Webmaster's
note: All of Robert Turkel's comments are in red
quote:
demonstration that one link informs or influences the validity of all.
Never said it did. I simply
commented on the peculiarity of a link
appearing to Acharya S at all....
In other words, you tried to poison the well, In other words, the
well contained poison when I drew from it. by trying to make an
irrelevant connection I.e.,
it is never relevant to note when someone chooses to highlight a
non-credible source, especially one that believes she has been spoken
to by aliens and thinks that the Jews of the first century worshipped
the moon, which of course makes them one of Sewer-on's top candidates
for Academic Source of the Year. And when challenged to show how
one link on a page affected or informed other claims, Which was
never claimed in the first place you tucked your (rather fat,
stinky and lazy) We'd
rather have a fat, stinky, lazy tail than a tail that was flea-bitten,
mold-covered, full of running sores, smelling of vulture pus, made of
Spam, caught in a bear trap that it drags behind with a thud, and is
being used as a pacifier by its owner. tail between your legs and
bolted. In
short, a claim was assigned to me by Sewer-on, which was never made,
and it is "bolting" to note that no such claim was made to begin with.
So now if I say Mauron claimed that he had personally captured Saddam
Hussein in 1996 and had been secretly holding him as a slave for the
past 7 years, and he denies it, he's obviously running away with his
flea-bitten, mold-covered, full of running sores, smelling of vulture
pus, made of Spam, caught in a bear trap that it drags behind with a
thud, being used as a pacifier by its owner tail between his legs.
I don't blame you. We do blame you,
for a variety of problems,
including the rising stench from the Pacific Ocean.
quote:
Too bad you didn't just read the letter in the first place
Too bad the question I asked you
wasn't answered. Who is right: Lupia,
or IGS?
Sadly wrong. I did answer it Mauron
evaded it. He didn't answer
until he was shamed into doing so. - there is no mandatory
contradiction here. Oh.
So if one says "it was cleaned" and the other says "it was not
cleaned," then there need not be a contradiction. Isn't this what Dan
Barker says is a bunch of fundamentalist tripe?I.e.,
what Mauron now wants to say is his answer, which was about as obvious
as his pet flea on the back of a blue whale from a distance of 5,467
miles, from the vantage point of Pluto and went back to repeating
your objection. Because it wasn't
answered, delusions and
rationalizations notwithstanding. You wanted an either/or response,
but the situation doesn't need one. In
other words, a place can
both be cleaned and NOT cleaned at the same time.
That's it, Sewer-on just earned 15 to 20 for breaking the Law of
Non-Contradiction. Well, that's just too bad. Now it's time to eat your
sources, Saurbraten. I have telephoned an expert witness on this matter
-- a professional geologist at the Florida Geological Survey. There are
tons of limestone in Florida, so you can't whine that this is some
know-nothing talking about rocks he's not familiar with (though I am
sure you'll create some excuse for him not being an expert anyway).
Let's break the bad news in advance: He contradicted you (and Lupia) on
every key point.
You simply skipped
over my answer,
quote:
IGS says the area around the
inscription was cleaned. Lupia says no.
Not quite. Lupia says that the patina has flaked off. And he only
indicates that for the exposed surface of the stone, not for the
crevices. Obfuscation.
The quote in reference was, "The patina consisted of the appropriate
minerals but it was reported to have been cleaned off the inscription.
This is impossible since patina cannot be cleaned off limestone with
any solvent or cleanser since it is essentially baked on glass." This
is tied in as well with my note, which you purposely separated from
this sentence above, that IGS possesses experts who would certainly
know that natural patina of such an age would not flake off. The
geologist at FGS agreed. I asked, "Can patina be cleaned off?" He said
yes, it can even be rubbed off. We will see that your response
to this from IGS is to pretend that competent geologists who had their
hands on the artifact are ignorant goofs, while Lupia, who has never
touched the ossuary, and is not an expert in minerals, must be correct.
In short, it is your usual lame rationalizing, your usual method of
disrespecting persons you disagree with and blindly accepting what is
said by those who say what you want to hear, regardless of their
position, qualifications, or experience.
quote:
Lupia never had his hands on the
ossuary. IGS did.
Irrelevant to the question at hand, since IGS was not doing a test for
forgery. It
would not require any special "test for forgery" for a competent
geologist to know that such patina would or could not flake off. The
FGS geologist knew it and he was not conducting any tests for forgery
on anything. Lupia suggested both a
method for committing
such a forgery, as well as a way to test for it Lupia
is no geologist and is hardly competent to comment with certainty on
such things. He can suggest methods until the end of time, but until it
is actually done, it's just speculation by someone whose expertise in
the area is only incidental:
www.minervamagazine.com/news.html
Equally damning are the remarks of John Lupia, Editor of the Roman
Catholic News, who has argued that the inscription must be forged
because while patina can be replicated by burying an artefact for a few
years in wet salty soil containing a solution of iron salts, Oh. A
few years.
So much for your other preferred idea that Golen forged it himself a
few months ago. Or maybe you want to claim that there were multiple
forgers over years in on the deal. Who knows what you'll come up with
next as a conspiracy theory to save your bacon. a fundamental
difference can still be perceived. Natural patina has an atomic bond
with the limestone that crystallizes in such a manner that cracking and
flaking are an impossibility. And
professional geologists would not
be aware of this fact? How astonishing. Such a patina cannot be
cleaned off limestone with any solvent or cleanser, since it is
essentially baked in place and would require the application of a
hammer and chisel or surgical equipment to remove it. Since the
Geological Survey of Israel’s analysis (also published in the Biblical
Archaeology Review) identified no evidence of modern tooling in the
cutting of the inscription, and since the patina was absent in the
grooves of some letters and on some of the inscription, John Lupia
concludes that the existing patina - and by association the inscription
- results from modern meddling.
Ahem. Get
that basketball out of your throat, the one with the word "CONSPIRACY"
on it in big letters. It remains that Lupia is no geologist, and the
complaints he raises are by someone who has not seen the artifact, and
are things that competent, professional geologists WOULD know even if
they were not doing any specific test. Mauron's rambling obfuscations
answer none of this.
quote:
IGS supposedly has expert
geologists who would know just as well that
patina could not be cleaned off like Lupia says.
Says who? You have presented no evidence to support that claim. Yep,
we need EVIDENCE to show that a professional geologist would know these
things about minerals, atomic bonds, etc. Meanwhile Saurrunningwithpus
needs NO evidence to conclude that an art historian isn't just running
his gator or is mistaken about data having to do with geological
information.
Why would the IGS be trained for such matters? What do geologists
do at school? Learn to tie knots? They
did not need to be "looking for forgery" to know that
real patina would or could not be cleaned off. They are a
Geological Service.
They are competent, professional
geologists. Highlighting their name as
though they were waiters at a restaurant doesn't make for dip.
That
means they are the govt agency that is responsible for such things as
oil, natural gas, earthquake monitoring, pollution of water and
conservation of water resources, etc. They're not a CSI unit. A brief
glance at their web page shows that:
http://www.mni.gov.il/english/units/Energy/GeologicalSurveyofIsrael.shtml
Listing
their responsibilities also does not make for dip, as if this distracts
from their expertise. To know all those things, they need to know how
minerals and rocks interact with one another. That's what the patina
tests involve. This is info they would know, should know, did know.
On the other hand, Lupia has degrees in both archaeology and art
history. And
the geologists have degrees in geology and mineral sciences, and Shanks
has vast experience in arhcaeology. Much more and just as relevant, and
no amount of evasive manuevering on your part is going to cut anything
but flatulence. Given that the study of forgeries would crop up in
both archaeology and art history, it isn't surprising at all to me that
he would be aware of a method to forge patina. And a method to test for
it. That's
very nice. Too bad this does not also mean that he is in far less of a
position to know that patina would supposedly not be able to be cleaned
off. Too bad he has never had his hands on the ossuary to tell if there
were any other conditions that would affect his thesis. Too bad he's
just a talking head you choose to believe in for your own purposes.
Especially if they weren't looking for forgery, and if they did not
have any experience in trying to examine an article for deliberate
deceit?
quote:
Who is right?
Be careful. There's a trick
planted here for you.
Not really - since the IGS testimony that the patina has been cleaned
off supports Lupia just as well. Too
bad Mauron can't explain how.
And if HE knows that the IGS testimony supports Lupia, then why don't competent,
professional geologists, know it too?
quote:
Nice letter from Lupia. Too bad
it comes from someone who still hasn't
laid hands on the thing.
Irrelevant, given that there is zero evidence that the IGS was looking
for a fraud, or indeed is equipped to do so, given the nature of their
charter. Yep,
their "charter" really makes it so that their competence as geologists
and knowledge of minerals makes them not know or forget that real
patina could not be cleaned off, while Lupia AND you -- one a Dr. of
art history and archaeology, the other a burger flipper -- DO know what
other professional geologists would know if they were not hamstrung by
a charter that made them less intelligent than any other geologist
would be. By the way their own letter (SW, 18) says "No evidence that
might detract from the authenticity of the patina and
the inscription was found," which means that they WERE looking for a
fraud. And since you like newspapers so much, eat these: "Two specialists
with Israel's Geological Survey have certified that the surface
patina
indicates all the letters were inscribed in ancient times with no sign
they were tampered with." (Chicago Sun-Times, 11/25/02) "The age of the
limestone and the patina of this ossuary have already been proven
scientifically
to date from the first century AD." (Globe and Mail, 11/6/02) ". After
using an electron microscope and x-ray defraction to analyze the
encrustation from inside of the box, geologists at the Royal Ontario
Museum discover that it is made up of micro-thin phosphate-rich layers.
The thin layers indicate that the encrustation probably developed
over a great deal of time,
and the high levels of phosphate are consistent with the idea that
bones, which are full of phosphate, decayed within the box's walls.
From the inside at least, the box itself appears to be a
genuine ossuary. Applying some of the same techniques used on the
inside of the box, and using an energy dispersive spectrometer,
scientists from the Geological Survey of Israel test the patina
(a thin film that develops over time from the interaction of stone with
air) from both inside the letters and the sides of the box and discover
that they seem to match in composition. This suggests that the
surfaces inside and outside the letters were exposed to the same sorts
of elements for the same amount of time. However, other scientists
scoff at these findings, declaring that with a few ingredients and a
blender, they could create a fake patina and simply paint the new
letters to match the rest of the box. In searching for this kind of
forgery, scientists use ultraviolet scans to check for any discrepancy
between the residue inside the letters and that on the rest of the box.
None appear." (PR Newswire, 3/24/03) "Also, Israeli geologists
using an electron microscope
found ancient surface film (patina) on both the flat surfaces and in
the inscription, though it was cleaned off some letter surfaces.
There was no patina glue or other evidence of tampering.
The inscription is ancient, they concluded." (Guleph Mercury, 3/22/03)
You like news items? Chomp on those for a while, then decide whether
the mass media is right for you. Wow, non-experts who use electron
miscroscopes. Maybe like the one your mommy bought you when you were 2.
quote:
it isn't necessary to see it in person.
Mere assertion to cover yourself.
If you believe it is necessary, then outline the kinds of observations
that you claim would be pivotally decided by an in-person viewing, as
opposed to digital photographs. Support your case with references and
examples. The
idea that you need proof for this sort of simple, common-sense
observation is nothing more than you trying to cover your excessively
extended rear end with a fig leaf by positing a burden that doesn't
exist. Someone who has not seen such an object, or does not possess
detailed data on it, inevitably makes assumptions to fill in gaps in
their knowledge. In short, Mauron is just trying to obfuscate, as
usual. I'll provide three references and examples when you provide
three of your own showing that competent professionals who have made a
direct examination have made errors that were corrected by a person who
was NOT an equitable professional and who did NOT, when they made their
claim and deduction, ever have access to the object under examination
and only possessed photographs. Even Lemaire withheld judgment based on
only a photograph of the ossuary, and waited until he saw it in person
to make a judgment about authenticity.
quote:
not like this is the first or the only ossuary
Oh my, and all of these have
been tested and have exactly the same
properties and history as the ossuary in question?
BWAAHAHAHAHA!!! That was some
answer, wasn't it?
YOu had better hope so, J. Pretentious Huffenstuff, But
it's clear that YOU don't know, Sewer-Ron, because otherwise you'd have
answered the question rather than obfuscating again.
or else your faith in the IGS is sorely misplaced Yep, my "faith"
in professional geologists. - as well as your reliance on
the skill of your various experts. Yep,
proven experts in their field like Lemaire, Shanks, Yardeni, Fitzmeyer,
whom you disrespect at your convenience even though you couldn't blow
their noses and be honored enough to wipe their mucus all over your
face. It is from previous ossuaries that a baseline for comparison
gets established, by which a new ossuary can be judged. And that
(rather substantial) body of knowledge is precisely why it isn't
necessary to view each and every ossuary in person Heck
yeah, they all have exactly the same mineral composition, went through
exactly the same external conditions, were treated exactly the same way
throughout their history -- no need to think any one of them was in any
way different. - any
more than it's necessary to view each and
every amphora (Greco-Roman wine jug), because we have literally
thousands of others that have been examined. Examine
each amphora for WHAT? More obfuscation. It's obviously not necessary
to examine each one in person for honkin' clear characteristics like
design. A world away from detailed mineralological surveying.
Previous viewing and cataloguing of ossuary characteristics is
precisely why someone like Rahmani can create a catalog of thousands of
ossuaries. Which of course
contains as well detailed mineraological
and environmental data...uh....
Is all this information difficult for you? No.
I am expert with multi-dimensional thinking and also very good at
detecting piles of smelly, reeking bulldada coming from the mouths of
Saury little losers who use obfuscation to deceive the gullible and
cover their embarrassment at having overstated their case and being
caught at it.My
brain ate yours, spat it out, kicked it around, blew it up with
explosives, and scattered it to the four corners of the world.
Poor fraudulent Holding, did his widdle brain faw
down go boom?
quote:
Your dodgeball is getting mold
on it and your excuse-making machine is
starting to smoke from overuse.
The only thing with mold around here is you, JayPee Moulding. The
only smell of mold in this locale comes from the crevices of your tiny,
pathetic brain as it tries to invent even more sordid and patently
obvious rationalizations for the bind it's cornball owner has gotten it
into. The sound of your cerebellum creaking is deafening, and your
medulla is about to fly out of your ear and do laps around the park.
quote:
use google to hunt this information down.
Bring it here...whine, mommy help me da big bad Sawon he pickin' on
me whine whine whine.... Big
bad Sewer-on? The only thing he picks on is his proboscis, which is
where he gets the bulk of his arguments from. Otherwise if the intent
is to make yourself the town bully, you would qualify for that in the
same league as Lumpy Rutherford. I did of course forget that Skeptics
like you can't use Google, which is probably why you can't bring it
here for discussion. You never actually found anything, but have
actually spent 16 hours staring at the Google screen yelling at it to
"do something already" and threatening to hold your breath until it
did. Fortunately you're not capable of inflicting any more brain damage
upon yourself than you already have.
No. Get off your lazy butt and look it up. That's what you expect your
readers to do; now it's turn-about fair play. Indeed it is. I'll
assume like you do that you won't bring it here because you lost.
quote:
1. Who said I get my information from infidels?
You specifically recommended
something from their site about how patina
could be forged.
Yes, I did. But there's more information than what can be found at
Infidels. Then
where is that stuff on Infidels? Mauron just keeps obfuscating, maybe
because there is none on Infudgels and he doesn't want to admit to an
embarrassing mis-reference error. The fact that you missed it both:
(a) on the web, as well as
(b) on the infidels site; I
didn't look for it on the web and don't care; if you had it, you'd
bring it. Obviously you don't and are obfuscating. I searched for
"patina" on infudgels.org and found zip, though I later found Carrier's
summary article which contains no new information.
well; it makes me wonder whether you oughta be forced to get a license
to operate a browser, young man. I
can operate a browser thousands of time better than a burger-flipper
like you. In Internet classes you're one of those people who turned on
the monitor and then sat there staring at the blank screen until
someone came along and turned on the hard drive. In any
event,
keep ooking. It's the same thing you tell the drooling multitude at
Tackytonics; no reason why it shouldn't apply to you as well. I'll give
you a hint: Canada. Now go search. And
I'll tell you the same thing
your slobbering legions tell me: you're hiding something.
You don't want people to see how badly you've been beaten. Now what do
you think?
quote:
for cheap thrills. You
apparently get SOME information from there.
Well?
Mounties and maple leaves, JP Horsemanure. Mounties and maple leaves.
Keep looking. Already
did, Saurfromsittingonyourfatrearendallday. Nothing on infudgels.org
other than Carrier's summation. Period. You goofed and are trying to
hide it by shifting off the specific topic of that delusionary
recommend of yours.
quote:
2. Use google.com
OK, if I decide to invest the time I will use google.com and make a
demonstration of how easy it is to find things. Unless
you are a Skeptic looking for
excuses.
Translation: you're stumped. I'm
talking to a stump, named Mauron,
who can't back up his claim that infudgels.org had an article he
claimed it did. You're stooopid. And you can't find it. I
haven't tried. I did just now. Zero. So you want someone else to
spoonfeed it to your lazy butt. Yep,
just as you want me to
spoonfeed links to your lazy, fat, slobbering, boring, ugly, anterior
postulate. But just as you fail to provide links to your
opponent's
arguments on your website Yep,
thanks for the parallel argument, now I even more that I don't need to
provide links. You've just proven why. It's spoonfeeding and no one
needs it. Now shoot your other foot to make a matched set. (what is
that url again? http://www.tonkatoys.com/?
Nah, it's
http://www.kicksauronalloveramerica.org), I shall also
refuse your request here. Cool. Now
I have free license to refuse
link requests and you can't complain one iddy widdy bit. Thanks!
Actually, let me rephrase that: (ahem) "We do not support mental
indolence, so we are refusing JP s base request to do that, which he
can do for himself. We are not amused." I sure am, though. I'm
laughing hard enough to shake the continental plate!
quote:
anything left in your bag of
tricks
Bag of tricks? I dunno; lemme look....Hmm..now, I'm thinking about
quitting my job and begging money on the internet. You mean like
Dan Barker and Infidel Guy? Cool. You know - stop looking for work,
Too bad you're only qualified to
sweep the rug at Burger King. Or BE
the rug. and ask other people to send money just like Barker
and the Guy, yep so I can entertain my ego. I heard that's a pretty
cool racket; what do you think, JP Handout? I think it's great and
I think Danny Barkforbucks and the Infortheloot Guy will be glad to
hear you approve!
quote:
How about your dodge of the
Yardeni question? How about when the mss.
of the book was available? That's at least two of my questions you
dodged;
Um, Haran asked why two quotations allegedly from Yardeni were in
contradiction. I provided an explanation. A
pretty sad one at that. Basically you just believe Altman at her word.
As usual, it's people you agree with and who massage your fantasies
that get carte blanche. If you believe that Yardeni has been
misquoted, then by all means, present your evidence. Simple
enough. SW put them squarely on their own side. Altman is a known
incompetent (letters excised, not incised). Burden is on you, not me or
Haran. So far, you're simply relying on Haran's idea - not exactly
the most stable of foundations. We
see how you feel free to insult
anyone at all, Mr. "I Just Want Intelligent Conversation" Liarpuss.
quote:
if I check back, maybe I will
find more.
Actually, if you check back, you'll find a host of my questions that
you failed to answer. None of which
you list here. Isn't that just
too bad. Especially the mss. one you missed above, Slanderon. Which
is pretty much a guarantee that you won't be looking back. Did it.
Didn't see a thing except your own yellow lizard belly scooting under
the brickwork and hiding like a whipped puppy.
quote:
Crowing in perceived victory,
abject silence in defeat? That's the
Sauron way.
Fortunately for our viewers at home, this isn't a debate where I'm
being defeated. True.
It's also a debate where you're being slammed, hammered, beaten to a
pulp, whipped, canned, processed, poured out, and horribly mutilated.
Unless of course, points are awarded based solely on number of words
typed or amount of distractions tossed in. In which case, I don't stand
a chance. True. You would win by
default and thus no need would
exist to take a chance whatsoever.
quote:
Which again, says zero about
"specious circumstances" despite your
wishful and lame attempt to import that meaning into his statements.
Meier knows better than to trust an article with dubious provenance. Too
bad for you he doesn't mention it at all in his comments. Funny too how
when professional geologists contradict you, they don't know drip, but
when a non-archaeologist agrees with you, they "know better" anyway.
He himself indicated that the best way to settle the question was to
have an international panel of experts - but that's information I doubt
you have, since it can only be obtained by reading the article. I
did read it. It doesn't help you except by pretending that Meier said a
truckload of things he didn't say. Next you'll also have him judging
the authenticity of the Aramaic.
But as for making assumptions about what Meier thinks, well, guess
what? It was YOU who were saying earlier:
Meier's comment is nice, but doesn't
really say anything useful.
He's taking care like he should as one who has no relevant training in
the subject of paleography.
So right back at you: you asked Meier why he was being careful? If so,
provide evidence of the communication between you and Meier. Good luck.
Already
did, you missed it. One thing that can't be denied is that he is a
non-expert in the needed fields. That is the one indisputable reason
why he would be cautious. All the other reasons YOU give are, "He knows
this that the other blah blah blah blah blah" when he doesn't say dip
that even resembles blah blah blah blah.
quote:
I hear the sound of Saurpuss
pedalling his bicycle backwards....
That sound is the noise of metal gears inside your head, JP
Hallucination. As
loud as it is, the sound has to be of your poor, pitiful and rusted
cerebellum working overtime looking for rationalizations to get
yourself out of the pickle you put yourself into by overextending your
claims to expertise, Saurpicklepuss.
quote:
you asked Meier why he was being careful?
I made no claim about why other
than that which was obvious: It is not
his area of expertise.
BZZT. You don't know that was his reason for being careful at all. It's
the only one that doesn't require reading his mind. It is therefore
obvious that he would be careful for that reason, even if no other is
known. You claimed it ex nihilo, because it was complimentary to
your argument. This
from a gutless wonder who reads a barrel of non-stated reasons into
comments that say nothing at all on the subject. This from a dimwit who
calls geologists, indeed specialists, incompetent when he dislikes
their findings, but gives benefit of the doubt to an incompetent like
Altman over a veteran like Shanks. Who's that scaly lizard running
around in circles, biting himself on the buttocks? Why, it's
Saurfrombitinghisownbutt!
quote:
I'm sure you don't need
documentation for that.
You assume wrong. I assume right. He
is no expert in paleography.
Period.
If you want me to believe that Meier was being cautious because he knew
he wasn't a paleographer -- as opposed to, oh, because he knew that:
1. the owner of the ossuary told conflicting stories about its
purchase; False.
His stories were misunderstood and clarification has been made, but
because you have so many insecurities you'd rather assume that there
was a vast conspiracy.
2. the owner of the ossuary told conflicting stories about its
location; False, on the same grounds.
3. questions had arisen as to the number of 'hands' involved in
scribing the text; Which is a matter
beyond Meier's expertise, and
he made no comment on at all
4. other people have come forth stating that the ossuary was circulated
for sale only months ago; "other
people" meaning anonymous sources, who you respect (unlike when Golan
wanted to be anonymous) because you agree with them and are bowing and
scraping and kissing their pant legs
5. there were respected experts in archaeology who were surprisingly on
opposite sides of the authenticity question; Not
among those who had seen and had their hands on the artifact, with
those who had seen it being far more respected experts on archaeology,
as opposed to relative know-nothings like Altman and Eisenman
6. that no such panel of experts (as he recommended) had convened to
examine it yet; So? It's a standard
recommendation.
7. etc. I.e., you have no other
reasons other than these contrived
ones.
8. etc. Ditto. Saurhead the
contrivance master.
If you want me to believe that Meier's caution was rooted in your
specifically claimed cause - instead of items 1-8 More like 1-6,
with 7-8 being fake mustaches under your clown nose - then yes; you
are going to have to document it. Get busy. Did
so. 1-5 are garbage claims rooted in your own conspiracy-tortured
brain. 6 is a standard recommend. 7-8 do not exist except in your Green
Eggs and Ham imagination.
quote:
Or maybe you're playing your
usual game: Opponents must document in
detail. I get to make vague and unsubstantiated claims and get a free
ride.
Except that I tend to over-document, Pfft!
Try "over-conspiracy-theorize." Or "over dump in the cow patty
pasture". Or "over extend in expertise". Or "overcook the burgers at
Burger Barn." while you tend to cast red herrings into the
air I.e.,
comments by experts like SW, who you just don't agree with and can't
handle except by tossing around speculation, slander, innuendo, and
lies. Your usual mode of operation in other words, same as it is
against me. with such frequency that it resembles a new species of
flying fish. I smell it, too --
under your arm. Let's remember
your record on unsubstantiated claims, dear JayPee Hiding - it is,
after all, your entire resume. I mean, I'm not the one who:
1. avoids discussing evolution, cosmology, and earth history, and that
amounts to me making an "unsubstantiated claim"? no claim is made
whatsoever about these topics, so how can there by any lack of
substantiation? Hello?
2. tries to says that he is unqualified to discuss such topics, yet
after all that Yes, and what?
3. continues to put forth AiG as a reputable scientific organization,
and
4. refuses to explain why
If #1 and #2 are true, then #3 is nonsense - if you don't have the
skills to evaluate evolution, then quite frankly you don't know and
cannot tell who is right, and who is wrong. So
what? As if you had enough knowledge to tell me why you rely on any
given evolutionist scientist. Tell us all why you rely on who you do --
then prove that that is why. Then you'll have your answer, Mauron.
You refuse to justify a reliance on AiG, yet simultaneously try to skip
out on debating evolution because "you're not qualified". True,
I should be more like you, opening my big fat gaping mouth and
pretending to be an expert on every topic I get a rash over. Bottom
line here is that:
1. you're too chicken to debate this topic, Just like you're too
chicken to debate me on topics, eh, because:...you've
seen Till, Crybaby H., etc lose so badly that they are now eligible for
welfare. Now if I don't have science knowledge, how would I know who
wins and loses?
2. You are a coward, who hides his fear by pretending to not be able to
debate. But nobody's buying it. Oh!
So you think I really DO have
lots of science knowledge, and know what's going on! That makes sense!
Now prove it.
3. So to avoid getting you and your precious ego dirty, you wave your
hands and try to sneak out the back door. But everyone sees ya. Yep,
they see me chasing you into a corner, stomping you to tiny lizard
bits, then stomping those bits into tinier bits, as you whine that I
won't be like you and open my big fat mouth and pretend to be an
authority. Fine. I challenge you to debate how positrons and neutrons
interact in the center of a black hole (like your mouth). What's wrong?
Chicken?
because you've already
seen that the creationists lose - and badly.
quote:
Age of the comment is irrelevant.
It it quite relevant.
Fine. Then produce any evidence that Meier's viewpoint has changed in
the intervening weeks or months. That's
your burden,
Saurpicklepuss, not mine. Right now, you're just assuming that
Meier has changed his mind I'm
not assuming dip. When the data pool
changes, it is up to YOU to show that his views have remained the same.
- yet you have no evidence or statement from Meier to support your
crippled viewpoint. Fair
enough, since you had no evidence to begin with other than holding a
picture of Meier to your forehead and dreaming that he was thinking and
saying what you thought he did. Bottom line, his quote was a sound bite
collected by a Jerry Dumas reporter of the same sort who yanked
Eisenman's chain, being dumb enough to think, Gaaaaaawwwly, if this
guy wrote a book about Jeezus, he must be some kinda expert with a
worthwhile opinyon. Eisenman was too dumb to keep his mouth shut,
but Meier knows better and laid the burden on others. Do you? No; I
didn't think so. You didn't think,
end of sentence. You just
conspiracy-theorized and wish-fulfilled.
Just assuming that someone has changed their mind to suite your
argument, You haven't even succeeded
in showing that he had a
position to change to begin with!
without having any concrete evidence that they did in fact have such a
change of heart, This from the guy
whose "concrete evidence"
consists of mind-reading, but the real concrete is between your ears
is lame and dishonest. Just
like mind-reading, yep. No doubt
why you attempted such a tactic in the first place. No
doubt why you're trying to lamely shift a burden you were too stupid to
know better than to assume in the first place, Sewer-Rat.
quote:
The point at hand was to address your earlier crippled claim that:
There is also more patina in the
area of the second half of the
inscription, indicating a slightly different mix of chemical elements
in the stone."
How? It does not say that the
two areas in question were among those
tested for differences.
Circular reasoning. Your question assumes that such differences in the
limestone even exist in the first place An "assumption" based on
the expert word of SW. - yet you have presented exactly zero
evidence to support that. Evasion
for the fact that you have NO answer to my point, which is that you
have NO evidence as to which areas were tested, and hence no answer,
and hence no feet, and hence your rear end drops unceremoniously to the
pavement.
My point to you is that if the IGS examined six different areas of a
stone box that small, then by random probability alone, at least one of
those six patches would have been in this mysterious "second area" that
made scribing the 2nd half of the text more difficult. Pfft!
