Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Sorry about the "foolish and insulting" part you'll find in my correspondence with Yannick, my friend, but that IS how I see it -- I just think that it's dysfunctional to air such perceptions in a debate. Such exposure tends to hamper any real open-mindedness or negotiation.
Click to expand...


Unbelievable.
 
Jabba said:
- Check out http://shroudstory.com/2012/09/21/an-open-thread-for-rich-savage-questions/.

-....
- Sorry about the "foolish and insulting" part you'll find in my correspondence with Yannick, my friend, but that IS how I see it -- I just think that it's dysfunctional to air such perceptions in a debate. Such exposure tends to hamper any real open-mindedness or negotiation.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

This is certainly true, and such perceptions give some debaters what they perceive to be fuel for their arguments. The humorous, possibly insulting, posts I see are merely responses to the frustrating nature of your behavior with respect to forming timely scientific arguments, and "mostly foolish and insulting" hardly constitutes a fair assessment.

It would be a huge step towards reconciliation with the JREF "souls" who have indulged you so tirelessly, if you could post this apology on Dan's site as well, and recognize the general good natured spirit of the thread before you began a general campaign of ignoring many posts.
 
I was right, wasn't I?
Jabba's post WAS worth reading!

Jabba, rather than trying to divert traffic to another forum (yet again!) why not invite your friends to post up their ideas here?

And yes, the apology would be good, too.
 
Jabba said:
- Check out http://shroudstory.com/2012/09/21/an-open-thread-for-rich-savage-questions/.

- I'm going to pose your questions and comments (to Dan's blog) in a friendly and respectful way, and see if we get any good answers... I'll even run my versions of the q/c's past you for approval before I post them. I already have some old issues I need to raise over there, but otherwise you should point out what issues you'd like me to raise...
- Sorry about the "foolish and insulting" part you'll find in my correspondence with Yannick, my friend, but that IS how I see it -- I just think that it's dysfunctional to air such perceptions in a debate. Such exposure tends to hamper any real open-mindedness or negotiation.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

There is no debate, only evasion on your part.
 
Jabba said:
- Sorry about the "foolish and insulting" part you'll find in my correspondence with Yannick, my friend, but that IS how I see it
Click to expand...
No worries. I find your arguments to be insufferably arrogant and flagrantly insulting, to the point where as far as I'm concerned you've committed libel against numerous members of the scientific community. At times I HAVE insulted you--because frankly you've done nothing BUT insult us, and despite spending a lot of time on a farm I never did learn not to wrestle with pigs.

I do like how you've realized that you're unable to answer even the most basic of our criticisms, and now are running away and attempting to take this argument to another site--where you just happen to play gatekeeper. :rolleyes: You'll forgive me if I decline; I've stated repeatedly that I don't think your argument style is an honest attempt to get to the truth of the matter, and this is more openly dishonest than your CSI: Jeruselam schtick. I wouldn't bet a brachiopod that you'll honestly represent our posts over there--you won't honestly represent them HERE when you quote them, after all.

Such exposure tends to hamper any real open-mindedness or negotiation.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing, Jabba: I'm not open-minded. Before I believe anything, I need to see data. You haven't provided any data supporting your notion that stands up to even casual analysis--your understanding of radiometric dating is non-existent, you've openly contradicted experts in the various reweaving techniques we've discussed, your argument that the sample site was uniquely discolored was proven wrong with a widely-available photograph, etc. You've got nothing to support your conclusion. NOTHING. Therefore there's no reason at all--literally--for me to believe it. You can insult me and berate me for being closed-minded all you want, but those are the bare facts of the matter. Until that changes, I cannot--that that I don't want to, I am UNABLE to--believe your conclusion.
 
But, some of their claims have seemed to me reasonable, and for which, I don’t have very good answers (mostly, I think, because I don’t have nearly enough time to do the necessary research)…
Click to expand...

Twenty (20) years. Count 'em.
 
Carbon dating/Devil's Advocate

- Here's my first proposal as to a "tough" question for the Dan Porter blog.

- Regarding the carbon dating, several claims have been made as to how the dating could be so far off if the Shroud is authentic. I don’t think that any of those claims (explanations) “hold water.” Let’s consider one at a time.
- Probably the most “popular” claim is that the sample tested was actually a patch "invisibly" re-woven by French nuns in the 16th century. We have several reservations to such a claim. Let’s consider just one of THOSE at a time…
1. How could such a patch get past all the experts examining the Shroud? Surely, it isn't really INVISIBLE.
- Thanks.
--- D.F.A. (Devil’s Friendly Advocate)

- I, myself, want to ask that question, so I'll challenge the "Shroudies" myself if, for some reason, you guys don't want your name (as a GROUP) attached.

--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
<nonsense>

I, myself, want to ask that question, so I'll challenge the "Shroudies" myself if, for some reason, you guys don't want your name (as a GROUP) attached.
Click to expand...


How many times do you need to be told that you have no mandate to speak for any of us, anywhere, either as individuals or as a group?
 
Jabba said:
- Here's my first proposal as to a "tough" question for the Dan Porter blog.

- Regarding the carbon dating, several claims have been made as to how the dating could be so far off if the Shroud is authentic. I don’t think that any of those claims (explanations) “hold water.” Let’s consider one at a time.
- Probably the most “popular” claim is that the sample tested was actually a patch "invisibly" re-woven by French nuns in the 16th century. We have several reservations to such a claim. Let’s consider just one of THOSE at a time…
1. How could such a patch get past all the experts examining the Shroud? Surely, it isn't really INVISIBLE.
- Thanks.
--- D.F.A. (Devil’s Friendly Advocate)

- I, myself, want to ask that question, so I'll challenge the "Shroudies" myself if, for some reason, you guys don't want your name (as a GROUP) attached.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...
Jabba,

This is one of your most transparent attempts yet to avoid answering the one, simple question you refuse to answer: what is your scientific evidence that the 14C dating on the Shoud is incorrect.

Your attempt to take the debate elsewhere is noted.

Your attempt to control the debate is noted.

Your continued use of promises that you will answer the question in a future post, rather than just answering the question, is noted.

Your ignoring of the multiple pages of this thread that have already discussed this topic is noted.

Your offer to represent my opinions, or those of the other posters here, on some other forum is both insulting and laughable. Perhaps you think that having the Pope's opinions presented by Jerry Falwell would be a similar fair approach?
 
Jabba said:
- Here's my first proposal as to a "tough" question for the Dan Porter blog.

- Regarding the carbon dating, several claims have been made as to how the dating could be so far off if the Shroud is authentic. I don’t think that any of those claims (explanations) “hold water.” Let’s consider one at a time.
- Probably the most “popular” claim is that the sample tested was actually a patch "invisibly" re-woven by French nuns in the 16th century. We have several reservations to such a claim. Let’s consider just one of THOSE at a time…
1. How could such a patch get past all the experts examining the Shroud? Surely, it isn't really INVISIBLE.
- Thanks.
--- D.F.A. (Devil’s Friendly Advocate)

- I, myself, want to ask that question, so I'll challenge the "Shroudies" myself if, for some reason, you guys don't want your name (as a GROUP) attached.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

That's your idea of a tough question?

D.F.A.?
How can you possibly imagine anyone here would give you permission to speak individually or collectively on their behalf in another public forum, especially one which featured this blog entry?
http://shroudstory.com/2012/07/27/savage-treatment-in-randi-land/

Jabba, please ask your own questions in the forum of your choice without invoking us as a human shield.
 
Carbon dating/Devil's Advocate

pakeha said:
That's your idea of a tough question?

D.F.A.?
How can you possibly imagine anyone here would give you permission to speak individually or collectively on their behalf in another public forum, especially one which featured this blog entry?
http://shroudstory.com/2012/07/27/savage-treatment-in-randi-land/

Jabba, please ask your own questions in the forum of your choice without invoking us as a human shield.
Click to expand...
Pakeha,
- OK. If I want to quote somebody, but can't get permission, I'll paraphrase instead.
- I wouldn't be using you guys as human SHIELDS, I'd be using using you guys as human SPEARS -- i.e., the rest of the Shroudies don't feel "obliged" to answer my reservations, but they should feel obliged to answer yours.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Pakeha,
- OK. If I want to quote somebody, but can't get permission, I'll paraphrase instead.
- I wouldn't be using you guys as human SHIELDS, I'd be using using you guys as human SPEARS -- i.e., the rest of the Shroudies don't feel "obliged" to answer my reservations, but they should feel obliged to answer yours.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

From what do you conclude about this reluctance to answer questions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom