Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[Slowvehicle]

- Just kidding.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Unfortunately, I do not believe you. You have demonstrated that you do, in fact, intend to "stick to your 'story' ", despite any and all evidence presented you.

You may have been trying to be funny, but you were (by demonstrated practice) NOT "just kidding"..

Slowvehicle,

- I've probably tried this before, but if so, I'd like to try again.

- I'll focus on your arguments.
- We will each lead a sub-thread. For now, in my sub-thread, I'll keep trying to convince you that my understanding of circumstantial evidence is correct.

Sir, I reject this offer.

You have demonstrated your intent to "stick" to an inappropriatete, and inappositive, misdefinition of "circumstantial evidence", misapplied to the wrong situation.

If you want to discuss "circumstantial evidence", do so in Trials and Errors, anent a question of law. Do not try to use it as a standard for a question of fact.

Others, including practicing lawyers, have told you this.

- You can lead anywhere you want in your sub-thread, and I'll do my best to answer all your questions and comments -- but only one (or two?) at a time. (It would be good if you could either present them one or two at a time, or tell me which QC(s) to answer first.)

Sir, I reject this offer.

You have demonstrated that you, yourself, will not, perhaps cannot stick to this model, a model of your own device.

Find a question.

Answer it to the best of your honesty and ability.

I assume that you would like me to start presenting what I consider to be evidence for authenticity... But again, that's up to you.

Sir, you appear to be trying to wedge "a donkey between yourself and umption", as it were. You need "assume" nothing. Find a question. Address it to the limits of your honesty and ability.

Evidence for what you call "authenticity" is only one of myriad requests that have been made--but it would be a refreshing place to start.

- On my part, I'll start by trying to respond to your QCs presented in your post above.

- I'll be back.

Sir, if you were to do so, it would represent a major, startling change in your demonstrated practice on this forum. I hope that you do so, but I am not holding my breath.

In the meantime, consider repairing the grotesque deficiencies in your "map".

I remain skeptically yours, &ct/

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have a feeling this is very funny, but Dallas was something my mom watched when the kids were asleep. Way over my head. ☻☺☻

Fringe reset, wherein the writers determined that the entire season after B.E.'s death was a waste, and pretended his death was just a dream...

 

[pgwenthold]

He's found a perfect way to game this forum and disenfranchise his interlocutors in order to achieve his ends. In other words, he's lying for Jesus.

Oh come on, you don't think anyone is fooled, do you?

Jeez, his recent crap about Bayesian statistics and 4 legged dogs even make him look more imbecilic than when he was talking about pans of the scale and creating the framework for discussion.

Everyone who reads for a minute sees that it is nothing but obfuscation and an attempt at misdirection, and no one seeing that has any doubts why. If he had anything to talk about, he'd be talking about it.

"Gaming the forum"? Only as serving as a punching bag for mockery.

 

[JayUtah]

Everyone who reads for a minute sees that it is nothing but obfuscation and an attempt at misdirection, and no one seeing that has any doubts why.

He's not worried about his reputation here. He's creating a reputation elsewhere, based on items he lifts from here. So what people read here tells them in no uncertain terms just how morally and factually bankrupt Jabba's case is. But he doesn't intend for people to read about him here.

 

[Beady]

If he had anything to talk about, he'd be talking about it.

Instead, *you* are talking about whatever he wants. As soon as you start to calm down, he writes a short note to stir the pot and off you go again.

Jabba has you-all very well trained. I'm going back to my popcorn, now. Please continue.



Oh crap!

 

[sackett]

Many-some years ago, I taxed an online peddlar of Shroud-related knicknacks -- tapes, CDs, books, posters, replicas (how was that possible? dunno, but he had 'em, in several sizes), etc. with swindling the ignorant and gullible. He replied very honestly that as long as the suckers were buying, he'd keep selling. Did he add a remark about where any objecters could kiss him? Possibly; it's a long time ago; I don't even recall if his name started with a J or with some other letter.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Problem is, he may take that as "winning" as no one is able to respond to his illogical (and sometimes downright wrong) posts

He will. But nobody of importance will take notice, so why care?

Hans

 

[ComfySlippers]

Oh come on, you don't think anyone is fooled, do you?
...

Most people can recognise bs and dishonesty when they see it.

The danger, however, is that some people are a tad naive and try with the best of intentions to correct the liar and game player and attempt honest debate.
This is simply fuel for the Gibberish Engine and unfortunately happens quite often round here.

If, like some of the currently ongoing threads, this is still going on after years, thousands of posts and split threads it becomes time for someone to brandish the mighty pointed stick of truth.

Thanks to the rules here the brandisher will often get sent to the naughty corner under the good old "Attack the argument...." mantra.
If the peddler of nonsense doesn't know this when he embarks on his cockwomblery he learns it quickly and will use it to his advantage.

I am not a fan of never ending threads which serve no purpose other than to be the personal playground of a Troll. When that gets to be the case it's time to speak out. This thread is Jabba's personal playground. Except he has the nerve to take the rudeness to a different level by using this forum to solicit responses from members that he can cherry pick and paste into his silly self serving blog. He actually has no intention of engaging in debate here whatsoever.

If that's not naughty and downright rude enough I don't know what is. He shouldn't be afforded the protection given by certain Forum Rules that work to his advantage and against the more honest members.

We, and The Mods, can see quite clearly what is going on here.
There are years and pages of evidence.
Jabba is a dishonest Troll. Simple.

I'll be in the car park, packing for my trip to the naughty corner again.

 

[JayUtah]

Most people can recognise bs and dishonesty when they see it.

Let's hope so. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304021

 

[JayUtah]

Assuming the mods approve of transferring to the law subforum the discussion over the nature, use, and value of circumstantial evidence, perhaps this thread will once again be used to discuss Jabba's claim that the Turin cloth is the literal burial shroud of Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

Interesting strategy, counsel.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Let's hope so. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304021

Oh dear.

There was a good example of this odd strategy a few months ago.
A particular member was promoting a rather disgusting conspiracy theory about the Paris attacks. Sickening stuff.
He took the conversation to another Skeptic forum. The rules there allowed members to call him out for what he really was.
He then created a new thread over there in its Holocaust Denial sub forum of all places. It was a poorly disguised attempt to discuss the exact same thing. Thankfully he was ignored.

Hopefully the folks in Trials&Errors are aware that Jabba has no interest in Trials&Errors.

It's cold here in the carpark.

 

[JayUtah]

Hopefully the folks in Trials&Errors are aware that Jabba has no interest in Trials&Errors.

He has no interest in the Shroud of Turin either, from what I can discern. There appears to be no interest at this point beyond rhetorical sparring, on whatever topic, to inflate his blog.

 

[Shalamar]

elbe,

- The probability of ~DOG, quadruped has always been greater than that of DOG; but, that's not what we're concerned with here; we're still concerned with DOG vs ~DOG -- and, which gains in probability given the new info?
- Having eliminated an unimaginably large number of ~DOGS from the ~DOGS pool, the probability of our thing being a dog increases enormously, and the probability of ~dog decreases by the same amount. In that sense, four legs favors DOG, even though ~DOG is still more probable than DOG. In that sense, 4 legs is circumstantial evidence for DOG.

- Say that we then find out that our THING has a tail. More circumstantial evidence for DOG over ~DOG -- though, ~DOG is still winning.

- Then, we find out that our THING has a name, and its name is "Fido." More circumstantial evidence -- and, DOG is now winning!

NO.

You have decided that DOG is the answer, so you're looking for evidence that you think supports DOG, while ignoring ALL OTHER EVIDENCE.

 

[Shalamar]

- Just kidding.

Slowvehicle,

- I've probably tried this before, but if so, I'd like to try again.

- I'll focus on your arguments.
- We will each lead a sub-thread. For now, in my sub-thread, I'll keep trying to convince you that my understanding of circumstantial evidence is correct.
- You can lead anywhere you want in your sub-thread, and I'll do my best to answer all your questions and comments -- but only one (or two?) at a time. (It would be good if you could either present them one or two at a time, or tell me which QC(s) to answer first.)
- I assume that you would like me to start presenting what I consider to be evidence for authenticity... But again, that's up to you.
- On my part, I'll start by trying to respond to your QCs presented in your post above.

- I'll be back.

I created the shroud. If you ignore this, then it is tacit admission that you agree with me.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I created the shroud. If you ignore this, then it is tacit admission that you agree with me.

No I did, I have two dogs, Is that how this works?

 

[Kid Eager]

No I did, I have two dogs, Is that how this works?

Or a furry octopus...

 

[calebprime]

Octopi.

Those dudes have brains in their arms!

 

[zooterkin]

Octopodes or octopuses, not octopi.

 

[calebprime]

Ooh, I like octopodes.