Hack! Pfft! Oh! So you also know now 1) how big the "test areas" were;
and have 2) calculated probability statistics based on the size of the
ossuary, the dimensions of which you know but are keeping secret; 3)
and DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW the two required areas were tested, but take it
on "probability" based on these mysterious calculations you haven't
told us about. Nah, it's just another LAME RATIONALIZATION that loosely
translated from your case of diarrhea keyboard means, "Duh ah, I
dunno." Moreover,
the six patches they took correspond to the six sides of the
rectangular ossuary, so that should tell you where they took each patch
from. That
actually did make a touch of sense, but the problem,
Saurrunningwithpus, is that for what I'm saying, you need TWO tests on
the same side, one on one side of the inscription and one on the other,
plus the one side with the inscription is a larger piece, and you still
don't have any data on how large the test areas were. In other words
you have zip, none, nada, no show for where the tests were done, which
is why you're reduced to glopping out excuses based on "probability"
and dragging your lame leg around begging for circumstances that just
happen to suit your purposes but you don't have a scrap of evidence
for. Same old same old sorry rationalization. Yet no evidence of
any such difference in hardness. The
difference in patina, as SW
says, indicates that. As I said earlier:
Indeed, that is to be expected; it's not a large piece of stone, and
to expect it to vary that widely within a single small piece is, um,
grasping at straws. In other
words, more bulldada. You have no idea
how any piece of limestone of any size
could, might, or would vary in hardness or softness, and to what
degree, you just have a lame game of "well, if it's small it can't vary
that much" which doesn't hold a microbe-sized candle to Shanks'
expertise.
Why not try this? http://www.luckygemstones.com/mohs.htm says: Some
things should be said first--some stones/gems are harder in one
direction than the other. For instance, Calcite is easily scratched
with a nail in one direction (Hardness 2), but difficult to scratch in
another direction (Hardness 3). Wow! Isn't that fascinating?!?
Here's more: the geologist at FGS told me that yes, even a single piece
of limestone can vary in hardness -- that's because limestone is not a
mineral, but bits of dead critters held together with natural glue.
Hardness can vary according to the type of critter and the amount of
"glue," even within a single piece. Difference in "glue" in the same
piece can cause one part to be very hard, while another part will flake
off in powder if you chip at it. As a bonus I called a professional
carver who works in limestone, who confirmed that limestone CAN indeed
vary in hardness within the same piece. Carvers like this person
specifically look for limestone from certain places (Indiana,
particularly) that has the best consistency. Got your foot out of your
mouth yet, Mr. Chestbeater?
Moreover, had there been differences, then the chemical analysis report
would have included a range for the given chemical values, instead of a
single number. Duh, or they
would have averaged the numbers.
Saurbraten is scratching for his dinner yet again. But it only matters,
again, if the SPECIFIC TWO AREAS I'm talking about had been tested.
quote:
Remember, it is your claim that
Um, bad connection there,
Saurpicklepuss.
Uh, wrong, as we'll soon see.Uh, you
ate your foot again, as we'll
see in bloody, gory detail.
quote:
You're mixing up the differences
here. The difference claimed in terms
of scribing is the softness and hardness of the stone, not the chemical
composition per se,
Liar. Stoopy poopy lizard.
You indicated that the hardness/softness of the stone and the chemical
composition were cause/effect related. Try reading better, goofus.
The difference in the inscription
are due to hardness/softness differences; an inscriber wouldn't care
dip about chemical composition. In other words, chem composition is the
ULTIMATE cause of difference in softness/hardness, which IN TURN is the
cause of difference in the inscription, as SW put it, as you would see
if you got the fog out of your addled, eggbeaten brain: Here are
your words:
The basis for discussion is that the second half of the inscription
looks (to some experts) rougher and less elegantly executed. SW note
that ossuary inscriptions were made quickly, with a stylus, and towards
the end of such inscriptions "the script often becomes more degraded."
Furthermore the limestone where the second half is etched "appears
to be softer" [47] and the condition of the limestone in that
secondary area is more degraded than where the first part is. "There is
also more patina in the area of the second half of the inscription, indicating
a slightly different mix of chemical elements in the stone." They
say this may have made it more difficult to carve the letters elegantly
and sharply in the second half.Exactly
as I said above. The chem
mix is taken as corollary evidence
and is not taken as the "cause" of the difference in inscription, as if
the inscriber would have had problems specifically because of the
chems. Get your brain in order when it's ready to sell potato chips
again.
quote:
Up to your usual dodges when you
don't have answers to give.
On the contrary - you're the one who's swimming in unreliability,
JayPee Moulding. And you're the one
swmming in a cesspool filled
with cow patties, Sewer-on.
quote:
Well, just goes to show how unreliable your examination is. Please
point to the section that "allows for such differences".
The word "mainly".
Uh, wrong. The statement you were asked to support -- found above, in
italics-- was in relation to a different chemical composition of the
limestone used for the ossuary itself. Uh, no. The word "mainly" is
used to speak of the ossuary itself, the patina, AND the soil. Three
times. Yet the part of the report that you quoted discussed only
the chemical composition of the patina - which is not the same thing as
the limestone at all, dimwit. Too
bad, Mauron, that "mainly" also
appears with respect to the limestone.
Your wits are so dim that you need a flashlight just to change your
mind.
The chemical analysis of the patina revealed that:
The patina is composed mainly of CaCO3 (93%) and contains Si
-5.0%; Al -0.7%; Fe -0.3%; P -0.4% and Mg -0.2%
These elements total 99.6% of the constituent elements - the word
"mainly" covers the remaining 0.4%. Nowhere does your quoted line of
text discuss the chemical makeup of the limestone at all. Too bad.
It says "mainly" when describing the limestone, too. In other
words, anyone who tries to use the patina data to derive information
about hardness of the limestone is seriously off-course. In
other words, you just ate your foot, swallowed it whole, and died of
athlete's mouth. Not that it matters, since the point remians that the
patina's composition is shown to be variable, in line with SW's
original statement.
Moreover, your claim is not merely that the the chemical composition
was different - oh, no. Your claim was *far* more than that, JP
Hyperbole. You claimed that such a difference in the chemical
composition of the limestone:
(1) also created a difference in the patina; SW's
claim, not mine, and if you know better, prove it rather that running
that ever-flapping yap full of speculations and rationalizations;
and that
(2) such a chemical differnce in the patina manifested itself by making
the act of scribing more difficult in one area than in another area, on
the same piece of rock. Same
old same old as above, it's not that it "manifested itself" in that act
but that it was a corollary, and it wasn't in the patina but in the
limestone, and it is clear that limestone is NOT uniform in hardness.
You've just confused yourself into a corner, Saurbrain.
Let's say we grant you all your wild-eyed assumptions for a moment.
Guess what, JP? You're laying eggs?
You've yet to show that
(within the established percentages given above) any such chemical
differences would result in a difference in hardness at all - as
opposed to any other kinds of changes in the limestone. Well gee,
the gem folks, the carver, AND the geologist at FGS say that hardness
can vary in the same chunk, so there we go. If the amount of Mg
(manganese) were tripled, what effect would that have on hardness? As
if you had enough mineralogical knowledge, and more experience with
artifacts that Shanks, to be able to do more than blow your nose.
That's the question you have to be able to defend - and to which you
are sorely, abysmally and predictably - unequipped to handle. Sure,
and you meanwhile are saurly, sorrowfully, idiotically, ludicrously,
pathetically, presumptively, cornponedly, pretending that this makes
any difference, as if there were any such burden on me at all, as if
you know better, as if you're more an authority than a veteran like
Shanks? Nope. You're nothing but a grease-stained, filthy, runny-nosed
burger flipper at a fast food joint who rapes popular news articles for
rumors and slander that give you cheap jollies.
And, finally, we have no expert's word at all for SW's original claim -
that the limestone in the 2nd half "appears to be softer"- no word at
all, except for SW's wishful claim. Guh
huh, yeah, and Shanks is sure as heck no expert when it comes to
artifacts. Especially compared to a worldwide and famed authority like
you, King Goofy of the Piddle Swamp.
The IGS failed to note any such "softness", Stupid
point, since we're still waiting for you to show that they tested the
appropriate places. We may as well wait until your runny nose turns
into a jackass with the rest of you. and there is no independent
evidence for it. Nah,
any time Saurfromkickinghimself doesn't like what an expert says, he
bangs on the table with his spoon and whines and cries and bawls
and grunts and strains and screams for "independent evidence" and then
goes running around prostituting the popular press looking for someone
who says what he wants to hear, even if it's just the cleaning lady who
worked in Shanks' office 23 years ago. There are
established tests
that objectively measure the hardness of any stone or rock - if SW have
a case, then let them test their hypothesis. According
to the gem people, with calcite, that's not hard to see -- difficulty
in inscribing is enough of a test. The carver and the geologist affirm
this in what they say as well. But right now, it remains wishful
thinking by two men desperate to create a holy relic. Right
now, it remains you being a bigoted piler of cow patties whose
ignorance is so magnificent that jealous slander is your only resort.
quote:
the IGS report refutes your earlier claim.
It says NOTHING about what I
claimed,
Sure it does. You claimed that the the second half of the inscription
was made in softer limestone. And
not a word in the IGS report
refutes that. Let's
see your words again:
The basis for discussion is that the second half of the inscription
looks (to some experts) rougher and less elegantly executed. SW note
that ossuary inscriptions were made quickly, with a stylus, and towards
the end of such inscriptions "the script often becomes more degraded." Yep,
too bad you had no comment on that part. Furthermore the limestone
where the second half is etched "appears to be softer"[47] and
the condition of the limestone in that secondary area is more degraded
than where the first part is. "There is also more patina in the area of
the second half of the inscription, indicating a slightly different
mix of chemical elements in the stone." They say this may have made
it more difficult to carve the letters elegantly and sharply in the
second half.
1. First, you've yet to show evidence that such a condition is geologically
possible - two noticeably different hardnesses within a single,
continuous piece of limestone. You
have yet to do more than posture, kick, scream, whine, and pass gas, as
if you were some worthwhile expert in minerals who could respond to an
expert like Shanks who has been examining artifacts since before you
pooped in your first diaper. Meanwhile talk to the gem experts, the
carver, and the geologist. A road gang that beats the crap out of you.
2. Secondly, you've failed to produce anyone with a background in
geology to attest to the claim that the limestone is softer" in one
half of the inscription area. What
the heck difference does it make? You've been ranting for the past 345
paragraphs about how the dumb geologists at IGS were too stupid to know
anything about patina, so even if they did make such an attestation,
all you'd do is call them Big Stupid Dumb and Ugly and then find some
quote from Witheringon's garbageman that says Witherington is a moron.
Then you reject Shanks as expert enough to make this comment, but do
accept Lupia as expert enough to comment on the patina over the
authority of the IGS. How many different kinds of drugs do we need to
put you on to get you back into a state where you do some consistent
thinking and stop seeing black helicopters flying around your head like
little cartoon birdies after you get hit by a mallet?
3. And finally, you have yet to show any proof that softer limestone
would result in "rougher" or "less elegantly executed" script -- as
opposed to having no effect at all, or even resulting in a finer,
more flowing script. Once
again as if you had any sort of authority to dispute an expert like
Shanks, so you can just get off your pathetic whining hiney and
disprove what he said. If softer limestone goes off like powder, then
it's like asking for shapr, refined letters to be done in Silly Putty.
Basically, your position is just three ad hoc assumptions chained
together. Basically,
two come from an expert (Shanks) and one is a ridiculous claim of
geological uniformity for calcite that you, Master Burger Flipper at
the Beefy King, have no authority to dispute, and is now verified by
luckygem, a carver, and a geologist, so you can take your ad hoc down
to the pawn shop and get your ten cents for it. So until you
produce someone (with the appropriate credentials) to back up your
claim about soft limestone, That's
Mr. Shanks. That's the gemcutters. That's the carver. That's the
geologist. Oh, right, Shanks is a Dumb Stupid who is desperate to see a
holy relic verified, which is why he's editor of BAR and has been a
contributor and editor on so many scholarly books. The gemcutting
people probably smoke weed, too. The geologist probably beats his dog.
The carver probably has conjugal relations with household furniture.
Why have I been so blind to realities?
then what I said remains true: the IGS report refutes your earlier
claim. Too bad you forgot to explain
how. Too bad silence doesn't
refute tangibility. Too bad you were beaten as a child.
quote:
unless two or more of those six
patches happen to be on the two areas
of the inscription. Now are they, or not, or do you not know?
HAHAHAHAA!!! You're a riot. In
other words, you don't know, you are dumb ignorant, you can't answer
the question, you hide your ignorance behind a dodgeball so big that
only your big fat yawning mouth can hold it.Yep, Shanks sure is thin air, that
naughty
expert in artifacts. and then you demand that your opponent produce
detailed evidence to refute it. Sounds
like the tactic a certain filthy little lizard has been blustering out
of his snaggle-toothed jaws for the past 76 paragraphs. Tsk, tsk,
JP Hotair. Tusk, tusk, be sure and
flush after you jump in, we
don't need any more piles of your used kitty litter in here.
The IGS report refutes your claim, because it notes no such soft areas
at all. Wow,
that's news. Silence refutes data. I guess the IGS report also refutes
the theory of evolution, because it reports nothing about it at all.
Nor does it note any such "chemical differences" in the stone. Ditto.
Nor have you shown that they tested the appropos areas. Without the
chemical differences, your argument about different hardness fails. Nope,
Shanks' trained observations about the matter aren't useful. Because
Saurfromapackofhemmorhoids says so and if you doubt his word, he'll
flip a burger in your face.
First you make up a
claim out of thin air,
quote:
You are calling a "cause" what
they are citing as a corroborating
effect.
No, I understand. No, Goofy,
you don't and are pretending you did
to save yourself a truckload of embarrassment. Say "Gawrsh" for the
camera.
They claim to see a diffrence in patina. And they have the trained
eye needed to see it. And they claim that the limestone is softer
in half the inscription. Ditto.
Funny, thing, though Yep,
your arguments are as funny as a Farrell Till wearing a clown nose and
having seltzer sprayed down his pants:
1. No one has produced blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah repeating
self endlessly;
2. Blah blah blah yak yak yak yak
yak yak repeating self for the 765th
time;
3. Yak blah blah yak yak yak yak
yak for the 895th time;
4. Blah blah cough cough spit hack
pfft yak poop fart;
5.
Blah blah blah blah blah I demand that you prove to me that the sky is
blue, that grass is green, and that I am not Elvis' secret love child;
Basically, SW are acting like good creationists Basically, you are
acting like a quintessential bigot - tossing out "what ifs", List
them and then show that the same procedure was not used for other
artifacts and objects that were similarly questioned in terms of
provenance. and expecting other people to disprove them. Provide
quotes in which they specifically lay such a burden on someone. As
opposed to actually conducting science, Yep, having it looked at by
expert paleographers, geologists, etc. is just voodoo magic, yep.
and checking the soundness of their own (strained and desperate) This
from Saurloony who strains so hard that he needs a year's supply of
Ex-Lax just to decide what to wear in the morning. special
pleadings. List
them and explain why they are special pleadings as opposed to normal
methodology for such instances. Give concrete examples.
quote:
And you ignored the part about
how other ossuary inscriptions are
similarly degraded towards the end, which makes the arguments about
softness and hardness a bonus, not a necessity.
Flatly incorrect, for several reasons 100%
right, denied for
evasive scamming reasons:
1. I did not ignore the claim about other ossuaries with degraded
script You didn't address it.
That constitutes ignoring it. -
I saw it and ignored it, but it was not relevant bald-headed
excuse for ignoring it and was such a transparently stupid argument
for mixed hardness, it
wasn't an argument FOR mixed hardness, Goofball, it was an argument
completely to itself and unrelated to hardness as I quite clearly
stated but you obviously didn't see because you were too busy flushing
yourself down the toilet. that I couldn't believe they were
offering it. (I'm not surprised you are endorsing it, however Yep,
it's always a big mistake to endorse a view held by an expert in the
field who has compared it to other ossuaries - stupid is, as stupid
does, they say). And
Saurfromgettinghisbuttkicked just keeps on
doing as he does. So you think that other ossuaries with degraded
terminal script are proof of mixed hardness in limestone? No,
El Stupido Grande, go back and read it again. Degraded terminal script
is something that is seen on other ossuaries as well, for whatever
reason. Learn to read. Learn to comprehend.
Stop drinking 250 glasses of ripple for breakfast. So why is
it the
script always degrades towards the end, and never at the beginning? Hello,
Mr. Stupid? Had you understood the point properly, you wouldn't be
asking this question. If there are all these blocks of limestone
out there, blah
blah blah blah blah, more displaced rap caused by your own poor reading
ability -- give you one point, because you just shot yourself repatedly
in the foot with it:
3. Degraded script in the 2nd half of the ossuary can be more easily
explained by other factors - such as a scribe rushing as they approach
the end. Bingo.
As I said, other ossuaries show the same pattern, hence you have just
explained why the second half could be degraded, yet also have been
done by the same hand. Thank you for supporting my argument. To
pull an ad hoc and totally unproven assumption made by an expert,
Shanks, who has seen the ossuary and who would kick you to sleep on any
subject, even shoe-tying out of the air there's nothing between
your ears to pull out, sorry about differences in limestone
hardness as the explanation; -- well, the words "sad", "lame",
"pathetic" and "desperate" all come to mind. Why? Were they always
appearing on your job evaluation at Booger King? (As does the word
"Tektonics", but that's probably just a coincidence, I'm sure....Yes,
they describe well your state when confronted by material from there,
as you turn tail and run like Majin Buu was after you. Lame lemon
chicken, sad attempt to evade, pathetic jumble of rationalizations,
your life's story since childhood.)
quote:
Lupia's hypothesis is that the patina was forged
That's nice. When he gets his
hands on it, and when chemical tests
further confirm his view, we can talk.
You're unlikely to be able to "talk" with Lupia, in any set of
circumstances. WE can talk, dorkus,
you and ME. Not likely since
you can't even read English well, as noted above. He's an expert in
his field; so
is Shanks, so are the geologists, so are Lemaire, Cross, McCarter, etc.
but that sure doesn't stop you from lifting your bruised leg all over
them like a flea-bitten mongrel looking to mark his territory with as
much malodorus stench as possible you're just lost and wandering
about in a brier patch. Because I
use experts like SW? Yep, me Brer
Rabbit. You dumb Brer Bear. Moreover, you're a coward for dodging
the point. Only point dodged here is
the tip of your poison pen,
which reeks of vulture pus. (Well,
if I'm going to be precise, I'd
say you're a coward for a lot of reasons, I suppose. Yep, because I
won't debate you on TWeb on a detailed subject...uh, wait a minute,
that's not me, that's YOU!
But at this particular moment your cowardice is obvious from your
immediate attempt at a dodge). Rather,
kicking your dodgeball
straight back in your gaping mouth.
(1) First, your feeble mind thought you had a contradiction in Lupia's
position: And there is one. You just
don't read well, as usual,
which is no surprise since your Book of the Year was The Poky
Little Puppy Gets His Shots
It says nothing about it being cleaned off the inscription; where
does Lupia get this from? IGS?
If I read right he also says he doubts that it actually was cleaned.
So who's right and why?
(2) The problem, though, is that (as usual) you didn't understand what
the other person was saying. Oh,
yes, I did. In fact your dodgeball
confirms that I understood perfectly. So to correct your
mistake
(i..e, that Lupia doubts the ossuary was cleaned), IGS
says it was. He says it wasn't. Hence he doubts it was cleaned.
Semantic games are not your forte, I take it. Oh, you do try them, but
you'll never get $100 for Alex Trebek for any of your efforts. I
presented you with a tidy, Gerber baby-food version You threw up?
Yep. of Lupia's hypothesis, just to make sure you could understand
without choking on the big concepts It
was perfectly understood. As noted, you just can't read English, maybe
because you find it hard to read while spinning around in the toilet:
1. Lupia first points out that patina and biovermiculation are going
to be the keys behind his claim to forgery, and he explains what those
phenomena are. Wheeeeee.
Nice. Too bad all he had were photos. Funny thing too, his claims don't
seem to be circulating much these days. Wonder why.
2. He points out that the ossuary had plenty of both, except around the
area of the inscription. Uh, yeah.
3. The excuse I.e., scientific
explanation by trained geologists
whose boots you are unworthy to lick, same as Lupia, who has examined
how many artifacts like this directly in his lifetime, and who has --
what? -- NOT seen the ossuary in person? offered for that, was that
the inscription had been cleaned off. And
they should know. But no,
for your own insecurities people with PH. D.'s just that day turned
into Goofus and Gallant
4. Lupia counters that such a cleaning process is impossible, without
leaving behind evidence. Uh, like a
cleaned area, of course.
5. So Lupia's conclusion is that the patina is forged, and instead of
being cleaned off, has actually flaked off.Too bad. Dumb conclusion
until he gets his hands on it, and until he explains why experts
who were geologists managed to miss this. Sounds more like Lupia is one
of the several talking heads like Altman who wanted to horn in on the
publicity and get the spotlight. How's that for cheap psychoanalysis,
Saurpicklebrain?
I bolded it for you this time. As
bold as the "Needs Improvement"
on your annual Burger Barn evaluation.
And as for your comment "when chemical tests further confirm his view,
we can talk" - well, aren't you the Master of Double Standards? Nope.
That's you, Sauraftergettingkickedtobits. Lupia has a PhD in
Archaeology and another PhD in Art History, and might easily be
expected to spot a forgery, given *both* of those disciplines. Yeah.
Rosenfeld and Ilani (the IGS guys) are specialists
with their Ph. D.s, and Shanks is a veteran of the field, and "might
easily be expected to spot a forgery" but for some reason Saurloser the
Double Bubbler says, nah, they're just a bunch of idiots picking their
noses. Yet
JayPee HoityToity thunders and declares that CHEMICAL
TESTS ARE NECESSARY!!! Yet
Saurloser burps and declares from his armchair and as his Pringles
spill all over the floor, THOSE GUYS ARE RELIGIOUS AND/OR IDIOTS! Sure
sounds like a fair and clear-minded judgment to -- the head of the KKK!
Yet you want everyone to just accept your idea Shanks's
idea, beg pardon. Also seemingly the gem folks' idea, and the carver's
and the local geologist's, though of course they may have all been
drunk or something about a limestone block having different
chemical make-ups and hardnesses, even though blah blah blah blah
repeat repeat repeat etc etc etc. mercifully removed to keep the reader
from being cruelly anesthetized and falling out of their chair with
ennui:
You're such a blatant hypocrite, it's a wonder your ego doesn't
suffocate you. You're such a
blantant manipulator, you could get a
career at the end of a construction crane moving sand.
quote:
Note that nothing the IGS says contradicts Lupia's point about
biovermiculation. Nor did you offer any rebuttal.
I have nothing in SW to offer in
reply, so what was I supposed to do?
You shoot from the hip regularly; why should this occasion be any
different? You shoot from our mouth
constantly; this occassion WAS
no different.
quote:
Pretend like you do, to know
what I was talking about?
Except I do know what I'm talking about, and you've utterly failed to
demonstrate otherwise. It's
been demonstrated at every turn, corner, square, circle, and moment
that all you do is mouth off in ignorance, picking and choosing reports
you like and then concocting rationalized defenses and shifting burdens
of proof to save your bacon.
quote:
Of course you didn't offer any
rebuttal to three points at least noted
above, so that's fair.
Uh, yes I did, JayPee Horsehockey. Uhhh,
no, you didn't,
Saurwithrashesalloveryourbutt.
quote:
all the groups named so far (Atlantis fanatics, creationists, Jesus
Mythers) have their own publishing houses
Your claims fail here. Mythers
do not have publishing houses devoted
exclusively to their topic,
BZZT. Twisting my argument. BLERRRRP.
Big fat butt covering. I
never said that they had only dedicated publishing houses that produced
nothing but that kind of literature. Too
bad, because that's what
breaks your lame analogy into Sauron Crunchies. What I said was:
have their own publishing houses that they direct their material to,
who specialize in publishing their material, Wow. Big fat
difference in concept.
or
are outright owned by groups espousing these ideas.
So your re-wording of my position did not work. Yep, it was a
difference that was no difference. Sort of like the words "Sauron" and
"Poor, pitiful idiot".
Moreover, your original analogy is still in trouble. You reject Jesus
mythers for their (alleged) lack of publication in peer-reviewed
journals, It is "alleged" until you
turn one up, Saurbutt. Why
didn't you? Because there is none. yet (in contradiction) you
support and rely on AiG, even though they are guilty of the same thing.
I don't know science. I do know history. Case
closed.
Unless you can name AiG members who have published in peer-reviewed
journals? Hmmmmm? And on the
topic of evolution, mind
you - not on circuit board design, or some other area irrelevant to the
creation/evolution debate? Oh, sure.
They have to publish specifically
on evolution to be REAL scientists. Oscar Mayer. Try some of this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/p_jerlstrom.asp.
And I noticed that in all your bluster and handwaving, How could
you possibly notice anything with 7000 psi of hot air blowing
out of your mouth every ten seconds? you've yet to justify your
reliance on AiG Too bad. - if
you can reject Jesus mythers
based on #2, then you should likewise reject AiG. I reject Jesus
mythers because I know how to do history. Yet you do the opposite. Yet
you blow your nose on experts like Shanks and the IGS geologists.
quote:
It's more like engineers pontificating on biology
You deny that they have Ph. D’s
and are trained in their subject
matter?
Let's remember: your original claim was that Jesus Mythers were less
qualified to discuss the historical christ than creationists discussing
evolution, because they didn't have the necessary educational
background, but - choke, giggle - creationists did! And they do. Do
you deny that they have Ph. D.'s? Well? Answer the question.
Here's
what JP Handwave said, folks: They
know what I said. You didn't
answer the question.
Too bad there's no parallel between the qualifications -- Ph. D.'s
across the board in the sciences,
So you think there are creationists who try to discuss evolutionary
biology? And who have a degree in that field? Fine; produce three such
individuals. Manipulation game. They
do not need degrees in evolutionary
biology
specifically to be qualified to comment on biology as a whole. And
there are more fields at issue than biology. Now answer the question:
Do they or do they not have valid Ph. D.'s in a scientific field?
quote:
I assume you're comparing people you like to Jesus Mythers?
People I “like”? Michael Grant?
Ian Wilson?
No. Creationists you like - such as the ones whom you rely on, in AiG. Get
your language clear, then. No, you're the one who made the comparison
to begin with. Kick your own bad body in the rear.
quote:
The record shows that they fail to even submit papers.
What record?
Extensive searches of resources such as Medline. Oh, that was
specific. Or, you could read McClean vs. Arkansas Board of
Education:
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/mva.html
Would be a good source if it actually
said what you say it did. The
question: Do they even submit papers? Answer:
The scientific community consists of individuals and groups,
nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied
fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is
published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The
journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is,
however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published
an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section
4(a). Uh,
excuse me -- that's not the question. The question is, "Do they submit
papers?" Not just on creation science theory, but on ANY subject. Not
the answer to the question. Some of the State's witnesses suggested
that the scientific community was "close-minded'' on the subject of
creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation
science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for
which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the
scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however,
inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in
all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor
new scientific thought. Irrelevant
to my question. Do not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200. In fact just sit
your sorry tuckus down on Baltic and stay there.
quote:
I suppose that Doherty or Acharya could pass muster
Acharya couldn’t blow her own
nose. Doherty might manage if he worked
hard enough.
I'm not interested in your evaluation. You're the one who asked a
question, Goofus Doofus. But as long as we're talking about people
utterly incapable of executing the task they assign themselves, that
applies to every creationist author or self-appointed expert out there.
And, of course, it also applies to you. Too
bad you have yet to prove it, Burger Boy. Too bad you're too lame
chicken to debate me on a substantive issue. Try it and I'll leave you
hanging out to dry like an old man's underwear on a clothesline.
quote:
biased, miseducated, and obscure
We’re not interested in a list
of your personality disorders.
Of course we're not. Those adjectives describe you, they're on your
drivers' license, Saurinthehead. my dear JayPee
Hackingcough. And
now I can add "shifty", "confused", and "dishonest" to your list of
un-merit badges. To
you we can add the following certifications: World's Most Conspicuous
Moron; America's Funniest Toliet Imitator; The Nation's Rationalizer
Smelling Most Like Red Herring; Most Pompous, Overstuffed Ego in
Baghdad, 1998; World's Longest Burp (not "Burper" but "Burp"); Brain
Most Like a Shrivelled Pea Pod, 1977, 1978, 1980-86, 1990-1999. The
other years it was won by Rain Man.
quote:
Most of your arguments are nothing more than assertions
Which you have neither the
mental equipment, nor the stamina, nor the
ability, to counter, having yet to graduate beyond Hop on Pop.
Yawn. You mean "burp" Saurpits.
Let me see now.... Yep,
pick your nose and see how much brain matter comes out.
Mental equipment - I have more than you, You have a hand-held
transisitor radio missing the batteries compared to my 1-gigawatt
receiver but haven't needed to use it; True, no one needed a
toilet plunger. after all, your assertions don't have any
foundation, You missed the
foundation which hit you on the head and
squished you into Saurflats. and really aren't a worthy exercise
for me; A worthy exercise for you
would be hauling toxic waste to
and from Three Mile Island
Stamina - there are no points awarded for being verbose or typing a
lot, Yet you sure seem to try hard,
and now chicken out and show up
only once a week for your scheduled beating only for solid
arguments and hard data, Pick your
nose, yep. so I'm not
worried, No, you're too stupid to be
worried. and besides - I
have a 60 hour/week job flipping
burgers, yep, your boss says you need to stay overtime and clean the
grease trap, mop the restroom, wash out the toilets, and take the fry
daddy out for a cleaning, and I don't make my living by begging
money from the internet Nah,
Dan Barkforbucks and Infortheloot Guy are the ones who do that; you
couldn't, because no one would give money to someone for just standing
on their own tongue and spinning around in circles;
Ability - that's the same thing as mental equipment and stamina, Nope,
that's relevant training. You have none, especially since your training
wheels got lost so you're being unnecessarily repetitive here - as
if that were a news flash; the real
flash would be if your head
ever cracked open and the Polaroid cube popped out
So yeah - I doing just fine against Grand Master Bluster. You'd do
better if you actually showed up rather than letting your delusional
surrogate, Saurnose, take your place.
quote:
Till, Jury, and Hotz. .. Lowder.
You
didn’t see dip except the inside of your eyelids as you fainted like a
Victorian matron at the sight of your heroes being stuffed and mounted.
Actually, what I saw was you changing your arguments, What
you saw was a hallucination caused by you eating too many wild
mushrooms and smoking banana peels with Timothy Leary, which also
causes you to see actual documentation for this charge, showing that
changes were made that were 1) substantive; 2) unannounced; 3) at a
time when a debate was in progress editing them surreptitiously, "That's
the same thing as changing your arguments, so you're being
unnecessarily repetitive here" -- no, I forget: you need to do that to
restore your lagging self-esteem and fool the gullible into thinking
you're actually saying something worth dip and not having the
cojones to admit it You may find
yours with a microscope and years
of patience: - but as we've determined, you are the quintessential
coward. This
from the gutless wonder who has turn tail and run for the safety of his
little iidb neighborhood. Fine, as I say, more than one way to skin a
lizard.
quote:
'avoids discussing evolution, cosmology
True. You’re the one who avoids
discussing everything else by cowering
behind other people’s alleged victories.
In the first place, the victories are real real delusions, yep
- whether against you and your attempts to edit your own arguments, yet
to be documented or justified by you beyond gutless and frustrated
slander or against the lame, desperate critters known as
creationists. Take on one then,
Saurpuss. Prove you evolved. Looks
here like you have a long way to go just to reach pond scum.
And in the second place, my point in bringing this up was to note for
everyone i.e., your gullible
auidence of sycophants and other dazed
donuts that you are lying when you try to avoid such debates, by
your stated reason yak yak yak blah blah blah Too bad you're too
much of a gutless skunk to show everyone how "unqualified" I am in
other areas. Hide behind the bedboard, little Saurbreath, Holding
is about to eat you alive!
In any event, you're caught in your own contradiction - you want to beg
out of the discussion on hard sciences due to your alleged inability to
accurately evaluate the data, while you simultaneously endorse AiG and
their silly pseudo-science. As
I am sure your extensive scientific training has caused YOU to choose
to believe evolutionists -- correct? Yeah, right! You wouldn't know a
protozoa from a proton, little worm.
If you
(a) endorse AiG or their positions, but then refuse to
(b) debate creationism vs evolution, on grounds that you lack the
educational preparation
then you're lying. I am taking the
course of wisdom and deferring
to others. Plain and simple. That's
you. Also add egomaniacal,
presumptuous, and gutless. Since both acts, (a) and (b), require a
knowledge of science and the ability to weigh the evidence, your
position of doing (a) while refusing (b) is a contradiction. Since
when, Goofus? Prove a chain of logical action. Wish I could say
that I was surprised. Wish
I could say you were smart. Nope, the only words that work are dumb,
gutless, slimy, pathetic, and those in the same family. Or that
*anyone* is surprised. Not
when they see you passed out on the floor, wheezing from being beaten
senseless in the intellect and scholarship department, Woofie.
You refuse to debate creationism, cosmology, etc. NOT because you lack
the educational preparedness, but because you know it's a hopeless
losing battle for creationism. Duh
-- wow, I can hardly wait to see
you prove that I have enough knowledge to know that. Be sure and
document.
JayPee Hypocrite, He of the Great Chicken Challenge, is too big of a
flippin' chicken to discuss these areas, because he already knows he
will lose. Ditto.
Meanwhile Saurloser hides behind iidb to keep from debating me on any
other issue. The smell of plucked and burnt feathers runs all the way
to Calcutta.
quote:
True. You claim to be qualified
in everything and anything that is
convenient.
Knowing more than you The only thing
you know more than me is
patterns of tile from having your face dropped to the floor.
doesn't make anyone "qualified in everyting". Not, just everything
convenient to keep your delusions alive. Indeed, it's hard to
imagine someone who *didn't* know more than you. Your brain is so
limited in power that you'd have problems imagining a pink elephant if
they painted one pink in front of you. In any event, your attempt
at dodging the point by flinging an ad hominem which, nah, ain't
what you been doin' -- how do you like smoking your own crack?
isn't going to work. It
has. You've used more diversions than a greased pig and have
embarrassed yourself with such fiascoes as using a November news
article and claiming it was up to date. Oh boy, the rationalizations
can be heard clumping around! Once
again, the point here is yak yak
yak yak repeat repeat repeat edited mercifully:
When you learn to blow your nose and
stop repeating yourself like a
mental case, give us a call.
quote:
continues to put forth AiG as a reputable scientific organization
When jimbo answers my question,
he’ll get his.
Irrelevant dodge. Relevant
and equitable reply. Jimbo refused my questions; I refuse his, throwing
his own excuses back at him. Tell it to Jumbo the Elefink. You are
trying to hide behind someone else, as a way to avoid answering the
question. Others besides jimbo have asked you the same question, None
others have asked me, except you in retarded copycat imitation of jimbo.
so pretending to be waiting on jimbo is kinda lame and transparent. Name
five people who have asked me before jimbo. Let's move it. Dates and
texts, please.
quote:
Choke on your own words,
Saurpickepuss.
No thanks. My words are tasty and sweet. Yep, just like rat poison
or dog biscuits. Yours,
on the other hand, are tinged with the
metallic taste of fear and defeat. Yep. You can see YOUR fear and
defeat coming with every one of them, just like a sunset.
quote:
I'm not answer-able
Turn the words around:
Sorry, J. Petty Horseyhiney. You
sure are,
Saurfrombeingkickedintherump. Turning the opponent's words around -
I'm afraid that's more YOUR style of debate, not mine. Yep. I hold
up a mirror and let them see their own warts and inconsistencies and
idiocies. Works like a charm, as it has here.
quote:
That is itself a contradiction
That is itself your ribald
inability to name any.
Unable to name any? Blah blah blah, repeat self over and over like a
demented cuckoo.
quote:
It's a way to keep separate topics, separate
It’s you caught with your pants
down...
No, separate postings are just what I said they were: an attempt to
keep separate topics separate.
They
are an attempt to advertise your egomaniacal self, to make your posts
appear more numerous and substantive, and your denial won't erase it. Caught. If you're too slow, too
stupid, or too scared to keep up,
why is that my problem? Keeping
up is the least of problems when it comes to pinning you for your crude
psychological manipulation attempts. The real problem is not stepping
in you as I walk by.
quote:
I named specifics
You named a perp lineup that
proves nothing,
Wrong. Spot on. The individuals
I listed have listed the
incidents where you've twisted their arguments, Lowder
has not. Till has not. Crybaby H. tried, and I beat him to a pulp at
http://www.tektonics.org/daffywhacked.html and showed that every one of
his complaints was invalid, and that he is nothing but a sore loser
with a bad ego trip. edited your own postings surreptitiously, Not
one has done such a thing, this is a product of your deluded and lying
fantasies. and basically acted like a spoiled brat who wanted to
win a debate at any cost. I
don't "want" what I already have: The defrocking of the ignorant who
think they know more than they do. Which includes you, Saurpick.
Face it, JayPee - you're busted. Face
it, Saurloser -- you're
frustrated. Try therapy for that psych disorder.
quote:
Afraid some of your generous internet donors are going to stop sending
you their monthly checks?
Actually it’s been going up
lately.
Aw, did mommy send you a birthday present? Aw, did you wet your
pants? Again? What's that - a whole TWENTY DOLLARS? Multipy
by at least 500. Then go flip a burger and stew in its juices,
regretting that you never bothered to finish grade school or even get a
library card. Where you gonna spend it, JayPee? On a book for
you on how to cope with frustration disorders. I feel sorry for your
dog.
quote:
Especially from people here who
have seen Till and Co. get their
bunions torn off and placed in my Trophy Room.
As I said: fleecing the feeble and easily confused. As I do:
Tearing to ribbons the frustrated and easily defeated.
quote:
$10 a month
We don’t care what you salary as
Grease Taster at Burger King is.
Ha. I'd rather be flipping burgers than begging money from the
internet. Great!
Be sure and voice your opinion to Danny Barkingforbucks and The
Infortheloot Guy. Sorry, didn't know you'd been demoted to french fry
shoveller. At least one is honest work; the other is just an
exercise in ego-stroking. Danny and
Infy will be glad to hear you
think so well of them.
quote:
The USGS isn't carrying on a debate the the FES
The FES is carrying on a
debate.They are publicly advocating their
position. USGS is ignoring them, as are countless other geologists and
scientific organizations. They’re obviously chicken by your own line of
reasoning.
Once again, your mental midgetry Look
who's talking, the mental
equivalent of Tattoo from Fantasy Island, in a fantasy of his
own where he actually wins a debate with me! trips you up. And
I fell on you and crushed you.Bzzzt,
wrong, incomplete. One side is debating,one side (by your logic) is
ignoring the other, and being chicken.
However, in the situation that I'm describing (i.e., where you
consistently refuse to provide links to your opponent's arguments when
you debate them), two sides are actively debating. I'm not actively
debating the issue. The parallel holds. Your analogy is
not
parallel. My analogy is perfect, no
matter how hard you try to pick
cherries off of it.
Yours is still an invalid parallel.
In your Flat-Earth scenario above, only one side is debating.
quote:
There are established protocols for a debate
Tell the USGS.
Why should I? Because you're
chicken, of course. The USGS is
not engaged in a debate. They aren't publishing responses to the Flat
Earth society. I.e., by your view,
they are refusing to engage and
are thus chicken. Get back to the fryer before the grease spills.
So the protocols fail to apply here. Because they refuse to engage.
Chickens. Like you, Linus. What's more, since the USGS isn't even
publishing a response, how in the world could they link to the Flat
Earth society's argument? They're
being chicken. If they do publish a response, should they link to FES
or not? Now answer the question, Saurbutt. Then I have more:
Is a Holocaust
Memorial site obligated to link to
the Aryan
Nation site that rebuts some of their claims, and that they answer?
Is Harvard Medical School
obliged to link to the site
of a guy who sells palm fronds as a cancer cure, if they choose to
reply to his claims? Without a response document, no such link is
possible. And when there is one,
then what, Evasauron?
The USGS is not engaged in debate - but you are. Yep, by your rule
they are just too chicken to even try.
quote:
The issue of a flat earth was settled long ago.
So were all the issues my
opponents are getting tarred and feathered
on.
Only in your silly theatrical imagination - not for the audience as a
whole. Only in the scholarship I
consult -- not in the crazed world
of conspiracy theories your little mind flits through. Or for the
world as a whole. Gee, seems the
world once thought the earth was
flat and it was settled... For that reason, attempting to compare
your debate to the USGS / Flat earth scenario is (again) invalid. Yep,
USGS is too chicken. Gotcha.
Not only is the issue of getting your butt kicked still an ongoing
event, In your deluded
imaginations, the equivalent in this context
to a Holocaust denier. but you skipped my other two reasons
as to
why your USGS - Flat Earth society analogy is not parallel. Nope,
they are answered by the above.
3b. The USGS has no obligation to link to an organization that is
scientifically and objectively wrong; And
I have no obligation to
link to people who are historically, culturally, literarily, or
otherwise wrong. Case closed.
4. For issues that are actively debated now - such as, oh, how about
endothermia among dinosaurs - such debates are extensively referenced
and full disclosure does apply Well,
sorry, FES is "actively
debating" as are the Holocaust deniers, so go suck that up through your
straw and smoke it. Bigot.
You don't satisfy the requirements of 3b, so your analogy is broken;
and you refuse to satisfy 4, so your attempt at justifying your
behavior likewise fails. I
satisfy both except in the delusions of lesser morons like you with
delusions of grandeur. Prove me wrong in a debate on a substantive
Biblical issue I've written on, coward.
quote:
I have no obligation to link
to anyone who is objectively wrong. End of
story.
Except that you cannot prove "objectively wrong" at all. I
have proved such repeatedly, in spades, and if you deny it, get your
lame lemon rear end over for a debate and I will peel you alive.
You have a hard time proving "subjectively wrong". I have a "hard
time" waiting for you if you even try to get in the ring with me.
So not only does your analogy break down, but your rationalization is
based upon a supposition that isn't even true. We'll
send you a membership in the Holocaust deniers' club so you can use the
same lame rationalizations from behind your safe haven to defend them.
quote:
Till lists them
I have responded to each of
his allegations.
Yawn. So what? You respond to a lot of things. You're very good at
responding, oh yes, precious, the nasty little Holdingses, they're very
good at responding. Darn
right I am. Responding, rebutting, lashing, destroying, making them cry
and whine and get frustrated. You're victim #2,456, Bilbo. But you
post nonsense responses, that you hope will simply exhaust your
opponent. Ain't working. Sure
has you running for cover, coward. Sure has you in denial. Sure has you
refusing to enter the ring. Stay under your rock, burying beetle, the
stench of dead meat becomes you.
What you haven't done, poor wretched Holding, is you haven't refuted or
disproved what Till said - It's
been refuted, confuted, diluted, ill-reputed, mooted, and booted, and
if you are anything more than a gutless wonder with macaroni for a
spine, produce examples and get on TWeb in the ring with me.
and
therein lies ALL the difference. Medication
for delusions would
make a bigger difference for you, sick man. Nor do you seem to be
able to do so,Did so. Past tense.
Done and over with. or else
you wouldn't bluster and blow so much. And blow you to kingdom
come, indeed.
quote:
Holtz
Ditto.
Ditto, indeed. Horse caught you red-handed changing your own arguments,
and you tried to bluster and ad hominem your way out of it. Crybaby
H. caught himself in blithe ignorance of the social world of the NT,
couldn't understand his own arguments' implications, backpedalled
constantly, threw up smoke, flashed mirrors, and got himself kicked to
the curb, as seen at http://www.tektonics.org/daffywhacked.html
quote:
You’re left with nothing but a
naked argument and your own bleeding
backside.
Yeah, lots of violent rolling on the floor, laughing - tends tends to
happen whenever I read your posts. Yes,
we had to give you nitrous
oxide to quell the pain of your own embarrassment. We do have some
small mercy for dumb animals.
quote:
Or better yet, use google.com
I did. Didn’t find a thing.
Then you're incompetent, because I found it. Then where is it?
Rationalize away.
quote:
I’ll be sure and keep some
Tilex Mildew remover handy in case anything
does rub off from you.
I should think you'd keep that around already, JayPee Molding. True,
for past bouts with Till, Crybaby H., and others, I need Tilex Mildew
Remover, plus Tilex Soap Scum Remover, Lysol Germ Killer, lye soap,
acid, and for you in particular, Ex Lax.
quote:
I provided examples.
You provided cow patties.
No, I provided examples. You responded with cow doo-doo. I
threw it back in your face, yes. You had no examples. You had gossip
and a name list that any jerk could list, and any jerk, you, did list.
quote:
Which you do receive
Which you have yet to defend
as special treatment,
Of course it's special treatment. Of
course all you can do is assert it is. Never mind that it was not
refused to others, which is what constitutes "special" treatment, as
you have yet to deal with, because you know it breaks you down into a
quivering mass of squid mucus. You are projecting a farce onto your
readers and to everyone else, Change
of subject. This is not relevant to the treatment in question being
"special". Equivocator that you are, this is the only way you can
distract from your error. and the moderators not only tolerate it,
but they enable it. Still
does not explain how it is "special" when no one else has been denied
it. Or maybe you have a "special" dictionary with "special" definitions
to help you in your delusions. And instead of critically examining
that behavior, the mods simply ignore it. The
lead mod has examined it thoroughly in personal meetings with me where
the issues were discussed in conversation. Try that rationalization
elsewhere. Do you really think anyone else would be enabled in such
a transparent deception? No, people
like you engage in worse ones
that are even more transparent: lies, slander, manipulation, dodging.
Of coures not. But because the mods are part of the feebleminded that
you fleece, they gladly enable the behavior. The
mods have more brains and sense in their left pinkies as individuals
than you would have in your collectives selves if you were cloned 10
million times and given all the brain food you could eat for 30 years.
And unlike you, they do not lie, rationalize, and slander when
frustrated.
quote:
This is just a recycle of your first point, and is likewise not true
It rings so true that the
bells are making your head rattle.
The only thing ringing around here is the bells inside your head -
they're competing for space with the host of voices you keep hearing. There
is one more thing "wringing" and that is your ideological neck as you
hang yourself with even more nonsense.
quote:
I merely said that it was inconsistent with your self-appointed role as
a serious christian apologetic.
In other words a complaint.
No, just pointing out the hypocritical behavior. I.e., a complaint.
Try your special dictionary again. I am sure it will agree with you.
You're a wonderful testimony why people shouldn't become a christian,
JP Horsemanure. Keep up the good work! As
if you gave a crap how any Christian behaved, based on your own
emasculated standards and a strawman Jesus. No, your stock in trade is
lying, deception, ripping faith from others to comfort yourself, and
playing the victim, Crybaby.
quote:
Till refuted you about a dozen different ways
Till has had his patoot kicked
in so many different directions that he
needs a new type of compass to find it.
Not by you, he didn't. By me, every
day, every way, and his rear
end has been scattered over more states than the Columbia wreckage.
(Of course, you've probably edited your own responses since you got
your hat handed to you, so it really is hard to tell what your current
position-du-jour is going to be, ain't it? Prove
it, Slanderpuss. Prove that an article was a) edited and b) that it was
done unannounced. Check the Google cache to be sure.)
quote:
The paranoid suspicions extend
as well into THIS debate. Take your
meds.
I'm not on any meds, JP Hypochondriac. But
of course you're not. You haven't been taking them, which is why you
have so many delusions. Like the elves on your keyboard who keep
assuring you that Till has won debates with me, and also tell you how
great you are. Next week they will appoint you King of the Elf Realm.
Happy Coronation! But
considering the ringing bells and voices you
keep hearing, you might consider some meds for yourself. The bells
of victory in the boxing ring after delivering you a knockout punch?
You bet.
quote:
I already provided these
Your perp list is a product of
your fantasies.
Uh, wrong. Uh, right. Denial
notwithstanding. They demonstrated
your tired old tactic of They were a
bunch of crybabies who whined
about:
(a) failing to provide links; to
people who neither need nor
deserve them
(b) editing your own posts surreptitiously; either them missing the
updates clearly marked on my What's New page, or raising the claim to
distract from their beating
(c) constructing vast armies of strawmen out of your opponent's
position; I.e.,
accurately characterizing the implications of their position, which,
because it makes them look foolish, they rapidly deny and backpedal on
so fast that they could run over an elephant on a tricycle
(d) ad hoc arguments and special pleading I.e.,
arguments they can't refute, being too stupid, so they go down a list
of logical fallacies they got off some Internet site and pick them at
random to drop an accusation of
It just goes on and on. Yep. They
keep getting beaten and beaten
and beaten.
quote:
You didn’t observe dip except
your idols being smashed.
They aren't my idols. Yep,
they are your idols. You kiss their feet, wipe their shoes, and do
shameless things in their presence, and lie and slander on their behalf.
And they didn't get smashed. True.
"Annihilated" would be better
for "smashed" allows that there were pieces left. But they DID
smash YOU. The
elves are lying to you, Saurbucket. Do not trust the elves. They want
to steal your wallet. They want to kick your dog. They want to enslave
you and make you their pet.
quote:
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
You’ll feel better when you
confess to your lies.
When I start telling any, Tell us
when you finish instead. We
missed the start years ago.
I'll be sure to let you know. No
need to advise, it's in all the papers. Ain't happened yet, though. True, it would be better to use not the
past tense but to imply
continuation.
quote:
I admit nothing of the kind
Your silence admits enough.
