Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Zoo,

[...]Do you really believe that I am either stupid or just screwing with you guys?
Click to expand...

Jab,

I really believe the highlighted is closer to the truth than any evidence you have ever presented.

Would you like some help putting it to a poll?
 
Last edited:
Carbon Dating Doubts/Emotionality

Monza said:
Jabba,

Thank you for your reply.

As you say, the testing was done to determine the age of the linen that makes up the shroud. So it was clear from the start that the sample taken was representative of the shroud (the very purpose of the sample)...
Click to expand...
Monza,
- This was the purpose, but to what extent do we know that the purpose was achieved? The scientists didn't choose the sample -- the Church did.
 
Jabba said:
Monza,
- This was the purpose, but to what extent do we know that the purpose was achieved? The scientists didn't choose the sample -- the Church did.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you read the rest of Monza's sentence you truncated, you'd see the answer.
 
Jabba said:
Zoo,

- I'll try to deal with both of your Q/Cs here.

- If someone wants me to read their posts, they shouldn't start off with an insult.
- If I respond at all, I'll only deal with the insult.
- Unfortunately, you started off with an insult in this post -- you implied that I was either stupid or deliberately 'screwing with' you guys. I suspect that I'm not stupid -- and, I know that I'm not screwing with you guys. Do you really believe that I am either stupid or just screwing with you guys?- In this particular case, I simply do not believe that my evidence has been comprehensively dismantled...

- I do sort of scan through the different posts, looking for ones I can respond to quickly.
- I also look for issues that I haven't tried to deal with already.
- And finally, if someone poses only one Q/C -- and, it isn't insulting -- I'll give it extra consideration.
- Actually, you're pretty good re that latter -- and, notice that I do respond to you fairly often...
- Would you consider being my "favoured poster" for awhile?

- Note that you guys keep claiming that my debate strategy doesn't work -- even though you don't let me implement it. Whoever has taken the lead hasn't played by my rules...

'
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
No, because the two propositions are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Do you really believe both that I am stupid and that I am screwing with you guys?
 
I've just realised of what this thread reminds me:

Sheldon and Stuart are arguing...

Stuart: Sheldon, I'm tired and need to go home to bed.
Sheldon: Then I win.
Stuart: No, I'm just going home.
Sheldon: Then I win.

Repeat ad nauseam...
 
Jabba said:
Do you really believe that I am either stupid or just screwing with you guys?
Click to expand...
What other explanation of your behaviour on this thread is there?

Wilful ignorance?

Senility?

Why don't you tell us why you refuse to acknowledge obvious, self evident facts no matter how many times, and how patiently and politely, they are pointed out to you?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you really believe both that I am stupid and that I am screwing with you guys?
Click to expand...

Good Morning, again, Mr. Savage.

I, for one, really believe that you should read, absorb, and respond to, this source, answering the questions you have been rudely ignoring:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/

In other words, the issue at hand is not your hurt feelings, but the discoverable facts about the CIQ. Suppose you address those?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you really believe both that I am stupid and that I am screwing with you guys?
Click to expand...

Well are you?

The evidence we have before us suggests that this might very well be the case.

What is your response to such a suggestion?

What are we to make of it when you flat out tell us that you are intentionally ignoring posts and claim that your "evidence" has not been comprehensively dismantled simply because you have chosen to ignore the posts wherein that information was posted?
Jabba said:
Zoo,

- I'll try to deal with both of your Q/Cs here.

- If someone wants me to read their posts, they shouldn't start off with an insult.
- If I respond at all, I'll only deal with the insult.
- Unfortunately, you started off with an insult in this post -- you implied that I was either stupid or deliberately 'screwing with' you guys. I suspect that I'm not stupid -- and, I know that I'm not screwing with you guys. Do you really believe that I am either stupid or just screwing with you guys?
- In this particular case, I simply do not believe that my evidence has been comprehensively dismantled...

- I do sort of scan through the different posts, looking for ones I can respond to quickly.
- I also look for issues that I haven't tried to deal with already.
- And finally, if someone poses only one Q/C -- and, it isn't insulting -- I'll give it extra consideration.
- Actually, you're pretty good re that latter -- and, notice that I do respond to you fairly often...
- Would you consider being my "favoured poster" for awhile?

- Note that you guys keep claiming that my debate strategy doesn't work -- even though you don't let me implement it. Whoever has taken the lead hasn't played by my rules...

'
Click to expand...
Does this strike you as honest in any way? When you go on in that post to claim that you actively seek out those replies which are "easy" to deal with, is that not by definition cherry-picking?

Not content with this, you then go on to state

Jabba said:
Hans,
- I respond to only your first Q/C. Sometimes I read the rest; sometimes, I don't.
Click to expand...

Whereby you claim not only do solely respond to "easy" posts, but you only respond to small fragments of those posts.

You also make the outrageous claim that
Jabba said:
- Clearly, no one has to play by my rules.
- But if you want empirical evidence that my way doesn't work, someone needs to actually play by my rules for awhile.
Click to expand...
When we quite clearly have the empirical evidence right here in these threads that your "method" not only does not work, but that you yourself refuse to follow the rules you claim to be required.

Now answer honestly. Does this behaviour look like honest or courteous or respectful in anyway? Or does it look like something very, very different?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you really believe both that I am stupid and that I am screwing with you guys?
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked, I don't think you are stupid, I think you are an intellectual coward, afraid to face the conclusions of honest inquiry. This cowardice leads you to do some not very nice things, like slander people who did the inquiry. You asked.
 
Jabba said:
Monza,
- This was the purpose, but to what extent do we know that the purpose was achieved?
Click to expand...

To the full extent. We know that this area was created during the original weaving of the shroud. You conceded this point some time ago when you realized that the banding visible only under UV spectrometry passed unaltered through the sample region.
 
Rincewind said:
Yes.

But you knew that anyway, I imagine...
Click to expand...

I saw 10 posts from Jabba's in the last 3 or 4 days and that's more than the usual rate last weeks, so I may assume this change of rhythm is normal in him

I saw he's trying to deceive himself and others by repeating old debunked bits and improper appeals using some new wordings that are reaching new frontiers, like chained non-sequiturs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom