Agatha,
- The next aspect of our dialectic that can properly be placed upon our agree-to-disagree scale is my claim that my inability to “keep up” and effectively present my case would be totally understandable even if I WERE well-read (on this subject), intelligent and honest.
- For some reason, you guys just can’t seem to appreciate these, my excuses:
a. While I’ve been FOLLOWING the story with interest for about 40 years (I think), I didn’t start STUDYING the story until a few years ago.
b. I’m naturally slow.
c. I’m relatively old and (“dementia” or not) my memory isn’t nearly as good as it used to be.
d. Until just recently, I didn’t keep track of what I had read and where. Even now, I seem to be too rushed to do a good job.
e. I was “supposed” to have a team to help me, but lost them before I got started with you guys.
f. Having over 70 opponents -- and maybe 2 short term helpers – during my year on this thread is bound to make it difficult to keep up.
g. For every question or comment I answer, I typically get several new ones. And while some of these have been expressed before, many of them have not, and my to-do list grows exponentially as we speak.
h. And finally, you guys keep “calling me names” – which is difficult to ignore.
- Anyway, I’d like to place this on our agree to disagree scale for any neutral viewers to evaluate.
--- Jabba
a. So? If a subject interests you enough to participate in a thread, it's up to you to do the reading.
b. That is not anyone's responsibility to deal with but yours.
c. Many of us posting here have disabilities, both mental and physical (me included). Some have high-pressure jobs and can only post in their very rare spare moments. Some do not have English as a first language. We are not using those as excuses, and unless you ask us to make some sort of specific adjustment for you (typing slowly, perhaps), it is not our responsibility to deal with your disabilities any more than it is your responsibility to deal with (say) my disabilities.
d. And? I assume you have the ability to write down the titles of books, URLs of web pages and so on. That you have failed to do so in the past is one thing, that you have failed to do it during the time this thread has been active is nobody's fault but yours.
e. Perhaps your 'team' have finally understood reality and the 14th century date, or perhaps they prefer to run away from knowledgeable posters. Perhaps there is another reason, but that remains your problem.
f. This might tell you something, if you would just open your eyes to the actual evidence.
g. That is the nature of discussion boards, especially when you are holding a position contrary to the available evidence. Part of the specific problem here is your habit of 'wasting' posts by using them to tell us what you intend to do at some unspecified point in the future, instead of actually being responsive to the points being made.
h. I have seen no name calling, though I have seen people describing your posts as dishonest. If there has been name calling, click the red triangle to the left of the offending post(s) and report it. Incivility and name-calling are against the rules, though do bear in mind that having your point of view mocked or ridiculed is not.
Jabba, the only bias a sceptic has is towards evidence and reality. Have you done those two simple experiments outlined by Slowvehicle? Even if you don't want the mess involved in the first one, the second will take you (or an adult helper) less than 10 seconds. I just got one of my adult sons to lie on the floor and clasp his hands in the manner of the shroud image; no matter how much he stretches, his hands do not cover his groin area. The shroud image is anatomically impossible, and you can prove that to yourself in a few seconds if you choose to.
You seem to think that we 'want' the shroud to be mediaeval, so are biased towards that date. That is absolutely untrue; we don't want a 14th century date, we don't want a 1st century date, we just want to find out the truth whatever that might be. The only bias you are dealing with here is a bias towards finding out what the evidence shows. You admit that you want a 1st century date, which is your bias. Hence, you are ignoring the mountain of evidence for a mediaeval date as it doesn't fit your preconceived theory.
This is not how science works, Jabba. You don't try to fit the evidence to a preconceived idea, you allow the evidence to speak for itself and then find a theory which accounts for
all the evidence, not just the bits of evidence you like.
I don't understand what you mean by scales and agree-to-disagree in this context. Piling up excuses on some kind of imaginary balance scale is just another diversion from the real point of the thread, which is that all the available evidence points to a 14th century date. If you have any evidence to counter this, then post it. Possible blood on the shroud is not evidence either way; every human throughout history has a good supply of the stuff.
