3D graphic stating, "The Skeptical Review Online"


A Spirited Defense of the James Ossuary
by Robert Turkel
aka
James Patrick Holding

Original article is here
Farrell Till's response is here

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.

    Is that another of your debate techniques? Pinpointing embarrssing and obvious silences by opponents who mysteriously refuse to back up their contentions? Yep. Or a "principle of christian apologetic research"? A principle of kicking an opponent who lies to the curb.

    Fact is, however, silence can't admit anything. Not that you could ever hear. But I do.
    quote:

    No one here has any trouble finding these articles.

    Irrelevant and off-point. Pertinent and a crushing blow to your Saurowful whine. It does not matter if the articles are easy to find, or hard, or impossible. It matters completely. If they are easy to find, links are unnecessary.You have decided arbitrarily what is "professional" because you are a frustrated crybaby. It's obviously an attempt to bias the debate by not providing your audience with full disclosure of your opponent's views. The debate is only "biased" if the views are misrepresented. They have not been, never have been, and you have no effective examples, all the examples you do have being from crybabies who had their stacks whipped and needed some excuse to explain their dismal, pitiable failures.Sufficient disclosure has been provided. Craybabies keep crying anyway. it makes your deliberate editing of the opponent's points more difficult to catch. Oh, your mind is that devolved? Still practicing shoe-tying, are you? So you can snip away at what your opponent actually says, yep, snip out fluff, blather, repetition, garbage designed to dazzle gullible backwater hillbillies like you who think repeating yourself 7857 times is an effective way to argue. and (you hope) your audience will never know. They do know. None are impressed.

    Checkmate. Check your brains. We're playing Monopoly and you own nothing but Baltic and the B and O (Body Odor) Railroad.
     

    That does not excuse your lack of professionalism. And, of course, by not providing full disclosure,
    quote:

    And I note you also tried to dodge this second point

    Didn’t dodge dip. I told you to go whine to USGS on behalf of the FES. Done it yet?

    Didn't need to, dork. Didn't want to, coward. Already told you above why your USGS comparison is invalid in, oh, about three different ways. Already corrected you three times three other ways.

    Gentle readers - what was that second point, that JayPee Hiding tried to dodge? Let's repeat it blah blah blah endlessly, so that I can daze the gullible into thinking it hasn't been refuted. Now it's time to really embarrass you. Sit down and take an Alka Seltzer, you'll need it. Your biggest rationalization of the day is coming.

    quote:

    If you think the information is inaccurate, then bring forth your evidence.

    I did. Pages back. Quit trying to delay your inevitable embarrassment:

    SW. Page 82. I have you a cite and a description. Now a quote:

    “The newspapers reported that the police were investigating Golan. The truth, though, was that the IAA had talked to him to learn more about the ossuary and how he acquired it. The police were never involved.” End quote.

    Unfortunately, this doesn't establish your point. How, exactly, did SW find all this out? Simple - by interviewing Golan, and asking him what happened. Simple, by you just calling them Dumb Stupid and Ugly for your own convenience so as to evade and dodge your uncritical trust of the popular press that says what you want to hear. But let's remind you of this statement from the Toronto paper: But in the two weeks since biblical scholars revealed the existence of the ossuary, Mr. Golan has seen false reports published that he was interrogated by police and endured thinly veiled suggestions that he is trying to foist a hoax on the world. Keep it in mind and keep it to the fore as we explore your upcoming bonehead error and contrinued rationalizations. But interviewing Golan is not the same as investigating the issue - they did not interview the IAA or the police. You have no idea what they did; you merely assume they just asked Golan, then move as quickly as possible to avoid having to answer for your presumption. By taking Golan's word at face value, Which you merely assume is all they did they not only expose their own bias, by proceding on base assumption, you reveal your own tendentiousness and fully disqualify yourself as an authority but they failed to perform the necessary rigorous investigation to validate the claim. Begged question on the same assumed premise.

    Golan *knew* he was being questioned by police authorities. What's more - the folks at BAR didn't even know about it. Oops, you'd better put mustard on your toes because you're about to stick your foot in your mouth. Here goes:
    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=227760&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

    This modest man is Oded Golan, a 51-year-old engineer from Tel Aviv, unmarried and childless. A few hours before the press conference, he was questioned under warning for four hours at a Tel Aviv police station by investigators from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). They raised the suspicion that the ossuary was stolen, and that in any case, it belongs to the state and is not Golan's private property.

    "He wasn't surprised when he was brought in for questioning," says Amir Ganor, head of the unit for prevention of antiquity theft at the IAA. At BAR, they didn't know that the anonymous hero of the affair had been questioned by the police. "We didn't hear anything about it," says the senior editor. Oops, read carefully and you'll see where the report takes a huge leap, and where SW's corrective applies. Note carefully, now, put down your pacifier and read closely: 1) Golan was questioned, 2) BY "investigators from the IAA" 3) "AT a Tel Aviv poilce station. Now compare this to SW's statement in the book: "The newspapers reported that the police were investigating Golan. The truth, though, is that the IAA had talked to him to learn more about the ossuary and how he acquired it. The police were never involved." Did you see it? Look closely, stop sucking on your popular press pacifier, and see where the leap was made. The reason Shanks did not hear (last year) that he "had been questioned by the police" is because it was the IAA that questioned him, NOT the police. Here's what likely happened: Your dumb-butt reporter(s) heard that the IAA questioned him AT A POLICE STATION and assumed that the police were the questioners, THEN assuming that, asked Shanks the dumb-butt question, "Duh ah, what about the police questioning Golan?" Shanks of course knew he'd been questioned by IAA, so that he had been questioned by "police" would not be known, because that was not who had questioned him. Duh!

    Says Golan: "I didn't see myself as being under investigation. They asked that I give them clarifications and what I could give them, I did." Bingo. Just like SW say: "more about the ossuary and how he had acquired it."

    Basically, Golan was brought in and questioned by the police, No, by the IAA. under suspicion of having stolen the ossuary, or having fraudently completed the paperwork for taking it out of Israel. He put the best spin on the event possible; "Naw, the police weren't involved - they were just questioning me, no big deal." The IAA was questioning him. Not the police. But in reality, it is exactly what everyone has been saying: the police were investigating Golan, on suspicion of an illegal antiquities theft. The IAA were questioning him, not the police. You goofed. Your reporter whose rear end you've been kissing goofed. End of story.
    quote:

    SW’s claim is in a book that chronologically supersedes those you have been presenting

    You think so? Duh, yeah, it was published in March of this year and the report you've been waving around was written in November.

    Big problem, JP Handywipe: you have presented zero evidence to support a claim that the book chronologically supersedes the articles. Big problem, Saurfrommakingembarrassingerrors: The book clearly came out in March. The article clearly came out in November. And all you have is excuses and rationalizations as will be seen.

    Moreover, coming out after the newspaper article doesn't mean that the book is factually correct It does mean that it is your burden to produce an accurate reply -- but all we get from you is presumption, slander of convenience, and conspiracy theorizing and - as we've just seen, SW took Golan at face value no, as you've merely assumed, not as we've "seen" except in your delusions when the reality is that he was most certainly questioned by police under suspicion of antiquities theft. By the IAA. Not by the police.

    So you thin that SW's reference is more authoritative? I know it is. They're seasoned scholars, not reporters out for a juicy scoop. Then get busy, and be thorough in providing your evidence. This from a crap artist who just assumes SW were Big Stoops and did no more than ask Golan for confirmation. No, Saurpicklepuss, the burden is on YOU to produce more than slanderous speculation. 'Cause you know I ain't gonna take your normal JP Horsehockey as evidence. You wouldn't take anything as evidence, but would simply rationalize it away by any means possible, desperately scratching for any possibility no matter how remote, providing no actual data but instead garbage excuses. As we will see shortly.

    quote:

    and makes a direct answer to newspaper reports. The evidence is presented.

    No, what it does is quote Golan. It does not "quote Golan" nor use him as a source; that has been your excuse -- I mean, unsubstantiated speculative slander -- unverified, unproven, worthless. That's not the same thing as refuting the newspaper article. Proceeds on false premise. Your usual manipulation game when you are getting your scalp shaved off. Golan can be expected to claim that the police weren't involved. You can be expected to claim that SW did nothing worthwhile. You've shown zero investigative effort on SW's part. You've shown zero investigative effort or care on the reporter's part. QED.

    Set against their reporting of Golan's statement, we have:

    [1]the name of the law enforcement official who questioned Golan is in the Ha'Aretz article, as well as a direct quote from the deputy head: Oops, just dropped a trail of slime there, Saurloser. Ganor is not "the police" but IAA, and now you're trying to collapse both down into "law enforcement official" when there are actually two different agencies involved.

    http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=0301/newsbriefs/ossuary

    The owner, it turns out, is Oded Golan, a 51-year-old engineer living in Tel Aviv. Hours before the announcement in Washington, Golan was at a police station being questioned about the ossuary by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA).

    Amir Ganor, head of the IAA's antiquities theft unit, had visited Golan's home a few weeks earlier on a routine inspection of his antiquities collection, reputedly one of the country's largest. Golan made no mention of the ossuary or its inscription, which he had shown to Lemaire months earlier. And as I noted, you have yet to produce any reason why he should have mentioned it. No details on the purpose of the visit at that time. Nada. Around October 7, Golan requested a permit from the IAA for the temporary export of two ossuaries, to be displayed at a late November convention of biblical scholars in Toronto.

    Again, there was no mention of the inscription.Yes, there was, on the application. IAA missed it and is now trying to cover their butt. In fact this statement following is as slimy as one of your own:

    "The IAA didn't know about the significance of the inscription when granting the license to exhibit it in Canada," says Uzi Dahari, the authority's deputy head. "We made the connection between our export license and the James ossuary after we saw the BAR article, three days before its publication." Oops, see that carefully qualified statement? Not, "we did not know about the inscription, but, "We did not know about the significance of the inscription." They let it pass right by them because they were not educated enough to know who "James the son of Joseph the brother of Jesus was." Oops. Someone sure had a red face at IAA.

    [2] And we have another statement by Amir Ganor who is again not the police -- this is the same statement you quote above, so we will slice it out and rob you of your manipulation tactic of repeating yourself.

    [3] Further evidence that Golan has had dealings with the police on other matters: Um, yeah, and this is in the last month. It proves zip about last year. No game of guilt by association, Mauron. It has zero to do with the ossuary and whether it is genuine. Thus your latent attempt at slander by association is removed, other than to note one part you seem to miss the importance of: "I understand that the store contained many genuine(supposedly looted) antiquities." Well, then. This could just as easily prove that the ossuary is a real artifact Golan looted. That sinking feeling you have is you wetting your own drawers when you realize that your own slander can be turned against you, Saurgrapes.

    quote:

    I won’t hold my breath.

    I realize that you're desperate to win a point or two here

    I already won several dozen. All you won is the Concrete Skull of the Year Award, a trip to the manure pile, and a paint job for all those scratches on your bleeding backside. One more won't make much of a difference. True, zero plus zero still equals zero.
    quote:

    What’s realized here is that your backside is aflame having been caught using outdated sources.

    Except that my sources aren't outdated, as you've utterly failed to prove. It was proven, definitively, and your denial game won't save you from being kicked to the Congo, nor will your game of "I trust these because I like them better".
    quote:

    For starters, he only bought it months ago

    Still nothing but a dodgeball from you, using an unnamed and uncredited source via the newspapers.

    As I said before:

    * If you think the information is inaccurate, then bring forth your evidence. SW's report IS the evidence. If you think THEIR information is inaccurate, then bring forth your evidence. How does it feel to be smoking your own crack?  Oh, you say they didn't do enough research? I say your people didn't. You say they're religious bigots? I say you're an atheistic bigot. Isn't that easy?
    * If you think the information is suspicious or maliciously motivated, then bring forth your evidence. If you think SW's information is inaccurate or religiously motivated, bring forth your evidence.  Oh, this is fun!
    * If you think the reporter for Ha'Aretz is lying, or incompetent, then bring forth your evidence. Oh, but you get free reign to call SW incompetent and don't have to supply any "evidence"! You're so two-faced you need a Hall of Mirrors just to shave in the morning!

    So far, all you've provided is one single quotation from SW, Which is more than enough, except in your fantasy realm which is nothing more than a quotation of Golan telling his side of it. It's not even a quotation, and you have only assumed, not proven, out of your own ignorance, bigotry, and frustration, that "they just asked Golan" was it. Pathetic. Double-standardizing. Rationalization. You've failed to satisfy any of the three criteria above - naturally. You've failed to show why anyone should meet your arbitrary criteria, when you won't even apply them to your own favored sources. It's easy to sit back and belch, "prove it!" endlessly, Saurpit, and that's the only thing you're good at, which is why you'll never enter into a debate where you have to do more legwork than raping the popular press and dropping lines into Google.

    quote:

    he was described as someone who knew little of archaeology

    Still waiting for you to produce the exact quote this is based on, beyond nonquotes provided by newspaper reporters.

    HAHAHAHA!! You really are a three-ring circus, aren't you? I'm ringmaster, and you're what the elephant left that needs to be swept up.

    I don't have to produce the exact quote. Yes you do, and you can wash with lye soap and that won't change a thing. Meanwhile from your side, you rear back, hold your breath until you turn purple, and belch loudly for "evidence" when one of YOUR sources is questioned; but you and your little pets get free ride without requiring documentation and don't EVER get questioned. It was reported in a respected journal. Guh duh!  And SW are respected schoars, but does that stop you from calling them incompetent at your convenience? What a laff riot! If you have evidence that the quote is wrong, or out of context, then present it. If you have evidence that anything SW say is wrong, or out of context -- nah, no sense asking you to get up off your inflated to 1700 psi tuckus and meet the same demands you gutlessly and ignorantly pile on everyone else. You wouldn't know how to argue if consistency was sold in 500 lb. bags and you got yourself a full warehouse and swallowed it all at once. But you aren't going to gainsay the quotation just by waving your hands and running about in circles. Why not? Seems to work fine for you. You got your license to wave your hands, run around in circles, fart, belch, and call people Stupid Dumb and Ugly who rebut what you want to be true, while you run and jump to kiss the infected toenails and rear ends of your own kissy-face favorites. So what's the deal, did Lupia, the newspaper, etc. all do you some monstrous favor? Did they lick your boots for a week?

    Oh and by the way, JP Handwave, that particular detail wasn't even from the newspaper. Where it was from is irrelevant. It doesn't say how Golan was "said to have a limited understanding of archaeology"; it doesn't say who said it, or what they said specifically. In other words, it is worthless crap, which makes it ideal for your collection of worthless crap and conspiracy theorizing, of course, but for the thinking people of the world who don't just swallow what the parrots report, it's sewer rot. Just like the stuff you post every day. It was from Archaeology.com, an official publication of the Archaeological Institute of America:
    http://www.archaeology.org/

    And now their article:

    http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=0301/newsbriefs/ossuary

    According to Golan, he was unaware of the inscription's significance until he showed Lemaire a photograph of it last spring. So was the IAA. They missed it on his application letter. At the Washington press conference, Golan was said By who? Shanks? Witherington? Krusty the Klown? Some bum outside? Some reporter? Come on! to have a limited understanding of archaeology, How? What was said that indicated this? Did someone say, "He has a limited understanding of archaeology?" What? Worthless crap. which explained why he did not understand its importance. Duh ah , now this by itself makes no sense. Do we need an understanding of archaeology to know who "James the son of Joseph the brother of Jesus" is? There's no connection between subject matter here. Whoever reported this obviously bungled and jumped to conclusions, taking that he didn't know the identity of the person on the inscription to mean a limited knowledge in the ENTIRE spectrum of archaeology. Goofball reporter then condensed it because he/she was too busy sucking on his thumb. Hey, slander works, right? It works for you, Saurbraten!  These statements are difficult to reconcile with the description of him given to the press by family members. His mother says Golan was digging at a neighborhood site in Tel Aviv at the age of eight. His brother Yaron recalls him gluing potsherds together at an early age and befriending archaeologist Yigael Yadin when he participated on the latter's excavation at Masada when he was 11 years old. Golan is said to know Aramaic and, his brother says, he "has phenomenal knowledge" of archaeology. Yep, well, too bad Jimmy Nuisance, boy reporter, didn't give us a quote or explain himself, and too bad also that Saurhead Sycophant, the Bootlicking Friend of the Popular Press, can't produce anything more exact and do any better than lean back until his spine cracks (er, I mean, wiggles -- soft things do NOT crack) and then lean forward with a thunderous belch which sounds vaguely like, "Prove it!" Nah, when it says what HE wants to hear, the threshhold of proof goes way down into the basement where he can snort around with the rest of the barn animals.

    quote:

    I'm basing it on multiple sources mentioned in the article

    Multiple, unnamed sources who provide nothing to help your case,

    Multiple sources who were quoted by a respected article. Show direct evidence that the article ITSELF was respected, Coldsaur. What jouralism awards did it win? In fact, what awards did the reporter win, and the paper itself? Something which you don't have, Nah, I just got the respected editor of BAR, respected scholars, people with names who aren't out for a scoop. and which obviuosly bothers you a great deal. Sort of like intestinal gas, yeah.

    quote:

    the article indicated that this was a well-known family of Bethlehem antique dealers.

    So? Golan is well-known too; yet you gladly accept that he lies. Case closed.

    Except that Golan has specific motive to lie here; So does the dealer: jealousy. you have yet to establish that with the Bethlehem antique dealer. It's established. Case closed, slammed on your fingers, end of discussion.

    Moreover, Golan is not well-known for being a dealer, a businessman, with a reputation to keep clean or else it might affect his ability to conduct that business. Pfft, hack, bleah -- and you were suspicious when Golan wanted privacy?!? Dang, it's the Saurhead double bubble standard at work again. Everyone he likes gets 10 free rationalizations for the price of one. Golan is a citizen with a job, a family, and a reputation too. He is in fact "a successful engineer, entrepeneur businessman (ahem, ahem!), and professional pianist." [SW, 80] If he messes up, he gets the IAA on his back, worldwide disgrace -- wow, so much for that rationalization. Once again, your attempt at drawing a parallel dies a sad death. Once again, your attempt to pick cherries and stuff them into your nasal cavity results in little more than an amusing spectacle of worthless rationalization and excuses based on non-evidence about unnamed persons.
    quote:

    it still doesn't account for the ossuary being for sale only a few months ago

    Accounted for. It’s unsubstantiated slander.

    Incorrect. Fully correct. You have failed to show that it's slander, You have failed to show that it isn't, other than, "I like what they say better!" and the newspaper article accounted for it. With unnamed sources. End of story. You're buried and dead. Your entire argument is based upon slander, Your arguments have been nothing but slander and based in slander from Day 1. Everyone you don't like is stupid, incompetent, or a religious fanatic. The only substance you have is the ones you've been smoking. in fact, which appears to be the only thing you have left in your bag of tricks. You're the little rabbit in the bottom of that bag, Saurmuck. 

    quote:

    it doesn't explain how or why a 16yo boy was able to buy an ossuary during the Six-Day War

    Why shouldn’t he be able to?

    Because it's expensive, Duh ah, what did I say? We got kids that age spending mucho bucks on Pokemon cards, on stereo systems, on stupid little neon fixtures under their cars -- but wait, here's your most embarrassing moment yet: and because the village where it allegedly came from was Arab. What do you think the chances are, that he would have (a) had the money, and (b) as a Jew, been wandering around an Arab village during the Six-Day War? Ummmmmmmm....two things. First, did you say, "during"? Your own favored source says he said: "I bought the sarcophagus 35 years ago, about the time of the Six-Day War." During? Read a little better next time. Second, did you say "Arab village"? Ahem! Ahem! I had no idea that the "Old City" of Jerusalem was an "Arab village"! No, pooky Saurpit poo poo -- you got mixed up here. He BOUGHT it in Jerusalem, and the dealer told him it CAME FROM an Arab village, Silwan. So much for that. Looks like your rationalizations are just a load of bullkaka based on half-baked memories, excuses, and contrivances of convenience. Who in the world thinks you know your business other than the bums living under Central Avenue who hold cardboard over their heads to keep the Venusians from sucking out their life force?
    quote:

    the dating is exceptionally convenient, especially if one wanted to circumvent the Antiquities law

    Duh, so that means all his purchases before that date are suspect,

    Incorrect. Utterly correct. The particular dating for this ossuary is *just* outside the boundary of the time limit. Again: very convenient. Excuse me? The Six Day War was in 1967. The law was passed in 1978. Yep, um, 11 years sure is ***just*** outside the boundary of the time limits.  I guess when you tell people you're "just" going outside for a smoke, you go all the way to Kansas City.

    You are also unable to do basic math. "All his purchases before that date" would amount to him being some kind of amazing boy collector, since the date he claimed to have bought the box would make him 16 years old. Yes, and what? Even you quoted something that said he'd been collecting since he was 8, which already made him a boy wonder fanatic when most kids that age are playing marbles and with Tonka trucks, like the ones you keep on your grill and move around, pretending that the french fry you ran over is your boss. Not that I made any statement about how many of his thousands of acquisitions were before that date. but your same logic makes any claim of his just as suspect. Especially when it's "just" (pfft, hack) 11 years. "All his purchases before that date" means you are painting him out as a boy collector with a huge trove of such items. If he had 500 by age 16, that would be huge; 250 would be hardly exceptional for a young man with a strong interest, one strong enough to dig with Yadin at age 11. Get off the low and smelly rationalization horse, Sauronaweaselsbutt.
    quote:

    presented as someone who knew very little about archaeology

    Still waiting for you to answer my question on this from way before. Quote?

    Asked and answered. Meaning, evaded and waved off. Waiting on you now, oh Jaypee Handwave. We'll apparently wait on you even longer for more than a "I say so" answer, Sewer-on.

    quote:

    Shanks' re-working of the question doesn't even make sense - it's simply not believable that Golan "misunderstood" Shanks question about how long he had been in possession

    “How long have you had this here?”
    “Fifteen years.”

    Simple. Simon.

    Not simple at all. True, you're a great deal simpler, I should realize that would be complex to you. Your little scenario still fails to explain why Shanks would care about how long the ossuary had been "here". Uh, well, he assumes Golan has been in the same apartment all this time, therefore -- hello?  His interest would have been in the total time of ownership - not in the amount of time it had been in Golan's (current) apartment. Which is what he thought he was asking, of he assumed Golan had been in the same place all his life. Common communication error. No big deal except to paranoid conspiracy-pushers like you, Sauronoia. Therefore your hypothetical question would not have been phrased that way. Oh, sure, such misunderstandings NEVER occur.  Like you didn't mix up Jerusalem with an "Arab village" above.

    Moreover, your explanation for this being a simple mistake of language doesn't wash, either. Neither do you, Saurdirtyandugly. Shanks examined this for several hours. Does he really think that Golan lived in that same apartment since he allegedly bought it in 1967? Gee, I don't know anyone who has lived in the same place for the past 40 years, so you? Nah. Not that it matters. At the time Shanks had no idea by his report that it was bought in 1967. That's why he was asking.  Get it together, Saurgrapes.

    quote:

    You know as well as I do that the point of the IAA inspector's comment wasn't to compare knowledge of Israeli antiquities law.

    Sure didn’t sound like it, did it?

    Actually, it did sound like it Through your magic screen of paranoia, I am sure it did. - a fact that you, of course, know. I know you make any excuse to get yourself out of an argument that has clamped itself firmly on your rear end. No one would have mistaken otherwise - not even you, and we both know that you didn't accidentally misread what the inspector's comment was. Nope. I read it right. Ganor was embarrassed and trying to save face. If you have evidence to the contrary, put it forward and smoke your own crack pipe with joy.

    But like always, you can be trusted to duck/dodge/evade the clear point of someone's statement, Like always, you grease yourself, slide into the nearest rat hole, and yell from there how much of a coward everyone is. by creating a red herring that you hope distracts everyone. Nothing can be more "distracting" than the filthy, fishy smell coming from your cranium. That's the point of apologetics, isn't it? To humiliate people like you? It's in the mission statement.

    But as usual, it didn't work here. As usual, your bravado impresses only your fellow roaches. The IAA inspector clearly was describing Golan's carefully scripted story of how he acquired the ossuary He was clearly admitting that he goofed -- and was trying to cover it up. - scripted so carefully that it bespoke of a clear understanding of the law, Um yeah, you mean like how it was "JUST" (11 years) outside the limit of the law? Yep. and what was necessary to avoid getting entangled in it. Too bad you got yourself tangled and caught using losers like yourself as sources.

    quote:

    The Nov 7th article you reference is here

    I followed your link. If whatever you have doesn’t postdate SW, it doesn’t mean dip.

    Seriously (and hiliariously) wrong Take your nitrous oxide, you've got your biggest rationalization yet coming up, for several reasons:

    1. Chronological order does not imply accuracy, and you've failed to demonstrate otherwise; Chronological order indicates a response and a rebuttal, and the burden is now on YOUR sorry, pitiful, graceless backside to do the demonstrating
    2. You've failed to identify or demonstrate the chronology of SW's book in any event; Duh. Published March 17. Refers to events in November as past and replies to them. 
    3. You have failed to present any evidence that SW did the necessary type of probing investigative journalism to establish the facts here, as opposed to just taking Golan at his word. You failed to present any evidence that SW, scholars of the highest rank and greatly experienced in their fields, should be reckoned not to have done the needed probing, while also failing to establish that your Boy/Girl Reporter was anything more than a hack out for a quick scoop. See how easy it is to slander others?

    Boy, when you lay an egg, you really lay a BIG one, dontcha? The only egg on this block is the yolk-filled cavity you use for a head. I guess you come by that naturally, since you're too chicken to debate creationism vs evolution, though. Yep, I'd rather be arrogant, deluded, stupid, and ignorant enough to think I CAN debate it and make it worthwhile, just like you. Nothing like the benefits of freethinking, you can be an instant expert just by blowing your nose.
    quote:

    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=227760&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

    This is what I saw. Old news. Clearly from November.


    1. The original article is from November. It has been updated since then. Horse pahuckey. There isn't a shred of evidence that it was updated. No, "Updated January 3, 2003" or any such thing. You were nailed for using an outdated source and putting it forth as recent. When do you plan to stop lying your way through the Land of Excuses?
    2. You have not established that old news is wrong news, in any event. As something rebutted, the burden now lies on YOU.
    3. There are direct quotes from the law enforcement official involved, who states that Golan was being questioned under suspicion of theft. Oops, you messed that up as noted above. Sorry, the IAA is not the "police".

    Keep that denial coming, JayPee! I just collected a whole tanker truck full of it coming our of that sewage mouth of yours. Enough to power Seattle for a century.

    quote:

    Moreover, Golan was brought in for police questioning in regards to the Jehoash Inscription as well

    Trying to establish guilt by association? Have you descended that low by this point?

    It goes to a pattern of behavior, and is quite admissible as evidence. Sorry, but no "pattern" of anything has been established. A "pattern" is not establihed on ONE incident, and that where the person has yet to be proven guilty of anything, much less germane to the issue at hand. And I notice that you haven't bothered to refute it, There's nothing TO refute -- it's blatant and fallacious guilt by association. Your case would die a slow and painful death in court. because you know better than to even try. No need to try. The fallacy is blatant and obvious. Smart move - one of the few you've made. For you, your smartest movement is a bowel movement.

    Here's another article, on a respected archaeologist's website That just says the same danged thing. You may think endless repetition proves something, but it doen't. Nice try. I delete it.

