LETTER OF REJECTION -- Pseudo Sez
Ed Conrad
Ever get a Letter of Rejection? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
<
I have had hundreds and hundreds of them, denying that
the specimens I discovered between anthracite veins --
are bones, teeth and even soft organs (some human).
<
For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
<
The specimen he was referring to is:
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
<
You'll notice, good ol' T.D. had absolutely no interest in examing
it even though the suggestion that he do so had come from Wilton
M. Krogman, one of the world's foremost bone experts and author
of the book, "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine."
<
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
<
Man as Old as Coal
Ed Conrad
============================================
<
From Tim White, an anthropologist at Harvard University:
<
>:> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-194S.JPG
>:> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-193S.JPG
Ed Conrad
Conrad) wrote:
============================================
<
Hey, there's more -- plenty more.
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-175S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-176S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-177S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-178S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-179S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-180S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-181S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-182S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-183S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-184S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-185S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-186S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-187S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-188S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-189S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-190S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-191S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-192S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-193S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-194S.JPG
<
And you ain't see nothin' yet.
iEd Conrad
gen2rev
Conrad) wrote:
>
>
> Ever get a Letter of Rejection? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
> <
> I have had hundreds and hundreds of them, denying that
> the specimens I discovered between anthracite veins --
> are bones, teeth and even soft organs (some human).
> <
> For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
> the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
> Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
> very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
> <
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
Ed, why post the same link twice? This letter isn't from Stewart, it's
from Alan Mann. Why did he write it?
> The specimen he was referring to is:
> <
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
> <
> You'll notice, good ol' T.D. had absolutely no interest in examing
> it even though the suggestion that he do so had come from Wilton
> M. Krogman, one of the world's foremost bone experts and author
> of the book, "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine."
So you say, but the picture of the letter has nothing to do with your
claim.
You really should test the links you supply before posting them.
stew dean
> > For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
> > the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
> > Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
> > very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
> > <
> > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
>
> Ed, why post the same link twice? This letter isn't from Stewart, it's
> from Alan Mann. Why did he write it?
Dear Mr Rev,
It appears that you are not aware of Ed's current pshycotic state.
Every rejection has become a confirmation in his mind. Ed is currently
incapable of admiting he could even possibly be incorrect. I suggest
you transfer your energy to more hopeful cases.
Regards
Stewart E Dean
Arrogant Professor of Whateverology.
University of Lyffe.
Cyde Weys
> Ever get a Letter of Rejection? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
> <
> I have had hundreds and hundreds of them, denying that
> the specimens I discovered between anthracite veins --
> are bones, teeth and even soft organs (some human).
> <
Ed, maybe this should clue you in to something? If HUNDREDS and
HUNDREDS of scientists reject your outrageous claims, maybe the claims
themselves are wrong? That's certainly much more possible than a
conspiracy consisting of THOUSANDS out to get YOU, Ed.
--
Usenet is a strange reality where you see people beating up a patch of
grass where nine years ago there used to be a horse. -Nuke
Dan Luke
> Ed, maybe this should clue you in to something? If HUNDREDS and
> HUNDREDS of scientists reject your outrageous claims, maybe the claims
> themselves are wrong?
Here's a clue for you, Cyde: If HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of Ed's posts are the
same wacky bullshit, maybe the poster himself is nuts.
--
Dan
Lenny Flank
> Ever get a Letter of Rejection?
Lots -- I'm a freelance writer.
Now tell me what portion of a scorpion's anatomy you think your, uh,
rock is, Ed. Is it a telson, an aculeus, a trochanter, a pecten, or
what.
Or can't you tell a scorpion's ass end from your own, Ed.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<be7lhvkko8uvfnkbl...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:30:25 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
> > Conrad) wrote:
>
> > > For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
> > > the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
> > > Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
> > > very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
> > > <
> > > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> >
> > Ed, why post the same link twice? This letter isn't from Stewart, it's
> > from Alan Mann. Why did he write it?
>
> Dear Mr Rev,
>
> It appears that you are not aware of Ed's current pshycotic state.
What makes you think that?
> Every rejection has become a confirmation in his mind. Ed is currently
> incapable of admiting he could even possibly be incorrect. I suggest
> you transfer your energy to more hopeful cases.
>
> Regards
>
> Stewart E Dean
>
> Arrogant Professor of Whateverology.
> University of Lyffe.
Run along Skippy.
David Sienkiewicz
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:43 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<be7lhvkko8uvfnkbl...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:30:25 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
> > > Conrad) wrote:
>
> > > > For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
> > > > the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
> > > > Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
> > > > very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
> > > > <
> > > > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > > > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > >
> > > Ed, why post the same link twice? This letter isn't from Stewart, it's
> > > from Alan Mann. Why did he write it?
> >
> > Dear Mr Rev,
> >
> > It appears that you are not aware of Ed's current pshycotic state.
>
> What makes you think that?
It shouldn't surprise anyone that someone who can't even spell
"psychotic" won't know what it means.
Ed is not psychotic.
One of the more interesting things I found when I talked to a couple
of people who know the situation may interest you.
Remember when you and I were wondering aloud in the newsgroup why Ed
has so many of his photos categorized under an "ebay" directory?
It seems that Ed once entertained the idea of starting a small
"cottage industry" or anthracite petrified "fossils."
There was even talk of opening a small museum in the late 80s,
apparently, that stretched into the mid 90s with the advent of Usenet.
But there was apparently enough available as far as refutation that
the idea was abandoned.
I'm not sure how true that is - only one person brought it up. But
apparently there was some thinking that Ed could sell these "bones" to
unsuspecting visitors to eastern Pennsylvania. It reminded me of the
many Native American souvenir stands that dot the highways of Arizona,
where one might stop and purchase a sandwich, gas, a can of soda pop,
and a highly-polished rock attached to a necklace that allegedly has
some spiritual meaning.
Again, I'm not sure how true it is; but it has the ring of truth.
Some part of what Ed is doing has always been a scam, after all.
< snip >
Ed Conrad
Conrad) wrote to correct the URLs of the pompous ass' letter:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:52:59 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
>Conrad) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:30:25 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
>>Conrad) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ever get a Letter of Rejection? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
>>><
>>>I have had hundreds and hundreds of them, denying that
>>>the specimens I discovered between anthracite veins --
>>>are bones, teeth and even soft organs (some human).
>>><
>>>For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
>>>the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
>>>Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
>>>very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
>>><
>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-171S.JPG
>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-172S.JPG
stew dean
<snip relevent stuff about Ed making money from ebay>
> Again, I'm not sure how true it is; but it has the ring of truth.
> Some part of what Ed is doing has always been a scam, after all.
>
Skippy, Ed has indeed put a lot of material up for sale. The issue is
does he think what he is doing is a Scam? Or does he thing he is
selling genuine artificats in order to make some more money (well all
need to live).
The amount of posts he makes and the types of posts answer the
question. He is not scamming - he believes he has honest to god finds.
The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
making sizable amounts off his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
that would fuel is level of delusion for a loooong time.
So is Ed mad or bad? I think just mad. I'm sure he'd be a nice enough
guy to have a drink with providing you stayed off the obvious issues.
Stew Dean
Steve the Sauropodman
Ed,
I'm impressed you've had both Robert Carroll AND David Pilbeam (two
scientists I respect and admire) tell you it's a ROCK. Considering
their expertise in the fields of fossils - Vertebrate Paleontology,
and Human Paleoanthropology, respectively - I would think they could
tell the difference between a chunk of conglomerate, and fossilized
bone.
I have had the opportunity to corrosponde with both of these
gentlemen. Dr. Pilbeam was always willing to answer any of my
questions pertaining to his book, "The Ascent of Man". Thru the
Society of Vertebrate Palentology I have on several occassions had
corrospondence with Dr. Carroll, of the Redpath Museum, McGill
University. I might add he was extremely helpful in my inquiries
about skeletal ratios of therapsids. I find it beneath contempt that
you would attempt to bring their good names into your neurotic raving.
Get professional help, Ed. This shit in your head will only get worse
over time. I leave you with only two words of advice - MORE THORAZINE
"Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that the AOA
isn't out to get you!"
Ken Rode
"David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com...
Ed has a significant presence on eBay. As I write this, he has 16 items up
for auction. These all seem to be for small antiques (books, lamps, tins,
postcards, etc.). In the six years that he has been an eBay member, he has
sold approximately 4200 items with excellent customer satisfaction. (An
average of nearly two items per day!)
All of the images that Ed creates for his eBay auctions are located
somewhere under his "ebay" folder on his web site. He's probably got some
sort of set procedure by which he uploads his eBay images, and simply
follows the same procedure for his other images.
I don't generally use an eBay record as a psychological tool, but I don't
see how someone with as good a record as Ed has could be considered
psychotic.
stew dean
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:43 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<be7lhvkko8uvfnkbl...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:30:25 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
> > > Conrad) wrote:
>
> > > > For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
> > > > the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
> > > > Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
> > > > very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
> > > > <
> > > > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > > > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > >
> > > Ed, why post the same link twice? This letter isn't from Stewart, it's
> > > from Alan Mann. Why did he write it?
> >
> > Dear Mr Rev,
> >
> > It appears that you are not aware of Ed's current pshycotic state.
>
> What makes you think that?
>
You're attempting to reply to him. You're american right?
(x-posting snipped)
Stew Dean
stew dean
> Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> > Ever get a Letter of Rejection? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
> > <
> > I have had hundreds and hundreds of them, denying that
> > the specimens I discovered between anthracite veins --
> > are bones, teeth and even soft organs (some human).
> > <
>
> Ed, maybe this should clue you in to something? If HUNDREDS and
> HUNDREDS of scientists reject your outrageous claims, maybe the claims
> themselves are wrong? That's certainly much more possible than a
> conspiracy consisting of THOUSANDS out to get YOU, Ed.
Not is you're Ed Conrad. Each denial is a confirmation.
Ask yourself - why would Ed be proud of letter of rejection and go out
of his way to post them here?
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip relevent stuff about Ed making money from ebay>
>
> > Again, I'm not sure how true it is; but it has the ring of truth.
> > Some part of what Ed is doing has always been a scam, after all.
> >
>
> Skippy, Ed has indeed put a lot of material up for sale.
When and where?
> The issue is
> does he think what he is doing is a Scam? Or does he thing he is
> selling genuine artificats in order to make some more money (well all
> need to live).
>
> The amount of posts he makes and the types of posts answer the
> question. He is not scamming - he believes he has honest to god finds.
I think at some level he knows it's a scam... probably at the conscious
level.
> The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> making sizable amounts off his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> that would fuel is level of delusion for a loooong time.
And what if he feels that he has the *potential* to make sizable amounts
off of his finds?
> So is Ed mad or bad? I think just mad. I'm sure he'd be a nice enough
> guy to have a drink with providing you stayed off the obvious issues.
I think he's bad. I you could have a drink with him, but that it
wouldn't be a pleasant experience because of his arrogance.
> Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<ihllhvoptb06miunu...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:43 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<be7lhvkko8uvfnkbl...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:30:25 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
> > > > Conrad) wrote:
> >
> > > > > For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
> > > > > the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
> > > > > Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
> > > > > very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
> > > > > <
> > > > > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > > > > > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > > >
> > > > Ed, why post the same link twice? This letter isn't from Stewart, it's
> > > > from Alan Mann. Why did he write it?
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Rev,
> > >
> > > It appears that you are not aware of Ed's current pshycotic state.
> >
> > What makes you think that?
> >
>
> You're attempting to reply to him.
No "attempt" at all. I seem to be quite successful...
> You're american right?
Nope.
> (x-posting snipped)
>
> Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:03:54 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
> Conrad) wrote to correct the URLs of the pompous ass' letter:
>
> >On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:52:59 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
> >Conrad) wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:30:25 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
> >>Conrad) wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ever get a Letter of Rejection? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
> >>><
> >>>I have had hundreds and hundreds of them, denying that
> >>>the specimens I discovered between anthracite veins --
> >>>are bones, teeth and even soft organs (some human).
> >>><
> >>>For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
> >>>the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
> >>>Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
> >>>very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
> >>><
> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-171S.JPG
> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-172S.JPG
> >>><
> >>>The specimen he was referring to is:
> >>><
> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
> >>><
> >>>You'll notice, good ol' T.D. had absolutely no interest in examing
> >>>it even though the suggestion that he do so had come from Wilton
> >>>M. Krogman, one of the world's foremost bone experts and author
> >>>of the book, "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine."
Well, of course, both Dr. Stewart and the readers of this newsgroup
have only your word that this is what Krogman suggested, Ed.
Stewart was, of course, within his rights not to waste his time with
you, Ed, and his expressed dismay at Krogman seems to be in line with
what I have been discovering. It is likely that Krogman didn't
recommend that you submit your "specimen" to him at all. What is more
likely is that Krogman mentioned his name at some time or another and
you took that as a recommendation of sorts.
There are two possibilities, Ed. One is that you tend to hear what
you want to hear.
When Krogman looked at one of your specimens and said it looked like a
calvarium, YOU decided that he IDENTIFIED it as such.
People who knew Krogman say he didn't do that at all.
Now, of course, we hear you telling us (and Stewart, obviously, as his
letter indicates) that Krogman recommend you contact him. I don't
think that's what happened, in light of your many lies, and so I will
ask those who knew Krogman if, perhaps, you simply creatively
reinterpreted something Krogman said.
< snip >
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
>>From Tim White, an anthropologist at Harvard University:
> >><
> >>>:> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-194S.JPG
> >>>:> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-193S.JPG
Of course, these are not from Tim White. Gen2rev is right, Ed, you
really need to be more careful about your claims.
Still, if we consider those with these (read on):
> >============================================
> ><
> >Hey, there's more -- plenty more.
> ><
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-175S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-176S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-177S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-178S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-179S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-180S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-181S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-182S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-183S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-184S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-185S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-186S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-187S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-188S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-189S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-190S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-191S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-192S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-193S.JPG
> >> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-194S.JPG
> ><
> >And you ain't see nothin' yet.
Well, actually, we have, Ed.
PLENTY of "nothin'."
What we see here are many letters (some from people who even told you
that they lack certain specific qualifications) telling you that what
you have are rocks, Ed.
Seems to me that you were given due time and consideration and the
answers you were getting were not to your liking.
You TRIED to get some sort of scientific justification for your "Big
Story," the one that never happened, and you didn't get it.
As a result, you've hated science and educated scientists ever since.
You tried to get them to support you in your scam and it didn't work.
And while you whine about character assassination against you, you
have engaged in a campaign of character assassination ever since.
I see nothing here, Ed, that supports your contentions. I see a few
letters from people in science telling you what the rest of us already
know. You have a collection of interestingly-shaped rocks that no one
but you and Ted Holden thinks are fossils.
Now, of course, posting the letters of others in this manner is at
least impolite; but you will not consider that, so I feel no
compassion for you. All you are doing is telling the rest of us - the
laypeople in these newsgroups that you are trying to convince - that
science has given you due consideration and has rejected your claims.
All you've done, Ed, is show us more evidence that you are wrong.
Couple that with your misrepresented lab reports and such, and we have
not only evidence of error, but of willful intent to deceive.
Yes, Ed, of course you are a kook, but you are also a liar and a
fraud.
gen2rev
(David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
[snip]
> One of the more interesting things I found when I talked to a couple
> of people who know the situation may interest you.
>
> Remember when you and I were wondering aloud in the newsgroup why Ed
> has so many of his photos categorized under an "ebay" directory?
>
> It seems that Ed once entertained the idea of starting a small
> "cottage industry" or anthracite petrified "fossils."
>
> There was even talk of opening a small museum in the late 80s,
> apparently, that stretched into the mid 90s with the advent of Usenet.
>
> But there was apparently enough available as far as refutation that
> the idea was abandoned.
So, on some level Ed accepts that he doesn't have the real thing, or
that potential visitors wouldn't believe that he has the real thing?
I favor the former explanation.
> I'm not sure how true that is - only one person brought it up. But
> apparently there was some thinking that Ed could sell these "bones" to
> unsuspecting visitors to eastern Pennsylvania. It reminded me of the
> many Native American souvenir stands that dot the highways of Arizona,
> where one might stop and purchase a sandwich, gas, a can of soda pop,
> and a highly-polished rock attached to a necklace that allegedly has
> some spiritual meaning.
>
> Again, I'm not sure how true it is; but it has the ring of truth.
> Some part of what Ed is doing has always been a scam, after all.
True, but I'm sure he knows that the legal ramifications of selling his
"specimens" would be more trouble than he could imagine... Even Ed has
"vested interests".
> < snip >
David Sienkiewicz
That's true.
Between us, we have Ed running and on the ropes, depending on your
point of view.
Meanwhile, Skippy seems to want to follow his usual pattern:
> > You're american right?
>
> Nope.
Oh, my!
I guess we should get ready for another of Skippy's anti-American
yammerings.
Well, YOU can get ready. I won't bother with it.
But we should all keep it in mind the next time Skippy wants to whine
about the bigotry of others.
David Sienkiewicz
Agreed.
What I was told was that Ed once considered selling his "fossils" on
eBay but was discouraged from doing so because of all of the negative
responses he gets in the newsgroups. His fear was that if he sought
to sell them, there might be those in the newsgroups who would contact
bidders and suggest that they read the newsgroups for comments about
the validity of the "fossils," and that would damage Ed's eBay
reputation. Since Ed makes a pretty good supplemental income from
collectibles and antiques on eBay, he probably didn't think it was
worth the risk and, as far as I know, hasn't tried to sell any of his
"fossils." A co-worker at the "Standard-Speaker" mentioned that Ed
seemed quite bitter because of this; and part of my hypothesis is that
this contributes to his almost pathological hatred of science and
scientists.
Last year, Ed DID sell a "map" that he claims shows that there was a
catastrophe in the region.
I don't KNOW that Ed really ever intended to sell the "fossils" on
eBay, but there apparently was talk of a museum in which the items
(quite plentiful in the area) could be collected and sold as
souvenirs; and this never panned out. eBay might have been another
alternative. But again, this was just speculation fueled by some
comments from those who live in the area and either know Ed personally
or have had some interaction with him.
As far as Ed being psychotic, he is not. Being a "kook" is not the
same as being psychotic, as I think most of us know. He functions
well in society. He holds down a job and he pays his bills. He's
thought of as fairly eccentric by those who actually know him and he
is not considered psychotic or insane.
I tend to value the assessment of those who actually interact with Ed
in real life over those who make judgements from afar in Usenet.
Having said THAT, I'll say that being a "kook" in Usenet is not
altogether unusual for many of us.
< snip >
stew dean
A good post. I have said in the past I reacon Ed would be okay to
share a drink with providing you avoided certain topics.
I think after a well thought out post like that I'll avoid the Ed
topic.
Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:16:34 +0000 (UTC), david.si...@attbi.com
> (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > One of the more interesting things I found when I talked to a couple
> > of people who know the situation may interest you.
> >
> > Remember when you and I were wondering aloud in the newsgroup why Ed
> > has so many of his photos categorized under an "ebay" directory?
> >
> > It seems that Ed once entertained the idea of starting a small
> > "cottage industry" or anthracite petrified "fossils."
> >
> > There was even talk of opening a small museum in the late 80s,
> > apparently, that stretched into the mid 90s with the advent of Usenet.
> >
> > But there was apparently enough available as far as refutation that
> > the idea was abandoned.
>
> So, on some level Ed accepts that he doesn't have the real thing, or
> that potential visitors wouldn't believe that he has the real thing?
>
> I favor the former explanation.
I would lean toward the latter while accepting the former as possible
except for one thing: Ed won't allow his specimens to be
independently tested and have the tests recorded and certified.
That tells ME that he doesn't really think his "evidence" will stand
up to scrutiny.
So I, too, favor the former explanation.
> > I'm not sure how true that is - only one person brought it up. But
> > apparently there was some thinking that Ed could sell these "bones" to
> > unsuspecting visitors to eastern Pennsylvania. It reminded me of the
> > many Native American souvenir stands that dot the highways of Arizona,
> > where one might stop and purchase a sandwich, gas, a can of soda pop,
> > and a highly-polished rock attached to a necklace that allegedly has
> > some spiritual meaning.
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure how true it is; but it has the ring of truth.
> > Some part of what Ed is doing has always been a scam, after all.
>
> True, but I'm sure he knows that the legal ramifications of selling his
> "specimens" would be more trouble than he could imagine... Even Ed has
> "vested interests".
If he didn't, it wouldn't be called "edconrad.com."
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
> > So is Ed mad or bad? I think just mad. I'm sure he'd be a nice enough
> > guy to have a drink with providing you stayed off the obvious issues.
>
> I think he's bad. I you could have a drink with him, but that it
> wouldn't be a pleasant experience because of his arrogance.
Or Skippy's.
gen2rev
(David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<as7ohvo3gp9en6g8l...@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:16:34 +0000 (UTC), david.si...@attbi.com
> > (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > One of the more interesting things I found when I talked to a couple
> > > of people who know the situation may interest you.
> > >
> > > Remember when you and I were wondering aloud in the newsgroup why Ed
> > > has so many of his photos categorized under an "ebay" directory?
> > >
> > > It seems that Ed once entertained the idea of starting a small
> > > "cottage industry" or anthracite petrified "fossils."
> > >
> > > There was even talk of opening a small museum in the late 80s,
> > > apparently, that stretched into the mid 90s with the advent of Usenet.
> > >
> > > But there was apparently enough available as far as refutation that
> > > the idea was abandoned.
> >
> > So, on some level Ed accepts that he doesn't have the real thing, or
> > that potential visitors wouldn't believe that he has the real thing?
> >
> > I favor the former explanation.
>
> I would lean toward the latter while accepting the former as possible
> except for one thing: Ed won't allow his specimens to be
> independently tested and have the tests recorded and certified.
>
> That tells ME that he doesn't really think his "evidence" will stand
> up to scrutiny.
>
> So I, too, favor the former explanation.
Admittedly, it's a close call.
> > > I'm not sure how true that is - only one person brought it up. But
> > > apparently there was some thinking that Ed could sell these "bones" to
> > > unsuspecting visitors to eastern Pennsylvania. It reminded me of the
> > > many Native American souvenir stands that dot the highways of Arizona,
> > > where one might stop and purchase a sandwich, gas, a can of soda pop,
> > > and a highly-polished rock attached to a necklace that allegedly has
> > > some spiritual meaning.
> > >
> > > Again, I'm not sure how true it is; but it has the ring of truth.
> > > Some part of what Ed is doing has always been a scam, after all.
> >
> > True, but I'm sure he knows that the legal ramifications of selling his
> > "specimens" would be more trouble than he could imagine... Even Ed has
> > "vested interests".
>
> If he didn't, it wouldn't be called "edconrad.com."
Have you seen Ed's new thread entitled "PETRIFIED BONE Finally Being
Sold on eBay"?
stew dean
Is this Skippy you or Skippy me? I would call Mr Rev Skippy but I've
no idea what it means and wouldnt know if it was offensive.
So care to explain Skippy again? Or do you want me to make a list of
all the times you've accused others of avoiding the question.
Stew Dean
stew dean
And you think Ed is deluded?
Now I understand why you guys attempt to reply to Ed. And yes attempt
is the right word. A reply I would consider as something that makes a
difference. Do you honestly think your replies make on jot of
difference to Ed's ideas?
Clue: The opposite may well be true, that is you are confirming his
ideas.
Do you think that if you guys didnt post no one else will?
Clue: Why don't you test it and see.
My prediction, they will. You are both unbelievably arrogant to think
somehow you and only you can alter poor Ed's head and finaly make him
go 'oh yes, you have a point, they are rocks'. I know I can't and but
I've yet to give up hope on you two.
If you think I'm arrogant for calling you two guys idiots then go
ahead, if you want to use the scientific method on this problem then I
would very much like to see the results. I've seen enough data to know
your theory in this case is no good.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
Skippy, do you vote in any of the elections in Great Britain? After all,
isn't it unbelievably arrogant to think that your vote can alter the
outcome of any election? Why do you bother?
If you think I'm arrogant for calling you an idiot for voting, then go
ahead. If you want to use the scientific method on this problem then I
would very much like to see the results. You may imagine that your vote
has meaning, but I've seen enough data to know your theory in this case
is no good.
David Sienkiewicz
Yes, it really can be hard to tell, sometimes. I usually think that
Ed probably believes what he's got is bone; but his clear avoidance of
a direct challenge to have them tested is suspect.
> > > > I'm not sure how true that is - only one person brought it up. But
> > > > apparently there was some thinking that Ed could sell these "bones" to
> > > > unsuspecting visitors to eastern Pennsylvania. It reminded me of the
> > > > many Native American souvenir stands that dot the highways of Arizona,
> > > > where one might stop and purchase a sandwich, gas, a can of soda pop,
> > > > and a highly-polished rock attached to a necklace that allegedly has
> > > > some spiritual meaning.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I'm not sure how true it is; but it has the ring of truth.
> > > > Some part of what Ed is doing has always been a scam, after all.
> > >
> > > True, but I'm sure he knows that the legal ramifications of selling his
> > > "specimens" would be more trouble than he could imagine... Even Ed has
> > > "vested interests".
> >
> > If he didn't, it wouldn't be called "edconrad.com."
>
> Have you seen Ed's new thread entitled "PETRIFIED BONE Finally Being
> Sold on eBay"?
I have, indeed!
Two things stand out when I read the description. The first is his
claim that specimens LIKE THAT ONE have been tested. He makes no
claim that THIS PARTICULAR specimen has been tested.
He also directs the reader to "deja.com" for additional information -
NOT HIS WEB SITE - and, of course, "deja.com" no longer exists.
On the other hand, Internet fraud is a hot topic these days, so this
probably wasn't one of Ed's brighter ideas. There are things in Ed's
description that are clearly intended to misdirect. For on thing, Ed
KNOWS that the American Medical Labs never tested his specimens and he
knows that the lab reports in his possession are not reports of the
testing.
Ed hasn't commited fraud unless and until he sells the items. But
until then, we have probable cause for conspiracy to commit fraud, and
I will be reporting this both to eBay's "Safe Harbor" and the
appropriate law enforcement and postal authorities before the day is
out.
KelvynT
>
>Two things stand out when I read the description. The first is his
>claim that specimens LIKE THAT ONE have been tested. He makes no
>claim that THIS PARTICULAR specimen has been tested.
But he describes this specimen specifically as "petrified mammalian
bone". That's inaccurate and arguably a breach of ebay's user
agreement.
>He also directs the reader to "deja.com" for additional information -
>NOT HIS WEB SITE - and, of course, "deja.com" no longer exists.
Yes, but it redirects to Google groups :-)
Kelvyn
stew dean
Skippy, first voting has the potential to alter the out come. Yes my
vote could alter the outcome but only in collaboration with all the
other votes. So not it would not be arrogant, unless you somehow
believed you vote counted for more than any other persons vote.
Not sure how it's relevent here.
>
> If you think I'm arrogant for calling you an idiot for voting, then go
> ahead. If you want to use the scientific method on this problem then I
> would very much like to see the results. You may imagine that your vote
> has meaning, but I've seen enough data to know your theory in this case
> is no good.
I think this is called avoiding the issue. I can't see how voting is
related to a failed debate. One is statistical and about democracy,
the other is about the ability to reason. If either side rejects
reason totally then I would consider that a failed debate.
In your case if you stopped posting it would make no difference, in
fact it might cut down in the amount of noise in this group.
Someone would do just as good a job of attacking Ed if you stepped
aside. It is arrogant to think, like the other Skippy, that you have
Ed on the ropes. I think Skippy has been saying that for a while now.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<5g3rhvki9qric6qpn...@4ax.com>...
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:08:25 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<6qtnhvo8mqmklrnlk...@4ax.com>...
[snip]
So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> > If you think I'm arrogant for calling you an idiot for voting, then go
> > ahead. If you want to use the scientific method on this problem then I
> > would very much like to see the results. You may imagine that your vote
> > has meaning, but I've seen enough data to know your theory in this case
> > is no good.
>
> I think this is called avoiding the issue. I can't see how voting is
> related to a failed debate. One is statistical and about democracy,
> the other is about the ability to reason. If either side rejects
> reason totally then I would consider that a failed debate.
What about the audience? Why do you assume that the goal you outline is
the goal I want to achieve?
> In your case if you stopped posting it would make no difference, in
> fact it might cut down in the amount of noise in this group.
Are your responses to "Average Comrade" noise?
> Someone would do just as good a job of attacking Ed if you stepped
> aside. It is arrogant to think, like the other Skippy, that you have
> Ed on the ropes. I think Skippy has been saying that for a while now.
And I believe that it's arrogant of you to think that you know my
motivations in this area.
The thing is, if someone else started "attacking Ed" when I stepped
down, you'd tell *them* that it's a waste of time too. If you had your
way, no one would reply to Ed.
Isn't that right?
> Stew Dean
Dirk Murcray
> Ever get a Letter of Rejection? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
> <
> I have had hundreds and hundreds of them, denying that
> the specimens I discovered between anthracite veins --
> are bones, teeth and even soft organs (some human).
LOL, imagine that.
> <
> For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
> the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
> Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
> very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
> <
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
> <
> The specimen he was referring to is:
> <
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
> <
> You'll notice, good ol' T.D. had absolutely no interest in examing
> it even though the suggestion that he do so had come from Wilton
> M. Krogman, one of the world's foremost bone experts and author
> of the book, "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine."
> <
David Sienkiewicz
You will find that if you nail Skippy with a fact, he will ignore it
or declare it somehow irrelevant or "unrelated."
Of course, even if he truly can make a case for the lack of relevance
for your comments, he's not above injecting a bit of that, himself, if
he thinks it might serve a rhetorical purpose or feed his ego rather
than actually address an issue.
Remember being asked if you are an American?
> > > If you think I'm arrogant for calling you an idiot for voting, then go
> > > ahead. If you want to use the scientific method on this problem then I
> > > would very much like to see the results. You may imagine that your vote
> > > has meaning, but I've seen enough data to know your theory in this case
> > > is no good.
> >
> > I think this is called avoiding the issue. I can't see how voting is
> > related to a failed debate. One is statistical and about democracy,
> > the other is about the ability to reason. If either side rejects
> > reason totally then I would consider that a failed debate.
>
> What about the audience? Why do you assume that the goal you outline is
> the goal I want to achieve?
Because you are not permitted to decide these things for yourself.
You must let Skippy Dean decide it for you.
Skippy's arguments do not survive unless that happens. But Skippy is
an arrogant net-nazi wannabe and a liar. Just this last week or so
ago, Skippy was telling another person that I am trying to reason with
Ed or convince Ed of something.
It doesn't matter that I've said several times that this is not the
case.
> > In your case if you stopped posting it would make no difference, in
> > fact it might cut down in the amount of noise in this group.
>
> Are your responses to "Average Comrade" noise?
I'm certain they are, if I bothered to read them. Average is every
bit the loon that Ed is, but at the moment, he has Skippy's attention,
and the standards are different for Skippy Dean. As long as it's HIS
"noise," it is good noise.
The fact is that this is Usenet and noise is noise. Skippy's solution
to our "noise" is to create MORE "noise" about our "noise" in an
attempt to cut down the overall "noise." I think everyone but Skippy
can see the problem with that, but with Skippy, if it's HIS "noise,"
it's good "noise."
> > Someone would do just as good a job of attacking Ed if you stepped
> > aside. It is arrogant to think, like the other Skippy, that you have
> > Ed on the ropes. I think Skippy has been saying that for a while now.
>
> And I believe that it's arrogant of you to think that you know my
> motivations in this area.
And yet, Skippy has nothing he can argue unless he can decide your
motivation for you.
> The thing is, if someone else started "attacking Ed" when I stepped
> down, you'd tell *them* that it's a waste of time too.
This is certainly true. Neither of us are the first to be told not to
"attack Ed" or to even reply to him.
> If you had your
> way, no one would reply to Ed.
>
> Isn't that right?
Of course. But this is an "unrelated fact."
Let me suggest an alternative tactic: If we ignore Skippy and do not
respond to him, that will cut down some of the "noise," as well.
Skippy isn't interested in what our motivation might be and he doesn't
care either way about Ed Conrad.
And I confess that, despite what he claims, ignoring Skippy completely
gets under his self-important skin.
He deserves all the frustration we can hand him - all nazi wannabes
do.
But, you must post by YOUR conscience. Not mine and certainly not
Skippy's.
As Joe says, "have fun!"
Ken Rode
"stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.03072...@posting.google.com...
I think that if you looked at what has happened over the past few days,
you'd find that David and some of the other people here have in fact made an
impression on Ed. David indicated that Ed had been considering selling his
finds on eBay at one time, and Ed suddenly puts a couple of his finds on
eBay. I don't think that that's coincidence. Someone else suggests getting a
collection together to purchase one of Ed's items, and Ed responds by
raising the price from $100 to $1000 for one of the items, and from $500 to
$5000 for the other. I don't think that that's coincidence either.
Are we ever going to change Ed's mind? Probably not, and I don't know that
anyone here is genuinely of the opinion that they can.
Ken
stew dean
Well done Skippy. I think you've got it.
stew dean
Like I said, if you don't post Skippy someone else will. The audience
can see the obvious mistakes without you pointing them out. You're
being arrogant if you think they can't.
> > In your case if you stopped posting it would make no difference, in
> > fact it might cut down in the amount of noise in this group.
>
> Are your responses to "Average Comrade" noise?
The whole comrade thing is noise. It's also entertaining noise. The Ed
thing is just the same shit repeated again and again.
> > Someone would do just as good a job of attacking Ed if you stepped
> > aside. It is arrogant to think, like the other Skippy, that you have
> > Ed on the ropes. I think Skippy has been saying that for a while now.
>
> And I believe that it's arrogant of you to think that you know my
> motivations in this area.
Common mate, you're human. It doesnt take that much to work out why
you post.
> The thing is, if someone else started "attacking Ed" when I stepped
> down, you'd tell *them* that it's a waste of time too.
I probably wouldnt. The thing that gets me is folks who can post
intelligent stuff acting like mindless flies against window and then
attempting to justify their actions. Thats you Skippy Rev and Skippy
Sienkiewicz. Go and use your talents somewhere it will have an effect.
> If you had your
> way, no one would reply to Ed.
>
> Isn't that right?
If I had my way people like you would not reply. I would be happy to
see a few occasional answers by newbies. Failing that - you're right,
no replies.
Now explain to me why this would be a bad thing?
Stew Dean
Ed Conrad
Conrad) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:52:59 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
>Conrad) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:30:25 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
>>Conrad) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ever get a Letter of Rejection? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
>>><
>>>I have had hundreds and hundreds of them, denying that
>>>the specimens I discovered between anthracite veins --
>>>are bones, teeth and even soft organs (some human).
>>><
>>>For starters, here's a letter from T. D. Stewart, M.D., then holding
>>>the distiguished title of anthropologist emeritus at the Smithsonian
>>>Insitutiton. He replied sarcastically after receiving a photo of the
>>>very first specimen I discovered between anthracite veins.
>>><
>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-170S.JPG
>>><
>>>The specimen he was referring to is:
>>><
>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
>>><
>>>You'll notice, good ol' T.D. had absolutely no interest in examing
>>>it even though the suggestion that he do so had come from Wilton
>>>M. Krogman, one of the world's foremost bone experts and author
>>>of the book, "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine."
>>><
>>>Ed Conrad
>>>> http://www.edconrad.com
>>><
>>>Man as Old as Coal
>><
>>============================================
>><
>>From Tim White, an anthropologist at Harvard University:
>><
>>>:> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-194S.JPG
>>>:> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-193S.JPG
>>
>============================================
><
>Hey, there's more -- plenty more.
><
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-175S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-176S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-177S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-178S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-179S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-180S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-181S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-182S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-183S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-184S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-185S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-186S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-187S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-188S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-189S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-190S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-191S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-192S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-193S.JPG
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Pseudo/MVC-194S.JPG
><
>And you ain't see nothin' yet.
>
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-035S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-036S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-037S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-038S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-039S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-040S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-041S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-042S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-043S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-044S.JPG
>iEd Conrad
gen2rev
Conrad) wrote:
[snip]
> >And you ain't see nothin' yet.
> >
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-035S.JPG
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-036S.JPG
A letter from a group called "Common Cause", who hope to make government
more responsive to its citizens. Ed's very confused if he thinks this is
how science works.
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-037S.JPG
A letter from the United Church of Christ, who seem to have no problems
with evolution. They're obviously in on the conspiracy too...
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-038S.JPG
A rejection letter from the National Enquirer. They're obviously in on
the conspiracy too...
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-039S.JPG
Obviously Harvard University will be involved in the monumental coverup
of Mankind's true origins...
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-040S.JPG
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-041S.JPG
And so is the Pope...
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-042S.JPG
A non-committal letter from senator Arlen Specter regarding Ed's
complaints about a Richard Leakey interview. What did Ed think that
Specter was going to do about it?
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-043S.JPG
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/CoalFossil/MVC-044S.JPG
Ed Koch, then Mayor of New York City, offers non-committal words of
support. Is this Ed's idea of a letter of rejection?
stew dean
> > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
> You will find that if you nail Skippy with a fact, he will ignore it
> or declare it somehow irrelevant or "unrelated."
>
> Of course, even if he truly can make a case for the lack of relevance
> for your comments, he's not above injecting a bit of that, himself, if
> he thinks it might serve a rhetorical purpose or feed his ego rather
> than actually address an issue.
>
> Remember being asked if you are an American?
Now lets see how perceptive you are. Why do you think I asked this question?
(note I think there may be an unedited reply to this I sent by mistake)
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
> > You will find that if you nail Skippy with a fact, he will ignore it
> > or declare it somehow irrelevant or "unrelated."
> >
> > Of course, even if he truly can make a case for the lack of relevance
> > for your comments, he's not above injecting a bit of that, himself, if
> > he thinks it might serve a rhetorical purpose or feed his ego rather
> > than actually address an issue.
> >
> > Remember being asked if you are an American?
>
> Now lets see how perceptive you are. Why do you think I asked this question?
I don't know. How is my nationality a relevant question?
> (note I think there may be an unedited reply to this I sent by mistake)
Not that I can see.
> Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
Of course, it is only relevant to Skippy, whose own lack of perception
is evident since I already addressed the issue.
> > (note I think there may be an unedited reply to this I sent by mistake)
>
> Not that I can see.
Not that I will bother with.
David Sienkiewicz
By the way, is there a special award for having TWO "net loons?"
I've got Skippy, and I've got Philip - two imbalanced, but very
self-righteous personalities almost in a Nyikosian sense.
I suppose that since Sharon actually created a web page berating me,
that might qualify as three net loons.
Ah, the marvels of modern technology! Gans, eat your heart out,
whereever you are!
stew dean
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> >
> > Have you stopped beating your wife?
>
> That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
Exactly. So was yours. I never said your posts had no effect, just not
the effect you hoped.
>
>
> > > You will find that if you nail Skippy with a fact, he will ignore it
> > > or declare it somehow irrelevant or "unrelated."
> > >
> > > Of course, even if he truly can make a case for the lack of relevance
> > > for your comments, he's not above injecting a bit of that, himself, if
> > > he thinks it might serve a rhetorical purpose or feed his ego rather
> > > than actually address an issue.
> > >
> > > Remember being asked if you are an American?
> >
> > Now lets see how perceptive you are. Why do you think I asked this question?
>
> I don't know. How is my nationality a relevant question?
Your original reply was a non humours responce to what was intended to
be(but appears to have fallen flat) a ironic post.
The Americans and Germans are stereotyped for their lack of a sense of
irony, just as Brits are stereotyped as having an arrogant air and
other stuff. Hollywood, for example, loves making the bad guys Brits
these days because of that. Looks like we both conform to these
limited view of a people.
Guess that's the problem with being occasionaly subtle (or wishy washy
as Skippy Sienkiewicz would describe it).
Stew Dean
stew dean
Yep, I've noticed that as well Ken (I recently remarked in this group
that Ed does appear to read our posts). I find this all quite funny
and hope it does result in a non serious outcome as, to some extent,
this is all very trivial.
You're right it is not coincidence. This whole eBay thing is quite
interesting but I don't think it's leading anywheere - as you said
we're probably never going to change Ed's mind. As with everything
like this the only person who can change Ed's mind is Ed and we would
have to allow him to do that in a way that it does not damage his ego.
Unfortunatly if Ed made a comment that he did thing he was in someway
wrong idiots like David would be jumping up and down hurling 'I told
you so comments' and general insults at him. For that reason those
opposing Ed on a regular basis are leaving him no option but to oppose
them back.
The Skippy brothers appear to have a logical argument confused with a
psychological one.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3ml0ivs5debvg5605...@4ax.com>...
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> > >
> > > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >
> > That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
> >
> >
> > > > You will find that if you nail Skippy with a fact, he will ignore it
> > > > or declare it somehow irrelevant or "unrelated."
> > > >
> > > > Of course, even if he truly can make a case for the lack of relevance
> > > > for your comments, he's not above injecting a bit of that, himself, if
> > > > he thinks it might serve a rhetorical purpose or feed his ego rather
> > > > than actually address an issue.
> > > >
> > > > Remember being asked if you are an American?
> > >
> > > Now lets see how perceptive you are. Why do you think I asked this question?
> >
> > I don't know. How is my nationality a relevant question?
>
> Of course, it is only relevant to Skippy, whose own lack of perception
> is evident since I already addressed the issue.
Skippy, you wrote "I guess we should get ready for another of Skippy's
anti-American yammerings." This is not addressing an issue but making
unfounded accusations, something you appear to be very keen on.
Let me state clearly and in public I am not anti-American, that would
be anti my own family. I do like my own country and think we have a
better standard of education, a more refined sense of humour and a
deeper sense of culture. This is not anti-american, it's just a
subjective point of view that rings true with others.
Benny Hill stopped being shown in the UK many years ago.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> By the way, is there a special award for having TWO "net loons?"
I'd like to see how you justify me as a net loon just because I'm
pointing out you mistakes. I would be a loon if i didnt actual make
reasoned points and instead made wild and unfounded accusations.
Hang on - does that mean you're a loon?
> I've got Skippy, and I've got Philip - two imbalanced, but very
> self-righteous personalities almost in a Nyikosian sense.
Well so far you've called me a loon, a liar, skippy (what ever that
means) and now imbalanced. You're quite a one with the ad hominem arnt
you? Why not add psuedo, salesman and ruffian dog to your list.
Currently your name calling puts you in the same grouping as Mr Conrad
and AJ.
Go on and check - only you and Ed have ever started a thread with the
intention of insulting me. AJ is famous for avoiding the issue by
using personal attack - something you are quite adept at as well.
> I suppose that since Sharon actually created a web page berating me,
> that might qualify as three net loons.
I don't take all this all that seriously, I see it as a bit of mental
jousting and it doesnt matter who wins or looses.
I work on serious web pages for a living (household names mostly) and
see what people call HTML formated rants (nice phrase) as a sign of
loosing the plot. Let's hope you never descide to let rip with a copy
of frontpage (tip: avoid this program like the plauge).
I may tell people to 'go away' but I would never wish someone get run
over by a bus like you did recently (well maybe that Tony guy, the one
obsessed with rape, but he's a very sick bunny). I'll leave the real
nutso stuff to the professionals with no life.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3ml0ivs5debvg5605...@4ax.com>...
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> > >
> > > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >
> > That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
>
> Exactly. So was yours. I never said your posts had no effect, just not
> the effect you hoped.
What makes you think that?
> > > > You will find that if you nail Skippy with a fact, he will ignore it
> > > > or declare it somehow irrelevant or "unrelated."
> > > >
> > > > Of course, even if he truly can make a case for the lack of relevance
> > > > for your comments, he's not above injecting a bit of that, himself, if
> > > > he thinks it might serve a rhetorical purpose or feed his ego rather
> > > > than actually address an issue.
> > > >
> > > > Remember being asked if you are an American?
> > >
> > > Now lets see how perceptive you are. Why do you think I asked this question?
> >
> > I don't know. How is my nationality a relevant question?
>
> Your original reply was a non humours responce to what was intended to
> be(but appears to have fallen flat) a ironic post.
Perhaps you were to subtle for me.
> The Americans and Germans are stereotyped for their lack of a sense of
> irony, just as Brits are stereotyped as having an arrogant air and
> other stuff. Hollywood, for example, loves making the bad guys Brits
> these days because of that. Looks like we both conform to these
> limited view of a people.
>
> Guess that's the problem with being occasionaly subtle (or wishy washy
> as Skippy Sienkiewicz would describe it).
Or it may be a cultural difference.
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:57:15 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3ml0ivs5debvg5605...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> > > >
> > > > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> > >
> > > That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
> >
> > Exactly. So was yours. I never said your posts had no effect, just not
> > the effect you hoped.
>
> What makes you think that?
Okay, I'm not good at guessing games - tell me what you hoped you
effect was if it wasnt to change Ed's mind? Skippy Sienkiewicz appears
to think he has Ed 'on the ropes' so it's clear that he intends to get
Ed to somehow admit defeat. As long as he keeps on at him like he does
there is a zero chance of this.
Meanwhile there's all this quite funny Ebay stuff happening - no idea
where this one is going to go but I think it'll just fizzle out.
> > Your original reply was a non humours responce to what was intended to
> > be(but appears to have fallen flat) a ironic post.
>
> Perhaps you were to subtle for me.
Okay - Ed had posted a load of letters from academic places and I
ended my 'letter'..
"Stewart E Dean
Arrogant Professor of Whateverology.
University of Lyffe."
You it's never funny having to explain an attempt at humour.
> > Guess that's the problem with being occasionaly subtle (or wishy washy
> > as Skippy Sienkiewicz would describe it).
>
> Or it may be a cultural difference.
Yep - could well be.
Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:57:15 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3ml0ivs5debvg5605...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> > > >
> > > > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> > >
> > > That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
> >
> > Exactly. So was yours. I never said your posts had no effect, just not
> > the effect you hoped.
>
> What makes you think that?
Telling Skippy what effect you expect to have, or making a suggestion
elsewhere, has no effect on him. Once he decides your intent, that's
it. It doesn't matter if YOU said something entirely different.
Skippy rails at us becuase there's no point in trying to convince Ed
of anything, of trying to "reason with" Ed or of trying to get Ed to
admit anything.
I've said enough times that none of these things are my goals, but
that doesn't seem to make any difference.
A couple of weeks ago, I think, I told Skippy once and for all that
he's a liar and not worthy of the constant corrections for his errors
and misrepresentations. He has yet to get ANYTHING right in this
affair so far. When his errors are exposed, they are ignored
completely or are declared "unrelated facts" or some such nonsense.
Actually, I'm enjoying this ruckus he's creating while pretending that
his goal is too REDUCE the "noise" in the group. The facts are much
less altruistic. Skippy has an incredible ego. He makes demands on
others and when they tell him to pound sand, he goes ape-shit. I
think he's figured out (after his little debacle with trying to have
some of us not respond in an open thread in the group) that he needs
to curb his adolescent tendencies, so at least he gives it a bit of
thought before responding; but for Skippy, "a bit of thought" just
isn't much.
Hell, the only thing he can really come up with lately is to refer to
OTHERS as "Skippy."
You know what that means, don't you? Deep down, the little squirt
admires me. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
Ah, it's nice to have another net loon.
< snip >
David Sienkiewicz
< snip Skippy's self-important, clueless yammerings >
> I think that if you looked at what has happened over the past few days,
> you'd find that David and some of the other people here have in fact made an
> impression on Ed.
Of course.
Ed is on auto-pilot most of the time. He posts and reposts the same
things and it is my thinking that responding is a good thing.
But he is obviously reading the group and we are seeing the results of
that. Ed will never admit anything, he can't be publicly reasoned
with on these matters and he can never be publicly convinced of
anything (and all of these things are interrelated, anyway).
What he CAN see is that Usenet is not his own personal sounding board
any longer.
Most of the more scientifically astute gave up on Ed long ago. That's
all right because the professional opinions are on record; and Ed
doesn't care about them anyway, because they are part of the
"scientific establishment."
Regardless of Ed's claims, he knows that the detailed responses that
he is getting these days come mostly from the laypeople - the people
he is trying to convince.
As we have seen, Ed will eventually realize that he has to come up
with something new - some new "evidence" that will help him make his
case.
> David indicated that Ed had been considering selling his
> finds on eBay at one time, and Ed suddenly puts a couple of his finds on
> eBay.
When I posted that, I figured that, sooner or later, Ed would react as
if it was some sort of juvenile dare; but he also knows that he can't
possibly allow any of the specimens to leave his possession or he's
sunk.
So, as I also figured, he posted specimens for sale. It was like
shooting fish in a barrel; and when someone suggested that he lower
his opening bid, Ed thumbed wanted to appear to thumb his nose and
RAISED the price by a factor of 10.
But appearances can be deceiving. Ed has no intention of parting with
the specimens. He knows that once that happens he is open to civil
and criminal charges of fraud.
> I don't think that that's coincidence. Someone else suggests getting a
> collection together to purchase one of Ed's items, and Ed responds by
> raising the price from $100 to $1000 for one of the items, and from $500 to
> $5000 for the other. I don't think that that's coincidence either.
Neither of those things are coincidence.
It was not coincidence that Ed recently started posting "rejection"
letters as well as some never-before seen communications from Krogman.
These are likely responses to things I have said to Ed or challenges
that I have issued.
> Are we ever going to change Ed's mind? Probably not, and I don't know that
> anyone here is genuinely of the opinion that they can.
I am completely unaware of anyone who thinks they can change Ed's
mind; but we DO know that Ed is rather quiet and cooperative in the
actual presence of scientists and during some of the rather simple
observations that have been made.
We DO know that Ed has misrepresented the American Medical Lab reports
as well as other forms of alleged "documentation."
These things and others are indicative of INTENT on the part of Ed.
He's a modern, though rather simple, form of P.T. Barnum; and much of
what he is doing is a scam. YMMV.
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fd2ivcqe5ae97mo0...@4ax.com>...
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:57:15 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3ml0ivs5debvg5605...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > > > > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> > > >
> > > > That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
> > >
> > > Exactly. So was yours. I never said your posts had no effect, just not
> > > the effect you hoped.
> >
> > What makes you think that?
>
> Okay, I'm not good at guessing games - tell me what you hoped you
> effect was if it wasnt to change Ed's mind? Skippy Sienkiewicz appears
> to think he has Ed 'on the ropes' so it's clear that he intends to get
> Ed to somehow admit defeat. As long as he keeps on at him like he does
> there is a zero chance of this.
You didn't answer the question: What makes you think that I'm not having
the effect I hoped for?
> Meanwhile there's all this quite funny Ebay stuff happening - no idea
> where this one is going to go but I think it'll just fizzle out.
We'll see.
> > > Your original reply was a non humours responce to what was intended to
> > > be(but appears to have fallen flat) a ironic post.
> >
> > Perhaps you were to subtle for me.
>
> Okay - Ed had posted a load of letters from academic places and I
> ended my 'letter'..
>
> "Stewart E Dean
>
> Arrogant Professor of Whateverology.
> University of Lyffe."
>
> You it's never funny having to explain an attempt at humour.
Very true.
David Sienkiewicz
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:47:17 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fd2ivcqe5ae97mo0...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:57:15 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3ml0ivs5debvg5605...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
> > >
> > > > > > > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> > > > >
> > > > > That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. So was yours. I never said your posts had no effect, just not
> > > > the effect you hoped.
> > >
> > > What makes you think that?
> >
> > effect was if it wasnt to change Ed's mind? Skippy Sienkiewicz appears
> > to think he has Ed 'on the ropes' so it's clear that he intends to get
> > Ed to somehow admit defeat. As long as he keeps on at him like he does
> > there is a zero chance of this.
>
> You didn't answer the question: What makes you think that I'm not having
> the effect I hoped for?
This is actually pretty funny. Skippy was pretty darned sure of
himself when he wrote that your posts do not have "the effect you
hoped" for; but when you ask specificially what he thinks that was,
there was no answer.
Maybe Skippy is learning something, after all; but it's too late for
THIS thread. He's already "busted," as we see above.
> > Meanwhile there's all this quite funny Ebay stuff happening - no idea
> > where this one is going to go but I think it'll just fizzle out.
>
> We'll see.
We should give this one to Skippy. He's right; but it's nothing that
those more experienced than he could have predicted. The fact is that
I fully expected Ed to do what he did; and I fully expect that the
items won't sell, that he will not attempt it again, and that he will
then be able to counter any claims that he WOULD have tried to sell
his "bones" on eBay if it hadn't been for the negative press he gets.
Now he can claim that he DID try. He will almost certainly try later
on to blame the "scientific establishment" and even eBay for collusion
since he couldn't sell his wares. In fact, if we get Sharon in here
ranting that our exposes kept Ed from making money, the picture will
be complete!
> > > > Your original reply was a non humours responce to what was intended to
> > > > be(but appears to have fallen flat) a ironic post.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you were to subtle for me.
> >
> > Okay - Ed had posted a load of letters from academic places and I
> > ended my 'letter'..
> >
> > "Stewart E Dean
> >
> > Arrogant Professor of Whateverology.
> > University of Lyffe."
> >
> > You it's never funny having to explain an attempt at humour.
>
> Very true.
Nothing kills a joke quicker than having to explain it; but I've also
already told Skippy more than once that not seeing things his way
doesn't mean that there is a lack of understanding.
> > > > Guess that's the problem with being occasionaly subtle (or wishy washy
> > > > as Skippy Sienkiewicz would describe it).
> > >
> > > Or it may be a cultural difference.
> >
> > Yep - could well be.
The differences are due to culture, experience, knowledge and the
ability to investigate and appropriate predict behavior in certain
instances. Skippy has none of that. He obviously can't even follow
what it meant to be called "wishy-washy" and has made claims elsewhere
about mild dyslexia. Generally he can use whatever excuses he wants.
It amuses me to watch him squirm in his replies to you every bit as
much as it does for me to watch any self-righteous putz make a fool of
himself after saying so many times that he was done with the subject.
stew dean
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fd2ivcqe5ae97mo0...@4ax.com>...
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:57:15 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3ml0ivs5debvg5605...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rc1thvctov6get3qp...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > > > So what I post here has no effect on anyone?
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> > > >
> > > > That seems like a pretty non-sequitur question.
> > >
> > > Exactly. So was yours. I never said your posts had no effect, just not
> > > the effect you hoped.
> >
> > What makes you think that?
>
> Telling Skippy what effect you expect to have, or making a suggestion
> elsewhere, has no effect on him. Once he decides your intent, that's
> it. It doesn't matter if YOU said something entirely different.
Skippy, state your intent then.
> Skippy rails at us becuase there's no point in trying to convince Ed
> of anything, of trying to "reason with" Ed or of trying to get Ed to
> admit anything.
There is a point - it's just futile the way you attempt to do it.
> I've said enough times that none of these things are my goals, but
> that doesn't seem to make any difference.
I know - but then you say 'we've got Ed on the rails' which
contradicts that.
> A couple of weeks ago, I think, I told Skippy once and for all that
> he's a liar and not worthy of the constant corrections for his errors
> and misrepresentations.
Yeah - it was just a random insult - you never really said why I was a
liar. Currently I group that comment under slander.
For the record I have no reason to lie and choose not to. Nor am I
dishonst with myself as you are. If you can't tell yourself the truth
then how can you tell others?
> He has yet to get ANYTHING right in this
> affair so far. When his errors are exposed, they are ignored
> completely or are declared "unrelated facts" or some such nonsense.
I'm sorry - must have missed them. So far you've been evasive,
insulting and generaly well off target.
I suggest you don't post to Ed, you accuse me of telling you. You
claim I'm anti-american you claim I'm a liar and you claim many things
you are NOT doing.
But what are you doing David, huh? What is your true intent? Your past
posts indicate you have a strong desire to 'win' - what ever that is.
Other than that even reading between the lines you have no valid
reason for posting to Ed.
> Actually, I'm enjoying this ruckus he's creating while pretending that
> his goal is too REDUCE the "noise" in the group. The facts are much
> less altruistic. Skippy has an incredible ego.
Skippy, yours is by and far more incredible than mine. I happily admit
my mistakes, make retractions, recognise good points and am totaly
honest about my intentions.
I want you Skippy, to stop replying to Ed because if you don't there
will never be any chance that Ed will reduce the amounts of posts or
possibly decide that some of the things he knows arnt exactly right.
Why? I can explain again if you want Skippy.
> Ah, it's nice to have another net loon.
Sorry I declined the job as I don't match the job description.
To be a loon you have to be deluded, a hot head and in some way beyond
hope. I don't have a self promoting sig file (kinda knocks you
previous accusation on the head that one) I don't start posts with the
intent to insult and stur up bad feelings (you've got the jump on me
there) and I don't have 'if in doubt, insult them' as my moto (again,
spoils to you).
So perhaps you'd like to explain why I am a net loon and Ed is not?
Sorry, can't see the logic there I'm afraid.
So, once again, why do you respond to Ed? Take your time (I beleive
you have quite a lot of that judging by the frequency of your posts).
Stew Dean
stew dean
Claiming victory on no grounds - that's definitly a net loon quality.
My view is you're both trying to get Ed to admit he's wrong. Your
posts have that direct intent even if you deny they do, otherwise why
would you post? I've stated that several times Skippy.
Over to you.
> > > Meanwhile there's all this quite funny Ebay stuff happening - no idea
> > > where this one is going to go but I think it'll just fizzle out.
> >
> > We'll see.
>
> We should give this one to Skippy. He's right; but it's nothing that
> those more experienced than he could have predicted. The fact is that
> I fully expected Ed to do what he did; and I fully expect that the
> items won't sell, that he will not attempt it again, and that he will
> then be able to counter any claims that he WOULD have tried to sell
> his "bones" on eBay if it hadn't been for the negative press he gets.
Okay - intent understood. This is about Ed.
> > > > > Guess that's the problem with being occasionaly subtle (or wishy washy
> > > > > as Skippy Sienkiewicz would describe it).
> > > >
> > > > Or it may be a cultural difference.
> > >
> > > Yep - could well be.
>
> The differences are due to culture, experience, knowledge and the
> ability to investigate and appropriate predict behavior in certain
> instances. Skippy has none of that.
Be careful of those unfounded acusations. I live in London, have a
degree involving psychology and my job involves investigating and
predicting the actions of people and building appropiate solutions. No
I'm not joking, people pay me for this. One of my last jobs was on a
project for a very large software based company starting with M.
I hope you don't claim to be a good judge of character as, like AJ,
you don't have a good track record of guessing who you're talking to.
> He obviously can't even follow
> what it meant to be called "wishy-washy" and has made claims elsewhere
> about mild dyslexia.
Wishy-washy is not being dogmatic from what I can see, of admiting to
when you make mistakes and being self aware of you motivations. I call
that being non arrogant.
The mild dyslexia is very apparant from my posts.
> Generally he can use whatever excuses he wants.
Not an excuse. It's an explaination of why my spelling is sometimes
off. Or maybe you think dyslexia is not real and it's just people
being lazy? Well it is possible to overcome but it would require spell
checking everything (not sure how you would do that in google).
> It amuses me to watch him squirm in his replies to you every bit as
> much as it does for me to watch any self-righteous putz make a fool of
> himself after saying so many times that he was done with the subject.
I answer questions. I stand by my answers. I don't make unfounded
accusations like you. Is there nothing too low what you won't attempt
to have a go at it?
You are deeply deluded David. Looks like somehow I've hit upon a deep
flaw in your character to receive this much attention and self
contradicting vitriol.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> Ed is on auto-pilot most of the time. He posts and reposts the same
> things and it is my thinking that responding is a good thing.
>
> But he is obviously reading the group and we are seeing the results of
> that. Ed will never admit anything, he can't be publicly reasoned
> with on these matters and he can never be publicly convinced of
> anything (and all of these things are interrelated, anyway).
Yep.
> What he CAN see is that Usenet is not his own personal sounding board
> any longer.
Nope. He will carry on posting. There will always be people responding
to Ed and always has been so nothing has changed.
> Most of the more scientifically astute gave up on Ed long ago. That's
> all right because the professional opinions are on record; and Ed
> doesn't care about them anyway, because they are part of the
> "scientific establishment."
And yourself - he goes as far as to say you're a signed up member.
> Regardless of Ed's claims, he knows that the detailed responses that
> he is getting these days come mostly from the laypeople - the people
> he is trying to convince.
And from you who is in the pay of the scientific establishment (yes I
know you're not but he doesnt consider you a lay person).
> As we have seen, Ed will eventually realize that he has to come up
> with something new - some new "evidence" that will help him make his
> case.
You mean like the letters?
>
> So, as I also figured, he posted specimens for sale. It was like
> shooting fish in a barrel; and when someone suggested that he lower
> his opening bid, Ed thumbed wanted to appear to thumb his nose and
> RAISED the price by a factor of 10.
I replied to your post about Ed putting up stuff on Ebay with...
"The amount of posts he makes and the types of posts answer the
question. He is not scamming - he believes he has honest to god finds.
The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
But if someone does pay 1000 dollars for his bit of concretion then he
makes some money out of us trying to prove him wrong.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.0307...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > Actually, I'm enjoying this ruckus he's creating while pretending that
> > his goal is too REDUCE the "noise" in the group. The facts are much
> > less altruistic. Skippy has an incredible ego.
>
> Skippy, yours is by and far more incredible than mine. I happily admit
> my mistakes, make retractions, recognise good points and am totaly
> honest about my intentions.
You mean like you were at the start of the "Ed Conrad is right!" thread?
> I want you Skippy, to stop replying to Ed because if you don't there
> will never be any chance that Ed will reduce the amounts of posts or
> possibly decide that some of the things he knows arnt exactly right.
Is that the only possible motivation for posting?
[snip the rest]
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Ed is on auto-pilot most of the time. He posts and reposts the same
> > things and it is my thinking that responding is a good thing.
> >
> > But he is obviously reading the group and we are seeing the results of
> > that. Ed will never admit anything, he can't be publicly reasoned
> > with on these matters and he can never be publicly convinced of
> > anything (and all of these things are interrelated, anyway).
>
> Yep.
>
> > What he CAN see is that Usenet is not his own personal sounding board
> > any longer.
>
> Nope. He will carry on posting. There will always be people responding
> to Ed and always has been so nothing has changed.
I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
Ed as David and myself.
> > Most of the more scientifically astute gave up on Ed long ago. That's
> > all right because the professional opinions are on record; and Ed
> > doesn't care about them anyway, because they are part of the
> > "scientific establishment."
>
> And yourself - he goes as far as to say you're a signed up member.
>
> > Regardless of Ed's claims, he knows that the detailed responses that
> > he is getting these days come mostly from the laypeople - the people
> > he is trying to convince.
>
> And from you who is in the pay of the scientific establishment (yes I
> know you're not but he doesnt consider you a lay person).
>
> > As we have seen, Ed will eventually realize that he has to come up
> > with something new - some new "evidence" that will help him make his
> > case.
>
> You mean like the letters?
>
> >
> > So, as I also figured, he posted specimens for sale. It was like
> > shooting fish in a barrel; and when someone suggested that he lower
> > his opening bid, Ed thumbed wanted to appear to thumb his nose and
> > RAISED the price by a factor of 10.
>
> I replied to your post about Ed putting up stuff on Ebay with...
>
> "The amount of posts he makes and the types of posts answer the
> question. He is not scamming - he believes he has honest to god finds.
I doubt this.
> The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
>
> So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
But what if your logic is wrong?
David Sienkiewicz
Why am I not surprised? This is someone in serious need of a life.
"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:d6v4iv0267kodabss...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:00:11 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Ed is on auto-pilot most of the time. He posts and reposts the same
> > > things and it is my thinking that responding is a good thing.
> > >
> > > But he is obviously reading the group and we are seeing the results of
> > > that. Ed will never admit anything, he can't be publicly reasoned
> > > with on these matters and he can never be publicly convinced of
> > > anything (and all of these things are interrelated, anyway).
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > What he CAN see is that Usenet is not his own personal sounding board
> > > any longer.
> >
> > Nope. He will carry on posting. There will always be people responding
> > to Ed and always has been so nothing has changed.
>
> I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
> Ed as David and myself.
This is certainly true. I pointed this out specifically a couple of
weeks back and Skippy, as usual, had nothing to say in rebuttal.
It is also of note that no one is claiming that Ed will ever stop
posting. Skippy once again misinterprets.
> > > Most of the more scientifically astute gave up on Ed long ago. That's
> > > all right because the professional opinions are on record; and Ed
> > > doesn't care about them anyway, because they are part of the
> > > "scientific establishment."
> >
> > And yourself - he goes as far as to say you're a signed up member.
> >
> > > Regardless of Ed's claims, he knows that the detailed responses that
> > > he is getting these days come mostly from the laypeople - the people
> > > he is trying to convince.
> >
> > And from you who is in the pay of the scientific establishment (yes I
> > know you're not but he doesnt consider you a lay person).
> >
> > > As we have seen, Ed will eventually realize that he has to come up
> > > with something new - some new "evidence" that will help him make his
> > > case.
> >
> > You mean like the letters?
> >
> > > So, as I also figured, he posted specimens for sale. It was like
> > > shooting fish in a barrel; and when someone suggested that he lower
> > > his opening bid, Ed thumbed wanted to appear to thumb his nose and
> > > RAISED the price by a factor of 10.
> >
> > I replied to your post about Ed putting up stuff on Ebay with...
> >
> > "The amount of posts he makes and the types of posts answer the
> > question. He is not scamming - he believes he has honest to god finds.
>
> I doubt this.
Sometimes it's hard to tell, but I lean some of it being a scam. Ed
certainly feels that he found SOMETHING some time ago; but there is
too much evidence to indicate that he knows that at least SOME of his
"fossils" are nothing more than rock. Specific examples are quite
readily apparent in the responses TO Ed on these matters and, given
Skippy's propensity for getting everything wrong and for his
continuing failure to follow what is going on in the group, there is
no point in explaining it AGAIN to him. He doesn't care. Facts are
of no consequence to a net-nazi-wannabe like Skippy.
> > The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> > making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> > that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
> >
> > So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> > off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
>
> But what if your logic is wrong?
THAT was LOGIC?
Skippy's using LOGIC?
That would be a change of pace. I might even start reading his drivel
again directly if I had any indication that Skippy's delusions of
adequacy were of any merit.
But Skippy has yet to use logic. Shucks, that's what makes him so
endearing as a net loon.
gen2rev
(David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
[big snip]
David, could you send me an e-mail please? I have a relatively off-topic
question to ask.
stew dean
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:00:11 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Ed is on auto-pilot most of the time. He posts and reposts the same
> > > things and it is my thinking that responding is a good thing.
> > >
> > > But he is obviously reading the group and we are seeing the results of
> > > that. Ed will never admit anything, he can't be publicly reasoned
> > > with on these matters and he can never be publicly convinced of
> > > anything (and all of these things are interrelated, anyway).
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > What he CAN see is that Usenet is not his own personal sounding board
> > > any longer.
> >
> > Nope. He will carry on posting. There will always be people responding
> > to Ed and always has been so nothing has changed.
>
> I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
> Ed as David and myself.
If you feel I am mistaken then I'm honestly interested to find out why
you think so. The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > > Most of the more scientifically astute gave up on Ed long ago. That's
> > > all right because the professional opinions are on record; and Ed
> > > doesn't care about them anyway, because they are part of the
> > > "scientific establishment."
> >
> > And yourself - he goes as far as to say you're a signed up member.
> >
> > > Regardless of Ed's claims, he knows that the detailed responses that
> > > he is getting these days come mostly from the laypeople - the people
> > > he is trying to convince.
> >
> > And from you who is in the pay of the scientific establishment (yes I
> > know you're not but he doesnt consider you a lay person).
> >
> > > As we have seen, Ed will eventually realize that he has to come up
> > > with something new - some new "evidence" that will help him make his
> > > case.
> >
> > You mean like the letters?
Lack of answer noted.
> >
> > >
> > > So, as I also figured, he posted specimens for sale. It was like
> > > shooting fish in a barrel; and when someone suggested that he lower
> > > his opening bid, Ed thumbed wanted to appear to thumb his nose and
> > > RAISED the price by a factor of 10.
> >
> > I replied to your post about Ed putting up stuff on Ebay with...
> >
> > "The amount of posts he makes and the types of posts answer the
> > question. He is not scamming - he believes he has honest to god finds.
>
> I doubt this.
Why do you doubt this?
>
> > The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> > making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> > that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
> >
> > So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> > off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
>
> But what if your logic is wrong?
Urm, well then, that would mean I would be wrong.
So in this post you have said about zero other than 'I know more than
you' - but you don't appear to want to qualify that in any way.
I don't think either you or David are being honest with yourselves -
and if you can't be honest with yourselves the chances of getting a
straight answer out of either of you is about zero.
Let me restate my question that both of you keep on avoiding.
Why are you replying to Ed?
David keeps on claiming hes explained but this appears another example
of avoiding the question.
Stew Dean
stew dean
With Davids post I'm going to snip all the general high school insults
and see what we've got left.
> > > Nope. He will carry on posting. There will always be people responding
> > > to Ed and always has been so nothing has changed.
> >
> > I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
> > Ed as David and myself.
>
> This is certainly true. I pointed this out specifically a couple of
> weeks back and Skippy, as usual, had nothing to say in rebuttal.
You did? I think you better repeat it as I missed it.
Your above passage just sounds arrogant to me. It reminds me of
creationists stating phds etc like it's going to magically transform
their arguements into some kind of credibility.
> It is also of note that no one is claiming that Ed will ever stop
> posting. Skippy once again misinterprets.
Okay - so Ed keeps on post. What is the difference?
"What he CAN see is that Usenet is not his own personal sounding board
any longer."
Nope - you'll have to explain this. Ed posts, you respond, Ed keeps on
posting and now does other stuff as well as the usual stuff like post
to eBay.
Well that sure showed him. Forgive me if I consider your statements
devoid of any objective evidence. Less hot air please guys and more
facts.
> > > I replied to your post about Ed putting up stuff on Ebay with...
> > >
> > > "The amount of posts he makes and the types of posts answer the
> > > question. He is not scamming - he believes he has honest to god finds.
> >
> > I doubt this.
>
> Sometimes it's hard to tell, but I lean some of it being a scam. Ed
> certainly feels that he found SOMETHING some time ago; but there is
> too much evidence to indicate that he knows that at least SOME of his
> "fossils" are nothing more than rock. Specific examples are quite
> readily apparent in the responses TO Ed on these matters
Responses to Ed? Don't you mean from Ed. Replies to Ed are not
evidence for anything.
> and, given
> Skippy's propensity for getting everything wrong..
yadda yadda.
Oh, I get called a net-nazi. Add that one to the list.
David why don't you make a list of insults I throw at you and compare
yours to mine. You'll notice your list is very long whilst mine has a
few moron and idiots on it but not much else. Net loon, liar,
anti-american, fat and of course the enigmatic skippy are on yours.
And you wonder why I don't have a lot of respect for you with behavour
like this. You're on a par with AJ in this respect.
> > > The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> > > making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> > > that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
> > >
> > > So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> > > off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
> >
> > But what if your logic is wrong?
>
> THAT was LOGIC?
Yep - want me to explain it again? Remember the whole mad or bad
thing?
If ed is really a fraud then there needs to be some kind of reasoning
behind why he would say something he knows is not true, otherwise why
do it?
Now the obvious argument is he's in it for the money - the reason
behind many frauds. So if he can be shown to be making large amounts
of money off his finds then there is a clear motivation for fraud.
Stop me if I'm going too fast for you David.
So what other options are available? He could be profiting in some
indirect way - maybe he gets some kind of benefit if he is publically
seen to be a loon. You don't think he's a loon (but think I, oddly,
am).
He could just be doing it as a joke - but it's gone on far too long or
that arguement to be credible.
So that's the bad stuff. What about the mad. By mad I mean that he
holds a view counter to the majority that many see as non rational. As
I've stated before I'm sure he's not a danger to those around him, I
personaly would never wish him get run over by a bus like you David.
It is possible that he is telling small lies in order to support his
finds - but he would consider that justified as he feels he has a
greater truth. Man is as old a coal.
His ebay posting could be, by the logic above, an act to show he
truely beleives in his finds. Regardless of wether Ed's finds are
bought or not bought his views are supported.
And that's about it. Sum effect on Ed changing his mind - zilch. But
that is not your intention is it? You intention is to, what, not let
others think he might have a point? Even you wouldnt be that arrogant.
Is it to make Ed even more troubled than he is? Sounds fairly shallow.
Is it to show Ed up as the liar and fraud that he is? Again that's
insulting the audience.
At the moment my goal is to understand why you are both bothering to
reply to Ed. My current thoughts arnt that favourable towards you as
you may guess and I would like to be proved wrong.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<d6v4iv0267kodabss...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:00:11 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > Ed is on auto-pilot most of the time. He posts and reposts the same
> > > > things and it is my thinking that responding is a good thing.
> > > >
> > > > But he is obviously reading the group and we are seeing the results of
> > > > that. Ed will never admit anything, he can't be publicly reasoned
> > > > with on these matters and he can never be publicly convinced of
> > > > anything (and all of these things are interrelated, anyway).
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > > What he CAN see is that Usenet is not his own personal sounding board
> > > > any longer.
> > >
> > > Nope. He will carry on posting. There will always be people responding
> > > to Ed and always has been so nothing has changed.
> >
> > I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
> > Ed as David and myself.
>
> If you feel I am mistaken then I'm honestly interested to find out why
> you think so.
I'm sure other people *will* respond to Ed. But I could counter that
with the claim that in the next election, other people will vote for the
candidate you favor, so why bother voting?
> The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> some kind or reasoning behind it.
I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> > > > Most of the more scientifically astute gave up on Ed long ago. That's
> > > > all right because the professional opinions are on record; and Ed
> > > > doesn't care about them anyway, because they are part of the
> > > > "scientific establishment."
> > >
> > > And yourself - he goes as far as to say you're a signed up member.
> > >
> > > > Regardless of Ed's claims, he knows that the detailed responses that
> > > > he is getting these days come mostly from the laypeople - the people
> > > > he is trying to convince.
> > >
> > > And from you who is in the pay of the scientific establishment (yes I
> > > know you're not but he doesnt consider you a lay person).
> > >
> > > > As we have seen, Ed will eventually realize that he has to come up
> > > > with something new - some new "evidence" that will help him make his
> > > > case.
> > >
> > > You mean like the letters?
>
> Lack of answer noted.
I wasn't aware you were asking *me* a question here. I thought you were
asking David, considering that the question was in reply to one of his
statements.
> > > > So, as I also figured, he posted specimens for sale. It was like
> > > > shooting fish in a barrel; and when someone suggested that he lower
> > > > his opening bid, Ed thumbed wanted to appear to thumb his nose and
> > > > RAISED the price by a factor of 10.
> > >
> > > I replied to your post about Ed putting up stuff on Ebay with...
> > >
> > > "The amount of posts he makes and the types of posts answer the
> > > question. He is not scamming - he believes he has honest to god finds.
> >
> > I doubt this.
>
> Why do you doubt this?
Why does he feel the need to lie about them? Why does he feel the need
to state on eBay that:
All sorts of state-of-the art scientific testing have been done
on similiar specimens, all with favorable results.
when everyone on talk.origins *knows* that this isn't true? Why does he
lie about the beliefs of Hooton? Why does he lie about Krogman's
"arachnidological" expertise? If he believes that he has honest-to-God
finds, then why does he feel the need to lie?
> > > The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> > > making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> > > that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
> > >
> > > So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> > > off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
> >
> > But what if your logic is wrong?
>
> Urm, well then, that would mean I would be wrong.
But what makes you think that your logic is right?
> So in this post you have said about zero other than 'I know more than
> you' - but you don't appear to want to qualify that in any way.
>
> I don't think either you or David are being honest with yourselves -
> and if you can't be honest with yourselves the chances of getting a
> straight answer out of either of you is about zero.
And what makes you think that I'm not being honest with myself?
> Let me restate my question that both of you keep on avoiding.
>
> Why are you replying to Ed?
>
> David keeps on claiming hes explained but this appears another example
> of avoiding the question.
You know, you've got a lot of gall accusing David and I of avoiding the
question when you avoid questions yourself.
In news:sp33iv4410hunpjvi...@4ax.com I asked you "What
makes you think that I'm not having the effect I hoped for?", yet I
haven't seen a response to that.
And in news:muu4iv8nkff26i15t...@4ax.com I asked you if
you were being totally honest about your intentions in the "Ed Conrad is
right!" thread, but I haven't seen a response to that one either.
But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
about a flagrant as they come.
This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be confronted?
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:33:59 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<d6v4iv0267kodabss...@4ax.com>...
> > > I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
> > > Ed as David and myself.
> >
> > If you feel I am mistaken then I'm honestly interested to find out why
> > you think so.
>
> I'm sure other people *will* respond to Ed. But I could counter that
> with the claim that in the next election, other people will vote for the
> candidate you favor, so why bother voting?
The voting example is not revelvent. Why? Because in an election each
vote is counted. In this example it not a matter of numbers, if a
thousand people replied to Ed it would not make a difference.
> > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > some kind or reasoning behind it.
>
> I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
> Why does he feel the need to lie about them? Why does he feel the need
> to state on eBay that:
>
> All sorts of state-of-the art scientific testing have been done
> on similiar specimens, all with favorable results.
>
> when everyone on talk.origins *knows* that this isn't true?
Apparantly everyone doesnt know this isnt true. That's the point
really. Does Ed believe what he says, the current evidence leads to
yes, he does. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, that can
almost be accepted as a given.
> Why does he
> lie about the beliefs of Hooton? Why does he lie about Krogman's
> "arachnidological" expertise? If he believes that he has honest-to-God
> finds, then why does he feel the need to lie?
Because he doesnt believe he is.
>
>
> > > > The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> > > > making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> > > > that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
> > > >
> > > > So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> > > > off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
> > >
> > > But what if your logic is wrong?
> >
> > Urm, well then, that would mean I would be wrong.
>
> But what makes you think that your logic is right?
Because my prediction matches the evidence. Because of the recent
actions of Ed. Because you havnt come up with a viable alternative.
You appear to think Ed knows he's not telling the truth. He feels that
he is telling the truth and any slight exageration of the 'truth' is
justified.
>
> > So in this post you have said about zero other than 'I know more than
> > you' - but you don't appear to want to qualify that in any way.
> >
> > I don't think either you or David are being honest with yourselves -
> > and if you can't be honest with yourselves the chances of getting a
> > straight answer out of either of you is about zero.
>
> And what makes you think that I'm not being honest with myself?
Because you obscure your reason for posting. You won't answer that
question directly.
>
>
> > Let me restate my question that both of you keep on avoiding.
> >
> > Why are you replying to Ed?
> >
> > David keeps on claiming hes explained but this appears another example
> > of avoiding the question.
>
> You know, you've got a lot of gall accusing David and I of avoiding the
> question when you avoid questions yourself.
Looks like you're avoiding the question again.
>
> In news:sp33iv4410hunpjvi...@4ax.com I asked you "What
> makes you think that I'm not having the effect I hoped for?", yet I
> haven't seen a response to that.
I did answer that. My responce was I think you think you can somehow
'win' when it comes to Ed. By that I think you want some kind of
statement of error from Ed.
> And in news:muu4iv8nkff26i15t...@4ax.com I asked you if
> you were being totally honest about your intentions in the "Ed Conrad is
> right!" thread, but I haven't seen a response to that one either.
I went into that in great detail. My intentions where honest in that
at the time I wanted to get Ed's point of view. Accepting Ed's point
of view as a given was the step I felt was needed to bypass all the
stuff about his finds.
> But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> about a flagrant as they come.
But you're not engaging him. Everyone is pointing out his mistakes and
Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar.
Thanks for a clear declaration of the reasons you're posting. Can you
not see the mistakes you've made. It's like when David calls me a
liar. I am in no way a liar but I disagree with David's point of view
because he is deluded. And so so Ed is Deluded when it comes to his
find.
In short if two people say different things it does not mean one of
them is deliberatly not telling the truth as they see it.
> This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be confronted?
But they have many times over - what you're doing is pointless. If you
didnt post others would do exactly the same thing. Go and do something
more productive. I don't think you understand that no matter how good
your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
you will somehow 'win'.
Stew Dean
Ken Rode
"stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.03072...@posting.google.com...
The funny thing, though, is that although Ed has been criticised about many
of these issues (Hooton, Krogman, American Medial Labs, etc.), I don't
recall that he has actually addressed *any* of these issues, except to
repeat what he has said previously. We know that he reads this group. What,
then, prevents Ed from responding to these sorts of comments? I obviously
can't say for sure, but it could just be that these criticisms are just
facts for which Ed has no response. That is, he has no defense and he knows
that he has no defense.
I was once of the opinion that Ed believed his finds to be what he claims
they are. I'm not so sure any longer.
I believe that you had the intentions that you indicate, Stew. The problem
is that Ed isn't particularly stupid. You started out with "Don't respond to
him - he's a quack" and segued directly into "Oh my god, he's absolutely
right!" And this reversal was apparently achieved in spite of Ed having no
support within the group, and not being able to defend his position. Had I
been Ed [shivers uncontrollably], I would have ignored you. I will defend
your right to engage anyone in this group, because I happen to think that
communication is always a good thing even if it is difficult to achieve.
With some people, though, if you want to achieve that communication, you
have to be less transparent in your attempts. It might be possible to
actually engage Ed in conversation, but calling him "right" only raises his
suspicions.
When I first encountered Ed, I had been lurking for some number of months. I
didn't know his posting history at that point, but what I believed that I
saw was a person locked into self-victimization. I did what I could to
suggest a way for him to escape from that. For my trouble, I got one
coherent paragraph from him, and then everything went exactly back to where
it started from.
David and gen2rev have raised an interesting possibility. My interpretation
of it (and please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong) is that Ed believes that
his finds comprise a "gold mine." The problem is that no one else believes
that his finds are "gold." If he can convince people that his finds are what
he says they are, he can sell them for a substantial amount of money (I
would expect that genuine human fossils from the Carboniferous would be
worth multi-millions of dollars). If he can't convince anyone ... no money.
Now put yourself in Ed's place. How far would you go to convince people of
your claim, and would you really need to believe your own claim in the first
place? Makes you think, hmm?
> > But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> > to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> > about a flagrant as they come.
>
> But you're not engaging him. Everyone is pointing out his mistakes and
> Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar.
>
> Thanks for a clear declaration of the reasons you're posting. Can you
> not see the mistakes you've made. It's like when David calls me a
> liar. I am in no way a liar but I disagree with David's point of view
> because he is deluded. And so so Ed is Deluded when it comes to his
> find.
>
> In short if two people say different things it does not mean one of
> them is deliberatly not telling the truth as they see it.
>
>
> > This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be confronted?
>
> But they have many times over - what you're doing is pointless. If you
> didnt post others would do exactly the same thing. Go and do something
> more productive. I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> you will somehow 'win'.
The fact of the matter is that net loons are sport, to some degree. I feel
that Ed, in spite of his entrenched position, is still reachable. Well,
perhaps not reachable, but it is at least possible to have short
conversations with him before everything devolves into the corruption of the
Scientific Establishment.
"Comrade", on the other hand, seems to be drug-addled and completely
unreachable. If ever there was a poster not worth responding to, it's
Comrade. Why, then, do you bother? You're not engaged in the sort of
activity that you've asked David and gen2rev to avoid, are you?
Like I said, net loons are sport. Engage them as you will, and for your own
reasons. And please, don't criticise others for doing the same.
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<i978ivoajaii9uik1...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:33:59 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<d6v4iv0267kodabss...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
> > > > Ed as David and myself.
> > >
> > > If you feel I am mistaken then I'm honestly interested to find out why
> > > you think so.
> >
> > I'm sure other people *will* respond to Ed. But I could counter that
> > with the claim that in the next election, other people will vote for the
> > candidate you favor, so why bother voting?
>
> The voting example is not revelvent. Why? Because in an election each
> vote is counted. In this example it not a matter of numbers, if a
> thousand people replied to Ed it would not make a difference.
Once again, you assume that you know what my purpose is. Isn't there the
possibility that you don't?
> > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> >
> > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
>
> My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
Why do you feel that?
Also, why did you make an unmarked snip here?
> > Why does he feel the need to lie about them? Why does he feel the need
> > to state on eBay that:
> >
> > All sorts of state-of-the art scientific testing have been done
> > on similiar specimens, all with favorable results.
> >
> > when everyone on talk.origins *knows* that this isn't true?
>
> Apparantly everyone doesnt know this isnt true. That's the point
> really. Does Ed believe what he says, the current evidence leads to
> yes, he does. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, that can
> almost be accepted as a given.
So, your opinions on a matter can almost be accepted as a given?
> > Why does he
> > lie about the beliefs of Hooton? Why does he lie about Krogman's
> > "arachnidological" expertise? If he believes that he has honest-to-God
> > finds, then why does he feel the need to lie?
>
> Because he doesnt believe he is.
So Ed feels that Hooton didn't believe in evolution? That Krogman was an
expert in non-human anatomy?
> > > > > The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> > > > > making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> > > > > that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
> > > > >
> > > > > So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> > > > > off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
> > > >
> > > > But what if your logic is wrong?
> > >
> > > Urm, well then, that would mean I would be wrong.
> >
> > But what makes you think that your logic is right?
>
> Because my prediction matches the evidence. Because of the recent
> actions of Ed. Because you havnt come up with a viable alternative.
> You appear to think Ed knows he's not telling the truth. He feels that
> he is telling the truth and any slight exageration of the 'truth' is
> justified.
Slight exaggeration? Are the American Medical Laboratory reports slight
exaggerations?
> > > So in this post you have said about zero other than 'I know more than
> > > you' - but you don't appear to want to qualify that in any way.
> > >
> > > I don't think either you or David are being honest with yourselves -
> > > and if you can't be honest with yourselves the chances of getting a
> > > straight answer out of either of you is about zero.
> >
> > And what makes you think that I'm not being honest with myself?
>
> Because you obscure your reason for posting. You won't answer that
> question directly.
Stew... "being honest with myself" does not equal "being honest with
you". You are not my psychiatrist, and I am under no obligation to
explain my motives to you. In other circumstances I might, but to be
honest, I don't trust you to keep them to yourself. You seem to have
this belief that you know that's best for me, and what's best for the
group, and I wouldn't put it past you to attempt to short circuit my
strategy.
> > > Let me restate my question that both of you keep on avoiding.
> > >
> > > Why are you replying to Ed?
> > >
> > > David keeps on claiming hes explained but this appears another example
> > > of avoiding the question.
> >
> > You know, you've got a lot of gall accusing David and I of avoiding the
> > question when you avoid questions yourself.
>
> Looks like you're avoiding the question again.
No, I'm just trying to level the playing field. There seems to be a
double standard in effect here.
> > In news:sp33iv4410hunpjvi...@4ax.com I asked you "What
> > makes you think that I'm not having the effect I hoped for?", yet I
> > haven't seen a response to that.
>
> I did answer that.
What's the message ID?
> My responce was I think you think you can somehow
> 'win' when it comes to Ed. By that I think you want some kind of
> statement of error from Ed.
No, you're wrong about this. Completely and utterly wrong.
> > And in news:muu4iv8nkff26i15t...@4ax.com I asked you if
> > you were being totally honest about your intentions in the "Ed Conrad is
> > right!" thread, but I haven't seen a response to that one either.
>
> I went into that in great detail. My intentions where honest in that
> at the time I wanted to get Ed's point of view. Accepting Ed's point
> of view as a given was the step I felt was needed to bypass all the
> stuff about his finds.
So, when you wrote "okay i'll accept Man is as Old as Coal" you actually
believed that there were humans running around in the Carboniferous?
> > But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> > to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> > about a flagrant as they come.
>
> But you're not engaging him.
Do you know the meaning of the word "engage"?
> Everyone is pointing out his mistakes and
> Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar.
Please note your use of the word "appear".
> Thanks for a clear declaration of the reasons you're posting. Can you
> not see the mistakes you've made. It's like when David calls me a
> liar. I am in no way a liar but I disagree with David's point of view
> because he is deluded. And so so Ed is Deluded when it comes to his
> find.
>
> In short if two people say different things it does not mean one of
> them is deliberatly not telling the truth as they see it.
Very true, but it also may mean that one of them *is* deliberately not
telling the truth as they see it. Surely you can admit that possibility.
> > This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be confronted?
>
> But they have many times over - what you're doing is pointless. If you
> didnt post others would do exactly the same thing. Go and do something
> more productive.
So, others are allowed to respond to Ed, but I'm not? You're allowed to
respond to Ed in moments of weakness, but I can't *ever* respond?
> I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> you will somehow 'win'.
I disagree. I'm very happy with the way things are going.
> Stew Dean
gen2rev
<kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> "stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2b68957a.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<i978ivoajaii9uik1...@4ax.com>...
[snip]
> > > Why does he
> > > lie about the beliefs of Hooton? Why does he lie about Krogman's
> > > "arachnidological" expertise? If he believes that he has honest-to-God
> > > finds, then why does he feel the need to lie?
> >
> > Because he doesnt believe he is.
>
> The funny thing, though, is that although Ed has been criticised about many
> of these issues (Hooton, Krogman, American Medial Labs, etc.), I don't
> recall that he has actually addressed *any* of these issues, except to
> repeat what he has said previously. We know that he reads this group. What,
> then, prevents Ed from responding to these sorts of comments? I obviously
> can't say for sure, but it could just be that these criticisms are just
> facts for which Ed has no response. That is, he has no defense and he knows
> that he has no defense.
This is my belief as well.
> I was once of the opinion that Ed believed his finds to be what he claims
> they are. I'm not so sure any longer.
I would tend to doubt that he believes they're the real thing, but I
could be wrong.
[snip]
Personally, I believe that it's not a monetary issue for Ed, but one of
self-esteem. That's why it's edconrad.com.
[snip]
> > > This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be confronted?
> >
> > But they have many times over - what you're doing is pointless. If you
> > didnt post others would do exactly the same thing. Go and do something
> > more productive. I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> > your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> > you will somehow 'win'.
>
> The fact of the matter is that net loons are sport, to some degree. I feel
> that Ed, in spite of his entrenched position, is still reachable. Well,
> perhaps not reachable, but it is at least possible to have short
> conversations with him before everything devolves into the corruption of the
> Scientific Establishment.
>
> "Comrade", on the other hand, seems to be drug-addled and completely
> unreachable. If ever there was a poster not worth responding to, it's
> Comrade. Why, then, do you bother? You're not engaged in the sort of
> activity that you've asked David and gen2rev to avoid, are you?
A good question.
> Like I said, net loons are sport. Engage them as you will, and for your own
> reasons. And please, don't criticise others for doing the same.
Hear, hear!
stew dean
> The funny thing, though, is that although Ed has been criticised about many
> of these issues (Hooton, Krogman, American Medial Labs, etc.), I don't
> recall that he has actually addressed *any* of these issues, except to
> repeat what he has said previously. We know that he reads this group. What,
> then, prevents Ed from responding to these sorts of comments? I obviously
> can't say for sure, but it could just be that these criticisms are just
> facts for which Ed has no response. That is, he has no defense and he knows
> that he has no defense.
>
> I was once of the opinion that Ed believed his finds to be what he claims
> they are. I'm not so sure any longer.
My theory is he just can't admit he is wrong - his ego won't allow it.
Maybe he does know he's wrong but cannot get past that.
> > I went into that in great detail. My intentions where honest in that
> > at the time I wanted to get Ed's point of view. Accepting Ed's point
> > of view as a given was the step I felt was needed to bypass all the
> > stuff about his finds.
>
> I believe that you had the intentions that you indicate, Stew. The problem
> is that Ed isn't particularly stupid. You started out with "Don't respond to
> him - he's a quack" and segued directly into "Oh my god, he's absolutely
> right!" And this reversal was apparently achieved in spite of Ed having no
> support within the group, and not being able to defend his position. Had I
> been Ed [shivers uncontrollably], I would have ignored you.
Yep - I can see what you mean. If I'd approached it a new with a fake
name it might have worked but I'm too honest to use a fake name. The
idea might have worked but my execusion wasnt that good - and then
David came along and I spent more time defending myself against the
'evotees' than working on Ed to open up.
> I will defend
> your right to engage anyone in this group, because I happen to think that
> communication is always a good thing even if it is difficult to achieve.
> With some people, though, if you want to achieve that communication, you
> have to be less transparent in your attempts. It might be possible to
> actually engage Ed in conversation, but calling him "right" only raises his
> suspicions.
I was quite amazed it wasnt transparant to some. I still stand by
wanting Ed to explain some of the stuff behind his ideas just to see
if there's any thing beyond the finds. I know the history of the finds
and how he came to the point he is now and I suspect there's not much
more to it than that really.
<small snip>
> David and gen2rev have raised an interesting possibility. My interpretation
> of it (and please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong) is that Ed believes that
> his finds comprise a "gold mine." The problem is that no one else believes
> that his finds are "gold."
I don't think Ed thinks this. His ebay activity is more a confirmation
of his validity than it is a profit making activity, but that's just
my view. But it does match up with the price increase as well.
> If he can convince people that his finds are what
> he says they are, he can sell them for a substantial amount of money (I
> would expect that genuine human fossils from the Carboniferous would be
> worth multi-millions of dollars). If he can't convince anyone ... no money.
> Now put yourself in Ed's place. How far would you go to convince people of
> your claim, and would you really need to believe your own claim in the first
> place? Makes you think, hmm?
But nobody buys his story, nobody ever has (Ed keeps his hope alive by
wringing out all he can from the few words of someone he feels is an
authorative figure).
So the above only makes sense if he thinks they are what they are.
There are much easier ways to make money than the extreme lengths Ed
has gone to. Putting myself in Ed's place - I can't see it. That much
work to attempt to make 1000 dollars? No it just doesnt add up. He
would also know that he would be liable for fraud if he sold something
for example.
>
> > > But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> > > to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> > > about a flagrant as they come.
> >
> > But you're not engaging him. Everyone is pointing out his mistakes and
> > Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar.
> >
> > Thanks for a clear declaration of the reasons you're posting. Can you
> > not see the mistakes you've made. It's like when David calls me a
> > liar. I am in no way a liar but I disagree with David's point of view
> > because he is deluded. And so so Ed is Deluded when it comes to his
> > find.
> >
> > In short if two people say different things it does not mean one of
> > them is deliberatly not telling the truth as they see it.
> >
> >
> > > This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be confronted?
> >
> > But they have many times over - what you're doing is pointless. If you
> > didnt post others would do exactly the same thing. Go and do something
> > more productive. I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> > your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> > you will somehow 'win'.
>
> The fact of the matter is that net loons are sport, to some degree. I feel
> that Ed, in spite of his entrenched position, is still reachable. Well,
> perhaps not reachable, but it is at least possible to have short
> conversations with him before everything devolves into the corruption of the
> Scientific Establishment.
That I agree with. He has and will in the future responce in a way
that is 'normal' - but as soon as someone wades in, like David, up
goes the defense again. Which is exactly why I went spare with David
that other time.
>
> "Comrade", on the other hand, seems to be drug-addled and completely
> unreachable.
Comrade replies - he does respond when you post, in a weird way but in
a way that is at least interesting.
> If ever there was a poster not worth responding to, it's
> Comrade. Why, then, do you bother? You're not engaged in the sort of
> activity that you've asked David and gen2rev to avoid, are you?
Possibly. I'm not going to say my actions are justified or that i have
comrade on the ropes. I currently am having fun exploring AJ's mind
set. Ed is a very known entity.
> Like I said, net loons are sport. Engage them as you will, and for your own
> reasons. And please, don't criticise others for doing the same.
Really David is the other net loon I engage with - his posts to me
have been on par with AJs in terms of a weird mental make up - his use
of abuse instead of reason -his need to be dominant and 'win'.
Elsewhere he posts with great insight yet his switches his brains off
when he replies to me - I find it intreging.
No doubt I'll probably get bored of DAvid and AJ soon. Yep it is a
sport but sometimes it stops becoming fun - as it has in the case of
Ed, and starts to become as much sport as someone beating up on a
homeless guy.
Ed is beyond fighting and I think it's time to leave him alone.
Stew Dean
Ken Rode
"stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.03072...@posting.google.com...
How do you reconcile being "too honest to use a fake name" with attempting
to get Ed to open up by telling him that he's right when you yourself don't
believe that? Shades of grey, Stew, shades of grey ...
> > I will defend
> > your right to engage anyone in this group, because I happen to think
that
> > communication is always a good thing even if it is difficult to achieve.
> > With some people, though, if you want to achieve that communication, you
> > have to be less transparent in your attempts. It might be possible to
> > actually engage Ed in conversation, but calling him "right" only raises
his
> > suspicions.
>
> I was quite amazed it wasnt transparant to some. I still stand by
> wanting Ed to explain some of the stuff behind his ideas just to see
> if there's any thing beyond the finds. I know the history of the finds
> and how he came to the point he is now and I suspect there's not much
> more to it than that really.
If you really, genuinely, honestly want to know, ask him. Ed generally
responds well when he's treated with some respect. You might ask if you can
take the conversation offline to avoid the sort of noise that you would
otherwise get here. Can't hurt to try ... but be honest about it. None of
this "you're right" stuff, whether you're using a sock puppet or not.
<snip>
> > > > This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be
confronted?
> > >
> > > But they have many times over - what you're doing is pointless. If you
> > > didnt post others would do exactly the same thing. Go and do something
> > > more productive. I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> > > your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> > > you will somehow 'win'.
> >
> > The fact of the matter is that net loons are sport, to some degree. I
feel
> > that Ed, in spite of his entrenched position, is still reachable. Well,
> > perhaps not reachable, but it is at least possible to have short
> > conversations with him before everything devolves into the corruption of
the
> > Scientific Establishment.
>
> That I agree with. He has and will in the future responce in a way
> that is 'normal' - but as soon as someone wades in, like David, up
> goes the defense again. Which is exactly why I went spare with David
> that other time.
It's been my experience that Ed's defensed are usually not triggered by
someone else wading in. His defenses are rarely, if ever, down. It isn't
fair to criticise other people for Ed's problems.
> >
> > "Comrade", on the other hand, seems to be drug-addled and completely
> > unreachable.
>
> Comrade replies - he does respond when you post, in a weird way but in
> a way that is at least interesting.
You're obviously using some obscure definition of the word "interesting"
that I'm not familiar with. Comrade is an exercise in frustration. I've seen
people write coherent, intelligible posts to Comrade, who reacts by
selecting one insignificant sentence or phrase or word, and responding to
that, ignoring virtually the entire post. Interesting???
>
> > If ever there was a poster not worth responding to, it's
> > Comrade. Why, then, do you bother? You're not engaged in the sort of
> > activity that you've asked David and gen2rev to avoid, are you?
>
> Possibly. I'm not going to say my actions are justified or that i have
> comrade on the ropes. I currently am having fun exploring AJ's mind
> set. Ed is a very known entity.
>
> > Like I said, net loons are sport. Engage them as you will, and for your
own
> > reasons. And please, don't criticise others for doing the same.
>
> Really David is the other net loon I engage with - his posts to me
> have been on par with AJs in terms of a weird mental make up - his use
> of abuse instead of reason -his need to be dominant and 'win'.
> Elsewhere he posts with great insight yet his switches his brains off
> when he replies to me - I find it intreging.
I don't know how all that came about. Were I you, though, I'd ignore it.
That's the best course of action if you run into someone on Usenet who's
giving you grief. It's really easy to assume that you know something about
someone else that you've only been exposed to on Usenet, but the reality is
that you don't know him every bit as much as he doesn't know you.
<snip>
stew dean
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 07:13:56 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<i978ivoajaii9uik1...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:33:59 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<d6v4iv0267kodabss...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
> > > > > Ed as David and myself.
> > > >
> > > > If you feel I am mistaken then I'm honestly interested to find out why
> > > > you think so.
> > >
> > > I'm sure other people *will* respond to Ed. But I could counter that
> > > with the claim that in the next election, other people will vote for the
> > > candidate you favor, so why bother voting?
> >
> > The voting example is not revelvent. Why? Because in an election each
> > vote is counted. In this example it not a matter of numbers, if a
> > thousand people replied to Ed it would not make a difference.
>
> Once again, you assume that you know what my purpose is. Isn't there the
> possibility that you don't?
This is avoiding the issue. I gave an example of why I though you
where wrong on what you said, and not what you've not said.
In the issue of purpose you've already stated....
"But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him,
and
to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
about a flagrant as they come."
This is honest reason if not a very good one. The purpose stated above
is to prove Ed wrong or at least show him up as a liar.
The issue remains - is he a liar?
>
>
> > > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > >
> > > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> >
> > My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
>
> Why do you feel that?
Because you don't appear to have reached a meaningfull conclussion.
Ken's post makes more sense and he makes some valid points.
So why do you think i'm wrong?
<unmarked comment snipped>
>
>
> > > Why does he feel the need to lie about them? Why does he feel the need
> > > to state on eBay that:
> > >
> > > All sorts of state-of-the art scientific testing have been done
> > > on similiar specimens, all with favorable results.
> > >
> > > when everyone on talk.origins *knows* that this isn't true?
> >
> > Apparantly everyone doesnt know this isnt true. That's the point
> > really. Does Ed believe what he says, the current evidence leads to
> > yes, he does. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, that can
> > almost be accepted as a given.
> So, your opinions on a matter can almost be accepted as a given?
That is a loaded question much like "Have you stopped beating your
wife?"
You are saying 'You think your opinions on a matter can almost be
accepted as a given'. The question syntax is largely redundant.
The answer to a loaded question is a standard negative. That is..
I do not think my opinion on any matter can almost be accepted as a
given. Mostly because unless I say what my opinion is then how can it
be a given. And by 'as a given' I understand 'can be assumed'.
>
> > > Why does he
> > > lie about the beliefs of Hooton? Why does he lie about Krogman's
> > > "arachnidological" expertise? If he believes that he has honest-to-God
> > > finds, then why does he feel the need to lie?
> >
> > Because he doesnt believe he is.
>
> So Ed feels that Hooton didn't believe in evolution? That Krogman was an
> expert in non-human anatomy?
Rev - you're attempting to use reason for a pshycological problem.
This is not a matter of facts. Like I said when he says something Ed
drives himself to believe it. So if he used those kind of arguments
(you
>
>
> > > > > > The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> > > > > > making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> > > > > > that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> > > > > > off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what if your logic is wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Urm, well then, that would mean I would be wrong.
> > >
> > > But what makes you think that your logic is right?
> >
> > Because my prediction matches the evidence. Because of the recent
> > actions of Ed. Because you havnt come up with a viable alternative.
> > You appear to think Ed knows he's not telling the truth. He feels that
> > he is telling the truth and any slight exageration of the 'truth' is
> > justified.
>
> Slight exaggeration? Are the American Medical Laboratory reports slight
> exaggerations?
From Ed's point of view yes. What we know is meaningless in this case.
>
>
> > > > So in this post you have said about zero other than 'I know more than
> > > > you' - but you don't appear to want to qualify that in any way.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think either you or David are being honest with yourselves -
> > > > and if you can't be honest with yourselves the chances of getting a
> > > > straight answer out of either of you is about zero.
> > >
> > > And what makes you think that I'm not being honest with myself?
> >
> > Because you obscure your reason for posting. You won't answer that
> > question directly.
>
> Stew... "being honest with myself" does not equal "being honest with
> you". You are not my psychiatrist, and I am under no obligation to
> explain my motives to you.
But you have.
> In other circumstances I might, but to be
> honest, I don't trust you to keep them to yourself.
So your stated purposes are different to your real ones?
> You seem to have
> this belief that you know that's best for me, and what's best for the
> group, and I wouldn't put it past you to attempt to short circuit my
> strategy.
You stategy appears to badger Ed till he gives in and expose him as a
liar. You've already assumed he is a liar.
What if you're wrong?
>
>
> > > > Let me restate my question that both of you keep on avoiding.
> > > >
> > > > Why are you replying to Ed?
> > > >
> > > > David keeps on claiming hes explained but this appears another example
> > > > of avoiding the question.
> > >
> > > You know, you've got a lot of gall accusing David and I of avoiding the
> > > question when you avoid questions yourself.
> >
> > Looks like you're avoiding the question again.
>
> No, I'm just trying to level the playing field. There seems to be a
> double standard in effect here.
Not at all - I've answered all your questions - you are avoiding mine.
>
> > > In news:sp33iv4410hunpjvi...@4ax.com I asked you "What
> > > makes you think that I'm not having the effect I hoped for?", yet I
> > > haven't seen a response to that.
> >
> > I did answer that.
>
> What's the message ID?
Dunno - can't be bothered to look.
>
>
> > My responce was I think you think you can somehow
> > 'win' when it comes to Ed. By that I think you want some kind of
> > statement of error from Ed.
>
> No, you're wrong about this. Completely and utterly wrong.
By your own statement I'm not. Now you've admited there is a stategy
you have in mind. I tried one but if failed and my current view is you
think Ed is a liar. My view is he doesnt think he is based upon the
amount of posts he sends to this group. I'm having to add your own
reasoning here as you are a great one for making unsupported
statements.
>
> > > And in news:muu4iv8nkff26i15t...@4ax.com I asked you if
> > > you were being totally honest about your intentions in the "Ed Conrad is
> > > right!" thread, but I haven't seen a response to that one either.
> >
> > I went into that in great detail. My intentions where honest in that
> > at the time I wanted to get Ed's point of view. Accepting Ed's point
> > of view as a given was the step I felt was needed to bypass all the
> > stuff about his finds.
>
> So, when you wrote "okay i'll accept Man is as Old as Coal" you actually
> believed that there were humans running around in the Carboniferous?
It's called looking at an alternative perspective. What I actually
believe is not important in this case.
>
> > > But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> > > to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> > > about a flagrant as they come.
> >
> > But you're not engaging him.
>
> Do you know the meaning of the word "engage"?
Yep.
>
> > Everyone is pointing out his mistakes and
> > Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar.
>
> Please note your use of the word "appear".
Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar. You have any evidence to
contradict this other than you think he is? The eBay stuff backs up my
theory - what about yours?
>
> > Thanks for a clear declaration of the reasons you're posting. Can you
> > not see the mistakes you've made. It's like when David calls me a
> > liar. I am in no way a liar but I disagree with David's point of view
> > because he is deluded. And so so Ed is Deluded when it comes to his
> > find.
> >
> > In short if two people say different things it does not mean one of
> > them is deliberatly not telling the truth as they see it.
>
> Very true, but it also may mean that one of them *is* deliberately not
> telling the truth as they see it.
Note your use of the word 'may'.
> Surely you can admit that possibility.
You mean consider - and yes it's been considered. At the moment no one
has made a valid case for Ed being 'bad' in that way.
> > > This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be confronted?
> >
> > But they have many times over - what you're doing is pointless. If you
> > didnt post others would do exactly the same thing. Go and do something
> > more productive.
>
> So, others are allowed to respond to Ed, but I'm not? You're allowed to
> respond to Ed in moments of weakness, but I can't *ever* respond?
It's probably better you didnt.
> > I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> > your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> > you will somehow 'win'.
>
> I disagree. I'm very happy with the way things are going.
You mean Ed ignoring you?
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<dn7aiv0oe7abg59b0...@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 07:13:56 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<i978ivoajaii9uik1...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:33:59 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<d6v4iv0267kodabss...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > > > > I very much doubt that other people will be as informed on the topic of
> > > > > > Ed as David and myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you feel I am mistaken then I'm honestly interested to find out why
> > > > > you think so.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure other people *will* respond to Ed. But I could counter that
> > > > with the claim that in the next election, other people will vote for the
> > > > candidate you favor, so why bother voting?
> > >
> > > The voting example is not revelvent. Why? Because in an election each
> > > vote is counted. In this example it not a matter of numbers, if a
> > > thousand people replied to Ed it would not make a difference.
> >
> > Once again, you assume that you know what my purpose is. Isn't there the
> > possibility that you don't?
>
> This is avoiding the issue. I gave an example of why I though you
> where wrong on what you said, and not what you've not said.
This isn't avoiding the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that the
motives you ascribe to me are incorrect. The fact that you can't figure
out my purpose is your problem, not mine. It's not "avoiding the issue"
when I'm trying to tell you that you don't *know* the issue.
> In the issue of purpose you've already stated....
>
> "But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> about a flagrant as they come."
>
> This is honest reason if not a very good one. The purpose stated above
> is to prove Ed wrong or at least show him up as a liar.
So, standing up for the truth isn't a very good idea?
> The issue remains - is he a liar?
I believe that he is.
> > > > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > > > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> > >
> > > My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
> >
> > Why do you feel that?
>
> Because you don't appear to have reached a meaningfull conclussion.
And how have you determined that?
> Ken's post makes more sense and he makes some valid points.
Aside from Ken's view of Ed's motives for selling his specimens on eBay,
I agree with everything he wrote.
> So why do you think i'm wrong?
Wrong about my knowledge of Ed? Because I'm far more familiar with the
information I've acquired than you are, because you don't know what
information I've come across. You don't know what research I've done.
> <unmarked comment snipped>
Why didn't you mark it in the first place?
> > > > Why does he feel the need to lie about them? Why does he feel the need
> > > > to state on eBay that:
> > > >
> > > > All sorts of state-of-the art scientific testing have been done
> > > > on similiar specimens, all with favorable results.
> > > >
> > > > when everyone on talk.origins *knows* that this isn't true?
> > >
> > > Apparantly everyone doesnt know this isnt true. That's the point
> > > really. Does Ed believe what he says, the current evidence leads to
> > > yes, he does. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, that can
> > > almost be accepted as a given.
>
> > So, your opinions on a matter can almost be accepted as a given?
>
> That is a loaded question much like "Have you stopped beating your
> wife?"
>
> You are saying 'You think your opinions on a matter can almost be
> accepted as a given'. The question syntax is largely redundant.
>
> The answer to a loaded question is a standard negative. That is..
>
> I do not think my opinion on any matter can almost be accepted as a
> given. Mostly because unless I say what my opinion is then how can it
> be a given. And by 'as a given' I understand 'can be assumed'.
I think there's a bit of syntax confusion here. When you wrote "It
doesnt matter what everyone else thinks" I thought you were referring to
everyone else other than yourself.
Here's the original point was that I was attempting to make: Do you
really think that Ed believes that testing done be Kurt Wise, Andrew
MacRae, and Roger Cuffey had favorable results?
> > > > Why does he
> > > > lie about the beliefs of Hooton? Why does he lie about Krogman's
> > > > "arachnidological" expertise? If he believes that he has honest-to-God
> > > > finds, then why does he feel the need to lie?
> > >
> > > Because he doesnt believe he is.
> >
> > So Ed feels that Hooton didn't believe in evolution? That Krogman was an
> > expert in non-human anatomy?
>
> Rev - you're attempting to use reason for a pshycological problem.
Gee Stew, what do *you* use to diagnose Ed, if not reason?
> This is not a matter of facts. Like I said when he says something Ed
> drives himself to believe it. So if he used those kind of arguments
> (you
There seems to be a word dangling there.
> > > > > > > The way I could be proved wrong is if someone could demonstrate Ed was
> > > > > > > making sizable amounts of his 'finds'. If he has sold a few items
> > > > > > > that would fuel his level of delusion for a loooong time."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So there you go - it is in Ed's interest not to make a lot of money
> > > > > > > off Ebay because then, according to my logic, he would be a scammer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But what if your logic is wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > Urm, well then, that would mean I would be wrong.
> > > >
> > > > But what makes you think that your logic is right?
> > >
> > > Because my prediction matches the evidence. Because of the recent
> > > actions of Ed. Because you havnt come up with a viable alternative.
> > > You appear to think Ed knows he's not telling the truth. He feels that
> > > he is telling the truth and any slight exageration of the 'truth' is
> > > justified.
> >
> > Slight exaggeration? Are the American Medical Laboratory reports slight
> > exaggerations?
>
> From Ed's point of view yes. What we know is meaningless in this case.
It's really amusing that if some point conflicts with your profile of
Ed, you resort to the claim that "what we know is meaningless in this
case". How do you know that Ed *doesn't* know that the lab reports
aren't for his specimens?
> > > > > So in this post you have said about zero other than 'I know more than
> > > > > you' - but you don't appear to want to qualify that in any way.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think either you or David are being honest with yourselves -
> > > > > and if you can't be honest with yourselves the chances of getting a
> > > > > straight answer out of either of you is about zero.
> > > >
> > > > And what makes you think that I'm not being honest with myself?
> > >
> > > Because you obscure your reason for posting. You won't answer that
> > > question directly.
> >
> > Stew... "being honest with myself" does not equal "being honest with
> > you". You are not my psychiatrist, and I am under no obligation to
> > explain my motives to you.
>
> But you have.
But I'm under no obligation to. Let me repeat that: I'm under no
*obligation* to explain my motives to you. Capisce?
> > In other circumstances I might, but to be
> > honest, I don't trust you to keep them to yourself.
>
> So your stated purposes are different to your real ones?
Sometimes "motive" can be synonymous with "strategy". What is one's
motive in a game of chess? To win. What is one's motive for taking a
pawn? The answer to that can be more subtle.
> > You seem to have
> > this belief that you know that's best for me, and what's best for the
> > group, and I wouldn't put it past you to attempt to short circuit my
> > strategy.
>
> You stategy appears to badger Ed till he gives in and expose him as a
> liar.
No, you're wrong about that.
> You've already assumed he is a liar.
That's my leading theory at the moment, but I'm willing to have my mind
changed.
> What if you're wrong?
Then I'm wrong.
> > > > > Let me restate my question that both of you keep on avoiding.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are you replying to Ed?
> > > > >
> > > > > David keeps on claiming hes explained but this appears another example
> > > > > of avoiding the question.
> > > >
> > > > You know, you've got a lot of gall accusing David and I of avoiding the
> > > > question when you avoid questions yourself.
> > >
> > > Looks like you're avoiding the question again.
> >
> > No, I'm just trying to level the playing field. There seems to be a
> > double standard in effect here.
>
> Not at all - I've answered all your questions - you are avoiding mine.
Why bother voting? Why did you make an unmarked snip earlier? What is
the message ID for the post where you explained why you think I'm not
having the effect I hoped for (see below)?
> > > > In news:sp33iv4410hunpjvi...@4ax.com I asked you "What
> > > > makes you think that I'm not having the effect I hoped for?", yet I
> > > > haven't seen a response to that.
> > >
> > > I did answer that.
> >
> > What's the message ID?
>
> Dunno - can't be bothered to look.
So, in other words, you can't support your claim.
> > > My responce was I think you think you can somehow
> > > 'win' when it comes to Ed. By that I think you want some kind of
> > > statement of error from Ed.
> >
> > No, you're wrong about this. Completely and utterly wrong.
>
> By your own statement I'm not.
Where have I stated that I want a statement of error from Ed?
> Now you've admited there is a stategy
> you have in mind. I tried one but if failed and my current view is you
> think Ed is a liar. My view is he doesnt think he is based upon the
> amount of posts he sends to this group. I'm having to add your own
> reasoning here as you are a great one for making unsupported
> statements.
Pot, kettle, black. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you
have to add my reasoning.
> > > > And in news:muu4iv8nkff26i15t...@4ax.com I asked you if
> > > > you were being totally honest about your intentions in the "Ed Conrad is
> > > > right!" thread, but I haven't seen a response to that one either.
> > >
> > > I went into that in great detail. My intentions where honest in that
> > > at the time I wanted to get Ed's point of view. Accepting Ed's point
> > > of view as a given was the step I felt was needed to bypass all the
> > > stuff about his finds.
> >
> > So, when you wrote "okay i'll accept Man is as Old as Coal" you actually
> > believed that there were humans running around in the Carboniferous?
>
> It's called looking at an alternative perspective. What I actually
> believe is not important in this case.
So, what one believes is unimportant in determining whether or not one
lied? This is Chez Watt material. Please clarify what you're trying to
say.
> > > > But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> > > > to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> > > > about a flagrant as they come.
> > >
> > > But you're not engaging him.
> >
> > Do you know the meaning of the word "engage"?
>
> Yep.
Engage: To enter or bring into conflict with (The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition). How can you say that
I'm not engaging him?
> > > Everyone is pointing out his mistakes and
> > > Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar.
> >
> > Please note your use of the word "appear".
>
> Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar. You have any evidence to
> contradict this other than you think he is? The eBay stuff backs up my
> theory - what about yours?
In my opinion it backs up my theory better. Why did he increase the
prices to such outrageous levels? Because he didn't want anyone to
acquire them so testing could be done on them. Why not? Because he knows
that they're not genuine.
> > > Thanks for a clear declaration of the reasons you're posting. Can you
> > > not see the mistakes you've made. It's like when David calls me a
> > > liar. I am in no way a liar but I disagree with David's point of view
> > > because he is deluded. And so so Ed is Deluded when it comes to his
> > > find.
> > >
> > > In short if two people say different things it does not mean one of
> > > them is deliberatly not telling the truth as they see it.
> >
> > Very true, but it also may mean that one of them *is* deliberately not
> > telling the truth as they see it.
>
> Note your use of the word 'may'.
I put it there deliberately.
> > Surely you can admit that possibility.
>
> You mean consider - and yes it's been considered. At the moment no one
> has made a valid case for Ed being 'bad' in that way.
So you claim that he's delusional? Why have you rejected the possibility
that he's lying?
> > > > This *is* a forum for debate, after all. Shouldn't lies be confronted?
> > >
> > > But they have many times over - what you're doing is pointless. If you
> > > didnt post others would do exactly the same thing. Go and do something
> > > more productive.
> >
> > So, others are allowed to respond to Ed, but I'm not? You're allowed to
> > respond to Ed in moments of weakness, but I can't *ever* respond?
>
> It's probably better you didnt.
Why?
> > > I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> > > your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> > > you will somehow 'win'.
> >
> > I disagree. I'm very happy with the way things are going.
>
> You mean Ed ignoring you?
What makes you think he's ignoring me? Are you saying that
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=as7ohvo3gp9en6g8lim8tu9hfkog59qps0%404ax.com
had no effect?
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:43:06 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<dn7aiv0oe7abg59b0...@4ax.com>...
> > > Once again, you assume that you know what my purpose is. Isn't there the
> > > possibility that you don't?
> >
> > This is avoiding the issue. I gave an example of why I though you
> > where wrong on what you said, and not what you've not said.
>
> This isn't avoiding the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that the
> motives you ascribe to me are incorrect. The fact that you can't figure
> out my purpose is your problem, not mine. It's not "avoiding the issue"
> when I'm trying to tell you that you don't *know* the issue.
It is when you avoid giving any reason.
> > In the issue of purpose you've already stated....
> >
> > "But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> > to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> > about a flagrant as they come."
> >
> > This is honest reason if not a very good one. The purpose stated above
> > is to prove Ed wrong or at least show him up as a liar.
>
> So, standing up for the truth isn't a very good idea?
When someone is so obviously wrong you don't need to. For example the
best way to treat 'hate' sites is not to censor or try and get them
take off line but bring them out into the light. Let people laugh at
them.
> > The issue remains - is he a liar?
>
> I believe that he is.
Well you see, there you go. He doesnt appear to think he is. I think
he is wrong but I don't think he's aware how many lies he tells. You
are not dealing with a reasonable person here.
> > > > > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > > > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > > > > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> > > >
> > > > My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
> > >
> > > Why do you feel that?
> >
> > Because you don't appear to have reached a meaningfull conclussion.
>
> And how have you determined that?
Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive for him
to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is not motive. He
honestly believes what he says not matter how weird and wonderful. Do
you have any evidence that disputes this - the ebay stuff supports my
view.
> > So why do you think i'm wrong?
>
> Wrong about my knowledge of Ed?
No.
> Because I'm far more familiar with the
> information I've acquired than you are, because you don't know what
> information I've come across. You don't know what research I've done.
Why am I wrong - not you. I've never disputed you may have done more
research but have reached the wrong conclussion based upon the
available evidence.
