listverse.com/2007/10/17/top-10-controversial-nobel-peace-prize-winners/