    But you go right ahead, JayPee Molding - you continue defending this guy, Yep, and you continue slandering him, Saurloser and his position that "he didn't think he was being investigated" by the police. Nope, not the police. The IAA. Cause the more you defend such a hopeless liar, The pot calls the kettle black yet again! the more we all see how much you'll twist the truth to win an argument and salvage your fragile ego. This from the rationalizer who uses a November article and posts it as one recent, then lies his way out by saying it was "updated" with not a rip of proof of the sort he shrilly and childishly demands from everyone else. Bang on those pots and pans some other weeekend, Saur poo poo.
    quote:

    No, it's a report in the respected Israeli paper Ha'Aretz

    Big whoop. The Orlando Sentinel is a “respected” newspaper ......

    It is? Says who? No one I've ever talked to. You won't get answers talking to the little elves on your desk. Try the list of journalism awards it has gotten. It's as long as the list you've, uh, provided for the Israeli paper to prove it is respected... Orlando's a dusty little dive-town. Armpit of Florida. Awww, someone hasn't been here since Mommy took them to Disney World -- in 1998.  Unfortunately you don't lay out your criteria for determining what makes a town an "armpit" (no doubt on purpose, so you can stick with your usual method of vague and unsubstantiated slander) but based on one standard measure, population, metro Orlando has 1.5 million people. That's one large armpit, maybe the smell is from your own. Why would anyone care about their newspaper? Why would anyone care about Ha'Aretz? It's that easy.

    On the other hand, Ha'Aretz is a major national paper of Israel, comparable to the Washington Post or the New York Times. Pfft, ha -- "A" major national paper. In a country the size of, what, a small state in the US? Your comparison is invalid. Your comparison is contrived and lame. And probably insulting, to Ha'Aretz. Like you care. If they said something you didn't like, you'd be on about backwards reporters -- hum, what about that Toronto Globe and Mail reporter who said the report about the police was FALSE? Mmmmm? Oh, is Toronto an armpit, dusty town now?

    Moreover, considering what a ho-hum event your co-worker's prestentation was, well, it's easy to see why someone might not give a rat's patooty about the details of your coworker's presentation. They probably fell asleep during it, or left early out of boredom. You doofus, this was a report of the event BEFORE it happened!  The errors were made in a notice of the upcoming presentation. What a Mauron! Extract that foot from your mouth now, goofus! It's certainly not to be compared to something like a probing investigation of a amazing new archaeological find, whose analysis strikes at the core of Christian belief - and the investigation of the fraud and discrepancies surrounding its owner. Hey, try this spin: because it was so important, the reporter got nervous and got the facts wrong. That's how easy it is to play this game of Sit 'n' Spin you enjoy so much, Saurfromlandingonyourbutt.

    Finally, there have been independent substantiations of the problems and discrepancies that Ha'Aretz reported. Nope, you have yet to prove it. And there has been an independent rebuttal -- two -- to the issue of the police which was of concern: SW, the Toronto paper. Smell your own armpit. I doubt that anyone cared enough to substantiate the key points of some slide show, by your co-worker. Pfft! Another example of your presumptive stupidity. You just assumed it was a slide show. No one said dip about slide shows. Start the rationalizations flying!

    quote:

    As an aside, I wonder if you might have once been a certain "Father X. T. Nepres". May explain a lot.

    I honestly have *no idea* what you're talking about. Is that one of your former sockpuppets? You could put it that way; he was under my control. And so are you. You collapse just as easily. You use the same language and tactics. It's you, under another name. Someone who used to write letters to you when you worked as a COMBAT PRISON LIBRARIAN? Nope. Your alter ego, perhaps while you were pretending to be GI Joe at the fry daddy and pretending it was Cobra Commander's Secret Swamp Base.

    You certainly seem to have a lot of these persecutors, don't you? Ever wonder if that ought to mean something, hummmm???     Yep. It means there are a lot of frustrated, helpless Skeptics like you out there lashing out at their indignity of being pummelled. You're just another trophy on my mantle, Saurloser. 

    • # # # # # #

    In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for criticism, comment, research, and educational purposes.  The Skeptical Review is neither endorsed nor sponsored by the author(s) of the foregoing article.  The Skeptical Review is owned by Skepticism Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    Rollover button for Main Menu pageRollover button for Forums pageRollover button for Frequently Asked QuestionsRollover button for Contact Us page

    within   using