> > > > Apparantly everyone doesnt know this isnt true. That's the point
> > > > really. Does Ed believe what he says, the current evidence leads to
> > > > yes, he does. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, that can
> > > > almost be accepted as a given.
>
> > > So, your opinions on a matter can almost be accepted as a given?
> >
> > That is a loaded question much like "Have you stopped beating your
> > wife?"
> >
> > You are saying 'You think your opinions on a matter can almost be
> > accepted as a given'. The question syntax is largely redundant.
> >
> > The answer to a loaded question is a standard negative. That is..
> >
> > I do not think my opinion on any matter can almost be accepted as a
> > given. Mostly because unless I say what my opinion is then how can it
> > be a given. And by 'as a given' I understand 'can be assumed'.
>
> I think there's a bit of syntax confusion here. When you wrote "It
> doesnt matter what everyone else thinks" I thought you were referring to
> everyone else other than yourself.
No. It refers to everyone including myself. The context was what Ed
beleives. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, it's only about
what Ed thinks. Reason is not the issue, that is what is logically
correct according to objective evidnece, but the pshycology of Ed is.
> Here's the original point was that I was attempting to make: Do you
> really think that Ed believes that testing done be Kurt Wise, Andrew
> MacRae, and Roger Cuffey had favorable results?
Yes. We know it's not but that, as I say, does not matter.
> > Rev - you're attempting to use reason for a pshycological problem.
>
> Gee Stew, what do *you* use to diagnose Ed, if not reason?
The motives and mental make up of Ed is not about the surface reason.
> > This is not a matter of facts. Like I said when he says something Ed
> > drives himself to believe it. So if he used those kind of arguments
> > (you
>
> There seems to be a word dangling there.
Yes there is, what I meant to say was that
> > > Slight exaggeration? Are the American Medical Laboratory reports slight
> > > exaggerations?
> >
> > From Ed's point of view yes. What we know is meaningless in this case.
>
> It's really amusing that if some point conflicts with your profile of
> Ed, you resort to the claim that "what we know is meaningless in this
> case". How do you know that Ed *doesn't* know that the lab reports
> aren't for his specimens?
He may well do but the ends justify the means. Ed would never admit if
he has used 'borrowed' evidence.
>
>
> > > > > > So in this post you have said about zero other than 'I know more than
> > > > > > you' - but you don't appear to want to qualify that in any way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think either you or David are being honest with yourselves -
> > > > > > and if you can't be honest with yourselves the chances of getting a
> > > > > > straight answer out of either of you is about zero.
> > > > >
> > > > > And what makes you think that I'm not being honest with myself?
> > > >
> > > > Because you obscure your reason for posting. You won't answer that
> > > > question directly.
> > >
> > > Stew... "being honest with myself" does not equal "being honest with
> > > you". You are not my psychiatrist, and I am under no obligation to
> > > explain my motives to you.
> >
> > But you have.
>
> But I'm under no obligation to. Let me repeat that: I'm under no
> *obligation* to explain my motives to you. Capisce?
But you did.
>
> > > In other circumstances I might, but to be
> > > honest, I don't trust you to keep them to yourself.
> >
> > So your stated purposes are different to your real ones?
>
> Sometimes "motive" can be synonymous with "strategy". What is one's
> motive in a game of chess? To win. What is one's motive for taking a
> pawn? The answer to that can be more subtle.
>
>
> > > You seem to have
> > > this belief that you know that's best for me, and what's best for the
> > > group, and I wouldn't put it past you to attempt to short circuit my
> > > strategy.
> >
> > You stategy appears to badger Ed till he gives in and expose him as a
> > liar.
>
> No, you're wrong about that.
Which goes against what you yourself has said. No I don't think you're
a liar, just unsure.
> > You've already assumed he is a liar.
>
> That's my leading theory at the moment, but I'm willing to have my mind
> changed.
Okay - fair comment. Currently this is a matter of shades of grey. Ed
believes he has evidence that man is as old a coal and is fighting
against what he thinks is a dishonest system by using what ever means
he can. He feels like a freedom fighter. If he occasionaly needs to
supliment evidence or alter it so be it, such is the cost that must be
paid in order of the overall truth.
> > > No, I'm just trying to level the playing field. There seems to be a
> > > double standard in effect here.
> >
> > Not at all - I've answered all your questions - you are avoiding mine.
>
> Why bother voting? Why did you make an unmarked snip earlier? What is
> the message ID for the post where you explained why you think I'm not
> having the effect I hoped for (see below)?
It's probably in this thread somewhere. I make unmarked snips to
reduce the size of this post. I remove whole points that are faily
dead end but my intention is not to alter the weight of you point,
just try and avoid being side tracked.
I've no idea what Chez Watt means, it's not a UK term.
To clarify I was taking an alternative perspective to the one I may
hold. To do this you must accept what you know isnt true for the sake
of the arguement. The intent is not to deceive but to explore an idea.
It's a fairly common practice the exploration of ideas such as
brainstorming.
For example if you are designing a italian restaurant you may explore
chinese restaurants for ideas. You clearly are not designing a chinese
resaturant but it will give you a perspective on what is italian and
some concepts may be borrowed.
The idea is to explore what you know by what you don't know. I know
Ed's feels his finds are real but don't fully understand why.
> > > Do you know the meaning of the word "engage"?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Engage: To enter or bring into conflict with (The American Heritage
> Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition). How can you say that
> I'm not engaging him?
Because he is ignoring your arguments? He ignores David's as well and
accuses him of being in the pay of some mystery organisation.
> > > > Everyone is pointing out his mistakes and
> > > > Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar.
> > >
> > > Please note your use of the word "appear".
> >
> > Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar. You have any evidence to
> > contradict this other than you think he is? The eBay stuff backs up my
> > theory - what about yours?
>
> In my opinion it backs up my theory better. Why did he increase the
> prices to such outrageous levels? Because he didn't want anyone to
> acquire them so testing could be done on them. Why not? Because he knows
> that they're not genuine.
But also if he sells something then he is making money from his finds
and therefore has a motive for not telling the truth. He may not want
the psudeos to get hold of his finds as well as it'll mean more false
claims.
You need to understand how Ed thinks. I don't think you do.
Ed is locked in a mental catch 22 situation.
> > > Surely you can admit that possibility.
> >
> > You mean consider - and yes it's been considered. At the moment no one
> > has made a valid case for Ed being 'bad' in that way.
>
> So you claim that he's delusional? Why have you rejected the possibility
> that he's lying?
Because there is no motive, no supporting evidence and his posts are
resolute.
> > > So, others are allowed to respond to Ed, but I'm not? You're allowed to
> > > respond to Ed in moments of weakness, but I can't *ever* respond?
> >
> > It's probably better you didnt.
>
> Why?
Because if I'm right you are feeding his delusion.
>
>
> > > > I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> > > > your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> > > > you will somehow 'win'.
> > >
> > > I disagree. I'm very happy with the way things are going.
> >
> > You mean Ed ignoring you?
>
> What makes you think he's ignoring me? Are you saying that
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=as7ohvo3gp9en6g8lim8tu9hfkog59qps0%404ax.com
> had no effect?
No more than my post on the same level.
My overall point is once you understand Ed's mental make up you learn
that there is no point arguing with him. Any new poeple to the group
will quickly form a new oppion and those that don't instantly attack
him may be helping defuse Ed.
If the ultimate goal is to stop Ed posting then a frontal attack has
the opposite effect.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:28:22 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
(stew dean) wrote:
>
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<o5pciv8ikcmcihpcf...@4ax.com>...
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:43:06 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<dn7aiv0oe7abg59b0...@4ax.com>...
[Stew made an unmarked snip here]
> > > > Once again, you assume that you know what my purpose is. Isn't there the
> > > > possibility that you don't?
> > >
> > > This is avoiding the issue. I gave an example of why I though you
> > > where wrong on what you said, and not what you've not said.
> >
> > This isn't avoiding the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that the
> > motives you ascribe to me are incorrect. The fact that you can't figure
> > out my purpose is your problem, not mine. It's not "avoiding the issue"
> > when I'm trying to tell you that you don't *know* the issue.
>
> It is when you avoid giving any reason.
No, it's not. I'm under no obligation to give you a reason. It's as if a
creationist tried to tell you that the Big Bang had something to do with
biological evolution.
> > > In the issue of purpose you've already stated....
> > >
> > > "But the obvious reason that *I'm* replying to Ed is to engage him, and
> > > to point out the flaws in his arguments. I don't like liars, and Ed's
> > > about a flagrant as they come."
> > >
> > > This is honest reason if not a very good one. The purpose stated above
> > > is to prove Ed wrong or at least show him up as a liar.
> >
> > So, standing up for the truth isn't a very good idea?
>
> When someone is so obviously wrong you don't need to. For example the
> best way to treat 'hate' sites is not to censor or try and get them
> take off line but bring them out into the light. Let people laugh at
> them.
When and where have I tried to censor Ed? What makes you think that I'm
trying to censor Ed?
> > > The issue remains - is he a liar?
> >
> > I believe that he is.
>
> Well you see, there you go. He doesnt appear to think he is.
And how have you come to *this* conclusion?
> I think
> he is wrong but I don't think he's aware how many lies he tells. You
> are not dealing with a reasonable person here.
Did I claim that I was?
> > > > > > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > > > > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > > > > > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> > > > >
> > > > > My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you feel that?
> > >
> > > Because you don't appear to have reached a meaningfull conclussion.
> >
> > And how have you determined that?
>
> Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive for him
> to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is not motive.
It truly astonishes me that someone with a "degree involving psychology"
would think that the only possible motive someone might have was a
desire for money. I never claimed that money was Ed's motive, nor am I
about to.
> He
> honestly believes what he says not matter how weird and wonderful. Do
> you have any evidence that disputes this - the ebay stuff supports my
> view.
Because he seems to be quite functional in society. He holds down a job
at a newspaper, where a certain amount of integrity would seem to be
important. If he reports something that wasn't true, he'll be fired.
[Stew made another unmarked snip here]
> > > So why do you think i'm wrong?
> >
> > Wrong about my knowledge of Ed?
>
> No.
>
> > Because I'm far more familiar with the
> > information I've acquired than you are, because you don't know what
> > information I've come across. You don't know what research I've done.
>
> Why am I wrong - not you. I've never disputed you may have done more
> research but have reached the wrong conclussion based upon the
> available evidence.
So, you acknowledge that I may have information that you don't, but this
information is irrelevant?
[Stew made yet *another* unmarked snip here. Ironically, what was
snipped was a question about why he makes unmarked snips.]
[Stew also made an unmarked snip here]
> > > > > Apparantly everyone doesnt know this isnt true. That's the point
> > > > > really. Does Ed believe what he says, the current evidence leads to
> > > > > yes, he does. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, that can
> > > > > almost be accepted as a given.
> >
> > > > So, your opinions on a matter can almost be accepted as a given?
> > >
> > > That is a loaded question much like "Have you stopped beating your
> > > wife?"
> > >
> > > You are saying 'You think your opinions on a matter can almost be
> > > accepted as a given'. The question syntax is largely redundant.
> > >
> > > The answer to a loaded question is a standard negative. That is..
> > >
> > > I do not think my opinion on any matter can almost be accepted as a
> > > given. Mostly because unless I say what my opinion is then how can it
> > > be a given. And by 'as a given' I understand 'can be assumed'.
> >
> > I think there's a bit of syntax confusion here. When you wrote "It
> > doesnt matter what everyone else thinks" I thought you were referring to
> > everyone else other than yourself.
>
> No. It refers to everyone including myself. The context was what Ed
> beleives. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, it's only about
> what Ed thinks. Reason is not the issue, that is what is logically
> correct according to objective evidnece, but the pshycology of Ed is.
Actually, I think that it's very important to Ed what everyone else
thinks. He wants everyone to believe that he's got genuine fossils of
humans from the Carboniferous.
> > Here's the original point was that I was attempting to make: Do you
> > really think that Ed believes that testing done be Kurt Wise, Andrew
> > MacRae, and Roger Cuffey had favorable results?
>
> Yes. We know it's not but that, as I say, does not matter.
So, if Ed thinks that MacRae's results were favorable, why does Ed
always badmouth him?
> > > Rev - you're attempting to use reason for a pshycological problem.
> >
> > Gee Stew, what do *you* use to diagnose Ed, if not reason?
>
> The motives and mental make up of Ed is not about the surface reason.
"Surface reason"?
My question regarding using reason to diagnose Ed have *nothing* to do
with Ed's reason, or possible lack thereof, but rather using one's own
reason to diagnose his mental state.
> > > This is not a matter of facts. Like I said when he says something Ed
> > > drives himself to believe it. So if he used those kind of arguments
> > > (you
> >
> > There seems to be a word dangling there.
>
> Yes there is, what I meant to say was that
There seems to be some more dangling here...
[And here is yet another unmarked snip made by Stew.]
> > > > Slight exaggeration? Are the American Medical Laboratory reports slight
> > > > exaggerations?
> > >
> > > From Ed's point of view yes. What we know is meaningless in this case.
> >
> > It's really amusing that if some point conflicts with your profile of
> > Ed, you resort to the claim that "what we know is meaningless in this
> > case". How do you know that Ed *doesn't* know that the lab reports
> > aren't for his specimens?
>
> He may well do but the ends justify the means. Ed would never admit if
> he has used 'borrowed' evidence.
So you admit that Ed *may* know that he's using borrowed evidence?
> > > > > > > So in this post you have said about zero other than 'I know more than
> > > > > > > you' - but you don't appear to want to qualify that in any way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think either you or David are being honest with yourselves -
> > > > > > > and if you can't be honest with yourselves the chances of getting a
> > > > > > > straight answer out of either of you is about zero.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And what makes you think that I'm not being honest with myself?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because you obscure your reason for posting. You won't answer that
> > > > > question directly.
> > > >
> > > > Stew... "being honest with myself" does not equal "being honest with
> > > > you". You are not my psychiatrist, and I am under no obligation to
> > > > explain my motives to you.
> > >
> > > But you have.
> >
> > But I'm under no obligation to. Let me repeat that: I'm under no
> > *obligation* to explain my motives to you. Capisce?
>
> But you did.
Consider it a gesture.
> > > > In other circumstances I might, but to be
> > > > honest, I don't trust you to keep them to yourself.
> > >
> > > So your stated purposes are different to your real ones?
> >
> > Sometimes "motive" can be synonymous with "strategy". What is one's
> > motive in a game of chess? To win. What is one's motive for taking a
> > pawn? The answer to that can be more subtle.
> >
> >
> > > > You seem to have
> > > > this belief that you know that's best for me, and what's best for the
> > > > group, and I wouldn't put it past you to attempt to short circuit my
> > > > strategy.
> > >
> > > You stategy appears to badger Ed till he gives in and expose him as a
> > > liar.
> >
> > No, you're wrong about that.
>
> Which goes against what you yourself has said.
How so?
> No I don't think you're
> a liar, just unsure.
Rather, I think you've prejudged me.
> > > You've already assumed he is a liar.
> >
> > That's my leading theory at the moment, but I'm willing to have my mind
> > changed.
>
> Okay - fair comment. Currently this is a matter of shades of grey. Ed
> believes he has evidence that man is as old a coal and is fighting
> against what he thinks is a dishonest system by using what ever means
> he can. He feels like a freedom fighter. If he occasionaly needs to
> supliment evidence or alter it so be it, such is the cost that must be
> paid in order of the overall truth.
But where do such "alterations" end? Why is he so afraid of David's
offers of testing?
[Stew made still *another* unmarked snip.]
[And another one here.]
> > > > No, I'm just trying to level the playing field. There seems to be a
> > > > double standard in effect here.
> > >
> > > Not at all - I've answered all your questions - you are avoiding mine.
> >
> > Why bother voting? Why did you make an unmarked snip earlier? What is
> > the message ID for the post where you explained why you think I'm not
> > having the effect I hoped for (see below)?
>
> It's probably in this thread somewhere.
Where?
> I make unmarked snips to
> reduce the size of this post.
Why unmarked?
> I remove whole points that are faily
> dead end but my intention is not to alter the weight of you point,
> just try and avoid being side tracked.
What you consider "sidetracked" I might consider to be very relevant.
Please stop making unmarked snips. It's unethical.
[Still *another* unmarked snip, which I will now place back in:]
> > > > > > In news:sp33iv4410hunpjvi...@4ax.com I asked you "What
> > > > > > makes you think that I'm not having the effect I hoped for?", yet I
> > > > > > haven't seen a response to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did answer that.
> > > >
> > > > What's the message ID?
> > >
> > > Dunno - can't be bothered to look.
> >
> > So, in other words, you can't support your claim.
Stew, are you going to withdraw your claim that you answered the
question?
> > > > > My responce was I think you think you can somehow
> > > > > 'win' when it comes to Ed. By that I think you want some kind of
> > > > > statement of error from Ed.
> > > >
> > > > No, you're wrong about this. Completely and utterly wrong.
> > >
> > > By your own statement I'm not.
> >
> > Where have I stated that I want a statement of error from Ed?
No answer?
> > > Now you've admited there is a stategy
> > > you have in mind. I tried one but if failed and my current view is you
> > > think Ed is a liar. My view is he doesnt think he is based upon the
> > > amount of posts he sends to this group. I'm having to add your own
> > > reasoning here as you are a great one for making unsupported
> > > statements.
> >
> > Pot, kettle, black. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you
> > have to add my reasoning.
No answer?
> > > > > > And in news:muu4iv8nkff26i15t...@4ax.com I asked you if
> > > > > > you were being totally honest about your intentions in the "Ed Conrad is
> > > > > > right!" thread, but I haven't seen a response to that one either.
> > > > >
> > > > > I went into that in great detail. My intentions where honest in that
> > > > > at the time I wanted to get Ed's point of view. Accepting Ed's point
> > > > > of view as a given was the step I felt was needed to bypass all the
> > > > > stuff about his finds.
> > > >
> > > > So, when you wrote "okay i'll accept Man is as Old as Coal" you actually
> > > > believed that there were humans running around in the Carboniferous?
> > >
> > > It's called looking at an alternative perspective. What I actually
> > > believe is not important in this case.
> >
> > So, what one believes is unimportant in determining whether or not one
> > lied? This is Chez Watt material. Please clarify what you're trying to
> > say.
>
> I've no idea what Chez Watt means, it's not a UK term.
It's a talk.origins term. I'm sure you've heard of the monthly award.
> To clarify I was taking an alternative perspective to the one I may
> hold. To do this you must accept what you know isnt true for the sake
> of the arguement. The intent is not to deceive but to explore an idea.
> It's a fairly common practice the exploration of ideas such as
> brainstorming.
But you didn't write "I'll tentatively accept Man is as Old as Coal", or
"I'll provisionally accept Man is as Old as Coal", you wrote "I'll
accept Man is as Old as Coal".
> For example if you are designing a italian restaurant you may explore
> chinese restaurants for ideas. You clearly are not designing a chinese
> resaturant but it will give you a perspective on what is italian and
> some concepts may be borrowed.
>
> The idea is to explore what you know by what you don't know. I know
> Ed's feels his finds are real but don't fully understand why.
Then I'd suggest that your theory is incomplete.
[A further unmarked snip]
> > > > Do you know the meaning of the word "engage"?
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > Engage: To enter or bring into conflict with (The American Heritage
> > Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition). How can you say that
> > I'm not engaging him?
>
> Because he is ignoring your arguments? He ignores David's as well and
> accuses him of being in the pay of some mystery organisation.
Then he's hardly ignoring him, is he?
> > > > > Everyone is pointing out his mistakes and
> > > > > Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar.
> > > >
> > > > Please note your use of the word "appear".
> > >
> > > Ed doesnt appear to think he is a liar. You have any evidence to
> > > contradict this other than you think he is? The eBay stuff backs up my
> > > theory - what about yours?
> >
> > In my opinion it backs up my theory better. Why did he increase the
> > prices to such outrageous levels? Because he didn't want anyone to
> > acquire them so testing could be done on them. Why not? Because he knows
> > that they're not genuine.
>
> But also if he sells something then he is making money from his finds
> and therefore has a motive for not telling the truth. He may not want
> the psudeos to get hold of his finds as well as it'll mean more false
> claims.
But jacking up the price pretty much prevents *anyone* from acquiring
his specimens, doesn't it?
> You need to understand how Ed thinks. I don't think you do.
Because I disagree with you?
> Ed is locked in a mental catch 22 situation.
I agree totally, but I don't believe that it's the situation you think
it is.
[Still *another* unmarked snip!]
> > > > Surely you can admit that possibility.
> > >
> > > You mean consider - and yes it's been considered. At the moment no one
> > > has made a valid case for Ed being 'bad' in that way.
> >
> > So you claim that he's delusional? Why have you rejected the possibility
> > that he's lying?
>
> Because there is no motive, no supporting evidence and his posts are
> resolute.
Liars' posts aren't resolute?
[Another of the innumerable unmarked snips]
> > > > So, others are allowed to respond to Ed, but I'm not? You're allowed to
> > > > respond to Ed in moments of weakness, but I can't *ever* respond?
> > >
> > > It's probably better you didnt.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because if I'm right you are feeding his delusion.
And if you're wrong?
> > > > > I don't think you understand that no matter how good
> > > > > your reasoning against Ed it will not have the effect you want - that
> > > > > you will somehow 'win'.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree. I'm very happy with the way things are going.
> > >
> > > You mean Ed ignoring you?
> >
> > What makes you think he's ignoring me? Are you saying that
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=as7ohvo3gp9en6g8lim8tu9hfkog59qps0%404ax.com
> > had no effect?
>
> No more than my post on the same level.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1112029798d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2b68957a.0307210208.556b44bc%40posting.google.com
So, it's just a co-incidence that less than a day after my post about Ed
being afraid to sell his "specimens", he puts two of them up on eBay?
> My overall point is once you understand Ed's mental make up you learn
> that there is no point arguing with him. Any new poeple to the group
> will quickly form a new oppion and those that don't instantly attack
> him may be helping defuse Ed.
I don't believe that Ed's interested in being defused.
> If the ultimate goal is to stop Ed posting then a frontal attack has
> the opposite effect.
That's a pretty big "if", isn't it?
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I was off on a short trip.
>
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:28:22 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<o5pciv8ikcmcihpcf...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:43:06 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<dn7aiv0oe7abg59b0...@4ax.com>...
>
> [Stew made an unmarked snip here]
>
> > > > > Once again, you assume that you know what my purpose is. Isn't there the
> > > > > possibility that you don't?
> > > >
> > > > This is avoiding the issue. I gave an example of why I though you
> > > > where wrong on what you said, and not what you've not said.
> > >
> > > This isn't avoiding the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that the
> > > motives you ascribe to me are incorrect. The fact that you can't figure
> > > out my purpose is your problem, not mine. It's not "avoiding the issue"
> > > when I'm trying to tell you that you don't *know* the issue.
> >
> > It is when you avoid giving any reason.
>
> No, it's not. I'm under no obligation to give you a reason.
And so Ed is under no obligation to do anything. I have no obligation
to mark snips and only do so now and again, it's not a rule. I could
keep on posting youre a idiot to the newgroup, I'm under no obligation
to include meaningfull content in my messages.
Or in other words wether you have an obligation or not has nothing to
do with the statement. If all you want to do is say 'I don't have to
explain my reasons' then I have no reason to think you actualy know
why you're replying to Ed. Oddly enough that's what I currently think.
> > > > The issue remains - is he a liar?
> > >
> > > I believe that he is.
> >
> > Well you see, there you go. He doesnt appear to think he is.
>
> And how have you come to *this* conclusion?
How do you think I reached this conclusion?
> > I think
> > he is wrong but I don't think he's aware how many lies he tells. You
> > are not dealing with a reasonable person here.
>
> Did I claim that I was?
Did I claim that you werent?
>
>
> > > > > > > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > > > > > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > > > > > > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you feel that?
> > > >
> > > > Because you don't appear to have reached a meaningfull conclussion.
> > >
> > > And how have you determined that?
> >
> > Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive for him
> > to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is not motive.
>
> It truly astonishes me that someone with a "degree involving psychology"
> would think that the only possible motive someone might have was a
> desire for money. I never claimed that money was Ed's motive, nor am I
> about to.
Did I claim the only possible motive someone might have for lying was
a desire for money?
I'm talking about Ed here. You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > He
> > honestly believes what he says not matter how weird and wonderful. Do
> > you have any evidence that disputes this - the ebay stuff supports my
> > view.
>
> Because he seems to be quite functional in society. He holds down a job
> at a newspaper, where a certain amount of integrity would seem to be
> important. If he reports something that wasn't true, he'll be fired.
Did I ever claim that Ed was an anti social nut case? I have said
several times that you could probably have a drink with Ed and not
need to be worried.
He just holds some views about science that are at odds with many
others and his ego will not let him reliquish them. It's that simple.
> > Why am I wrong - not you. I've never disputed you may have done more
> > research but have reached the wrong conclussion based upon the
> > available evidence.
>
> So, you acknowledge that I may have information that you don't, but this
> information is irrelevant?
Yes. I have no reason to think it is. I have heard about Ed's
background from Ed and from others. I have seen his posts etc.
Now unless there is some hidden motive for a grand fraud then I feel I
am right. If there was a grand motive you wouldnt be replying to ed as
you do anyway.
> > > > > > Apparantly everyone doesnt know this isnt true. That's the point
> > > > > > really. Does Ed believe what he says, the current evidence leads to
> > > > > > yes, he does. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, that can
> > > > > > almost be accepted as a given.
>
> > > > > So, your opinions on a matter can almost be accepted as a given?
> > > >
> > > > That is a loaded question much like "Have you stopped beating your
> > > > wife?"
> > > >
> > > > You are saying 'You think your opinions on a matter can almost be
> > > > accepted as a given'. The question syntax is largely redundant.
> > > >
> > > > The answer to a loaded question is a standard negative. That is..
> > > >
> > > > I do not think my opinion on any matter can almost be accepted as a
> > > > given. Mostly because unless I say what my opinion is then how can it
> > > > be a given. And by 'as a given' I understand 'can be assumed'.
> > >
> > > I think there's a bit of syntax confusion here. When you wrote "It
> > > doesnt matter what everyone else thinks" I thought you were referring to
> > > everyone else other than yourself.
> >
> > No. It refers to everyone including myself. The context was what Ed
> > beleives. It doesnt matter what everyone else thinks, it's only about
> > what Ed thinks. Reason is not the issue, that is what is logically
> > correct according to objective evidnece, but the pshycology of Ed is.
>
> Actually, I think that it's very important to Ed what everyone else
> thinks. He wants everyone to believe that he's got genuine fossils of
> humans from the Carboniferous.
Does he? Does he really? Then why would he post all the letters from
experts showing he is wrong? I think the above sentence proves to me
that you have no idea why Ed posts. Care to prove me wrong?
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
> > Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I was off on a short trip.
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:28:22 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<o5pciv8ikcmcihpcf...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:43:06 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<dn7aiv0oe7abg59b0...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > [Stew made an unmarked snip here]
> >
> > > > > > Once again, you assume that you know what my purpose is. Isn't there the
> > > > > > possibility that you don't?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is avoiding the issue. I gave an example of why I though you
> > > > > where wrong on what you said, and not what you've not said.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't avoiding the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that the
> > > > motives you ascribe to me are incorrect. The fact that you can't figure
> > > > out my purpose is your problem, not mine. It's not "avoiding the issue"
> > > > when I'm trying to tell you that you don't *know* the issue.
> > >
> > > It is when you avoid giving any reason.
> >
> > No, it's not. I'm under no obligation to give you a reason.
>
> And so Ed is under no obligation to do anything. I have no obligation
> to mark snips and only do so now and again, it's not a rule.
I would ask that you make it one. It seems to be fairly common practice,
as can be seen by these URLs:
http://www.azstarnet.com/service/usenet/netiq/posts.html
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~anniec/rsggolf/faq/golf-faq.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~robert.pfeifer/elite/netiquet.htm#1.2.3
http://www.laspau.harvard.edu/grantee_guide/fundacyt/email.htm#BM3
http://www.rockymania.org.uk/fs_1.php#ng2
http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/NewsGrp.html
http://www.graphcomp.com/info/netiquet.html
http://www.northernjourney.com/cdnfolk/pdf/netiquette.pdf
http://www.bpositive.net/Resources/Articles/General/netiquette.asp
http://help.prodigy.net/help/newsgroup_bb/newsnetiquette.html
http://www.pedt.demon.co.uk/faq/fhwfaq.htm
http://lims.taratec.com/lims-faq.txt
http://eli.elilabs.com/net/higher-fire/netiq.html
http://www.inlineskate.co.uk/faq/skate-FAQ.txt
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/150/1999/2/0/825621/
Besides, it makes you look like a coward when you snip unanswered
questions and don't mark them as snipped.
> I could
> keep on posting youre a idiot to the newgroup, I'm under no obligation
> to include meaningfull content in my messages.
What obligations *do* you have?
> Or in other words wether you have an obligation or not has nothing to
> do with the statement. If all you want to do is say 'I don't have to
> explain my reasons' then I have no reason to think you actualy know
> why you're replying to Ed. Oddly enough that's what I currently think.
That's fine by me.
> > > > > The issue remains - is he a liar?
> > > >
> > > > I believe that he is.
> > >
> > > Well you see, there you go. He doesnt appear to think he is.
> >
> > And how have you come to *this* conclusion?
>
> How do you think I reached this conclusion?
I don't know. That's why I asked the question.
> > > I think
> > > he is wrong but I don't think he's aware how many lies he tells. You
> > > are not dealing with a reasonable person here.
> >
> > Did I claim that I was?
>
> Did I claim that you werent?
???
Yes, you claimed that just above, where you wrote "You are not dealing
with a reasonable person here".
> > > > > > > > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > > > > > > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > > > > > > > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do you feel that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because you don't appear to have reached a meaningfull conclussion.
> > > >
> > > > And how have you determined that?
> > >
> > > Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive for him
> > > to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is not motive.
> >
> > It truly astonishes me that someone with a "degree involving psychology"
> > would think that the only possible motive someone might have was a
> > desire for money. I never claimed that money was Ed's motive, nor am I
> > about to.
>
> Did I claim the only possible motive someone might have for lying was
> a desire for money?
Just what were you trying to say when you wrote "It's not money so there
is not motive"? That would seem to imply that you discount any other
possible motive.
> I'm talking about Ed here.
Oh, I'm *very* aware of that.
> You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> present no motive. Case dismissed.
Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
required.
For instance, Ed seems unable to provide evidence that he ordered the
tests from American Medical Laboratories, and he certainly knows that
he's lying about the beliefs of Earnest Hooton.
Let me ask you this: Why is the URL of Ed's website www.edconrad.com and
not www.manoldascoal.com ? Why does he call paleontologists
"pseudoscientists" when it comes to his fossils, but doesn't paint
geologists with the same brush when it comes to the age of the strata in
Pennsylvania? How do these facts fit into your theory?
> > > He
> > > honestly believes what he says not matter how weird and wonderful. Do
> > > you have any evidence that disputes this - the ebay stuff supports my
> > > view.
> >
> > Because he seems to be quite functional in society. He holds down a job
> > at a newspaper, where a certain amount of integrity would seem to be
> > important. If he reports something that wasn't true, he'll be fired.
>
> Did I ever claim that Ed was an anti social nut case? I have said
> several times that you could probably have a drink with Ed and not
> need to be worried.
Stew, this is a red herring. I once had a conversation with someone who
stuck safety pins *halfway* into his earlobes, and then *down* *into*
the lobe. I was not particularly worried about my safety. One's safety
when having a drink with someone isn't necessarily a refection of their
mental state.
My point is that Ed seems quite capable of separating fantasy from
reality when it suits his purposes, or when it's to his advantage.
> He just holds some views about science that are at odds with many
> others and his ego will not let him reliquish them. It's that simple.
I'd be very surprised if he *publicly* relinquished them. He's very much
entangled.
> > > Why am I wrong - not you. I've never disputed you may have done more
> > > research but have reached the wrong conclussion based upon the
> > > available evidence.
> >
> > So, you acknowledge that I may have information that you don't, but this
> > information is irrelevant?
>
> Yes. I have no reason to think it is. I have heard about Ed's
> background from Ed and from others. I have seen his posts etc.
>
> Now unless there is some hidden motive for a grand fraud then I feel I
> am right. If there was a grand motive you wouldnt be replying to ed as
> you do anyway.
And just how have you come to *that* conclusion? Why do you connect Ed's
motives and my motives for replying?
Ed posted them because he feels it lends credence to his claim of a
"pseudoscientific" conspiracy. That's his *stated* motive, and at this
point I see no reason to doubt that's his motive. However, I don't think
that he believes that there *is* such a conspiracy.
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
> > > Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I was off on a short trip.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:28:22 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<o5pciv8ikcmcihpcf...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:43:06 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<dn7aiv0oe7abg59b0...@4ax.com>...
> > >
> > > [Stew made an unmarked snip here]
> > >
> > > > > > > Once again, you assume that you know what my purpose is. Isn't there the
> > > > > > > possibility that you don't?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is avoiding the issue. I gave an example of why I though you
> > > > > > where wrong on what you said, and not what you've not said.
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't avoiding the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that the
> > > > > motives you ascribe to me are incorrect. The fact that you can't figure
> > > > > out my purpose is your problem, not mine. It's not "avoiding the issue"
> > > > > when I'm trying to tell you that you don't *know* the issue.
> > > >
> > > > It is when you avoid giving any reason.
> > >
> > > No, it's not. I'm under no obligation to give you a reason.
> >
> > And so Ed is under no obligation to do anything. I have no obligation
> > to mark snips and only do so now and again, it's not a rule.
>
> I would ask that you make it one.
I do it from time to time but I'll treat it as a guideline for now. I
don't deal well with overly officious people.
<snip examples of people saying marking snips is good>
Anything snipped was snipped because I felt it was silly, had been
answered or was a tangent too many.
It sometimes help to stick to one or two points.
>
> > I could
> > keep on posting youre a idiot to the newgroup, I'm under no obligation
> > to include meaningfull content in my messages.
>
> What obligations *do* you have?
I left this one is as an example of a silly question.
> > > > > > The issue remains - is he a liar?
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that he is.
> > > >
> > > > Well you see, there you go. He doesnt appear to think he is.
> > >
> > > And how have you come to *this* conclusion?
> >
> > How do you think I reached this conclusion?
>
> I don't know. That's why I asked the question.
>
> > > > I think
> > > > he is wrong but I don't think he's aware how many lies he tells. You
> > > > are not dealing with a reasonable person here.
> > >
> > > Did I claim that I was?
> >
> > Did I claim that you werent?
>
> ???
>
> Yes, you claimed that just above, where you wrote "You are not dealing
> with a reasonable person here".
But did you claim that you werent?
Whilst I'm at it - what is the capital of finland?
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > > > > > > > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > > > > > > > > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do you feel that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because you don't appear to have reached a meaningfull conclussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > And how have you determined that?
> > > >
> > > > Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive for him
> > > > to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is not motive.
> > >
> > > It truly astonishes me that someone with a "degree involving psychology"
> > > would think that the only possible motive someone might have was a
> > > desire for money. I never claimed that money was Ed's motive, nor am I
> > > about to.
> >
> > Did I claim the only possible motive someone might have for lying was
> > a desire for money?
>
> Just what were you trying to say when you wrote "It's not money so there
> is not motive"? That would seem to imply that you discount any other
> possible motive.
It does? Money is the obvious motive. Love, lust etc are other motives
but not evident here. If there are any other motives then they are not
visible. The motive, Dr Watson, is ignorance mixed with too much ego.
> > I'm talking about Ed here.
>
> Oh, I'm *very* aware of that.
Then why talk about 'someone'?
> > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > present no motive. Case dismissed.
>
> Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> required.
Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
the actions of someone else lead to their death.
Now in this case you have not evidence that Ed thinks he's lying. He
may have contradicted himself, he may have said things that are not
true but neither of these indicates he is a liar.
If I say my name is actualy King Edward I would be a liar as I know my
name is Stewart Dean (Stew for short). If on the other hand I said
that there was a god called Albert who is responsible for making light
bulbs burn out and I beleived that I would not be a liar.
You have to accept that often people believe the most far out and
apparantly illogical stuff. Reason can influence the views of many
people in some ways but with some things people choose not to change
their view or even consider it. For example I am a vegetarian and do
get a lot of arguments for not being vegetarian, most of which I
understand and know are not valid.
And so, with Ed, man is as old as coal.
> For instance, Ed seems unable to provide evidence that he ordered the
> tests from American Medical Laboratories, and he certainly knows that
> he's lying about the beliefs of Earnest Hooton.
He may consider this a minor deception in order to bring forward the
grander truth. He'll never admit to this and there's no point trying
to get him to.
> Let me ask you this: Why is the URL of Ed's website www.edconrad.com and
> not www.manoldascoal.com ?
I thought that was obvious. Go back to the motive thing.
> Why does he call paleontologists
> "pseudoscientists" when it comes to his fossils, but doesn't paint
> geologists with the same brush when it comes to the age of the strata in
> Pennsylvania? How do these facts fit into your theory?
Fit? How do you think I came up with my theory?
> > > > He
> > > > honestly believes what he says not matter how weird and wonderful. Do
> > > > you have any evidence that disputes this - the ebay stuff supports my
> > > > view.
> > >
> > > Because he seems to be quite functional in society. He holds down a job
> > > at a newspaper, where a certain amount of integrity would seem to be
> > > important. If he reports something that wasn't true, he'll be fired.
> >
> > Did I ever claim that Ed was an anti social nut case? I have said
> > several times that you could probably have a drink with Ed and not
> > need to be worried.
>
> Stew, this is a red herring. I once had a conversation with someone who
> stuck safety pins *halfway* into his earlobes, and then *down* *into*
> the lobe. I was not particularly worried about my safety. One's safety
> when having a drink with someone isn't necessarily a refection of their
> mental state.
>
> My point is that Ed seems quite capable of separating fantasy from
> reality when it suits his purposes, or when it's to his advantage.
Which leads to the question - why is it in his advantage to say man is
as old as coal.
I think in this case it's a delusion that's just run away with Ed.
Many people with weird ideas have been totally capable of normal life
- I don't see how your point is valid.
> > He just holds some views about science that are at odds with many
> > others and his ego will not let him reliquish them. It's that simple.
>
> I'd be very surprised if he *publicly* relinquished them. He's very much
> entangled.
Exactly - which goes back to the source of this discussion - why
bother replying to Ed?
> > > > Why am I wrong - not you. I've never disputed you may have done more
> > > > research but have reached the wrong conclussion based upon the
> > > > available evidence.
> > >
> > > So, you acknowledge that I may have information that you don't, but this
> > > information is irrelevant?
> >
> > Yes. I have no reason to think it is. I have heard about Ed's
> > background from Ed and from others. I have seen his posts etc.
> >
> > Now unless there is some hidden motive for a grand fraud then I feel I
> > am right. If there was a grand motive you wouldnt be replying to ed as
> > you do anyway.
>
> And just how have you come to *that* conclusion?
There's this thing called reason.....
> Why do you connect Ed's
> motives and my motives for replying?
Because depending on your point of view you would or would not have a
motive for posting. For example my view is now that Ed is beyond hope
- so I don't reply to him. If I reach the same view with you I'll do
the same. I've just about given up on David as he thinks he's fighting
some kind of war. He's as much tilting against windmills as Ed is.
Also you refused to discuss your motives - so I have to infer them
from your actions.
> > > Actually, I think that it's very important to Ed what everyone else
> > > thinks. He wants everyone to believe that he's got genuine fossils of
> > > humans from the Carboniferous.
> >
> > Does he? Does he really? Then why would he post all the letters from
> > experts showing he is wrong? I think the above sentence proves to me
> > that you have no idea why Ed posts. Care to prove me wrong?
>
> Ed posted them because he feels it lends credence to his claim of a
> "pseudoscientific" conspiracy. That's his *stated* motive, and at this
> point I see no reason to doubt that's his motive. However, I don't think
> that he believes that there *is* such a conspiracy.
Then why would he say there is, repeatedly. I'm sorry but it appears
you cannot believe that someone who is a perfectly sociable person and
can usualy descipher what is true of false cannot be blinded by ego
over the years to their own mistake. Sometimes people get stuck in a
mental loop the requires them to keep on making a bigger and bigger
delusion to support the original.
If Ed could see a way out without loosing face he may well take it,
but for now he has to believe his own castle in the sky is real.
You may not be able to beleive someone can be this much a slave to a
personal delusion but this kind of self propelling fantasy is all too
common. I could point to religous poeple and say 'how could you
possibly beleive that' but they do and it leads them to blowing
themselves and others up.
Ignorance and ego are a very very potent mix - never underestimate
their power.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
It's not a case of being "officious", it's a case of being polite and
honest.
> <snip examples of people saying marking snips is good>
>
> Anything snipped was snipped because I felt it was silly, had been
> answered or was a tangent too many.
Then you should come out and *say* that it's silly, and explain *why*
it's silly.
> It sometimes help to stick to one or two points.
I agree, but the points you're interested in may not be the ones that
I'm interested in.
> > > I could
> > > keep on posting youre a idiot to the newgroup, I'm under no obligation
> > > to include meaningfull content in my messages.
> >
> > What obligations *do* you have?
>
> I left this one is as an example of a silly question.
Why is it a silly question?
> > > > > > > The issue remains - is he a liar?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that he is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well you see, there you go. He doesnt appear to think he is.
> > > >
> > > > And how have you come to *this* conclusion?
> > >
> > > How do you think I reached this conclusion?
> >
> > I don't know. That's why I asked the question.
No answer?
> > > > > I think
> > > > > he is wrong but I don't think he's aware how many lies he tells. You
> > > > > are not dealing with a reasonable person here.
> > > >
> > > > Did I claim that I was?
> > >
> > > Did I claim that you werent?
> >
> > ???
> >
> > Yes, you claimed that just above, where you wrote "You are not dealing
> > with a reasonable person here".
>
> But did you claim that you werent?
I think it's pretty obvious by now that Ed isn't playing with a full
deck...
> Whilst I'm at it - what is the capital of finland?
Helsinki, the last time I checked.
> > > > > > > > > > > The above statement just sounds like arrogance without
> > > > > > > > > > > some kind or reasoning behind it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't consider being informed about Ed to be a bragging point, just a
> > > > > > > > > > simple matter of fact. I've done a certain amount of research on him.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My feeling is you havnt understood what you've learnt.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why do you feel that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because you don't appear to have reached a meaningfull conclussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And how have you determined that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive for him
> > > > > to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is not motive.
> > > >
> > > > It truly astonishes me that someone with a "degree involving psychology"
> > > > would think that the only possible motive someone might have was a
> > > > desire for money. I never claimed that money was Ed's motive, nor am I
> > > > about to.
> > >
> > > Did I claim the only possible motive someone might have for lying was
> > > a desire for money?
> >
> > Just what were you trying to say when you wrote "It's not money so there
> > is not motive"? That would seem to imply that you discount any other
> > possible motive.
>
> It does? Money is the obvious motive. Love, lust etc are other motives
> but not evident here. If there are any other motives then they are not
> visible. The motive, Dr Watson, is ignorance mixed with too much ego.
I agree totally. So what happened to your claim that "It's not money
so there is not motive"? Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and
boost one's ego?
> > > I'm talking about Ed here.
> >
> > Oh, I'm *very* aware of that.
>
> Then why talk about 'someone'?
I used the word "someone" in two different contexts. Which one are you
inquiring about?
> > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> >
> > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > required.
>
> Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> the actions of someone else lead to their death.
True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
unknown.
> Now in this case you have not evidence that Ed thinks he's lying. He
> may have contradicted himself, he may have said things that are not
> true but neither of these indicates he is a liar.
>
> If I say my name is actualy King Edward I would be a liar as I know my
> name is Stewart Dean (Stew for short). If on the other hand I said
> that there was a god called Albert who is responsible for making light
> bulbs burn out and I beleived that I would not be a liar.
>
> You have to accept that often people believe the most far out and
> apparantly illogical stuff. Reason can influence the views of many
> people in some ways but with some things people choose not to change
> their view or even consider it. For example I am a vegetarian and do
> get a lot of arguments for not being vegetarian, most of which I
> understand and know are not valid.
>
> And so, with Ed, man is as old as coal.
I accept that the scenarios you outline above are believable, I just
don't think that they apply to Ed.
> > For instance, Ed seems unable to provide evidence that he ordered the
> > tests from American Medical Laboratories, and he certainly knows that
> > he's lying about the beliefs of Earnest Hooton.
>
> He may consider this a minor deception in order to bring forward the
> grander truth. He'll never admit to this and there's no point trying
> to get him to.
And once again you concede that Ed may know that he tells lies.
> > Let me ask you this: Why is the URL of Ed's website www.edconrad.com and
> > not www.manoldascoal.com ?
>
> I thought that was obvious. Go back to the motive thing.
Considering that you seem to have changed your mind about Ed's
potential motive, perhaps you could explain further.
> > Why does he call paleontologists
> > "pseudoscientists" when it comes to his fossils, but doesn't paint
> > geologists with the same brush when it comes to the age of the strata in
> > Pennsylvania? How do these facts fit into your theory?
>
> Fit? How do you think I came up with my theory?
I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking.
> > > > > He
> > > > > honestly believes what he says not matter how weird and wonderful. Do
> > > > > you have any evidence that disputes this - the ebay stuff supports my
> > > > > view.
> > > >
> > > > Because he seems to be quite functional in society. He holds down a job
> > > > at a newspaper, where a certain amount of integrity would seem to be
> > > > important. If he reports something that wasn't true, he'll be fired.
> > >
> > > Did I ever claim that Ed was an anti social nut case? I have said
> > > several times that you could probably have a drink with Ed and not
> > > need to be worried.
> >
> > Stew, this is a red herring. I once had a conversation with someone who
> > stuck safety pins *halfway* into his earlobes, and then *down* *into*
> > the lobe. I was not particularly worried about my safety. One's safety
> > when having a drink with someone isn't necessarily a refection of their
> > mental state.
> >
> > My point is that Ed seems quite capable of separating fantasy from
> > reality when it suits his purposes, or when it's to his advantage.
>
> Which leads to the question - why is it in his advantage to say man is
> as old as coal.
>
> I think in this case it's a delusion that's just run away with Ed.
> Many people with weird ideas have been totally capable of normal life
> - I don't see how your point is valid.
Because he doesn't seem to have any other delusions. His delusion is
fairly "localized" to paleoanthropology and life after death. Geology
seem to get away with any possible shenanigans it might have up its
sleeve. Why couldn't Ed's "specimens" be the result of the Noachian
flood? Those pesky geologists have been lying to us about their dating
methods! Why doesn't Ed consider that possibility?
> > > He just holds some views about science that are at odds with many
> > > others and his ego will not let him reliquish them. It's that simple.
> >
> > I'd be very surprised if he *publicly* relinquished them. He's very much
> > entangled.
>
> Exactly - which goes back to the source of this discussion - why
> bother replying to Ed?
For the same reason people reply to creationists.
> > > > > Why am I wrong - not you. I've never disputed you may have done more
> > > > > research but have reached the wrong conclussion based upon the
> > > > > available evidence.
> > > >
> > > > So, you acknowledge that I may have information that you don't, but this
> > > > information is irrelevant?
> > >
> > > Yes. I have no reason to think it is. I have heard about Ed's
> > > background from Ed and from others. I have seen his posts etc.
> > >
> > > Now unless there is some hidden motive for a grand fraud then I feel I
> > > am right. If there was a grand motive you wouldnt be replying to ed as
> > > you do anyway.
> >
> > And just how have you come to *that* conclusion?
>
> There's this thing called reason.....
Perhaps you could outline the reasoning that allowed you to come to
this conclusion...?
> > Why do you connect Ed's
> > motives and my motives for replying?
>
> Because depending on your point of view you would or would not have a
> motive for posting.
*Everyone* has a motive for posting. Even you.
> For example my view is now that Ed is beyond hope
> - so I don't reply to him. If I reach the same view with you I'll do
> the same. I've just about given up on David as he thinks he's fighting
> some kind of war. He's as much tilting against windmills as Ed is.
I'd disagree with that assessment.
> Also you refused to discuss your motives - so I have to infer them
> from your actions.
So far your inferences are way off base.
Also, you made another unmarked snip here. So much for your
guideline...
> > > > Actually, I think that it's very important to Ed what everyone else
> > > > thinks. He wants everyone to believe that he's got genuine fossils of
> > > > humans from the Carboniferous.
> > >
> > > Does he? Does he really? Then why would he post all the letters from
> > > experts showing he is wrong? I think the above sentence proves to me
> > > that you have no idea why Ed posts. Care to prove me wrong?
> >
> > Ed posted them because he feels it lends credence to his claim of a
> > "pseudoscientific" conspiracy. That's his *stated* motive, and at this
> > point I see no reason to doubt that's his motive. However, I don't think
> > that he believes that there *is* such a conspiracy.
>
> Then why would he say there is, repeatedly. I'm sorry but it appears
> you cannot believe that someone who is a perfectly sociable person and
> can usualy descipher what is true of false cannot be blinded by ego
> over the years to their own mistake.
Sure I can. I just don't think that this is the case with Ed.
> Sometimes people get stuck in a
> mental loop the requires them to keep on making a bigger and bigger
> delusion to support the original.
People can also lie to save face.
> If Ed could see a way out without loosing face he may well take it,
> but for now he has to believe his own castle in the sky is real.
He has to lie, because to admit the truth would make him look like an
idiot, and he has an ego as big as all outdoors.
> You may not be able to beleive someone can be this much a slave to a
> personal delusion but this kind of self propelling fantasy is all too
> common. I could point to religous poeple and say 'how could you
> possibly beleive that' but they do and it leads them to blowing
> themselves and others up.
But such fantasies are far more influential and pervasive in the
person's everyday life.
Let me ask you this: Why couldn't Ed explain the implications of "Man
Old as Coal" to you?
> Ignorance and ego are a very very potent mix - never underestimate
> their power.
I don't. With Ed, it's all about ego.
> Stew Dean
stew dean
<biiiiiiiig snip>
From now on I may or may not mark snips. See previous posts of
reasoning.
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fvmjvocefuedb91v...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
> > > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > >
> > > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > > required.
> >
> > Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> > the actions of someone else lead to their death.
>
> True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
> perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
> unknown.
But in this case there is no purse snaching.
> > You have to accept that often people believe the most far out and
> > apparantly illogical stuff. Reason can influence the views of many
> > people in some ways but with some things people choose not to change
> > their view or even consider it. For example I am a vegetarian and do
> > get a lot of arguments for not being vegetarian, most of which I
> > understand and know are not valid.
> >
> > And so, with Ed, man is as old as coal.
>
> I accept that the scenarios you outline above are believable, I just
> don't think that they apply to Ed.
Why?
> > > For instance, Ed seems unable to provide evidence that he ordered the
> > > tests from American Medical Laboratories, and he certainly knows that
> > > he's lying about the beliefs of Earnest Hooton.
> >
> > He may consider this a minor deception in order to bring forward the
> > grander truth. He'll never admit to this and there's no point trying
> > to get him to.
>
> And once again you concede that Ed may know that he tells lies.
Maybe now and again - if you want absolutes then you should perhaps
take up a religion. He sees it as humour in most cases or in a attempt
to make a bigger point.
> > > Let me ask you this: Why is the URL of Ed's website www.edconrad.com and
> > > not www.manoldascoal.com ?
> >
> > I thought that was obvious. Go back to the motive thing.
>
> Considering that you seem to have changed your mind about Ed's
> potential motive, perhaps you could explain further.
I havnt changed my mind? What makes you think I have. My view has
always been the same.
> > > Why does he call paleontologists
> > > "pseudoscientists" when it comes to his fossils, but doesn't paint
> > > geologists with the same brush when it comes to the age of the strata in
> > > Pennsylvania? How do these facts fit into your theory?
> >
> > Fit? How do you think I came up with my theory?
>
> I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking.
Ed will use what ever agrees with him and dismiss that which doesnt.
That's fairly obvious. Those who agree with him become world experts,
those that doen't become psuedoscientists. It's called dehumanising
your enemy.
> > > My point is that Ed seems quite capable of separating fantasy from
> > > reality when it suits his purposes, or when it's to his advantage.
> >
> > Which leads to the question - why is it in his advantage to say man is
> > as old as coal.
> >
> > I think in this case it's a delusion that's just run away with Ed.
> > Many people with weird ideas have been totally capable of normal life
> > - I don't see how your point is valid.
>
> Because he doesn't seem to have any other delusions. His delusion is
> fairly "localized" to paleoanthropology and life after death.
I would say not very localised. He has views on many things relating
to science that cover a wide area.
> Geology
> seem to get away with any possible shenanigans it might have up its
> sleeve. Why couldn't Ed's "specimens" be the result of the Noachian
> flood? Those pesky geologists have been lying to us about their dating
> methods! Why doesn't Ed consider that possibility?
Because it doesnt help his case and is not a young earth creationist.
Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
>
>
> > > > He just holds some views about science that are at odds with many
> > > > others and his ego will not let him reliquish them. It's that simple.
> > >
> > > I'd be very surprised if he *publicly* relinquished them. He's very much
> > > entangled.
> >
> > Exactly - which goes back to the source of this discussion - why
> > bother replying to Ed?
>
> For the same reason people reply to creationists.
Ed is a 'special' case. It is pointless trying to engage him using
reason. To him you're either an us or them - and in his case 99.9% of
the world appears to be a them.
>
> > > > > > Why am I wrong - not you. I've never disputed you may have done more
> > > > > > research but have reached the wrong conclussion based upon the
> > > > > > available evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you acknowledge that I may have information that you don't, but this
> > > > > information is irrelevant?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. I have no reason to think it is. I have heard about Ed's
> > > > background from Ed and from others. I have seen his posts etc.
> > > >
> > > > Now unless there is some hidden motive for a grand fraud then I feel I
> > > > am right. If there was a grand motive you wouldnt be replying to ed as
> > > > you do anyway.
> > >
> > > And just how have you come to *that* conclusion?
> >
> > There's this thing called reason.....
>
> Perhaps you could outline the reasoning that allowed you to come to
> this conclusion...?
I'm getting a feeling of deja vu. Ed believes he has real finds. Ed
does not feel he is telling any lies, and any minor deceptions are
either humour or to make a bigger point. I beleive this because of the
consistancy of his view. He has publically said that he doesnt mind if
he does or doesnt sell his ebay stuff - he's just trying to wind 'the
establishment up'.
With Ed ignorance and ego has lead to an adanvance form of dellusion.
If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow make money from
deseption then he might be considered a liar. As it stands he believes
what he says.
> > For example my view is now that Ed is beyond hope
> > - so I don't reply to him. If I reach the same view with you I'll do
> > the same. I've just about given up on David as he thinks he's fighting
> > some kind of war. He's as much tilting against windmills as Ed is.
>
> I'd disagree with that assessment.
Well that's nice isnt it. Care to explain why?
> > Also you refused to discuss your motives - so I have to infer them
> > from your actions.
>
> So far your inferences are way off base.
My conclusion is that you don't really know why you're replying to Ed.
You know he's wrong and want to attempt to put him right, feeding your
ego in the process. You are trying to justify this but don't appear to
be able to.
> > > > > Actually, I think that it's very important to Ed what everyone else
> > > > > thinks. He wants everyone to believe that he's got genuine fossils of
> > > > > humans from the Carboniferous.
> > > >
> > > > Does he? Does he really? Then why would he post all the letters from
> > > > experts showing he is wrong? I think the above sentence proves to me
> > > > that you have no idea why Ed posts. Care to prove me wrong?
> > >
> > > Ed posted them because he feels it lends credence to his claim of a
> > > "pseudoscientific" conspiracy. That's his *stated* motive, and at this
> > > point I see no reason to doubt that's his motive. However, I don't think
> > > that he believes that there *is* such a conspiracy.
> >
> > Then why would he say there is, repeatedly. I'm sorry but it appears
> > you cannot believe that someone who is a perfectly sociable person and
> > can usualy descipher what is true of false cannot be blinded by ego
> > over the years to their own mistake.
>
> Sure I can. I just don't think that this is the case with Ed.
But all the evidence supports my view. Listen to his recent
'interview' and see what I mean. This is not the preformance of a
actor or 'liar' but someone who believes what they are saying.
> > Sometimes people get stuck in a
> > mental loop the requires them to keep on making a bigger and bigger
> > delusion to support the original.
>
> People can also lie to save face.
But if they are delusional then they believe their own lies - meaning
they are no longer liars. That's the jump I don't think you can make.
> > If Ed could see a way out without loosing face he may well take it,
> > but for now he has to believe his own castle in the sky is real.
>
> He has to lie, because to admit the truth would make him look like an
> idiot, and he has an ego as big as all outdoors.
But to justify it to himself he beleives his own lies, he has to ot
appease his ego. It's as much a matter of admiting to himself that he
is wrong as to anyone else. Ed can't do that.
> > You may not be able to beleive someone can be this much a slave to a
> > personal delusion but this kind of self propelling fantasy is all too
> > common. I could point to religous poeple and say 'how could you
> > possibly beleive that' but they do and it leads them to blowing
> > themselves and others up.
>
> But such fantasies are far more influential and pervasive in the
> person's everyday life.
Why? Does a personal philosophy really alter the ability to wash,
clothe and feed yourself?
Looking at other delusional folks and it's only when it becomes sever
parania with depression linked that it affect a persons ability to
look after themselves.
> Let me ask you this: Why couldn't Ed explain the implications of "Man
> Old as Coal" to you?
Because he can't or doesnt want to. He doesnt claim to have a whole
theory - that's for accademics.
> > Ignorance and ego are a very very potent mix - never underestimate
> > their power.
>
> I don't. With Ed, it's all about ego.
No - it's also about ignorance. Read Ed's posts and listen to the
interview. It's all consistant with my theory. Can you name something
that isnt or is inconsitant?
My theory - for clarity - is that Ed has a run away delusion. He found
something he thought was a skull and felt it was important and could
make his name in this world. Upon closer examination it was considered
by experts to not be a skull and they where certain enough to know it
was not worth further examination and rightly laughed when Ed
suggested they look closer.
Ed took this the wrong way and lead to him attempting to prove the
experts wrong with his limited knowledge. A few people agreeing
subjectively with Ed fed Ed's ego. The result is a run away delusion
where Ed is finding fossils of the same kind of quality as the first
supporting his view. The fact that experts have told him many times
over they are concretions is not of importance because they are
psudoscientists.
And thus the delusion is self perpecutating. It is ego plus ignorance.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen...@crosswinds.net (gen2rev) wrote in message news:<f1129f9.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:39:46 +0000 (UTC),
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>
> <biiiiiiiig snip>
>
> From now on I may or may not mark snips. See previous posts of
> reasoning.
So, even if I ask nicely you won't do it?
Whatever the case, there were some questions in the part you just
snipped that I'd still like answered. For instance:
What obligations *do* you have?
How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fvmjvocefuedb91v...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > > >
> > > > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > > > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > > > required.
> > >
> > > Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> > > the actions of someone else lead to their death.
> >
> > True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
> > perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
> > unknown.
>
> But in this case there is no purse snaching.
Neither did someone die, but that didn't stop you from using it as an
example. Why the double standard?
[Stew made an unmarked snip here]
> > > You have to accept that often people believe the most far out and
> > > apparantly illogical stuff. Reason can influence the views of many
> > > people in some ways but with some things people choose not to change
> > > their view or even consider it. For example I am a vegetarian and do
> > > get a lot of arguments for not being vegetarian, most of which I
> > > understand and know are not valid.
> > >
> > > And so, with Ed, man is as old as coal.
> >
> > I accept that the scenarios you outline above are believable, I just
> > don't think that they apply to Ed.
>
> Why?
Because I suspect I'm taking more information into account.
> > > > For instance, Ed seems unable to provide evidence that he ordered the
> > > > tests from American Medical Laboratories, and he certainly knows that
> > > > he's lying about the beliefs of Earnest Hooton.
> > >
> > > He may consider this a minor deception in order to bring forward the
> > > grander truth. He'll never admit to this and there's no point trying
> > > to get him to.
> >
> > And once again you concede that Ed may know that he tells lies.
>
> Maybe now and again - if you want absolutes then you should perhaps
> take up a religion. He sees it as humour in most cases or in a attempt
> to make a bigger point.
And how have you come to this conclusion? Is lying about the beliefs of
Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
When he posted the tests results from American Medical Laboratories on
eBay to support his claim that his specimens were genuine, was he being
humorous, or was it an attempt to make a bigger point?
> > > > Let me ask you this: Why is the URL of Ed's website www.edconrad.com and
> > > > not www.manoldascoal.com ?
> > >
> > > I thought that was obvious. Go back to the motive thing.
> >
> > Considering that you seem to have changed your mind about Ed's
> > potential motive, perhaps you could explain further.
>
> I havnt changed my mind? What makes you think I have. My view has
> always been the same.
In
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0307312327.32713b3e%40posting.google.com
you state:
Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive
for him to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is
not motive. He honestly believes what he says not matter how
weird and wonderful.
But then later in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308150005.209b2733%40posting.google.com
you wrote:
He may consider this a minor deception in order to bring forward
the grander truth. He'll never admit to this and there's no
point trying to get him to.
This would seem to be a concession that Ed lies on certain occasions.
> > > > Why does he call paleontologists
> > > > "pseudoscientists" when it comes to his fossils, but doesn't paint
> > > > geologists with the same brush when it comes to the age of the strata in
> > > > Pennsylvania? How do these facts fit into your theory?
> > >
> > > Fit? How do you think I came up with my theory?
> >
> > I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking.
>
> Ed will use what ever agrees with him and dismiss that which doesnt.
> That's fairly obvious. Those who agree with him become world experts,
> those that doen't become psuedoscientists. It's called dehumanising
> your enemy.
And why does he believe that his finds are 280 million years old? Why
does he accept the claims of geologists?
[Stew made an unmarked snip here]
> > > > My point is that Ed seems quite capable of separating fantasy from
> > > > reality when it suits his purposes, or when it's to his advantage.
> > >
> > > Which leads to the question - why is it in his advantage to say man is
> > > as old as coal.
> > >
> > > I think in this case it's a delusion that's just run away with Ed.
> > > Many people with weird ideas have been totally capable of normal life
> > > - I don't see how your point is valid.
> >
> > Because he doesn't seem to have any other delusions. His delusion is
> > fairly "localized" to paleoanthropology and life after death.
>
> I would say not very localised. He has views on many things relating
> to science that cover a wide area.
Such as?
> > Geology
> > seem to get away with any possible shenanigans it might have up its
> > sleeve. Why couldn't Ed's "specimens" be the result of the Noachian
> > flood? Those pesky geologists have been lying to us about their dating
> > methods! Why doesn't Ed consider that possibility?
>
> Because it doesnt help his case
Why not?
> and is not a young earth creationist.
Why not?
> Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
Why isn't he a creationist? His finds could certainly be used to support
the idea.
> > > > > He just holds some views about science that are at odds with many
> > > > > others and his ego will not let him reliquish them. It's that simple.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be very surprised if he *publicly* relinquished them. He's very much
> > > > entangled.
> > >
> > > Exactly - which goes back to the source of this discussion - why
> > > bother replying to Ed?
> >
> > For the same reason people reply to creationists.
>
> Ed is a 'special' case. It is pointless trying to engage him using
> reason. To him you're either an us or them - and in his case 99.9% of
> the world appears to be a them.
Ted Holden doesn't seem to agree 100% with Ed, but Ed still seems to
think of him as an ally.
> > > > > > > Why am I wrong - not you. I've never disputed you may have done more
> > > > > > > research but have reached the wrong conclussion based upon the
> > > > > > > available evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, you acknowledge that I may have information that you don't, but this
> > > > > > information is irrelevant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. I have no reason to think it is. I have heard about Ed's
> > > > > background from Ed and from others. I have seen his posts etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now unless there is some hidden motive for a grand fraud then I feel I
> > > > > am right. If there was a grand motive you wouldnt be replying to ed as
> > > > > you do anyway.
> > > >
> > > > And just how have you come to *that* conclusion?
> > >
> > > There's this thing called reason.....
> >
> > Perhaps you could outline the reasoning that allowed you to come to
> > this conclusion...?
>
> I'm getting a feeling of deja vu.
So am I.
> Ed believes he has real finds.
How have you come to this conclusion?
> Ed
> does not feel he is telling any lies, and any minor deceptions are
> either humour or to make a bigger point. I beleive this because of the
> consistancy of his view.
But his views *aren't* consistent, as I'll show below.
> He has publically said that he doesnt mind if
> he does or doesnt sell his ebay stuff - he's just trying to wind 'the
> establishment up'.
Yes, I agree that he's made this statement.
> With Ed ignorance and ego has lead to an adanvance form of dellusion.
This I'm not sure of. As I've said before, this advanced form of
delusion seems quite localized.
> If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow make money from
> deseption then he might be considered a liar. As it stands he believes
> what he says.
And once again you assume the only reason to lie is to make money. Why?
[Stew made another unmarked snip here]
> > > For example my view is now that Ed is beyond hope
> > > - so I don't reply to him. If I reach the same view with you I'll do
> > > the same. I've just about given up on David as he thinks he's fighting
> > > some kind of war. He's as much tilting against windmills as Ed is.
> >
> > I'd disagree with that assessment.
>
> Well that's nice isnt it. Care to explain why?
Because he's provoked a very strong reaction from Ed. David is
supposedly in the pay of the psuedoscientists. If that isn't a reaction
to David's posts I don't know what is.
> > > Also you refused to discuss your motives - so I have to infer them
> > > from your actions.
> >
> > So far your inferences are way off base.
>
> My conclusion is that you don't really know why you're replying to Ed.
> You know he's wrong and want to attempt to put him right, feeding your
> ego in the process. You are trying to justify this but don't appear to
> be able to.
An interesting theory, but once again, you're mistaken.
> > > > > > Actually, I think that it's very important to Ed what everyone else
> > > > > > thinks. He wants everyone to believe that he's got genuine fossils of
> > > > > > humans from the Carboniferous.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does he? Does he really? Then why would he post all the letters from
> > > > > experts showing he is wrong? I think the above sentence proves to me
> > > > > that you have no idea why Ed posts. Care to prove me wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Ed posted them because he feels it lends credence to his claim of a
> > > > "pseudoscientific" conspiracy. That's his *stated* motive, and at this
> > > > point I see no reason to doubt that's his motive. However, I don't think
> > > > that he believes that there *is* such a conspiracy.
> > >
> > > Then why would he say there is, repeatedly. I'm sorry but it appears
> > > you cannot believe that someone who is a perfectly sociable person and
> > > can usualy descipher what is true of false cannot be blinded by ego
> > > over the years to their own mistake.
> >
> > Sure I can. I just don't think that this is the case with Ed.
>
> But all the evidence supports my view. Listen to his recent
> 'interview' and see what I mean.
I've listened to it.
> This is not the preformance of a
> actor or 'liar' but someone who believes what they are saying.
I disagree. Listen to his attempt at an explanation of what a premolar
is 35 minutes in. To any biology student, or anyone who's spent five
minutes in a library doing research on the subject, it would be a pretty
straightforward task to answer the question. But Ed is very deferential
to the host, and says that "'pre' doesn't mean anything really, um,
maybe it does in a way", and "Well, you might know more than me". This
is someone trying to ingratiate himself. This is someone hedging his
bets.
Why hasn't Ed removed the supposed 'skull' from the boulder? It's my
belief that this will never happen, because he *knows* that doing so
will reveal it to be just a rock, since whatever is buried within the
boulder won't look like a skull.
Best of all is his explanation of the "protrusion" within the
'Calvarium' at http://www.edconrad.com/images/z11calv.jpg He tries to
convince people that it's actually the top of a skull, even going so far
as to put a baseball hat on it in
http://www.edconrad.com/images/z13cav.jpg But when he tries to do
"comparative anatomy on it, he compares it to the *bottom* of a skull in
http://www.edconrad.com/images/z14cav.jpg Is Ed so delusional that he
confuses up from down, or top from bottom? How could someone that
confused function in society?
And then there's the statement regarding the 'Calvarium' that he makes
at roughly 0:46:45 into the interview, where he says "...does it
resemble a skull in certain areas? And yes indeed it does, and the CAT
scan proves it". Why does he qualify his statement with "resemble", and
"certain"? Why doesn't he use the term "the same", or "identical", or
some other, more forceful statement? Is it a human skull or not?
And still on the subject of the 'Calvarium', why doesn't Ed know what to
call the "protrusion" inside it? He seems to have no difficulty
remembering "Haversian canals", so why can't he remember "Petrous Apex
of the Temporal Bone"?
> > > Sometimes people get stuck in a
> > > mental loop the requires them to keep on making a bigger and bigger
> > > delusion to support the original.
> >
> > People can also lie to save face.
>
> But if they are delusional then they believe their own lies - meaning
> they are no longer liars. That's the jump I don't think you can make.
I'm quite willing to make that jump, I just see no reason to at this
time. Will you admit that people can lie to save face?
> > > If Ed could see a way out without loosing face he may well take it,
> > > but for now he has to believe his own castle in the sky is real.
> >
> > He has to lie, because to admit the truth would make him look like an
> > idiot, and he has an ego as big as all outdoors.
>
> But to justify it to himself he beleives his own lies, he has to ot
> appease his ego. It's as much a matter of admiting to himself that he
> is wrong as to anyone else. Ed can't do that.
I think he did that a long time ago, but he can't admit it to anyone
else.
> > > You may not be able to beleive someone can be this much a slave to a
> > > personal delusion but this kind of self propelling fantasy is all too
> > > common. I could point to religous poeple and say 'how could you
> > > possibly beleive that' but they do and it leads them to blowing
> > > themselves and others up.
> >
> > But such fantasies are far more influential and pervasive in the
> > person's everyday life.
>
> Why? Does a personal philosophy really alter the ability to wash,
> clothe and feed yourself?
Did I say they did? But such fantasies interfere with personal
interactions. It's hard to hold down a job if you are constantly saying
things that aren't true, or worse, leading your co-workers to make
mistakes based on bad information you've given them.
> Looking at other delusional folks and it's only when it becomes sever
> parania with depression linked that it affect a persons ability to
> look after themselves.
>
> > Let me ask you this: Why couldn't Ed explain the implications of "Man
> > Old as Coal" to you?
>
> Because he can't or doesnt want to. He doesnt claim to have a whole
> theory - that's for accademics.
I believe that he's not interested in the implications of his ideas.
They're completely irrelevant to him. But everyone - from the loudest
crank to the most levelheaded professor - is interested in implications.
He's more interested in Ed.
> > > Ignorance and ego are a very very potent mix - never underestimate
> > > their power.
> >
> > I don't. With Ed, it's all about ego.
>
> No - it's also about ignorance. Read Ed's posts and listen to the
> interview. It's all consistant with my theory. Can you name something
> that isnt or is inconsitant?
>
> My theory - for clarity - is that Ed has a run away delusion. He found
> something he thought was a skull and felt it was important and could
> make his name in this world. Upon closer examination it was considered
> by experts to not be a skull and they where certain enough to know it
> was not worth further examination and rightly laughed when Ed
> suggested they look closer.
>
> Ed took this the wrong way and lead to him attempting to prove the
> experts wrong with his limited knowledge. A few people agreeing
> subjectively with Ed fed Ed's ego. The result is a run away delusion
> where Ed is finding fossils of the same kind of quality as the first
> supporting his view. The fact that experts have told him many times
> over they are concretions is not of importance because they are
> psudoscientists.
>
> And thus the delusion is self perpecutating. It is ego plus ignorance.
>
> Stew Dean
If Ed truly believes his delusions, why doesn't he try to remove the
skull from the boulder? Why can't he tell us that the "protrusion" in
the 'Calvarium' is the Petrous Apex of the Temporal Bone?
stew dean
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:49:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen...@crosswinds.net (gen2rev) wrote in message news:<f1129f9.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:39:46 +0000 (UTC),
> > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > <biiiiiiiig snip>
> >
> > From now on I may or may not mark snips. See previous posts of
> > reasoning.
>
> So, even if I ask nicely you won't do it?
Possibly, but at times you've been silly about it.
> Whatever the case, there were some questions in the part you just
> snipped that I'd still like answered. For instance:
>
> What obligations *do* you have?
Sigh. Okay I'll answer your fairly meaningless questions. What
obiligatiosn do I have? In context to this discussion none.
> How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
I read his messages both on this group and the ones he emailed me,
read posts by others and listened to the recent audio interterview.
It's all consistant.
> Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
Sure. Not applicable to Ed as Ed believes his embelishments.
>
>
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fvmjvocefuedb91v...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > > > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > > > > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > > > > required.
> > > >
> > > > Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> > > > the actions of someone else lead to their death.
> > >
> > > True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
> > > perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
> > > unknown.
> >
> > But in this case there is no purse snaching.
>
> Neither did someone die, but that didn't stop you from using it as an
> example. Why the double standard?
Mine had some kind of point, yours appears to be silly. To translate -
because Ed says something that is not true does not mean that he knows
he is a liar, in fact he probably thinks he isnt.
>
> [Stew made an unmarked snip here]
>
> > > > You have to accept that often people believe the most far out and
> > > > apparantly illogical stuff. Reason can influence the views of many
> > > > people in some ways but with some things people choose not to change
> > > > their view or even consider it. For example I am a vegetarian and do
> > > > get a lot of arguments for not being vegetarian, most of which I
> > > > understand and know are not valid.
> > > >
> > > > And so, with Ed, man is as old as coal.
> > >
> > > I accept that the scenarios you outline above are believable, I just
> > > don't think that they apply to Ed.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because I suspect I'm taking more information into account.
Well that's meaningless.
> And how have you come to this conclusion?
Answered above.
> Is lying about the beliefs of
> Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
Once again Ed doesnt think he's lying. You think he is - he doesnt.
> When he posted the tests results from American Medical Laboratories on
> eBay to support his claim that his specimens were genuine, was he being
> humorous, or was it an attempt to make a bigger point?
Ditto.
>
>
> > > > > Let me ask you this: Why is the URL of Ed's website www.edconrad.com and
> > > > > not www.manoldascoal.com ?
> > > >
> > > > I thought that was obvious. Go back to the motive thing.
> > >
> > > Considering that you seem to have changed your mind about Ed's
> > > potential motive, perhaps you could explain further.
> >
> > I havnt changed my mind? What makes you think I have. My view has
> > always been the same.
>
> In
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0307312327.32713b3e%40posting.google.com
> you state:
>
> Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive
> for him to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is
> not motive. He honestly believes what he says not matter how
> weird and wonderful.
>
> But then later in
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308150005.209b2733%40posting.google.com
> you wrote:
>
> He may consider this a minor deception in order to bring forward
> the grander truth. He'll never admit to this and there's no
> point trying to get him to.
>
> This would seem to be a concession that Ed lies on certain occasions.
I would say he doenst think he is.
> > Ed will use what ever agrees with him and dismiss that which doesnt.
> > That's fairly obvious. Those who agree with him become world experts,
> > those that doen't become psuedoscientists. It's called dehumanising
> > your enemy.
>
> And why does he believe that his finds are 280 million years old? Why
> does he accept the claims of geologists?
Ed found some stuff - thought they where important new fossil finds
(he's not the sharpest tool in the box). Somehow his ego kicked in and
he cannot accept that he has a bunch of concretions.
That's it.
>
> [Stew made an unmarked snip here]
>
> > > > > My point is that Ed seems quite capable of separating fantasy from
> > > > > reality when it suits his purposes, or when it's to his advantage.
> > > >
> > > > Which leads to the question - why is it in his advantage to say man is
> > > > as old as coal.
> > > >
> > > > I think in this case it's a delusion that's just run away with Ed.
> > > > Many people with weird ideas have been totally capable of normal life
> > > > - I don't see how your point is valid.
> > >
> > > Because he doesn't seem to have any other delusions. His delusion is
> > > fairly "localized" to paleoanthropology and life after death.
> >
> > I would say not very localised. He has views on many things relating
> > to science that cover a wide area.
>
> Such as?
Life after death for a start. He probably things crop circles are the
products of Aliens.
>
>
> > > Geology
> > > seem to get away with any possible shenanigans it might have up its
> > > sleeve. Why couldn't Ed's "specimens" be the result of the Noachian
> > > flood? Those pesky geologists have been lying to us about their dating
> > > methods! Why doesn't Ed consider that possibility?
> >
> > Because it doesnt help his case
>
> Why not?
Because he's talking about a very very old Earth.
> > and is not a young earth creationist.
>
> Why not?
Now you're just being dumb.
> > Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
>
> Why isn't he a creationist?
Because he doesnt mention anything about creation for a start. I'm
really beginning to think you're taking the piss with these bloody
dumb questions.
> > Ed believes he has real finds.
>
> How have you come to this conclusion?
Read his posts.
> > Ed
> > does not feel he is telling any lies, and any minor deceptions are
> > either humour or to make a bigger point. I beleive this because of the
> > consistancy of his view.
>
> But his views *aren't* consistent, as I'll show below.
It's got nothing to do with his views - it's to do with he behaviour.
>
>
> > He has publically said that he doesnt mind if
> > he does or doesnt sell his ebay stuff - he's just trying to wind 'the
> > establishment up'.
>
> Yes, I agree that he's made this statement.
>
>
> > With Ed ignorance and ego has lead to an adanvance form of dellusion.
>
> This I'm not sure of.
Well I am.
> As I've said before, this advanced form of
> delusion seems quite localized.
Ed is dumb and egotistical, not insane.
> > If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow make money from
> > deseption then he might be considered a liar. As it stands he believes
> > what he says.
>
> And once again you assume the only reason to lie is to make money. Why?
I don't.
>
> [Stew made another unmarked snip here]
>
>
> > > > For example my view is now that Ed is beyond hope
> > > > - so I don't reply to him. If I reach the same view with you I'll do
> > > > the same. I've just about given up on David as he thinks he's fighting
> > > > some kind of war. He's as much tilting against windmills as Ed is.
> > >
> > > I'd disagree with that assessment.
> >
> > Well that's nice isnt it. Care to explain why?
>
> Because he's provoked a very strong reaction from Ed. David is
> supposedly in the pay of the psuedoscientists. If that isn't a reaction
> to David's posts I don't know what is.
What has that got to do with anything? David is helping Ed build his
castle in the Sky. He's not fighting Ed.
>
>
> > > > Also you refused to discuss your motives - so I have to infer them
> > > > from your actions.
> > >
> > > So far your inferences are way off base.
> >
> > My conclusion is that you don't really know why you're replying to Ed.
> > You know he's wrong and want to attempt to put him right, feeding your
> > ego in the process. You are trying to justify this but don't appear to
> > be able to.
>
> An interesting theory, but once again, you're mistaken.
If you'd included some kind of reason it woudl have helped you.
Instead you just confirm my theory.
No it's someone who's dumb.
>
> Why hasn't Ed removed the supposed 'skull' from the boulder? It's my
> belief that this will never happen, because he *knows* that doing so
> will reveal it to be just a rock, since whatever is buried within the
> boulder won't look like a skull.
He doesnt know that. He thinks it's a skull, he's convinced himself
it's a skull.
Don't you get it? What is obvious to others isnt to Ed.
> > > People can also lie to save face.
> >
> > But if they are delusional then they believe their own lies - meaning
> > they are no longer liars. That's the jump I don't think you can make.
>
> I'm quite willing to make that jump, I just see no reason to at this
> time. Will you admit that people can lie to save face?
Let me spell this out again as you don't appear to be getting this.
If you are dellusional you will convince yourself that what you say is
true. You do this to 'save face', that is appease the ego. You are not
aware that what you are saying is a lie.
>
> > > > If Ed could see a way out without loosing face he may well take it,
> > > > but for now he has to believe his own castle in the sky is real.
> > >
> > > He has to lie, because to admit the truth would make him look like an
> > > idiot, and he has an ego as big as all outdoors.
> >
> > But to justify it to himself he beleives his own lies, he has to ot
> > appease his ego. It's as much a matter of admiting to himself that he
> > is wrong as to anyone else. Ed can't do that.
>
> I think he did that a long time ago, but he can't admit it to anyone
> else.
He may have done but that judgement has been overturned.
>
>
> > > > You may not be able to beleive someone can be this much a slave to a
> > > > personal delusion but this kind of self propelling fantasy is all too
> > > > common. I could point to religous poeple and say 'how could you
> > > > possibly beleive that' but they do and it leads them to blowing
> > > > themselves and others up.
> > >
> > > But such fantasies are far more influential and pervasive in the
> > > person's everyday life.
> >
> > Why? Does a personal philosophy really alter the ability to wash,
> > clothe and feed yourself?
>
> Did I say they did? But such fantasies interfere with personal
> interactions.
Not really.
> It's hard to hold down a job if you are constantly saying
> things that aren't true, or worse, leading your co-workers to make
> mistakes based on bad information you've given them.
Not really.
> If Ed truly believes his delusions, why doesn't he try to remove the
> skull from the boulder? Why can't he tell us that the "protrusion" in
> the 'Calvarium' is the Petrous Apex of the Temporal Bone?
Because then he might prove himself wrong - and that cannot happen. Ed
cannot admit he is wrong and so will not do anything to prove himeself
wrong.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<ifj1lvgb49d08ov88...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:49:47 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen...@crosswinds.net (gen2rev) wrote in message news:<f1129f9.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:39:46 +0000 (UTC),
> > > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > <biiiiiiiig snip>
> > >
> > > From now on I may or may not mark snips. See previous posts of
> > > reasoning.
> >
> > So, even if I ask nicely you won't do it?
>
> Possibly, but at times you've been silly about it.
And how have you come to *that* conclusion?
> > Whatever the case, there were some questions in the part you just
> > snipped that I'd still like answered. For instance:
> >
> > What obligations *do* you have?
>
> Sigh. Okay I'll answer your fairly meaningless questions.
Woo Hoo!
> What
> obiligatiosn do I have? In context to this discussion none.
I'll keep that in mind...
> > How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
>
> I read his messages both on this group and the ones he emailed me,
> read posts by others and listened to the recent audio interterview.
>
> It's all consistant.
Could you be more specific?
> > Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
>
> Sure. Not applicable to Ed as Ed believes his embelishments.
And how do you know this?
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fvmjvocefuedb91v...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > > > > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > > > > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > > > > > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > > > > > required.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> > > > > the actions of someone else lead to their death.
> > > >
> > > > True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
> > > > perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
> > > > unknown.
> > >
> > > But in this case there is no purse snaching.
> >
> > Neither did someone die, but that didn't stop you from using it as an
> > example. Why the double standard?
>
> Mine had some kind of point, yours appears to be silly.
And could you explain *why* mine's silly and yours isn't? I'm not really
big on arguments from authority...
> To translate -
> because Ed says something that is not true does not mean that he knows
> he is a liar, in fact he probably thinks he isnt.
How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
and someone who believes what he's saying?
> > [Stew made an unmarked snip here]
> >
> > > > > You have to accept that often people believe the most far out and
> > > > > apparantly illogical stuff. Reason can influence the views of many
> > > > > people in some ways but with some things people choose not to change
> > > > > their view or even consider it. For example I am a vegetarian and do
> > > > > get a lot of arguments for not being vegetarian, most of which I
> > > > > understand and know are not valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > And so, with Ed, man is as old as coal.
> > > >
> > > > I accept that the scenarios you outline above are believable, I just
> > > > don't think that they apply to Ed.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because I suspect I'm taking more information into account.
>
> Well that's meaningless.
Because...?
> > And how have you come to this conclusion?
>
> Answered above.
Gee Stew, what conclusion was I talking about here?
> > Is lying about the beliefs of
> > Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
>
> Once again Ed doesnt think he's lying. You think he is - he doesnt.
That's not what you said earlier. You said that Ed might lie "now and
again". Why have you changed you mind?
> > When he posted the tests results from American Medical Laboratories on
> > eBay to support his claim that his specimens were genuine, was he being
> > humorous, or was it an attempt to make a bigger point?
>
> Ditto.
Same question as above.
> > > > > > Let me ask you this: Why is the URL of Ed's website www.edconrad.com and
> > > > > > not www.manoldascoal.com ?
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought that was obvious. Go back to the motive thing.
> > > >
> > > > Considering that you seem to have changed your mind about Ed's
> > > > potential motive, perhaps you could explain further.
> > >
> > > I havnt changed my mind? What makes you think I have. My view has
> > > always been the same.
> >
> > In
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0307312327.32713b3e%40posting.google.com
> > you state:
> >
> > Because you think Ed is a deliberate liar. There's not motive
> > for him to do that that I can see. It's not money so there is
> > not motive. He honestly believes what he says not matter how
> > weird and wonderful.
> >
> > But then later in
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308150005.209b2733%40posting.google.com
> > you wrote:
> >
> > He may consider this a minor deception in order to bring forward
> > the grander truth. He'll never admit to this and there's no
> > point trying to get him to.
> >
> > This would seem to be a concession that Ed lies on certain occasions.
>
> I would say he doenst think he is.
Then why did you write that "He may consider this a minor deception..."?
Are you withdrawing that claim?
> > > Ed will use what ever agrees with him and dismiss that which doesnt.
> > > That's fairly obvious. Those who agree with him become world experts,
> > > those that doen't become psuedoscientists. It's called dehumanising
> > > your enemy.
> >
> > And why does he believe that his finds are 280 million years old? Why
> > does he accept the claims of geologists?
>
> Ed found some stuff - thought they where important new fossil finds
> (he's not the sharpest tool in the box). Somehow his ego kicked in and
> he cannot accept that he has a bunch of concretions.
>
> That's it.
But you didn't answer the question. Why does he believe that his finds
are 280 million years old? Why does he accept the claims of geologists?
> > [Stew made an unmarked snip here]
> >
> > > > > > My point is that Ed seems quite capable of separating fantasy from
> > > > > > reality when it suits his purposes, or when it's to his advantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which leads to the question - why is it in his advantage to say man is
> > > > > as old as coal.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think in this case it's a delusion that's just run away with Ed.
> > > > > Many people with weird ideas have been totally capable of normal life
> > > > > - I don't see how your point is valid.
> > > >
> > > > Because he doesn't seem to have any other delusions. His delusion is
> > > > fairly "localized" to paleoanthropology and life after death.
> > >
> > > I would say not very localised. He has views on many things relating
> > > to science that cover a wide area.
> >
> > Such as?
>
> Life after death for a start. He probably things crop circles are the
> products of Aliens.
First you say "he has views on many things", and then you say "he
probably thinks". Can you tell me some belief of his that you're sure
of?
> > > > Geology
> > > > seem to get away with any possible shenanigans it might have up its
> > > > sleeve. Why couldn't Ed's "specimens" be the result of the Noachian
> > > > flood? Those pesky geologists have been lying to us about their dating
> > > > methods! Why doesn't Ed consider that possibility?
> > >
> > > Because it doesnt help his case
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because he's talking about a very very old Earth.
And why does he believe in a very very old earth, as opposed to a young
one? What has lead him to this conclusion? Why does he even have a
preference?
> > > and is not a young earth creationist.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Now you're just being dumb.
Why do you say that? I'm very interested in Ed's motives for believing
the things he does.
> > > Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
> >
> > Why isn't he a creationist?
>
> Because he doesnt mention anything about creation for a start. I'm
> really beginning to think you're taking the piss with these bloody
> dumb questions.
No, not at all. I think you're misinterpreting my line of questioning.
Why is believing that Man is 280 million years old preferable to
believing that Man is a mere 6000? Obviously his "evidence" will fit
into both scenarios quite nicely, so why did he pick one and not the
other?
[Stew made an unmarked snip here, a snip which I believe alters the jist
of my question above, so I'll put it back in:]
> > His finds could certainly be used to support
> > the idea.
[Stew also made a snip here, where I disprove Stew's claim that Ed sees
others as "us or them", by citing Ted Holden, who doesn't agree 100%
with Ed's views.]
[And again, Stew made a snip here where I asked him to outline his
reasoning that allowed him to come to his conclusion that more
information is useless when analysing Ed. Presumably because he can't
support his claim.]
> > > Ed believes he has real finds.
> >
> > How have you come to this conclusion?
>
> Read his posts.
Perhaps you could be more specific. Perhaps you could point to some
aspect of his posts that you feel indicates this. Saying "read his
posts" is practically an admission that you can't support your claims.
How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
and someone who believes what he's saying?
> > > Ed
> > > does not feel he is telling any lies, and any minor deceptions are
> > > either humour or to make a bigger point. I beleive this because of the
> > > consistancy of his view.
> >
> > But his views *aren't* consistent, as I'll show below.
>
> It's got nothing to do with his views - it's to do with he behaviour.
Then why did you bring up his views in the first place?
> > > He has publically said that he doesnt mind if
> > > he does or doesnt sell his ebay stuff - he's just trying to wind 'the
> > > establishment up'.
> >
> > Yes, I agree that he's made this statement.
> >
> >
> > > With Ed ignorance and ego has lead to an adanvance form of dellusion.
> >
> > This I'm not sure of.
>
> Well I am.
Yeah, I'd figured that out. But you've yet to convince *me*.
> > As I've said before, this advanced form of
> > delusion seems quite localized.
>
> Ed is dumb and egotistical, not insane.
Did I claim he was?
> > > If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow make money from
> > > deseption then he might be considered a liar. As it stands he believes
> > > what he says.
> >
> > And once again you assume the only reason to lie is to make money. Why?
>
> I don't.
Then why did you write "If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow
make money from deseption then he might be considered a liar." That
certainly sounds like a claim that money *has* to be involved to
motivate lying.
> > [Stew made another unmarked snip here]
> >
> >
> > > > > For example my view is now that Ed is beyond hope
> > > > > - so I don't reply to him. If I reach the same view with you I'll do
> > > > > the same. I've just about given up on David as he thinks he's fighting
> > > > > some kind of war. He's as much tilting against windmills as Ed is.
> > > >
> > > > I'd disagree with that assessment.
> > >
> > > Well that's nice isnt it. Care to explain why?
> >
> > Because he's provoked a very strong reaction from Ed. David is
> > supposedly in the pay of the psuedoscientists. If that isn't a reaction
> > to David's posts I don't know what is.
>
> What has that got to do with anything? David is helping Ed build his
> castle in the Sky. He's not fighting Ed.
Does Ed believe that David's helping him?
> > > > > Also you refused to discuss your motives - so I have to infer them
> > > > > from your actions.
> > > >
> > > > So far your inferences are way off base.
> > >
> > > My conclusion is that you don't really know why you're replying to Ed.
> > > You know he's wrong and want to attempt to put him right, feeding your
> > > ego in the process. You are trying to justify this but don't appear to
> > > be able to.
> >
> > An interesting theory, but once again, you're mistaken.
>
> If you'd included some kind of reason it woudl have helped you.
> Instead you just confirm my theory.
Believe what you like. It should be obvious by now that I'm beyond hope.
I don't know why you bother.
Even dumb people have convictions that they'll stick to. Why is Ed so
wishy-washy about premolars? Even if he gave the *wrong* explanation,
I'd expect his to show some backbone in the matter. But he doesn't,
because I believe that he feels it's relatively inconsequential to his
*big* claim, "Man Old as Coal".
> > Why hasn't Ed removed the supposed 'skull' from the boulder? It's my
> > belief that this will never happen, because he *knows* that doing so
> > will reveal it to be just a rock, since whatever is buried within the
> > boulder won't look like a skull.
>
> He doesnt know that. He thinks it's a skull, he's convinced himself
> it's a skull.
>
> Don't you get it? What is obvious to others isnt to Ed.
So you say, but I have a hard time imagining how someone that oblivious
could function in society.
[Stew snipped my explanation of Ed's behavior regarding the "protrusion"
in the 'Calvarium', presumably because he didn't want to deal with it,
so I'll ask again:]
Is Ed so delusional that he confuses up from down, or top from bottom?
How could someone that confused function in society?
> > > > People can also lie to save face.
> > >
> > > But if they are delusional then they believe their own lies - meaning
> > > they are no longer liars. That's the jump I don't think you can make.
> >
> > I'm quite willing to make that jump, I just see no reason to at this
> > time. Will you admit that people can lie to save face?
>
> Let me spell this out again as you don't appear to be getting this.
>
> If you are dellusional you will convince yourself that what you say is
> true. You do this to 'save face', that is appease the ego. You are not
> aware that what you are saying is a lie.
And it's also quite possible that you will lie to save face, and to
appease the ego. You can be quite aware that you're telling a lie, but
believe that you'll get away with it if you tell it often enough. Isn't
that a possibility?
> > > > > If Ed could see a way out without loosing face he may well take it,
> > > > > but for now he has to believe his own castle in the sky is real.
> > > >
> > > > He has to lie, because to admit the truth would make him look like an
> > > > idiot, and he has an ego as big as all outdoors.
> > >
> > > But to justify it to himself he beleives his own lies, he has to ot
> > > appease his ego. It's as much a matter of admiting to himself that he
> > > is wrong as to anyone else. Ed can't do that.
> >
> > I think he did that a long time ago, but he can't admit it to anyone
> > else.
>
> He may have done but that judgement has been overturned.
And how do you know this?
> > > > > You may not be able to beleive someone can be this much a slave to a
> > > > > personal delusion but this kind of self propelling fantasy is all too
> > > > > common. I could point to religous poeple and say 'how could you
> > > > > possibly beleive that' but they do and it leads them to blowing
> > > > > themselves and others up.
> > > >
> > > > But such fantasies are far more influential and pervasive in the
> > > > person's everyday life.
> > >
> > > Why? Does a personal philosophy really alter the ability to wash,
> > > clothe and feed yourself?
> >
> > Did I say they did? But such fantasies interfere with personal
> > interactions.
>
> Not really.
Do you have anything to back that up with?
> > It's hard to hold down a job if you are constantly saying
> > things that aren't true, or worse, leading your co-workers to make
> > mistakes based on bad information you've given them.
>
> Not really.
So, misinformation is tolerated at your place of work?
[Stew snipped a section about the implications of "Man Old as Coal",
presumably because he didn't like the implications...]
> > If Ed truly believes his delusions, why doesn't he try to remove the
> > skull from the boulder? Why can't he tell us that the "protrusion" in
> > the 'Calvarium' is the Petrous Apex of the Temporal Bone?
>
> Because then he might prove himself wrong - and that cannot happen. Ed
> cannot admit he is wrong and so will not do anything to prove himeself
> wrong.
Gee, something we agree on.
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:10:18 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> > > How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
> >
> > I read his messages both on this group and the ones he emailed me,
> > read posts by others and listened to the recent audio interterview.
> >
> > It's all consistant.
>
> Could you be more specific?
He makes the same claims in the same style again and again. He attacks
a mythical scientific establishment and anyone who disagrees with him.
Man is a old as coal - coal is old.
He does occasionally go off and talking about miners trapped down life
shafts, meteor impacts near where he lives (he sold maps) and other
odds and sods you can track down.
> > > Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
> >
> > Sure. Not applicable to Ed as Ed believes his embelishments.
>
> And how do you know this?
Through reading his posts. His posts are consistant and have a
constant tone. He is not in doubt and does not indicate he is open to
over views.
If you have any contradictory evidence I'd like to hear it.
Consistancy is a large part. Also the depth and intensity is a big
indicator. In order to tell a story as often and as passionatly as Ed
you have to be believe it. Why? Because in order to keep a lie going
that long and that passionatly you would need to have some motive. Ego
is not enough in this case as Ed often grows the story rather than
just defending something he once said. Standing or Kudos are not
applicable here as he has no peers.
> > > Is lying about the beliefs of
> > > Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
> >
> > Once again Ed doesnt think he's lying. You think he is - he doesnt.
>
> That's not what you said earlier. You said that Ed might lie "now and
> again". Why have you changed you mind?
No. In the above case he doesnt think he was lying. Where he does lie
it is a minor deceit to support a main idea but he does not consider
himself to be a liar. Clear? Somehow I don't think it is.
> > > > Ed will use what ever agrees with him and dismiss that which doesnt.
> > > > That's fairly obvious. Those who agree with him become world experts,
> > > > those that doen't become psuedoscientists. It's called dehumanising
> > > > your enemy.
> > >
> > > And why does he believe that his finds are 280 million years old? Why
> > > does he accept the claims of geologists?
> >
> > Ed found some stuff - thought they where important new fossil finds
> > (he's not the sharpest tool in the box). Somehow his ego kicked in and
> > he cannot accept that he has a bunch of concretions.
> >
> > That's it.
>
> But you didn't answer the question. Why does he believe that his finds
> are 280 million years old? Why does he accept the claims of geologists?
Why can't you work it out your self? Ed lives in a coal mining area -
he would have been taught about coal and that it was very old.
Therefore his theories, based upon what he does know, includes and old
Earth. How about that?
> > > > Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
> > >
> > > Why isn't he a creationist?
> >
> > Because he doesnt mention anything about creation for a start. I'm
> > really beginning to think you're taking the piss with these bloody
> > dumb questions.
>
> No, not at all. I think you're misinterpreting my line of questioning.
In this message I had to snip repeat messages and just plain dumb
ones. Engage your mind for five seconds and have a go at answering you
own questions like...
> Why is believing that Man is 280 million years old preferable to
> believing that Man is a mere 6000?
One word - 'Coal'.
> Obviously his "evidence" will fit
> into both scenarios quite nicely, so why did he pick one and not the
> other?
Because obviously it doesnt. Ed does not offer any evidence or even
suggests coal is young. He holds that coal may not have been formed by
vegetable matter because he can't get his head around the gradual
depositing of vegetation leading to what he describes as a six mile
deep pile of vegetation - he can't factor time into the equation.
>
> [Stew made an unmarked snip here, a snip which I believe alters the jist
> of my question above, so I'll put it back in:]
>
> > > His finds could certainly be used to support
> > > the idea.
I've no idea where you get this Ed is a creationist idea - he isnt nor
does he make any claim he is.
> [Stew also made a snip here, where I disprove Stew's claim that Ed sees
> others as "us or them", by citing Ted Holden, who doesn't agree 100%
> with Ed's views.]
Whooo there boy. That doesnt disprove anything. Ed is often ignorant
to the fact people disagree with them - but it's the old 'you enemies
enemy is your friend' kind of thinking.
So far you've failed to disprove anything. You're attempting to turn
my 'Ed occasionally uses small deceits to support his main ideas' into
'Ed is a liar and knows he is a liar'.
Sorry Bob, can't let you do that.
>
> > > > Ed believes he has real finds.
> > >
> > > How have you come to this conclusion?
> >
> > Read his posts.
>
> Perhaps you could be more specific.
Okay Read his posts, visit his web site and listen to his interview.
> Perhaps you could point to some
> aspect of his posts that you feel indicates this. Saying "read his
> posts" is practically an admission that you can't support your claims.
If each of his posts is the same why would I need to be specific. The
more you read the more supported my view is.
> How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
> and someone who believes what he's saying?
How does someone kindly ask someone to stop asking the same questions?
>
>
> > > > Ed
> > > > does not feel he is telling any lies, and any minor deceptions are
> > > > either humour or to make a bigger point. I beleive this because of the
> > > > consistancy of his view.
> > >
> > > But his views *aren't* consistent, as I'll show below.
> >
> > It's got nothing to do with his views - it's to do with he behaviour.
>
> Then why did you bring up his views in the first place?
Okay - he's a shot for you. Ed's views are consistant. You claim they
are not?
Now where did you write his views where different. Maybe I snipped it.
> > > > He has publically said that he doesnt mind if
> > > > he does or doesnt sell his ebay stuff - he's just trying to wind 'the
> > > > establishment up'.
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree that he's made this statement.
> > >
> > >
> > > > With Ed ignorance and ego has lead to an adanvance form of dellusion.
> > >
> > > This I'm not sure of.
> >
> > Well I am.
>
> Yeah, I'd figured that out. But you've yet to convince *me*.
I have given you all the reasons why Ed is not a liar. All his posts
are fairly consistant so I'm not going to name a post - you can use
any post you choose.
>
> > > As I've said before, this advanced form of
> > > delusion seems quite localized.
> >
> > Ed is dumb and egotistical, not insane.
>
> Did I claim he was?
Yes. If Ed is delusional then you appear to be claiming that must make
him insane and could not hold down a day job.
I'm saying he is delusional about somethings - but only because of
ignorance and ego. In areas where he is not ignorant he is not
delusional.
>
>
> > > > If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow make money from
> > > > deseption then he might be considered a liar. As it stands he believes
> > > > what he says.
> > >
> > > And once again you assume the only reason to lie is to make money. Why?
> >
> > I don't.
>
> Then why did you write "If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow
> make money from deseption then he might be considered a liar." That
> certainly sounds like a claim that money *has* to be involved to
> motivate lying.
In Ed's case it's not for Kudos because he has no peers. It's not for
promotion, it's not for sex, it's not for any of the usual things
because they don't factor in. If Ed is a liar then he must have some
reason to do it. Ego is the only possibly argument but it doesnt make
any sense because he is creating a bigger lie rather than attempting
to get out of it to save face. Therefore he is delussional - he has
build a castle in the sky and wants to live in it.
<on David and Ed>
> > > Because he's provoked a very strong reaction from Ed. David is
> > > supposedly in the pay of the psuedoscientists. If that isn't a reaction
> > > to David's posts I don't know what is.
> >
> > What has that got to do with anything? David is helping Ed build his
> > castle in the Sky. He's not fighting Ed.
>
> Does Ed believe that David's helping him?
You know the answer to this question. Stop wasting time.
>
> > > > > > Also you refused to discuss your motives - so I have to infer them
> > > > > > from your actions.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far your inferences are way off base.
> > > >
> > > > My conclusion is that you don't really know why you're replying to Ed.
> > > > You know he's wrong and want to attempt to put him right, feeding your
> > > > ego in the process. You are trying to justify this but don't appear to
> > > > be able to.
> > >
> > > An interesting theory, but once again, you're mistaken.
> >
> > If you'd included some kind of reason it woudl have helped you.
> > Instead you just confirm my theory.
>
> Believe what you like. It should be obvious by now that I'm beyond hope.
> I don't know why you bother.
That is a very good point. I think it's as much to do with curiosity
to find out how you will resolve the corner you've painted yourself
into.
Why do you think Ed would consistantly lie? What's his motivation?
> > > Why hasn't Ed removed the supposed 'skull' from the boulder? It's my
> > > belief that this will never happen, because he *knows* that doing so
> > > will reveal it to be just a rock, since whatever is buried within the
> > > boulder won't look like a skull.
> >
> > He doesnt know that. He thinks it's a skull, he's convinced himself
> > it's a skull.
> >
> > Don't you get it? What is obvious to others isnt to Ed.
>
> So you say, but I have a hard time imagining how someone that oblivious
> could function in society.
People believe in God - which i consider to be a huge delusion - yet
they are often vital parts of socierty. If there is a god then that
would make me delusional and I'm far from a recluse. Either way being
very wrong about something need not have an affect on your daily life.
We can all be very wrong about somethings - as you are about Ed being
nothing more than a liar.
There appears to be one or two things you just don't get - you don't
appear to be able to see things from Ed's point of view yet show
similair tendencies yourself (although not as much as David).
The rest I've snipped due to time constraints.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rg87lv417mel8u2vs...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:10:18 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
> > >
> > > I read his messages both on this group and the ones he emailed me,
> > > read posts by others and listened to the recent audio interterview.
> > >
> > > It's all consistant.
> >
> > Could you be more specific?
>
> He makes the same claims in the same style again and again.
It's called copy and paste. However, his claims about his "penis"
specimen have been known to change.
> He attacks
> a mythical scientific establishment and anyone who disagrees with him.
> Man is a old as coal - coal is old.
>
> He does occasionally go off and talking about miners trapped down life
> shafts, meteor impacts near where he lives (he sold maps) and other
> odds and sods you can track down.
Yeah, I've done that. Trust me on this.
> > > > Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
> > >
> > > Sure. Not applicable to Ed as Ed believes his embelishments.
> >
> > And how do you know this?
>
> Through reading his posts. His posts are consistant and have a
> constant tone. He is not in doubt and does not indicate he is open to
> over views.
>
> If you have any contradictory evidence I'd like to hear it.
You keep snipping it away.
> > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fvmjvocefuedb91v...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > > > > > > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > > > > > > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > > > > > > > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > > > > > > > required.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> > > > > > > the actions of someone else lead to their death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
> > > > > > perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
> > > > > > unknown.
> > > > >
> > > > > But in this case there is no purse snaching.
> > > >
> > > > Neither did someone die, but that didn't stop you from using it as an
> > > > example. Why the double standard?
> > >
> > > Mine had some kind of point, yours appears to be silly.
> >
> > And could you explain *why* mine's silly and yours isn't? I'm not really
> > big on arguments from authority...
No answer?
> > > To translate -
> > > because Ed says something that is not true does not mean that he knows
> > > he is a liar, in fact he probably thinks he isnt.
> >
> > How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
> > and someone who believes what he's saying?
>
> Consistancy is a large part. Also the depth and intensity is a big
> indicator. In order to tell a story as often and as passionatly as Ed
> you have to be believe it. Why? Because in order to keep a lie going
> that long and that passionatly you would need to have some motive. Ego
> is not enough in this case as Ed often grows the story rather than
> just defending something he once said.
And ego wouldn't be a motive for that?
> Standing or Kudos are not
> applicable here as he has no peers.
Or so he'd like us to believe.
> > > > Is lying about the beliefs of
> > > > Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
> > >
> > > Once again Ed doesnt think he's lying. You think he is - he doesnt.
> >
> > That's not what you said earlier. You said that Ed might lie "now and
> > again". Why have you changed you mind?
>
> No. In the above case he doesnt think he was lying. Where he does lie
> it is a minor deceit to support a main idea but he does not consider
> himself to be a liar.
You claim that he doesn't think he's lying in the case of Hooton, yet in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308150005.209b2733%40posting.google.com
you state that "He may consider this a minor deception". It sure sounds
like you've changed your mind to me...
> Clear? Somehow I don't think it is.
Then you should try and make it clear. Don't be in such a rush to post
if you think your ideas are unclear ;)
> > > > > Ed will use what ever agrees with him and dismiss that which doesnt.
> > > > > That's fairly obvious. Those who agree with him become world experts,
> > > > > those that doen't become psuedoscientists. It's called dehumanising
> > > > > your enemy.
> > > >
> > > > And why does he believe that his finds are 280 million years old? Why
> > > > does he accept the claims of geologists?
> > >
> > > Ed found some stuff - thought they where important new fossil finds
> > > (he's not the sharpest tool in the box). Somehow his ego kicked in and
> > > he cannot accept that he has a bunch of concretions.
> > >
> > > That's it.
> >
> > But you didn't answer the question. Why does he believe that his finds
> > are 280 million years old? Why does he accept the claims of geologists?
>
> Why can't you work it out your self? Ed lives in a coal mining area -
> he would have been taught about coal and that it was very old.
> Therefore his theories, based upon what he does know, includes and old
> Earth. How about that?
He rejects theories about how it was formed, so why should he accept
theories about how old it is? Is there some *requirement* that coal be
280 million years old? Even *you* thought this was a good question six
months ago in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0303070016.2bde456a%40posting.google.com
What changed your mind?
> > > > > Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
> > > >
> > > > Why isn't he a creationist?
> > >
> > > Because he doesnt mention anything about creation for a start. I'm
> > > really beginning to think you're taking the piss with these bloody
> > > dumb questions.
> >
> > No, not at all. I think you're misinterpreting my line of questioning.
>
> In this message I had to snip repeat messages and just plain dumb
> ones. Engage your mind for five seconds and have a go at answering you
> own questions like...
Stew, I *have* answered these questions, at least to my own
satisfaction: Ed's a liar. You're the one trying to convince me that I'm
wrong, remember? If you can't be bothered to justify your claims with
anything other than "read his website and listen to his interview" why
should I bother? I've *done* these things. Why should I do them again?
What should I be looking for the next time?
> > Why is believing that Man is 280 million years old preferable to
> > believing that Man is a mere 6000?
>
> One word - 'Coal'.
And why is it preferable to believe that coal is 280 million years old?
> > Obviously his "evidence" will fit
> > into both scenarios quite nicely, so why did he pick one and not the
> > other?
>
> Because obviously it doesnt.
Why not?
> Ed does not offer any evidence or even
> suggests coal is young. He holds that coal may not have been formed by
> vegetable matter because he can't get his head around the gradual
> depositing of vegetation leading to what he describes as a six mile
> deep pile of vegetation - he can't factor time into the equation.
So why does he cling to 280 million years?
> > [Stew made an unmarked snip here, a snip which I believe alters the jist
> > of my question above, so I'll put it back in:]
> >
> > > > His finds could certainly be used to support
> > > > the idea.
>
> I've no idea where you get this Ed is a creationist idea - he isnt nor
> does he make any claim he is.
I've never claimed that Ed *was* a creationist. Where are you getting
this from? I'm merely saying that his "evidence" could be used to
support a YEC viewpoint. What I'm curious about is why Ed hasn't let his
"evidence" sway him to a YEC position. It's my belief that such a
position isn't spectacular enough for him, and this is why he rejects
it.
> > [Stew also made a snip here, where I disprove Stew's claim that Ed sees
> > others as "us or them", by citing Ted Holden, who doesn't agree 100%
> > with Ed's views.]
>
> Whooo there boy. That doesnt disprove anything. Ed is often ignorant
> to the fact people disagree with them - but it's the old 'you enemies
> enemy is your friend' kind of thinking.
>
> So far you've failed to disprove anything. You're attempting to turn
> my 'Ed occasionally uses small deceits to support his main ideas' into
> 'Ed is a liar and knows he is a liar'.
>
> Sorry Bob, can't let you do that.
Stew, it's not up to me to disprove anything. I don't particularly care
what you think. But you believe that I should change my behavior based
on *your* claims. For some reason I'm trying to let you state your case,
yet so far you've been unconvincing, falling back on "read his website".
Would *you* find such a response convincing? Frankly, it seems like
laziness on your part. I've provided specific points that I believe back
up my claims, which you've then snipped, and in some cases didn't even
mark the snip.
If you're really interested in convincing me to change my ways, I
suggest you put some effort into it.
> > > > > Ed believes he has real finds.
> > > >
> > > > How have you come to this conclusion?
> > >
> > > Read his posts.
> >
> > Perhaps you could be more specific.
>
> Okay Read his posts, visit his web site and listen to his interview.
Let me say it again: Perhaps you could be more specific. Saying "visit
the website" reminds me of a response that Mike Goodrich would post.
> > Perhaps you could point to some
> > aspect of his posts that you feel indicates this. Saying "read his
> > posts" is practically an admission that you can't support your claims.
>
> If each of his posts is the same why would I need to be specific.
Possibly to convince me that you know what you're talking about.
> The
> more you read the more supported my view is.
Not that I can see.
> > How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
> > and someone who believes what he's saying?
>
> How does someone kindly ask someone to stop asking the same questions?
Well, one way to avoid such a situation is to provide answers.
> > > > > Ed
> > > > > does not feel he is telling any lies, and any minor deceptions are
> > > > > either humour or to make a bigger point. I beleive this because of the
> > > > > consistancy of his view.
> > > >
> > > > But his views *aren't* consistent, as I'll show below.
> > >
> > > It's got nothing to do with his views - it's to do with he behaviour.
> >
> > Then why did you bring up his views in the first place?
>
> Okay - he's a shot for you. Ed's views are consistant. You claim they
> are not?
>
> Now where did you write his views where different. Maybe I snipped it.
Yep, you did. Ed's views on the "Calvarium" are contradictory. In one
picture it's the top of the skull, in another it's the bottom. His views
on the "penis" have changed too.
> > > > > He has publically said that he doesnt mind if
> > > > > he does or doesnt sell his ebay stuff - he's just trying to wind 'the
> > > > > establishment up'.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I agree that he's made this statement.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > With Ed ignorance and ego has lead to an adanvance form of dellusion.
> > > >
> > > > This I'm not sure of.
> > >
> > > Well I am.
> >
> > Yeah, I'd figured that out. But you've yet to convince *me*.
>
> I have given you all the reasons why Ed is not a liar. All his posts
> are fairly consistant so I'm not going to name a post - you can use
> any post you choose.
What about the "Calvarium"?
> > > > As I've said before, this advanced form of
> > > > delusion seems quite localized.
> > >
> > > Ed is dumb and egotistical, not insane.
> >
> > Did I claim he was?
>
> Yes. If Ed is delusional then you appear to be claiming that must make
> him insane and could not hold down a day job.
I never claimed that being delusional would make him insane, I merely
stated that having far-reaching delusions would make it difficult to
hold down a job. I suppose it depends on which definition of "insane"
you use, but I don't recall using that word. Care to point out where I
have?
> I'm saying he is delusional about somethings - but only because of
> ignorance and ego. In areas where he is not ignorant he is not
> delusional.
And what areas isn't he ignorant?
> > > > > If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow make money from
> > > > > deseption then he might be considered a liar. As it stands he believes
> > > > > what he says.
> > > >
> > > > And once again you assume the only reason to lie is to make money. Why?
> > >
> > > I don't.
> >
> > Then why did you write "If there was inconsistancy and if Ed was somehow
> > make money from deseption then he might be considered a liar." That
> > certainly sounds like a claim that money *has* to be involved to
> > motivate lying.
>
> In Ed's case it's not for Kudos because he has no peers.
So what if Ed has no peers? Do you think that people of power and
authority don't like adulation from those "beneath" them?
> It's not for
> promotion, it's not for sex, it's not for any of the usual things
> because they don't factor in. If Ed is a liar then he must have some
> reason to do it. Ego is the only possibly argument but it doesnt make
> any sense because he is creating a bigger lie rather than attempting
> to get out of it to save face. Therefore he is delussional - he has
> build a castle in the sky and wants to live in it.
Yes, the bigger the lie that better, and he thinks he can get away with
it.
> <on David and Ed>
>
> > > > Because he's provoked a very strong reaction from Ed. David is
> > > > supposedly in the pay of the psuedoscientists. If that isn't a reaction
> > > > to David's posts I don't know what is.
> > >
> > > What has that got to do with anything? David is helping Ed build his
> > > castle in the Sky. He's not fighting Ed.
> >
> > Does Ed believe that David's helping him?
>
> You know the answer to this question. Stop wasting time.
Then what's the basis of your claim that David's not fighting Ed? Are
they in cahoots? 8)
> > > > > > > Also you refused to discuss your motives - so I have to infer them
> > > > > > > from your actions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So far your inferences are way off base.
> > > > >
> > > > > My conclusion is that you don't really know why you're replying to Ed.
> > > > > You know he's wrong and want to attempt to put him right, feeding your
> > > > > ego in the process. You are trying to justify this but don't appear to
> > > > > be able to.
> > > >
> > > > An interesting theory, but once again, you're mistaken.
> > >
> > > If you'd included some kind of reason it woudl have helped you.
> > > Instead you just confirm my theory.
> >
> > Believe what you like. It should be obvious by now that I'm beyond hope.
> > I don't know why you bother.
>
> That is a very good point. I think it's as much to do with curiosity
> to find out how you will resolve the corner you've painted yourself
> into.
Corner I've painted myself into? And what corner might that be?
> Why do you think Ed would consistantly lie? What's his motivation?
The dream of glory. Remember the line "even a better story is how I
won't quit" in the interview?
> > > > Why hasn't Ed removed the supposed 'skull' from the boulder? It's my
> > > > belief that this will never happen, because he *knows* that doing so
> > > > will reveal it to be just a rock, since whatever is buried within the
> > > > boulder won't look like a skull.
> > >
> > > He doesnt know that. He thinks it's a skull, he's convinced himself
> > > it's a skull.
> > >
> > > Don't you get it? What is obvious to others isnt to Ed.
> >
> > So you say, but I have a hard time imagining how someone that oblivious
> > could function in society.
>
> People believe in God - which i consider to be a huge delusion - yet
> they are often vital parts of socierty. If there is a god then that
> would make me delusional and I'm far from a recluse.
What does being a recluse have to do with being delusional?
> Either way being
> very wrong about something need not have an affect on your daily life.
> We can all be very wrong about somethings - as you are about Ed being
> nothing more than a liar.
So you say.
Ed's got problems, I'll admit that. Where we disagree is what those
problems *are*.
> There appears to be one or two things you just don't get - you don't
> appear to be able to see things from Ed's point of view yet show
> similair tendencies yourself (although not as much as David).
>
> The rest I've snipped due to time constraints.
What's the rush?
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:56:29 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rg87lv417mel8u2vs...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:10:18 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
> > > >
> > > > I read his messages both on this group and the ones he emailed me,
> > > > read posts by others and listened to the recent audio interterview.
> > > >
> > > > It's all consistant.
> > >
> > > Could you be more specific?
> >
> > He makes the same claims in the same style again and again.
>
> It's called copy and paste. However, his claims about his "penis"
> specimen have been known to change.
And?
>
>
> > > > > Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
> > > >
> > > > Sure. Not applicable to Ed as Ed believes his embelishments.
> > >
> > > And how do you know this?
> >
> > Through reading his posts. His posts are consistant and have a
> > constant tone. He is not in doubt and does not indicate he is open to
> > over views.
> >
> > If you have any contradictory evidence I'd like to hear it.
>
> You keep snipping it away.
Now I can call you a liar. I snip away stuff that is either repeated
or I don't consider important to answer. No contradictory evidence has
been snipped because you don't include evidence.
>
> > > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fvmjvocefuedb91v...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > > > > > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > > > > > > > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > > > > > > > > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > > > > > > > > required.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> > > > > > > > the actions of someone else lead to their death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
> > > > > > > perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
> > > > > > > unknown.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But in this case there is no purse snaching.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither did someone die, but that didn't stop you from using it as an
> > > > > example. Why the double standard?
> > > >
> > > > Mine had some kind of point, yours appears to be silly.
> > >
> > > And could you explain *why* mine's silly and yours isn't? I'm not really
> > > big on arguments from authority...
>
> No answer?
Yours was pointless - it did not related to Ed's case.
>
> > > > To translate -
> > > > because Ed says something that is not true does not mean that he knows
> > > > he is a liar, in fact he probably thinks he isnt.
> > >
> > > How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
> > > and someone who believes what he's saying?
> >
> > Consistancy is a large part. Also the depth and intensity is a big
> > indicator. In order to tell a story as often and as passionatly as Ed
> > you have to be believe it. Why? Because in order to keep a lie going
> > that long and that passionatly you would need to have some motive. Ego
> > is not enough in this case as Ed often grows the story rather than
> > just defending something he once said.
>
> And ego wouldn't be a motive for that?
No. Please pay attention.
> > Standing or Kudos are not
> > applicable here as he has no peers.
>
> Or so he'd like us to believe.
What is that supposed to mean? Ed has no peers. Care to show
otherwise? Otherwise please stop making rediculous statements like the
one above.
>
>
> > > > > Is lying about the beliefs of
> > > > > Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
> > > >
> > > > Once again Ed doesnt think he's lying. You think he is - he doesnt.
> > >
> > > That's not what you said earlier. You said that Ed might lie "now and
> > > again". Why have you changed you mind?
> >
> > No. In the above case he doesnt think he was lying. Where he does lie
> > it is a minor deceit to support a main idea but he does not consider
> > himself to be a liar.
>
> You claim that he doesn't think he's lying in the case of Hooton, yet in
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308150005.209b2733%40posting.google.com
> you state that "He may consider this a minor deception". It sure sounds
> like you've changed your mind to me...
No. Ed is not a liar - he uses minor desceptions at times to support
the 'Truth' (tm) - but he considers himself innocent compared to the
crimes of the scientific establishment.
> > Clear? Somehow I don't think it is.
>
> Then you should try and make it clear. Don't be in such a rush to post
> if you think your ideas are unclear ;)
Oh the irony. I didnt think it was unclear - just that it was going to
be unclear to you.
>
> > > > > > Ed will use what ever agrees with him and dismiss that which doesnt.
> > > > > > That's fairly obvious. Those who agree with him become world experts,
> > > > > > those that doen't become psuedoscientists. It's called dehumanising
> > > > > > your enemy.
> > > > >
> > > > > And why does he believe that his finds are 280 million years old? Why
> > > > > does he accept the claims of geologists?
> > > >
> > > > Ed found some stuff - thought they where important new fossil finds
> > > > (he's not the sharpest tool in the box). Somehow his ego kicked in and
> > > > he cannot accept that he has a bunch of concretions.
> > > >
> > > > That's it.
> > >
> > > But you didn't answer the question. Why does he believe that his finds
> > > are 280 million years old? Why does he accept the claims of geologists?
> >
> > Why can't you work it out your self? Ed lives in a coal mining area -
> > he would have been taught about coal and that it was very old.
> > Therefore his theories, based upon what he does know, includes and old
> > Earth. How about that?
>
> He rejects theories about how it was formed, so why should he accept
> theories about how old it is? Is there some *requirement* that coal be
> 280 million years old? Even *you* thought this was a good question six
> months ago in
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0303070016.2bde456a%40posting.google.com
>
> What changed your mind?
You appear to want to apply reason to Ed's arguements. My view is not
Ed is beyond reason.
All this dicussion about ages of Earth is very much far from the
point. It doesnt matter if you can 'prove' Ed wrong - that's been done
many times over it's about Ed and how he sees things.
>
> > > > > > Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why isn't he a creationist?
> > > >
> > > > Because he doesnt mention anything about creation for a start. I'm
> > > > really beginning to think you're taking the piss with these bloody
> > > > dumb questions.
> > >
> > > No, not at all. I think you're misinterpreting my line of questioning.
> >
> > In this message I had to snip repeat messages and just plain dumb
> > ones. Engage your mind for five seconds and have a go at answering you
> > own questions like...
>
> Stew, I *have* answered these questions, at least to my own
> satisfaction: Ed's a liar. You're the one trying to convince me that I'm
> wrong, remember?
And so far I've given you enough for you to at least see this is very
unlikely.
Why isnt he a creationist is answerable with 'because he isnt'. It's
like asking me why am I not a mormon.
<snip repeated stuff related top YEC - it's not relevant>
> > I've no idea where you get this Ed is a creationist idea - he isnt nor
> > does he make any claim he is.
>
> I've never claimed that Ed *was* a creationist. Where are you getting
> this from? I'm merely saying that his "evidence" could be used to
> support a YEC viewpoint.
Not if Ed is claiming the Earth is old. So that's not logically
correct.
Don't ask why Ed thinks the Earth is old.
What I'm curious about is why Ed hasn't let his
> "evidence" sway him to a YEC position. It's my belief that such a
> position isn't spectacular enough for him, and this is why he rejects
> it.
>
>
> > > [Stew also made a snip here, where I disprove Stew's claim that Ed sees
> > > others as "us or them", by citing Ted Holden, who doesn't agree 100%
> > > with Ed's views.]
> >
> > Whooo there boy. That doesnt disprove anything. Ed is often ignorant
> > to the fact people disagree with them - but it's the old 'you enemies
> > enemy is your friend' kind of thinking.
> >
> > So far you've failed to disprove anything. You're attempting to turn
> > my 'Ed occasionally uses small deceits to support his main ideas' into
> > 'Ed is a liar and knows he is a liar'.
> >
> > Sorry Bob, can't let you do that.
>
> Stew, it's not up to me to disprove anything.
Yes it is - if you can't disrpove me then you must be wrong.
> I don't particularly care what you think.
You never studied phychology did you? The above statement is an
indication that you are pissed off that someone else can't see your
point of view - teenagers use the 'I don't care' phrase a lot out of
frustration.
If you really didnt care you wouldnt reply. It's kind of that simple.
> If you're really interested in convincing me to change my ways, I
> suggest you put some effort into it.
You get about as much effort as I can afford to give you.
To recap.
Nothing about Ed's actions indicates he is trying to totaly desceive.
It indicates that Ed, due to reasons of ego and ignorance has
convinced himself that what he is saying is true and there is a
conspiracy of some form against his point of view.
There is not reason stated why Ed would continue to preach a position
that he knows is not true to the level he does, including the
expansion of his claims. To do so would run counter to ego as it would
mean that you are supporting something that you know is not true so
therefore be more obviously false - giving rise to youself being
uncovered.
Ed therefore doesnt think he is in danger of being uncovered as his
central ideas are safe from being uncovered as there is nothing to
uncover. Around the edges some of his ideas he's not 100% sure about -
this is due to his own ignorance which he DOES admit and he does not
invest vital energy into these fringe things as it makes no difference
to his central argument.
I think this is clear but somehow don't think it'll be clear to you.
> > The rest I've snipped due to time constraints.
And again.
>
> What's the rush?
I have to work and generally attempt to have a life.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<qdbnlvslkq7p8tf3f...@4ax.com>...
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:56:29 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rg87lv417mel8u2vs...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:10:18 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > > How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
> > > > >
> > > > > I read his messages both on this group and the ones he emailed me,
> > > > > read posts by others and listened to the recent audio interterview.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's all consistant.
> > > >
> > > > Could you be more specific?
> > >
> > > He makes the same claims in the same style again and again.
> >
> > It's called copy and paste. However, his claims about his "penis"
> > specimen have been known to change.
>
> And?
And so, he *doesn't* make the same claims again and again, thereby
disproving your point.
> > > > > > Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure. Not applicable to Ed as Ed believes his embelishments.
> > > >
> > > > And how do you know this?
> > >
> > > Through reading his posts. His posts are consistant and have a
> > > constant tone. He is not in doubt and does not indicate he is open to
> > > over views.
> > >
> > > If you have any contradictory evidence I'd like to hear it.
> >
> > You keep snipping it away.
>
> Now I can call you a liar. I snip away stuff that is either repeated
> or I don't consider important to answer. No contradictory evidence has
> been snipped because you don't include evidence.
I see. So in adjacent sentences you state that I've presented no
contradictory evidence, and then you state that there's stuff I present
that you don't consider important enough to answer. Is there a shifting
standard here? You're like the judge of a kangaroo court who dismisses
evidence that contradicts his predetermined verdict. Why don't you
explain *why* my points aren't important enough to answer? Can you?
As for your claim that I'm a liar, let's look over our recent posts: In
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0309080016.71dca7d7%40posting.google.com
I point out that Ed's claims as to what portion of the skull his
"Calvarium" specimen represents are contradictory. In your reply at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308301511.2ed80d8e%40posting.google.com
that section is missing. In my response at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=rg87lv417mel8u2vsltbjv95dv4348si5v%404ax.com
I once again bring up the "Calvarium" inconsistency, and in your follow
up at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0309020457.202ec4ae%40posting.google.com
that section is again missing "due to time constraints". In my reply at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qdbnlvslkq7p8tf3fh2verob84ccgta13o%404ax.com
I bring up the "Calvarium" *again*, but in your response at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0309080016.71dca7d7%40posting.google.com
(the post I'm replying to) you've once again snipped away any mention of
it.
I trust you'll now withdraw your charge that I'm a liar? Will you
explain Ed's contradictory claims regarding the "Calvarium"?
> > > > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fvmjvocefuedb91v...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > > > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > > > > > > > > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > > > > > > > > > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > > > > > > > > > required.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> > > > > > > > > the actions of someone else lead to their death.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
> > > > > > > > perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
> > > > > > > > unknown.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But in this case there is no purse snaching.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neither did someone die, but that didn't stop you from using it as an
> > > > > > example. Why the double standard?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mine had some kind of point, yours appears to be silly.
> > > >
> > > > And could you explain *why* mine's silly and yours isn't? I'm not really
> > > > big on arguments from authority...
> >
> > No answer?
>
> Yours was pointless - it did not related to Ed's case.
And your example of someone dying *does* relate? How so?
> > > > > To translate -
> > > > > because Ed says something that is not true does not mean that he knows
> > > > > he is a liar, in fact he probably thinks he isnt.
> > > >
> > > > How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
> > > > and someone who believes what he's saying?
> > >
> > > Consistancy is a large part. Also the depth and intensity is a big
> > > indicator. In order to tell a story as often and as passionatly as Ed
> > > you have to be believe it. Why? Because in order to keep a lie going
> > > that long and that passionatly you would need to have some motive. Ego
> > > is not enough in this case as Ed often grows the story rather than
> > > just defending something he once said.
> >
> > And ego wouldn't be a motive for that?
>
> No.
Why not?
> Please pay attention.
I am. Please address Ed's contradictory "penis" and "calvarium" claims.
> > > Standing or Kudos are not
> > > applicable here as he has no peers.
> >
> > Or so he'd like us to believe.
>
> What is that supposed to mean? Ed has no peers. Care to show
> otherwise? Otherwise please stop making rediculous statements like the
> one above.
Do you really think that no one's better than Ed? Are you unable to
detect sarcasm?
> > > > > > Is lying about the beliefs of
> > > > > > Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again Ed doesnt think he's lying. You think he is - he doesnt.
> > > >
> > > > That's not what you said earlier. You said that Ed might lie "now and
> > > > again". Why have you changed you mind?
> > >
> > > No. In the above case he doesnt think he was lying. Where he does lie
> > > it is a minor deceit to support a main idea but he does not consider
> > > himself to be a liar.
> >
> > You claim that he doesn't think he's lying in the case of Hooton, yet in
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308150005.209b2733%40posting.google.com
> > you state that "He may consider this a minor deception". It sure sounds
> > like you've changed your mind to me...
>
> No. Ed is not a liar - he uses minor desceptions at times to support
> the 'Truth' (tm) - but he considers himself innocent compared to the
> crimes of the scientific establishment.
How is a deception different from a lie?
> > > Clear? Somehow I don't think it is.
> >
> > Then you should try and make it clear. Don't be in such a rush to post
> > if you think your ideas are unclear ;)
>
> Oh the irony. I didnt think it was unclear - just that it was going to
> be unclear to you.
Why do you think I placed a smiley right after it? You need to lighten
up.
> > > > > > > Ed will use what ever agrees with him and dismiss that which doesnt.
> > > > > > > That's fairly obvious. Those who agree with him become world experts,
> > > > > > > those that doen't become psuedoscientists. It's called dehumanising
> > > > > > > your enemy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And why does he believe that his finds are 280 million years old? Why
> > > > > > does he accept the claims of geologists?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed found some stuff - thought they where important new fossil finds
> > > > > (he's not the sharpest tool in the box). Somehow his ego kicked in and
> > > > > he cannot accept that he has a bunch of concretions.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's it.
> > > >
> > > > But you didn't answer the question. Why does he believe that his finds
> > > > are 280 million years old? Why does he accept the claims of geologists?
> > >
> > > Why can't you work it out your self? Ed lives in a coal mining area -
> > > he would have been taught about coal and that it was very old.
> > > Therefore his theories, based upon what he does know, includes and old
> > > Earth. How about that?
> >
> > He rejects theories about how it was formed, so why should he accept
> > theories about how old it is? Is there some *requirement* that coal be
> > 280 million years old? Even *you* thought this was a good question six
> > months ago in
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0303070016.2bde456a%40posting.google.com
> >
> > What changed your mind?
>
> You appear to want to apply reason to Ed's arguements. My view is not
> Ed is beyond reason.
???
> All this dicussion about ages of Earth is very much far from the
> point. It doesnt matter if you can 'prove' Ed wrong - that's been done
> many times over it's about Ed and how he sees things.
I don't disagree with that, but I'm curious as to *why* Ed sees things
the way he does. Is this a taboo subject with you or something?
> > > > > > > Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why isn't he a creationist?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because he doesnt mention anything about creation for a start. I'm
> > > > > really beginning to think you're taking the piss with these bloody
> > > > > dumb questions.
> > > >
> > > > No, not at all. I think you're misinterpreting my line of questioning.
> > >
> > > In this message I had to snip repeat messages and just plain dumb
> > > ones. Engage your mind for five seconds and have a go at answering you
> > > own questions like...
> >
> > Stew, I *have* answered these questions, at least to my own
> > satisfaction: Ed's a liar. You're the one trying to convince me that I'm
> > wrong, remember?
>
> And so far I've given you enough for you to at least see this is very
> unlikely.
>
> Why isnt he a creationist is answerable with 'because he isnt'. It's
> like asking me why am I not a mormon.
So, you have no idea why you're not a Mormon? The answer is unknowable,
and speculation is pointless? What's that quote about an unexamined
life?
> <snip repeated stuff related top YEC - it's not relevant>
>
>
> > > I've no idea where you get this Ed is a creationist idea - he isnt nor
> > > does he make any claim he is.
> >
> > I've never claimed that Ed *was* a creationist. Where are you getting
> > this from? I'm merely saying that his "evidence" could be used to
> > support a YEC viewpoint.
>
> Not if Ed is claiming the Earth is old. So that's not logically
> correct.
>
> Don't ask why Ed thinks the Earth is old.
Why not? I'm very curious about it. Why is it a necessity for him?
> What I'm curious about is why Ed hasn't let his
> > "evidence" sway him to a YEC position. It's my belief that such a
> > position isn't spectacular enough for him, and this is why he rejects
> > it.
> >
> >
> > > > [Stew also made a snip here, where I disprove Stew's claim that Ed sees
> > > > others as "us or them", by citing Ted Holden, who doesn't agree 100%
> > > > with Ed's views.]
> > >
> > > Whooo there boy. That doesnt disprove anything. Ed is often ignorant
> > > to the fact people disagree with them - but it's the old 'you enemies
> > > enemy is your friend' kind of thinking.
> > >
> > > So far you've failed to disprove anything. You're attempting to turn
> > > my 'Ed occasionally uses small deceits to support his main ideas' into
> > > 'Ed is a liar and knows he is a liar'.
> > >
> > > Sorry Bob, can't let you do that.
> >
> > Stew, it's not up to me to disprove anything.
>
> Yes it is - if you can't disrpove me then you must be wrong.
You're not interested in being disproved. Your tactic of snipping what I
believe are valid points, and then claiming that those points were
previously addressed or stupid is evidence of that. I can only assume
that you can't address these points.
> > I don't particularly care what you think.
>
> You never studied phychology did you? The above statement is an
> indication that you are pissed off that someone else can't see your
> point of view - teenagers use the 'I don't care' phrase a lot out of
> frustration.
>
> If you really didnt care you wouldnt reply. It's kind of that simple.
Here you assume that my responses are motivated by a need to convince
you, but this isn't the case. You are being toyed with.
Of course, I've been wondering since around the beginning of August if
you've been toying with *me*, and haven't really been serious about some
of the lines you post, but you haven't displayed such subtlety in the
past, so I tend to discount this possibility.
But I have to wonder why *you* care, and why you keep responding. What's
in it for you?
> > If you're really interested in convincing me to change my ways, I
> > suggest you put some effort into it.
>
> You get about as much effort as I can afford to give you.
Gosh, that's really big of you. I'm so grateful that you think I'm worth
what little effort you give me. 8)
> To recap.
>
> Nothing about Ed's actions indicates he is trying to totaly desceive.
> It indicates that Ed, due to reasons of ego and ignorance has
> convinced himself that what he is saying is true and there is a
> conspiracy of some form against his point of view.
>
> There is not reason stated why Ed would continue to preach a position
> that he knows is not true to the level he does, including the
> expansion of his claims. To do so would run counter to ego as it would
> mean that you are supporting something that you know is not true so
> therefore be more obviously false - giving rise to youself being
> uncovered.
Unless you had enough of an ego that you didn't think you would be
uncovered.
> Ed therefore doesnt think he is in danger of being uncovered as his
> central ideas are safe from being uncovered as there is nothing to
> uncover. Around the edges some of his ideas he's not 100% sure about -
> this is due to his own ignorance which he DOES admit and he does not
> invest vital energy into these fringe things as it makes no difference
> to his central argument.
>
> I think this is clear but somehow don't think it'll be clear to you.
Oh, it's clear, I just disagree with it.
> > > The rest I've snipped due to time constraints.
>
> And again.
>
> >
> > What's the rush?
>
> I have to work and generally attempt to have a life.
Then why are you wasting your time with little old me? 8)
> Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:15:08 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<qdbnlvslkq7p8tf3f...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:56:29 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rg87lv417mel8u2vs...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:10:18 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I read his messages both on this group and the ones he emailed me,
> > > > > > read posts by others and listened to the recent audio interterview.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's all consistant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you be more specific?
> > > >
> > > > He makes the same claims in the same style again and again.
> > >
> > > It's called copy and paste. However, his claims about his "penis"
> > > specimen have been known to change.
> >
> > And?
>
> And so, he *doesn't* make the same claims again and again, thereby
> disproving your point.
It would only disprove my point if I claimed that all his claims are
consistant. As it stands he does make the same claims again and again.
Some of the side claims are not important to Ed - but man is as old as
coal, evolution is a conspiracy and his finds are not concretions.
>
>
> > > > > > > Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure. Not applicable to Ed as Ed believes his embelishments.
> > > > >
> > > > > And how do you know this?
> > > >
> > > > Through reading his posts. His posts are consistant and have a
> > > > constant tone. He is not in doubt and does not indicate he is open to
> > > > over views.
> > > >
> > > > If you have any contradictory evidence I'd like to hear it.
> > >
> > > You keep snipping it away.
> >
> > Now I can call you a liar. I snip away stuff that is either repeated
> > or I don't consider important to answer. No contradictory evidence has
> > been snipped because you don't include evidence.
>
> I see. So in adjacent sentences you state that I've presented no
> contradictory evidence, and then you state that there's stuff I present
> that you don't consider important enough to answer.
Yep.
> Is there a shifting standard here?
Nope. It's called honesty. I find many things you write trivial.
> You're like the judge of a kangaroo court who dismisses
> evidence that contradicts his predetermined verdict. Why don't you
> explain *why* my points aren't important enough to answer? Can you?
Because I then would have to answer every single question and many of
you questions are loaded (that is a dumb questions). For example the
whole 'why isnt Ed a YEC' which is just silly.
<snip stuff>
> I trust you'll now withdraw your charge that I'm a liar? Will you
> explain Ed's contradictory claims regarding the "Calvarium"?
No.
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<1fvmjvocefuedb91v...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > > > > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<pv9jjv49g8ooa43is...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > You claim Ed is guilty of lying yet you
> > > > > > > > > > > > present no motive. Case dismissed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why does one need motive? For instance, if there is evidence that points
> > > > > > > > > > > to a particular person committing a crime, knowledge of the motive isn't
> > > > > > > > > > > required.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Because someone died it does not mean that person was murdered even if
> > > > > > > > > > the actions of someone else lead to their death.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > True, but if a thousand people see someone snatch a purse, the
> > > > > > > > > perpetrator will be convicted even if the motive for the snatching is
> > > > > > > > > unknown.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But in this case there is no purse snaching.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Neither did someone die, but that didn't stop you from using it as an
> > > > > > > example. Why the double standard?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mine had some kind of point, yours appears to be silly.
> > > > >
> > > > > And could you explain *why* mine's silly and yours isn't? I'm not really
> > > > > big on arguments from authority...
> > >
> > > No answer?
> >
> > Yours was pointless - it did not related to Ed's case.
>
> And your example of someone dying *does* relate? How so?
It was to do with murder - or in this case someone lying. Is Ed a liar
- or in my example is someone a murderer. Just because someone is dead
does not mean that person was murdered.
> > > > > How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
> > > > > and someone who believes what he's saying?
> > > >
> > > > Consistancy is a large part. Also the depth and intensity is a big
> > > > indicator. In order to tell a story as often and as passionatly as Ed
> > > > you have to be believe it. Why? Because in order to keep a lie going
> > > > that long and that passionatly you would need to have some motive. Ego
> > > > is not enough in this case as Ed often grows the story rather than
> > > > just defending something he once said.
> > >
> > > And ego wouldn't be a motive for that?
> >
> > No.
>
> Why not?
Answered in the last message.
> > Please pay attention.
>
> I am. Please address Ed's contradictory "penis" and "calvarium" claims.
Answered in the last message.
> > > > > > > Is lying about the beliefs of
> > > > > > > Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once again Ed doesnt think he's lying. You think he is - he doesnt.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not what you said earlier. You said that Ed might lie "now and
> > > > > again". Why have you changed you mind?
> > > >
> > > > No. In the above case he doesnt think he was lying. Where he does lie
> > > > it is a minor deceit to support a main idea but he does not consider
> > > > himself to be a liar.
> > >
> > > You claim that he doesn't think he's lying in the case of Hooton, yet in
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308150005.209b2733%40posting.google.com
> > > you state that "He may consider this a minor deception". It sure sounds
> > > like you've changed your mind to me...
> >
> > No. Ed is not a liar - he uses minor desceptions at times to support
> > the 'Truth' (tm) - but he considers himself innocent compared to the
> > crimes of the scientific establishment.
>
> How is a deception different from a lie?
Knew you'd ask me that. In general what you're doing is use the side
issues to disprove the central ones. That is why I use the word
deception rather than lie otherwise you, in your irritating way, will
turn around and say 'ah but he is a liar'. You would, at that point,
have missed the whole point that when Ed says man is as old as coal he
is NOT lying or using deception.
The small side cases are not important to the central message.
> > > > Clear? Somehow I don't think it is.
> > >
> > > Then you should try and make it clear. Don't be in such a rush to post
> > > if you think your ideas are unclear ;)
> >
> > Oh the irony. I didnt think it was unclear - just that it was going to
> > be unclear to you.
>
> Why do you think I placed a smiley right after it? You need to lighten
> up.
You need to work on your sense of humour.
> > > > Why can't you work it out your self? Ed lives in a coal mining area -
> > > > he would have been taught about coal and that it was very old.
> > > > Therefore his theories, based upon what he does know, includes and old
> > > > Earth. How about that?
> > >
> > > He rejects theories about how it was formed, so why should he accept
> > > theories about how old it is? Is there some *requirement* that coal be
> > > 280 million years old? Even *you* thought this was a good question six
> > > months ago in
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0303070016.2bde456a%40posting.google.com
> > >
> > > What changed your mind?
> >
> > You appear to want to apply reason to Ed's arguements. My view is not
> > Ed is beyond reason.
>
> ???
Not = now. My mistoke.
> > All this dicussion about ages of Earth is very much far from the
> > point. It doesnt matter if you can 'prove' Ed wrong - that's been done
> > many times over it's about Ed and how he sees things.
>
> I don't disagree with that, but I'm curious as to *why* Ed sees things
> the way he does. Is this a taboo subject with you or something?
No - it's just I am not Ed. Ed has limited education - he appears to
have had a very isolated upbringing as well. I can paint an overall
phsycologocial profile from what I know but for the details - I don't
know.
>
> > > > > > > > Ed is not an obvious creationist at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why isn't he a creationist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because he doesnt mention anything about creation for a start. I'm
> > > > > > really beginning to think you're taking the piss with these bloody
> > > > > > dumb questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, not at all. I think you're misinterpreting my line of questioning.
> > > >
> > > > In this message I had to snip repeat messages and just plain dumb
> > > > ones. Engage your mind for five seconds and have a go at answering you
> > > > own questions like...
> > >
> > > Stew, I *have* answered these questions, at least to my own
> > > satisfaction: Ed's a liar. You're the one trying to convince me that I'm
> > > wrong, remember?
> >
> > And so far I've given you enough for you to at least see this is very
> > unlikely.
> >
> > Why isnt he a creationist is answerable with 'because he isnt'. It's
> > like asking me why am I not a mormon.
>
> So, you have no idea why you're not a Mormon? The answer is unknowable,
> and speculation is pointless? What's that quote about an unexamined
> life?
'an unexamined life is not worth living' (a quote from Socrates). This
of course refers to the examination of your own life - not someone
elses, at least that is my take without reading up on the context.
In this case I can say why I am not a mormon but there is not point
you debating it. You can ask me but there's not point asking someone
else why I am not a mormon because I have never discussed it.
>
>
> > <snip repea
> > > > I've no idea where you get this Ed is a creationist idea - he isnt nor
> > > > does he make any claim he is.
> > >
> > > I've never claimed that Ed *was* a creationist. Where are you getting
> > > this from? I'm merely saying that his "evidence" could be used to
> > > support a YEC viewpoint.
> >
> > Not if Ed is claiming the Earth is old. So that's not logically
> > correct.
> >
> > Don't ask why Ed thinks the Earth is old.
>
> Why not? I'm very curious about it. Why is it a necessity for him?
You're attempting to apply reason to an unreasonable situation. No
wonder you're tied up in logical loops.
>
>
> > What I'm curious about is why Ed hasn't let his
> > > "evidence" sway him to a YEC position. It's my belief that such a
> > > position isn't spectacular enough for him, and this is why he rejects
> > > it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > [Stew also made a snip here, where I disprove Stew's claim that Ed sees
> > > > > others as "us or them", by citing Ted Holden, who doesn't agree 100%
> > > > > with Ed's views.]
> > > >
> > > > Whooo there boy. That doesnt disprove anything. Ed is often ignorant
> > > > to the fact people disagree with them - but it's the old 'you enemies
> > > > enemy is your friend' kind of thinking.
> > > >
> > > > So far you've failed to disprove anything. You're attempting to turn
> > > > my 'Ed occasionally uses small deceits to support his main ideas' into
> > > > 'Ed is a liar and knows he is a liar'.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Bob, can't let you do that.
> > >
> > > Stew, it's not up to me to disprove anything.
> >
> > Yes it is - if you can't disrpove me then you must be wrong.
>
> You're not interested in being disproved. Your tactic of snipping what I
> believe are valid points, and then claiming that those points were
> previously addressed or stupid is evidence of that. I can only assume
> that you can't address these points.
Sigh - I have addressed all you points - even going back and answer
some dumb and off topic questions.
>
>
> > > I don't particularly care what you think.
> >
> > You never studied phychology did you? The above statement is an
> > indication that you are pissed off that someone else can't see your
> > point of view - teenagers use the 'I don't care' phrase a lot out of
> > frustration.
> >
> > If you really didnt care you wouldnt reply. It's kind of that simple.
>
> Here you assume that my responses are motivated by a need to convince
> you, but this isn't the case. You are being toyed with.
You've been near David too long. You have a need to superior to me and
see this as a game.
I just want to you to start thinking and stop being a idiot.
> Of course, I've been wondering since around the beginning of August if
> you've been toying with *me*, and haven't really been serious about some
> of the lines you post, but you haven't displayed such subtlety in the
> past, so I tend to discount this possibility.
I'm not here to play games. I'm trying to convince you, plain and
simple. You are trying to convince me but, if you can't trying to find
some other way to 'claim victory', as David has attempted with Ed. It
is very pathetic.
> But I have to wonder why *you* care, and why you keep responding. What's
> in it for you?
I want others to see the world the way I do, even if they don't agree.
I'm driven to attempt to pass some of my memes on. I like a good
arguement and appease my ego this way.
> > > If you're really interested in convincing me to change my ways, I
> > > suggest you put some effort into it.
> >
> > You get about as much effort as I can afford to give you.
>
> Gosh, that's really big of you. I'm so grateful that you think I'm worth
> what little effort you give me. 8)
Whatever.
> > To recap.
> >
> > Nothing about Ed's actions indicates he is trying to totaly desceive.
> > It indicates that Ed, due to reasons of ego and ignorance has
> > convinced himself that what he is saying is true and there is a
> > conspiracy of some form against his point of view.
> >
> > There is not reason stated why Ed would continue to preach a position
> > that he knows is not true to the level he does, including the
> > expansion of his claims. To do so would run counter to ego as it would
> > mean that you are supporting something that you know is not true so
> > therefore be more obviously false - giving rise to youself being
> > uncovered.
>
> Unless you had enough of an ego that you didn't think you would be
> uncovered.
But you'd just be building up a bigger lie to yourself. If you didnt
beleive it it would be pointless.
> > Ed therefore doesnt think he is in danger of being uncovered as his
> > central ideas are safe from being uncovered as there is nothing to
> > uncover. Around the edges some of his ideas he's not 100% sure about -
> > this is due to his own ignorance which he DOES admit and he does not
> > invest vital energy into these fringe things as it makes no difference
> > to his central argument.
> >
> > I think this is clear but somehow don't think it'll be clear to you.
>
> Oh, it's clear, I just disagree with it.
And as it stands you havent explained why. I don't understand your
point of view because you've never explained it. I don't think you
have a clear point of view to explain. You think Ed is a liar when
he's clearly convinced he's telling the truth (no point dwelling on
small cases as that does not disprove the large ones) and you cannot
even explain why Ed would continue to lie in the style he does if he
has not convinced himself.
It makes zero sense for Ed to be lying about man is as old as coal.
There is not motive. If Ed's ego is big enough lies turn into facts in
his mind. Therefore Ed is not a liar.
>
> > > > The rest I've snipped due to time constraints.
> >
> > And again.
> >
> > >
> > > What's the rush?
> >
> > I have to work and generally attempt to have a life.
>
> Then why are you wasting your time with little old me? 8)
Because I currently don't think you're beyond hope. You just need to
grasp a few simple concepts and you'll see I'm right.
I'll ask you a very simple question. When Ed says 'man is as old as
coal' do you think he believes it? If not then why not. When replying
please keep in mind the points I have already made. If you can do it
without covering something I have already refuted I'll be impressed.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<10t9mv8hetqh88mv6...@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:15:08 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<qdbnlvslkq7p8tf3f...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:56:29 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<rg87lv417mel8u2vs...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:10:18 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > > > > > (stew dean) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > > > > How did you reach the conclusion that Ed doesn't think he's a liar?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I read his messages both on this group and the ones he emailed me,
> > > > > > > read posts by others and listened to the recent audio interterview.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's all consistant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you be more specific?
> > > > >
> > > > > He makes the same claims in the same style again and again.
> > > >
> > > > It's called copy and paste. However, his claims about his "penis"
> > > > specimen have been known to change.
> > >
> > > And?
> >
> > And so, he *doesn't* make the same claims again and again, thereby
> > disproving your point.
>
> It would only disprove my point if I claimed that all his claims are
> consistant. As it stands he does make the same claims again and again.
So when you state that Ed makes the same claims again and again, your
theory allows him to make repeated contradictory claims? And this
demonstrates that he doesn't think that he's lying? What *would*
demonstrate that he's lying?
> Some of the side claims are not important to Ed - but man is as old as
> coal, evolution is a conspiracy and his finds are not concretions.
How have you come to the conclusion that these are "side claims".
Doesn't he use these "side claims" to *support* his main thesis, i.e.
"Man Old as Coal"?
> > > > > > > > Can't one lie to people to gain adulation and boost one's ego?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure. Not applicable to Ed as Ed believes his embelishments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And how do you know this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Through reading his posts. His posts are consistant and have a
> > > > > constant tone. He is not in doubt and does not indicate he is open to
> > > > > over views.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have any contradictory evidence I'd like to hear it.
> > > >
> > > > You keep snipping it away.
> > >
> > > Now I can call you a liar. I snip away stuff that is either repeated
> > > or I don't consider important to answer. No contradictory evidence has
> > > been snipped because you don't include evidence.
> >
> > I see. So in adjacent sentences you state that I've presented no
> > contradictory evidence, and then you state that there's stuff I present
> > that you don't consider important enough to answer.
>
> Yep.
How do you reconcile these two positions? Is there some weird duality
going on in your head?
> > Is there a shifting standard here?
>
> Nope. It's called honesty. I find many things you write trivial.
Because...?
> > You're like the judge of a kangaroo court who dismisses
> > evidence that contradicts his predetermined verdict. Why don't you
> > explain *why* my points aren't important enough to answer? Can you?
>
> Because I then would have to answer every single question and many of
> you questions are loaded (that is a dumb questions). For example the
> whole 'why isnt Ed a YEC' which is just silly.
I'm unaware of *any* loaded questions that I've asked. Loaded questions
aren't "dumb" questions by definition, but questions that contain an
assumption, so that one cannot answer the question without admitting
the assumption. For instance "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
So, how is "why isn't Ed a YEC" a loaded question? What assumption is
contained in it?
> <snip stuff>
>
> > I trust you'll now withdraw your charge that I'm a liar? Will you
> > explain Ed's contradictory claims regarding the "Calvarium"?
>
> No.
Do you admit that you snipped my claims regarding the "Calvarium" three
times in a row?
Now, was that so hard? Was it so hard to actually explain your
rationale'? As much as it may surprise you, I actually see your point
now.
> > > > > > How does one differentiate between someone who knowingly tells a lie,
> > > > > > and someone who believes what he's saying?
> > > > >
> > > > > Consistancy is a large part. Also the depth and intensity is a big
> > > > > indicator. In order to tell a story as often and as passionatly as Ed
> > > > > you have to be believe it. Why? Because in order to keep a lie going
> > > > > that long and that passionatly you would need to have some motive. Ego
> > > > > is not enough in this case as Ed often grows the story rather than
> > > > > just defending something he once said.
> > > >
> > > > And ego wouldn't be a motive for that?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Answered in the last message.
You consider "no" an answer? Can you explain how you arrived at the
answer?
> > > Please pay attention.
> >
> > I am. Please address Ed's contradictory "penis" and "calvarium" claims.
>
> Answered in the last message.
Now I'll call you a liar. Please copy and paste the sentence(s) where
you did so.
> > > > > > > > Is lying about the beliefs of
> > > > > > > > Hooton humorous, or an attempt to make a bigger point?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once again Ed doesnt think he's lying. You think he is - he doesnt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not what you said earlier. You said that Ed might lie "now and
> > > > > > again". Why have you changed you mind?
> > > > >
> > > > > No. In the above case he doesnt think he was lying. Where he does lie
> > > > > it is a minor deceit to support a main idea but he does not consider
> > > > > himself to be a liar.
> > > >
> > > > You claim that he doesn't think he's lying in the case of Hooton, yet in
> > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0308150005.209b2733%40posting.google.com
> > > > you state that "He may consider this a minor deception". It sure sounds
> > > > like you've changed your mind to me...
> > >
> > > No. Ed is not a liar - he uses minor desceptions at times to support
> > > the 'Truth' (tm) - but he considers himself innocent compared to the
> > > crimes of the scientific establishment.
> >
> > How is a deception different from a lie?
>
> Knew you'd ask me that. In general what you're doing is use the side
> issues to disprove the central ones. That is why I use the word
> deception rather than lie otherwise you, in your irritating way, will
> turn around and say 'ah but he is a liar'. You would, at that point,
> have missed the whole point that when Ed says man is as old as coal he
> is NOT lying or using deception.
So, you can't answer why a deception is different from a lie?
> The small side cases are not important to the central message.
I believe that they are.
> > > > > Clear? Somehow I don't think it is.
> > > >
> > > > Then you should try and make it clear. Don't be in such a rush to post
> > > > if you think your ideas are unclear ;)
> > >
> > > Oh the irony. I didnt think it was unclear - just that it was going to
> > > be unclear to you.
> >
> > Why do you think I placed a smiley right after it? You need to lighten
> > up.
>
> You need to work on your sense of humour.
Perhaps the smiley was too subtle for you.
> > > > > Why can't you work it out your self? Ed lives in a coal mining area -
> > > > > he would have been taught about coal and that it was very old.
> > > > > Therefore his theories, based upon what he does know, includes and old
> > > > > Earth. How about that?
> > > >
> > > > He rejects theories about how it was formed, so why should he accept
> > > > theories about how old it is? Is there some *requirement* that coal be
> > > > 280 million years old? Even *you* thought this was a good question six
> > > > months ago in
> > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0303070016.2bde456a%40posting.google.com
> > > >
> > > > What changed your mind?
> > >
> > > You appear to want to apply reason to Ed's arguements. My view is not
> > > Ed is beyond reason.
> >
> > ???
>
> Not = now. My mistoke.
When you say that "Ed is beyond reason" are you claiming that he can't
be reasoned with, or that there's no reason for his behavior?
> > > All this dicussion about ages of Earth is very much far from the
> > > point. It doesnt matter if you can 'prove' Ed wrong - that's been done
> > > many times over it's about Ed and how he sees things.
> >
> > I don't disagree with that, but I'm curious as to *why* Ed sees things
> > the way he does. Is this a taboo subject with you or something?
>
> No - it's just I am not Ed. Ed has limited education - he appears to
> have had a very isolated upbringing as well. I can paint an overall
> phsycologocial profile from what I know but for the details - I don't
> know.
So speculation is verboten? That's not very scientific.
So speculation is pointless, both as to why Ed's not a YEC or why you're
not a mormon?
> > > <snip repea
> > > > > I've no idea where you get this Ed is a creationist idea - he isnt nor
> > > > > does he make any claim he is.
> > > >
> > > > I've never claimed that Ed *was* a creationist. Where are you getting
> > > > this from? I'm merely saying that his "evidence" could be used to
> > > > support a YEC viewpoint.
> > >
> > > Not if Ed is claiming the Earth is old. So that's not logically
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > Don't ask why Ed thinks the Earth is old.
> >
> > Why not? I'm very curious about it. Why is it a necessity for him?
>
> You're attempting to apply reason to an unreasonable situation. No
> wonder you're tied up in logical loops.
Are you seriously claiming that there's no rational foundation to
psychology? How are diagnoses made?
> > > > What I'm curious about is why Ed hasn't let his
> > > > "evidence" sway him to a YEC position. It's my belief that such a
> > > > position isn't spectacular enough for him, and this is why he rejects
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > [Stew also made a snip here, where I disprove Stew's claim that Ed sees
> > > > > > others as "us or them", by citing Ted Holden, who doesn't agree 100%
> > > > > > with Ed's views.]
> > > > >
> > > > > Whooo there boy. That doesnt disprove anything. Ed is often ignorant
> > > > > to the fact people disagree with them - but it's the old 'you enemies
> > > > > enemy is your friend' kind of thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far you've failed to disprove anything. You're attempting to turn
> > > > > my 'Ed occasionally uses small deceits to support his main ideas' into
> > > > > 'Ed is a liar and knows he is a liar'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry Bob, can't let you do that.
> > > >
> > > > Stew, it's not up to me to disprove anything.
> > >
> > > Yes it is - if you can't disrpove me then you must be wrong.
> >
> > You're not interested in being disproved. Your tactic of snipping what I
> > believe are valid points, and then claiming that those points were
> > previously addressed or stupid is evidence of that. I can only assume
> > that you can't address these points.
>
> Sigh - I have addressed all you points - even going back and answer
> some dumb and off topic questions.
*All* my points? How can you say that and then state that you've only
answered *some* of my supposedly off-topic questions?
> > > > I don't particularly care what you think.
> > >
> > > You never studied phychology did you? The above statement is an
> > > indication that you are pissed off that someone else can't see your
> > > point of view - teenagers use the 'I don't care' phrase a lot out of
> > > frustration.
> > >
> > > If you really didnt care you wouldnt reply. It's kind of that simple.
> >
> > Here you assume that my responses are motivated by a need to convince
> > you, but this isn't the case. You are being toyed with.
>
> You've been near David too long. You have a need to superior to me and
> see this as a game.
Well, considering that you're not taking me seriously, seeing this as a
game seems like a good fall back position. If you'd just leave me alone
I suspect that everyone would be happy.
> I just want to you to start thinking and stop being a idiot.
Do you really thing that calling me an idiot is going to have the
desired effect?
> > Of course, I've been wondering since around the beginning of August if
> > you've been toying with *me*, and haven't really been serious about some
> > of the lines you post, but you haven't displayed such subtlety in the
> > past, so I tend to discount this possibility.
>
> I'm not here to play games. I'm trying to convince you, plain and
> simple. You are trying to convince me but, if you can't trying to find
> some other way to 'claim victory', as David has attempted with Ed. It
> is very pathetic.
<sarcasm>
Yes, I'm a sad, pathetic example of humanity...
</sarcasm>
> > But I have to wonder why *you* care, and why you keep responding. What's
> > in it for you?
>
> I want others to see the world the way I do, even if they don't agree.
So, you want to force your views on others?
> I'm driven to attempt to pass some of my memes on. I like a good
> arguement and appease my ego this way.
So, ego is a legitimate motive?
> > > > If you're really interested in convincing me to change my ways, I
> > > > suggest you put some effort into it.
> > >
> > > You get about as much effort as I can afford to give you.
> >
> > Gosh, that's really big of you. I'm so grateful that you think I'm worth
> > what little effort you give me. 8)
>
> Whatever.
