[MD] Textual evidence?

[Krimel]

It is always bitter/sweet to hear dmb yammering on about "textual evidence." Sweet to anyone who amused by the typical train wreck that ensues but bitter to anyone possessed of a modicum of respect "texts". As presented by dmb "textual evidence" is supposed to serve as definitive proof that some author or another, usually Pirsig or the Disciple James, (one suspects because they are the only authors dmb has read.) are in perfect harmony with him. It is his way of turning authors into sock puppets. Such "textual evidence" from dmb is typically a regurgitation of some tidbit he found particular pleasing in the swallowing but now lays before the rest of us in partially digested form as "textual evidence". 
The best one could hope from evidence presented this way is that is certainly implies that someone wrote something. Just as one might someone might come home from work in the afternoon and find a pile of dog turds on the carpet. One would only then be in a position to confront the dog with scatological evidence that said dog shit on the floor. For the owner it is evidence of the dog's failure to crap outside but for the dog it is evidence of owners failure to clean up messes.
"Textual evidence" in order to serve as "evidence" must be something more than a steaming pile of self-serving quotes. 
No text interprets itself.