No, really, I'm just overwhelmed that you'd spend your precious effort
on little old me. 8)
> > > To recap.
> > >
> > > Nothing about Ed's actions indicates he is trying to totaly desceive.
> > > It indicates that Ed, due to reasons of ego and ignorance has
> > > convinced himself that what he is saying is true and there is a
> > > conspiracy of some form against his point of view.
> > >
> > > There is not reason stated why Ed would continue to preach a position
> > > that he knows is not true to the level he does, including the
> > > expansion of his claims. To do so would run counter to ego as it would
> > > mean that you are supporting something that you know is not true so
> > > therefore be more obviously false - giving rise to youself being
> > > uncovered.
> >
> > Unless you had enough of an ego that you didn't think you would be
> > uncovered.
>
> But you'd just be building up a bigger lie to yourself. If you didnt
> beleive it it would be pointless.
People build bigger lies for themselves all the time. You can take a
look at an extreme example at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml
> > > Ed therefore doesnt think he is in danger of being uncovered as his
> > > central ideas are safe from being uncovered as there is nothing to
> > > uncover. Around the edges some of his ideas he's not 100% sure about -
> > > this is due to his own ignorance which he DOES admit and he does not
> > > invest vital energy into these fringe things as it makes no difference
> > > to his central argument.
> > >
> > > I think this is clear but somehow don't think it'll be clear to you.
> >
> > Oh, it's clear, I just disagree with it.
>
> And as it stands you havent explained why. I don't understand your
> point of view because you've never explained it. I don't think you
> have a clear point of view to explain.
As I've stated several times, I believe that Ed is lying because I fail
to see how someone that delusional could function in society. Call it an
argument from incredulity if you like (and you may be right), but it's
no more so than yours.
> You think Ed is a liar when
> he's clearly convinced he's telling the truth (no point dwelling on
> small cases as that does not disprove the large ones)
But they can certainly be indicative...
> and you cannot
> even explain why Ed would continue to lie in the style he does if he
> has not convinced himself.
Ed has an ego problem. I believe that is the crux of it. A huge,
monstrous, ego problem.
> It makes zero sense for Ed to be lying about man is as old as coal.
> There is not motive. If Ed's ego is big enough lies turn into facts in
> his mind. Therefore Ed is not a liar.
Obviously I disagree. Ed thinks he's better than everyone else. This can
be seen in his writing, and especially in his recent interview. I
believe that this is *very* indicative.
> > > > > The rest I've snipped due to time constraints.
> > >
> > > And again.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What's the rush?
> > >
> > > I have to work and generally attempt to have a life.
> >
> > Then why are you wasting your time with little old me? 8)
>
> Because I currently don't think you're beyond hope. You just need to
> grasp a few simple concepts and you'll see I'm right.
Gosh Stew, I might say the same. If you just grasp a few simple concepts
you'll see that I'm right.
> I'll ask you a very simple question. When Ed says 'man is as old as
> coal' do you think he believes it? If not then why not. When replying
> please keep in mind the points I have already made. If you can do it
> without covering something I have already refuted I'll be impressed.
Calling something stupid or trivial isn't a refutation. If it were,
creationists would have refuted evolution long ago.
> Stew Dean
stew dean
Isnt that a contradiction in terms?
> And this
> demonstrates that he doesn't think that he's lying? What *would*
> demonstrate that he's lying?
He lies sometimes. Personaly it makes no different really if he's
lying or not.
He still loves the publicity.
<snip stuff I've gone over several times>
> > > So in adjacent sentences you state that I've presented no
> > > contradictory evidence, and then you state that there's stuff I present
> > > that you don't consider important enough to answer.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> How do you reconcile these two positions? Is there some weird duality
> going on in your head?
Because the stuff I snipped away is not contradictory evidence. If it
was contradictory evidence it might be considered important enough to
answer.
Perhaps you'd like to have a go at explaining where the duality is
here, I'm a very intelligent guy and unless you're implying that all
the stuff I didnt consider important enough to answer was
contradictory evidence then it appears you thinking things but not
actualy writing them. This is fairly common amongst those who cannot
empathise - they don't realise that others cannot read their minds.
Reread your statement again.
>
> > > Is there a shifting standard here?
> >
> > Nope. It's called honesty. I find many things you write trivial.
>
> Because...?
Thank you for making one of my points. You do not state your view but
instead use questions that avoid the issue and essentialy use the old
'have you stopped beating your wife' trick. You logic is downright
opaque at times and often wrong. You have a love for dualities when
often things are grey not black and white. You can also happily say 'I
didnt do that' right after you did it.
Now if you want to make some points - do so - otherwise I'll ignore
you contentless chest puffing.
> So, how is "why isn't Ed a YEC" a loaded question? What assumption is
> contained in it?
The assumption is that Ed's behavour is nearly identical to that of
young earth creationists. The primary element, that of religous
fundamentalism, is not present. Therefore it's puzzling why you would
even ask the question when the evidence doesnt even point in that
direction. Secondly how can someone support a young earth when they
are saying coal is very old? Again - why even ask the question when
the answers are already available.
I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
<rest snipped>
Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
> > > It would only disprove my point if I claimed that all his claims are
> > > consistant. As it stands he does make the same claims again and again.
Sometimes, when prodded, he makes new ones.
When prodded, he posts things he hasn't posted before. This gives
those of us who expose him new things to play with; and it doesn't
hurt to go over old stuff once in a while, Skippy, since the audience
in the newsgroups is fluid and ever-changing.
> > So when you state that Ed makes the same claims again and again, your
> > theory allows him to make repeated contradictory claims?
>
> Isnt that a contradiction in terms?
Not at all. What is the contradiction, Skippy?
> > And this
> > demonstrates that he doesn't think that he's lying? What *would*
> > demonstrate that he's lying?
>
> He lies sometimes. Personaly it makes no different really if he's
> lying or not.
The problem here is that no one cares what YOU think "personaly." I
don't reply to Ed to please you or to satisfy whatever bizarre
standards you might have. I suspect that gen2rev doesn't reply with
you in mind, either.
I see you have finally accepted that Ed tells lies. The fact is that
he tells a LOT of lies; and to someone as morally deficient as you,
that's not much of a problem. Hell, you'll lie if it will suit your
purposes; and we've seen THAT before.
But some of us prefer to expose lies; and none of us, I suspect, are
concerned too much with whether or not you approve.
> He still loves the publicity.
He loves some of the publicity and some of the attention; but sooner
or later, it gets too hot for him.
That's a fact, Skippy; and it explains his actions and his posting
actions quite well.
> <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
Chances are, you're snipping stuff you can't answer, that you avoided,
or that you don't understand.
> > > > So in adjacent sentences you state that I've presented no
> > > > contradictory evidence, and then you state that there's stuff I present
> > > > that you don't consider important enough to answer.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > How do you reconcile these two positions? Is there some weird duality
> > going on in your head?
>
> Because the stuff I snipped away is not contradictory evidence. If it
> was contradictory evidence it might be considered important enough to
> answer.
I suspect you have no idea WHAT you snipped, since you can't seem to
make an intelligent argument, keep up with what else is being argued,
or even "bothered" to support your arguments with more than baseless
and arrogant assertions.
> Perhaps you'd like to have a go at explaining where the duality is
> here, I'm a very intelligent guy
Actually, you're rather stupid.
> and unless you're implying that all
> the stuff I didnt consider important enough to answer was
> contradictory evidence then it appears you thinking things but not
> actualy writing them.
Oh, no. Gen2rev has been quite clear. Your inability to follow his
arguments is no reflection on the value or clarity of those arguments.
> This is fairly common amongst those who cannot
> empathise - they don't realise that others cannot read their minds.
Empathy and mind-reading are two different things, Skippy. No one
expects you to read the mind of another person; but the fact is that
you all but presume that you can do so.
After all, you spend a lot of time telling gen2rev that he's not being
honest with himself and that he IS trying to "reason" with Ed. You
make these assertions DESPITE gen2rev's denials. While HE should know
better, you don't grant him that.
The fact is that you're an arrogant and stupid person, Skippy. You
can't actually make a legitimate argument, so you try to categorize
the other person in ways that satisfy your paradigm. You do this
despite the fact that the other person says AND DEMONSTRATES otherwise
with respect to your categorization.
And it's obvious that you are clueless about the nuances of written
communication. One can quite readily respond to messages in a
newsgroup and respond directly to the person without trying to "reason
with" that person.
There have been some in these newsgroups, Skippy, who prefer to make
speeches when responding to another person and not address that
person. I think that's unnecessarily pompous. Read Tony Pagano's
articles, for example.
Responding directly to a person does not ALWAYS mean that you're
trying to "reason with" that person. In the case of my responses to
Ed, it NEVER means that; and that is true for gen2rev, as well. If
you can't understand that, that's not our problem. It's yours. And
it's not for you to tell others what their intent is with respect to
an issue when they have told you flatly and directly that you are
wrong. To repeat your assertions in direct contradiction of what that
person says in a case such as this is lying, pure and simple.
> Reread your statement again.
There's no need. You obviously are not following the argument.
> > > > Is there a shifting standard here?
> > >
> > > Nope. It's called honesty. I find many things you write trivial.
> >
> > Because...?
>
> Thank you for making one of my points. You do not state your view but
> instead use questions that avoid the issue and essentialy use the old
> 'have you stopped beating your wife' trick.
Wrong again, Skippy. Gen2rev has been quite clear and has stated his
views succinctly.
He is simply asking YOU why you would state that you find "many
things" that he writes to be "trivial." It was a direct question in
response to your direct statement that you DO find many of those
things to be trivial. It is not a "do you still beat your wife" kind
of question.
You are avoiding his question. You are being directly and flagrantly
dishonest.
> You logic is downright
> opaque at times and often wrong.
Actually, his logic is impeccable, but this isn't that sort of
situation, Skippy. You were asked a direct question based on a
statement that YOU made.
Answer his question, Skippy.
> You have a love for dualities when
> often things are grey not black and white.
Oh, I think gen2rev knows that better than you do, Skippy, but it's
YOU who tend to use "black-and-white" thinking.
> You can also happily say 'I
> didnt do that' right after you did it.
He can say whatever he likes, just as you do, but that's not relevant
here.
> Now if you want to make some points - do so - otherwise I'll ignore
> you contentless chest puffing.
He's made his points. You have no answer for them; and if anyone is
"puffing" his chest, Skippy, it's you.
But, as we can see - even if only figuratively - your chest is a
pirate's dream.
> > So, how is "why isn't Ed a YEC" a loaded question? What assumption is
> > contained in it?
>
> The assumption is that Ed's behavour is nearly identical to that of
> young earth creationists.
In some ways, it is. The denial of contradictory evidence, the
refusal to accept conventional science, as well as other
characteristics are hallmarks of young-Earth creationists. Ken Rode
recently posted a link and some points that characterize
pseudoscience, and Ed's right there with the creationists.
Ed is not a YEC, of course. Everyone knows that; but gen2rev's
questions along these lines are not "loaded." You don't even know
what constitutes a "loaded question."
Of course, there's always the possibility that you DO know what
constitutes a "loaded question," but you prefer to characterize
questions you can't answer or would otherwise find uncomfortable as
"loaded," just as you found certain points that *I* made last year to
be "unrelated facts" and tried to dodge THEM, too.
That's dishonest, Skippy.
> The primary element, that of religous
> fundamentalism, is not present.
Tell me what you know of Ed's religion, Skippy.
> Therefore it's puzzling why you would
> even ask the question when the evidence doesnt even point in that
> direction.
Really!
Where does the "evidence" point, Skippy? When have you examined Ed's
religious statements.
Take a look at his recent comments to Jo Jean and see what you can
make of them.
> Secondly how can someone support a young earth when they
> are saying coal is very old?
"Very old" can be relative, can't it, Skippy?
If coal is only a few thousand years old, as a YEC might say, isn't
that "very old" compared to, say, YOU?
By the way, Skippy, are you aware that Ed has made contradictory and
even confusing statements about the necessity for coal to be as old as
is generally believed?
> Again - why even ask the question when
> the answers are already available.
I think the questions for which answers are NOT "already available"
are the questions posed to YOU.
> I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
That he has. I have, as well. You have done none. You presume a
degree of expertise that you do not possess based on education in an
entirely unrelated area. You have never been to Pennsylvania, as near
as I can tell, and you have never actually interviewed people who know
Ed, knew Ed, knew Wilton Krogman, etc., etc...
You have done NO research and you tend to get everything wrong.
> <rest snipped>
It's just as well. Run along, now, Skippy.
stew dean
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<m6tqnv4kn2g2c221h...@4ax.com>...
>
> < snip >
>
> > > > It would only disprove my point if I claimed that all his claims are
> > > > consistant. As it stands he does make the same claims again and again.
>
> Sometimes, when prodded, he makes new ones.
No doubt.
Just to note I've cut all the purile comments from your post.
> > > So when you state that Ed makes the same claims again and again, your
> > > theory allows him to make repeated contradictory claims?
> >
> > Isnt that a contradiction in terms?
>
> Not at all. What is the contradiction, Skippy?
Either Ed makes the same claims again and again or he doesnt. How can
he make 'repeated contradictory claims'. If it's repeated then it's
not contradictory is it? Now if you mean some of Ed's claim don't make
sense according to others...
> > He still loves the publicity.
>
> He loves some of the publicity and some of the attention; but sooner
> or later, it gets too hot for him.
David - what planet are you on? 'It gets too hot for him?'. He loves
the attention - he loves the attention you give him, he eats it up and
plays up to it. You feed his delusion. He has you down as one of the
main memebers of the conspiracy in the pay of the psuedo scientific
establishment.
> That's a fact, and it explains his actions and his posting
> actions quite well.
I just checked to see if I snipped anything that was the 'fact'. Do
things ever get 'too hot' for Ed? I've never seen it. I've seen you go
nuclear many times on the other hand (I've had to defuse parts of this
post).
>
> > <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
>
> Chances are, you're snipping stuff you can't answer, that you avoided,
> or that you don't understand.
Nope. I ever felt like I've covered it already or I can't be bothered
to work out why something is relevant.
> > and unless you're implying that all
> > the stuff I didnt consider important enough to answer was
> > contradictory evidence then it appears you thinking things but not
> > actualy writing them.
>
> Oh, no. Gen2rev has been quite clear. Your inability to follow his
> arguments is no reflection on the value or clarity of those arguments.
In that case you won't mind summing up in a couple of sentences what
he's on about. He just contradicts himself most of the time.
>
> > This is fairly common amongst those who cannot
> > empathise - they don't realise that others cannot read their minds.
>
> Empathy and mind-reading are two different thing. No one
> expects you to read the mind of another person; but the fact is that
> you all but presume that you can do so.
David - the above sentence indicates you didnt read what I wrote
properly.
To empathise is to attempt to put yourself in that persons place and
to attempt to understand what motivations and feelings that person
has. Mind reading is when you attempt to work out what a person is
thinking, that is what reasoning they are using.
The two are quite different. You can empaphise with someone without
knowing what they're thinking.
> After all, you spend a lot of time telling gen2rev that he's not being
> honest with himself and that he IS trying to "reason" with Ed.
Exactly.
> You make these assertions DESPITE gen2rev's denials. While HE should know
> better, you don't grant him that.
But he doesnt - he was caught with cake on his face and denies he ate
the cake.
> Responding directly to a person does not ALWAYS mean that you're
> trying to "reason with" that person.
When you address something to someone and you include reasons why you
feel that person is not right - that is reasoning. No ifs, no buts,
not claims that you're playing to gallery.
> In the case of my responses to
> Ed, it NEVER means that; and that is true for gen2rev, as well.
David - you are constantly trying to reason with Ed. You address your
posts to Ed therefore you are reasoning with Ed.
That's exactly what it means.
The fact that you want to deny it does not make it any less evident
does it David?
If you addressed it to people other than Ed I might accept that you
are playing to the audience. As it stands I've got you bang to rights
mate. I follow your argument totally.
> > Secondly how can someone support a young earth when they
> > are saying coal is very old?
>
> "Very old" can be relative, can't it?
>
> If coal is only a few thousand years old, as a YEC might say, isn't
> that "very old" compared to, say, YOU?
Time to quote Ed...
"If Established Science is correct about the age of coal, man found
between anthracite veins -- the oldest coal -- would have existed
280,000,000 years ago -- give or take a few million years.
If Established Science is dead wrong about the age of coal -- that
it instead was formed multi-millions of years more recently -- then
man is still older than the teensy-weensy animals from whom you
evolutions claim we evolved."
> > Again - why even ask the question when
> > the answers are already available.
>
> I think the questions for which answers are NOT "already available"
> are the questions posed to YOU.
Like? Like why I find some of Gen2Revs questions trivial?
I hope the above goes somewhere to answer that. Ed does not hold that
the earth is thousand of years old but some variation of millions so
it's off topic and pointless asking why Ed is not a YEC.
> > I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
>
> That he has. I have, as well. You have done none.
Then why make silly mistakes like the one above? Ed no more likes
folks like the discovery instituted than he does those that are part
of the psuedoscientific establishment. You know that - so why even ask
the question? Ed has not, as far as I'm aware, ever claimed that we
are the act of a creator (could be wrong here) - for that reason he is
also not a creationist.
So if he's not young earth and he's not a creationist he can't be a
young earth creationist.
> You presume a
> degree of expertise that you do not possess based on education in an
> entirely unrelated area.
Not sure where how you reached that conclusion. I just read his posts
and the posts of others, including yours.
> You have never been to Pennsylvania, as near
> as I can tell, and you have never actually interviewed people who know
> Ed, knew Ed, knew Wilton Krogman, etc., etc...
I don't need to. Ed is a kook and exhibits exactly the same kind of
mental behavour of many men in this world. He is badly educated and is
equiped with an ego that he cannot control. The result is what
intellect he posseses is clouded by his inability to admit when he has
made a mistake. He's not doing it for money but because he's got part
of his world view confused, much like you David.
> You have done NO research and you tend to get everything wrong.
I know - I've been watching your posts here. It just appears the whole
thing is pointless. Ed is delusional but he's perfectly harmless. Ed
posts here with as much zeal as ever. This world is full of people who
believe strange things and often go to strange ends to persue the
pointless.
So let's sum this up David.
You prove to yourself and others that Ed is a liar and or delusional.
Everyone has worked that out themselves. You claim you are not trying
to make Ed see sense (that would require reasoning with him) so Ed
will continue to post here. You reply to Ed, he posts more messages.
If you stop replying others will have a go but we won't get posts
about David anymore.
You just like beating up on poor ol' Ed and go out of your way to find
a bigger baseball bat to do it. Ed just takes any beating and carries
on as usual.
So David, what is your point as you don't appear to have one? This is
nothing to do with me - it's about you and Ed. Why are you bothering
with Ed? I have an answer but you don't like it.
Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
It sure is, but that seems to be what you're claiming. I'm just asking
for clarification.
> > And this
> > demonstrates that he doesn't think that he's lying? What *would*
> > demonstrate that he's lying?
>
> He lies sometimes. Personaly it makes no different really if he's
> lying or not.
Then why did you spend so much time arguing that he doesn't lie? That's
been the point of contention here, hasn't it?
> He still loves the publicity.
Except when it makes him look like an idiot.
> <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
I can only assume that you're unable to answer my question regarding how
you know which of Ed's claims are "side claims", and which aren't.
> > > > So in adjacent sentences you state that I've presented no
> > > > contradictory evidence, and then you state that there's stuff I present
> > > > that you don't consider important enough to answer.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > How do you reconcile these two positions? Is there some weird duality
> > going on in your head?
>
> Because the stuff I snipped away is not contradictory evidence. If it
> was contradictory evidence it might be considered important enough to
> answer.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to have a go at explaining where the duality is
> here,
There seems to be an implication that I've presented contrary evidence
that you don't think is important. After all, why would you answer
evidence which agreed with your position?
> I'm a very intelligent guy
(I will not give into temptation, I will not give into temptation...)
> and unless you're implying that all
> the stuff I didnt consider important enough to answer was
> contradictory evidence then it appears you thinking things but not
> actualy writing them. This is fairly common amongst those who cannot
> empathise - they don't realise that others cannot read their minds.
Stew, you've demonstrated time and time again that you can't read my
mind. I'm very aware that you can't.
> Reread your statement again.
Done.
> > > > Is there a shifting standard here?
> > >
> > > Nope. It's called honesty. I find many things you write trivial.
> >
> > Because...?
>
> Thank you for making one of my points. You do not state your view but
> instead use questions that avoid the issue and essentialy use the old
> 'have you stopped beating your wife' trick.
I'm not trying to avoid the issue at all. I'm trying to get you to
clarify why you think that many of the things I write are trivial. You
claim that I don't state my view but you seem to have difficulty doing
this yourself. Please please please clarify why you think that many of
the things I write are trivial. Pick one and verbally tear it to shreds.
Can I be more blunt in expressing my desire for clarification of the
reasons for your opinion of my ideas?
> You logic is downright
> opaque at times and often wrong. You have a love for dualities when
> often things are grey not black and white.
No, I've got no particular love for dualities. What makes you think I
do? Please point to something I've written that makes you think this.
> You can also happily say 'I
> didnt do that' right after you did it.
You're a liar. Care to point out where I've done this?
> Now if you want to make some points - do so - otherwise I'll ignore
> you contentless chest puffing.
Pot, kettle, black.
> > So, how is "why isn't Ed a YEC" a loaded question? What assumption is
> > contained in it?
>
> The assumption is that Ed's behavour is nearly identical to that of
> young earth creationists.
I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm claiming that Ed's claims of
finding human remains between coal seams are *compatible* with YEC. Do
you disagree with this?
> The primary element, that of religous
> fundamentalism, is not present.
How have you come to this conclusion? It may or may not be present.
You seem to feel that religious fundamentalism is a necessary first step
to becoming a YEC, but why couldn't a person become both at the same
time? Ed seems to consider himself a christian, so why could one become
a christian fundamentalist and a YEC simultaneously?
> Therefore it's puzzling why you would
> even ask the question when the evidence doesnt even point in that
> direction.
Ed's supposed "evidence" does. Why doesn't he walk down that path?
> Secondly how can someone support a young earth when they
> are saying coal is very old? Again - why even ask the question when
> the answers are already available.
Really? Can you point me to a readily available answer as to why Ed
believes that the rocks in Pennsylvania are 280 million years old?
Speculation doesn't count.
> I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
I've done research, but you claim to have all the answers.
> <rest snipped>
Stew, here's a list of items you left unanswered in the snipped section:
Do you admit that you snipped my claims regarding the "Calvarium" three
times in a row?
Can you explain why ego wouldn't be a motive for deception?
Can you point out where you addressed Ed's contradictory "penis" and
"calvarium" claims?
Can you explain how a deception is different from a lie?
Is speculation as to why Ed's not a YEC or why you're not a mormon
pointless?
Do you seriously claim that there's no rational foundation to
psychology?
Do you really thing that calling me an idiot is going to have the
desired effect?
Do you want to force your views on others?
And finally, did you read the article at
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml>?
> Stew Dean
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<m6tqnv4kn2g2c221h...@4ax.com>...
[snip]
> > > > So when you state that Ed makes the same claims again and again, your
> > > > theory allows him to make repeated contradictory claims?
> > >
> > > Isnt that a contradiction in terms?
> >
> > Not at all. What is the contradiction, Skippy?
>
> Either Ed makes the same claims again and again or he doesnt. How can
> he make 'repeated contradictory claims'. If it's repeated then it's
> not contradictory is it? Now if you mean some of Ed's claim don't make
> sense according to others...
Bingo!
[snip]
> > > <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
> >
> > Chances are, you're snipping stuff you can't answer, that you avoided,
> > or that you don't understand.
>
> Nope. I ever felt like I've covered it already or I can't be bothered
> to work out why something is relevant.
Why do you expect me to explain everything when you're not willing to do
it yourself?
[snip]
> > You make these assertions DESPITE gen2rev's denials. While HE should know
> > better, you don't grant him that.
>
> But he doesnt - he was caught with cake on his face and denies he ate
> the cake.
Look up "rhetorical question" again.
[snip]
> > > Again - why even ask the question when
> > > the answers are already available.
> >
> > I think the questions for which answers are NOT "already available"
> > are the questions posed to YOU.
>
> Like? Like why I find some of Gen2Revs questions trivial?
Bingo again!
> I hope the above goes somewhere to answer that. Ed does not hold that
> the earth is thousand of years old but some variation of millions so
> it's off topic and pointless asking why Ed is not a YEC.
Not at all. I believe that the answer to that question is very relevant.
> > > I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
> >
> > That he has. I have, as well. You have done none.
>
> Then why make silly mistakes like the one above? Ed no more likes
> folks like the discovery instituted than he does those that are part
> of the psuedoscientific establishment.
Why not? What's he got against the Discovery Institute?
> You know that - so why even ask
> the question? Ed has not, as far as I'm aware, ever claimed that we
> are the act of a creator (could be wrong here) - for that reason he is
> also not a creationist.
>
> So if he's not young earth and he's not a creationist he can't be a
> young earth creationist.
Stew, it's like asking why someone didn't pick up milk on the way home.
Your answer would be that they didn't, so it's not important. But the
answer to that question *might* reveal something important about the
person in question, such as, they might have enough milk at home, or
they might be a vegan.
Do you follow the rationale' now?
[snip]
> > You have never been to Pennsylvania, as near
> > as I can tell, and you have never actually interviewed people who know
> > Ed, knew Ed, knew Wilton Krogman, etc., etc...
>
> I don't need to. Ed is a kook and exhibits exactly the same kind of
> mental behavour of many men in this world. He is badly educated and is
> equiped with an ego that he cannot control. The result is what
> intellect he posseses is clouded by his inability to admit when he has
> made a mistake. He's not doing it for money but because he's got part
> of his world view confused, much like you David.
I could have sworn that you recently claimed that Ed really thought that
Man is Old as Coal. Have you changed your mind or something?
[snip the rest]
stew dean
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 23:54:40 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> (stew dean) wrote:
>
> > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<m6tqnv4kn2g2c221h...@4ax.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > So when you state that Ed makes the same claims again and again, your
> > > > > theory allows him to make repeated contradictory claims?
> > > >
> > > > Isnt that a contradiction in terms?
> > >
> > > Not at all. What is the contradiction, Skippy?
> >
> > Either Ed makes the same claims again and again or he doesnt. How can
> > he make 'repeated contradictory claims'. If it's repeated then it's
> > not contradictory is it? Now if you mean some of Ed's claim don't make
> > sense according to others...
>
> Bingo!
I left it trailing as I could find the words to sum up how hopeless a
situation you have if you really where going to make that point. In
what way do you think this has got to do with reason? Ed's ideas are
beyond reason. Everyone apart from Ed knows his ideas are non sensical
but there's no way to convince Ed otherwise. So that's it - game over,
there's no where else to go.
> > > > <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
> > >
> > > Chances are, you're snipping stuff you can't answer, that you avoided,
> > > or that you don't understand.
> >
> > Nope. I ever felt like I've covered it already or I can't be bothered
> > to work out why something is relevant.
>
> Why do you expect me to explain everything when you're not willing to do
> it yourself?
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I've explained everything I
meant as I've gone along (it feels like several times over).
>
> [snip]
>
> > > You make these assertions DESPITE gen2rev's denials. While HE should know
> > > better, you don't grant him that.
> >
> > But he doesnt - he was caught with cake on his face and denies he ate
> > the cake.
>
> Look up "rhetorical question" again.
This is not to do with rhetorical questions (you where the one that
got the meaning of them wrong) - it's to do with you and David trying
to reason with Ed. I lapsed recently and found myself attempting to do
that - you guys do it all the time then deny you do it.
> [snip]
>
> > > > Again - why even ask the question when
> > > > the answers are already available.
> > >
> > > I think the questions for which answers are NOT "already available"
> > > are the questions posed to YOU.
> >
> > Like? Like why I find some of Gen2Revs questions trivial?
>
> Bingo again!
>
> > I hope the above goes somewhere to answer that. Ed does not hold that
> > the earth is thousand of years old but some variation of millions so
> > it's off topic and pointless asking why Ed is not a YEC.
>
> Not at all. I believe that the answer to that question is very relevant.
But you know the answer, or at least should do. I cover it again in
this post.
> > > > I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
> > >
> > > That he has. I have, as well. You have done none.
> >
> > Then why make silly mistakes like the one above? Ed no more likes
> > folks like the discovery instituted than he does those that are part
> > of the psuedoscientific establishment.
>
> Why not? What's he got against the Discovery Institute?
He recently wrote that he thinks they're a bunch of psuedos.
> > You know that - so why even ask
> > the question? Ed has not, as far as I'm aware, ever claimed that we
> > are the act of a creator (could be wrong here) - for that reason he is
> > also not a creationist.
> >
> > So if he's not young earth and he's not a creationist he can't be a
> > young earth creationist.
>
> Stew, it's like asking why someone didn't pick up milk on the way home.
Because they don't drink milk?
> Your answer would be that they didn't, so it's not important.
Sorry but no, you're not understanding this.
> But the
> answer to that question *might* reveal something important about the
> person in question, such as, they might have enough milk at home, or
> they might be a vegan.
>
> Do you follow the rationale' now?
I do but I finding it astounding that you have to explore this
question.
Ed's delusion is not compatable with that of being a YEC. Like I said
- if you're attempting to apply logic to a delusion you're lost before
you've started. Ed wants to believe man is as old as coal, there's
nothing you can say or do that will change that, especally not reason.
This is why I find the whole thing trivial, the answer should be self
evident.
> > > You have never been to Pennsylvania, as near
> > > as I can tell, and you have never actually interviewed people who know
> > > Ed, knew Ed, knew Wilton Krogman, etc., etc...
> >
> > I don't need to. Ed is a kook and exhibits exactly the same kind of
> > mental behavour of many men in this world. He is badly educated and is
> > equiped with an ego that he cannot control. The result is what
> > intellect he posseses is clouded by his inability to admit when he has
> > made a mistake. He's not doing it for money but because he's got part
> > of his world view confused, much like you David.
>
> I could have sworn that you recently claimed that Ed really thought that
> Man is Old as Coal. Have you changed your mind or something?
What makes you say that? I think he really does think man is as old a
coal. If he doesnt then that makes no difference as the same things
are still in play. If you cannot admit something to yourself or others
than you hold that thing to be true, therefore you are delusional or
simply in an advanced form of denial. You and Ed are doing exactly the
same thing on a smaller scale when it comes down to reasoning with Ed.
You attempt to reason with Ed but when questioned about it, turn
around and claim you dont. I at least can admit that's what I
attempted to do, just as I am currently trying to reason with you.
Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<orrunv4mrltaggfg3...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 23:54:40 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<m6tqnv4kn2g2c221h...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > > So when you state that Ed makes the same claims again and again, your
> > > > > > theory allows him to make repeated contradictory claims?
> > > > >
> > > > > Isnt that a contradiction in terms?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. What is the contradiction, Skippy?
> > >
> > > Either Ed makes the same claims again and again or he doesnt. How can
> > > he make 'repeated contradictory claims'. If it's repeated then it's
> > > not contradictory is it? Now if you mean some of Ed's claim don't make
> > > sense according to others...
> >
> > Bingo!
>
> I left it trailing as I could find the words to sum up how hopeless a
> situation you have if you really where going to make that point. In
> what way do you think this has got to do with reason? Ed's ideas are
> beyond reason. Everyone apart from Ed knows his ideas are non sensical
> but there's no way to convince Ed otherwise. So that's it - game over,
> there's no where else to go.
Unless, of course, no one is trying to convince ED of anything.
> > > > > <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
> > > >
> > > > Chances are, you're snipping stuff you can't answer, that you avoided,
> > > > or that you don't understand.
> > >
> > > Nope. I ever felt like I've covered it already or I can't be bothered
> > > to work out why something is relevant.
> >
> > Why do you expect me to explain everything when you're not willing to do
> > it yourself?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.
He means that you expect explanations but are not always willing to
provide them yourself. You can't be bothered, you snip away pertinent
points and questions. It was pretty obvious to me and I'll lay odds
that it's pretty obvious to anyone else who might be reading.
> I've explained everything I
> meant as I've gone along (it feels like several times over).
You're a liar, Skippy.
You've snipped away quite a bit, you've REFUSED to deal with some of
the arguments presented and you couldn't be bothered to support some
of your arguments.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > You make these assertions DESPITE gen2rev's denials. While HE should know
> > > > better, you don't grant him that.
> > >
> > > But he doesnt - he was caught with cake on his face and denies he ate
> > > the cake.
> >
> > Look up "rhetorical question" again.
>
> This is not to do with rhetorical questions (you where the one that
> got the meaning of them wrong) - it's to do with you and David trying
> to reason with Ed.
Gen2rev and I aren't trying to reason with Ed, Skippy.
> I lapsed recently and found myself attempting to do
> that - you guys do it all the time then deny you do it.
We are within our rights to deny it because it's true.
What's comical is that you ADMIT you tried to reason with Ed and you
try to cover that by presuming that it is our intent when we've told
you that it is not.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > Again - why even ask the question when
> > > > > the answers are already available.
> > > >
> > > > I think the questions for which answers are NOT "already available"
> > > > are the questions posed to YOU.
> > >
> > > Like? Like why I find some of Gen2Revs questions trivial?
> >
> > Bingo again!
Where's your answer to THIS, Skippy?
> > > I hope the above goes somewhere to answer that. Ed does not hold that
> > > the earth is thousand of years old but some variation of millions so
> > > it's off topic and pointless asking why Ed is not a YEC.
> >
> > Not at all. I believe that the answer to that question is very relevant.
>
> But you know the answer, or at least should do. I cover it again in
> this post.
We'll see.
> > > > > I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
> > > >
> > > > That he has. I have, as well. You have done none.
> > >
> > > Then why make silly mistakes like the one above? Ed no more likes
> > > folks like the discovery instituted than he does those that are part
> > > of the psuedoscientific establishment.
> >
> > Why not? What's he got against the Discovery Institute?
>
> He recently wrote that he thinks they're a bunch of psuedos.
That doesn't answer the question, Skippy. What's he got against the
Discovery Institute?
> > > You know that - so why even ask
> > > the question? Ed has not, as far as I'm aware, ever claimed that we
> > > are the act of a creator (could be wrong here) - for that reason he is
> > > also not a creationist.
> > >
> > > So if he's not young earth and he's not a creationist he can't be a
> > > young earth creationist.
> >
> > Stew, it's like asking why someone didn't pick up milk on the way home.
>
> Because they don't drink milk?
Oh, my!
> > Your answer would be that they didn't, so it's not important.
>
> Sorry but no, you're not understanding this.
Well, maybe the problem is that you're not explaining it particularly
well.
Of course, THAT'S never your fault, either, is it?
> > But the
> > answer to that question *might* reveal something important about the
> > person in question, such as, they might have enough milk at home, or
> > they might be a vegan.
> >
> > Do you follow the rationale' now?
>
> I do but I finding it astounding that you have to explore this
> question.
That's because you're not really following, Skippy. You're as
confused as ever.
> Ed's delusion is not compatable with that of being a YEC.
Why not?
> Like I said
> - if you're attempting to apply logic to a delusion you're lost before
> you've started.
A delusion cannot be logically explored and explained?
That's not POSSIBLE?
> Ed wants to believe man is as old as coal, there's
> nothing you can say or do that will change that, especally not reason.
No one's trying to change Ed's mind, Skippy.
> This is why I find the whole thing trivial, the answer should be self
> evident.
Your representation that it should be does not mean that it is.
> > > > You have never been to Pennsylvania, as near
> > > > as I can tell, and you have never actually interviewed people who know
> > > > Ed, knew Ed, knew Wilton Krogman, etc., etc...
> > >
> > > I don't need to. Ed is a kook and exhibits exactly the same kind of
> > > mental behavour of many men in this world. He is badly educated and is
> > > equiped with an ego that he cannot control. The result is what
> > > intellect he posseses is clouded by his inability to admit when he has
> > > made a mistake. He's not doing it for money but because he's got part
> > > of his world view confused, much like you David.
> >
> > I could have sworn that you recently claimed that Ed really thought that
> > Man is Old as Coal. Have you changed your mind or something?
>
> What makes you say that? I think he really does think man is as old a
> coal.
But what age has he attributed to coal?
Can you provide an unequivocal statement?
> If he doesnt then that makes no difference as the same things
> are still in play.
What "same things" are those, Skippy?
> If you cannot admit something to yourself or others
> than you hold that thing to be true, therefore you are delusional or
> simply in an advanced form of denial.
Wow. Marvelous gibberish.
> You and Ed are doing exactly the
> same thing on a smaller scale when it comes down to reasoning with Ed.
No, because gen2rev is not trying to reason WITH Ed.
It is you who are acting like Ed Conrad.
> You attempt to reason with Ed but when questioned about it, turn
> around and claim you dont.
He's right. He's not.
The problem is that you are too stupid to understand the distinctions.
> I at least can admit that's what I
> attempted to do,
And how many times have you insisted that others shouldn't do this,
Skippy? How can you reconcile this and not appear to be not only an
arrogant but clueless putz, but a hypocrite as well?
> just as I am currently trying to reason with you.
To do that, you have to use REASON, Skippy; and that's an alien
concept to you.
I won't bother to check and see if you've snipped anything.
gen2rev
(stew dean) wrote:
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<orrunv4mrltaggfg3...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 23:54:40 +0000 (UTC), ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > (stew dean) wrote:
> >
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<m6tqnv4kn2g2c221h...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > > So when you state that Ed makes the same claims again and again, your
> > > > > > theory allows him to make repeated contradictory claims?
> > > > >
> > > > > Isnt that a contradiction in terms?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. What is the contradiction, Skippy?
> > >
> > > Either Ed makes the same claims again and again or he doesnt. How can
> > > he make 'repeated contradictory claims'. If it's repeated then it's
> > > not contradictory is it? Now if you mean some of Ed's claim don't make
> > > sense according to others...
> >
> > Bingo!
>
> I left it trailing as I could find the words to sum up how hopeless a
> situation you have if you really where going to make that point. In
> what way do you think this has got to do with reason? Ed's ideas are
> beyond reason. Everyone apart from Ed knows his ideas are non sensical
> but there's no way to convince Ed otherwise. So that's it - game over,
> there's no where else to go.
You stated that Ed believes his claims, and I disagreed, arguing that
they are inconsistent. In
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b68957a.0309020457.202ec4ae%40posting.google.com
you claimed that his posts *are* consistent. Pointing out that Ed is
inconsistent was the entire point. I was not claiming that Ed's ideas
were reasonable.
Now, do you agree or disagree that Ed's ideas are inconsistent?
> > > > > <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
> > > >
> > > > Chances are, you're snipping stuff you can't answer, that you avoided,
> > > > or that you don't understand.
> > >
> > > Nope. I ever felt like I've covered it already or I can't be bothered
> > > to work out why something is relevant.
> >
> > Why do you expect me to explain everything when you're not willing to do
> > it yourself?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I've explained everything I
> meant as I've gone along (it feels like several times over).
So what does it mean when you write above that you "can't be bothered to
work out why something is relevant"?
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > You make these assertions DESPITE gen2rev's denials. While HE should know
> > > > better, you don't grant him that.
> > >
> > > But he doesnt - he was caught with cake on his face and denies he ate
> > > the cake.
> >
> > Look up "rhetorical question" again.
>
> This is not to do with rhetorical questions (you where the one that
> got the meaning of them wrong)
Care to back up that claim with a dictionary reference?
> - it's to do with you and David trying
> to reason with Ed. I lapsed recently and found myself attempting to do
> that - you guys do it all the time then deny you do it.
We deny it because we *don't* do it.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > Again - why even ask the question when
> > > > > the answers are already available.
> > > >
> > > > I think the questions for which answers are NOT "already available"
> > > > are the questions posed to YOU.
> > >
> > > Like? Like why I find some of Gen2Revs questions trivial?
> >
> > Bingo again!
> >
> > > I hope the above goes somewhere to answer that. Ed does not hold that
> > > the earth is thousand of years old but some variation of millions so
> > > it's off topic and pointless asking why Ed is not a YEC.
> >
> > Not at all. I believe that the answer to that question is very relevant.
>
> But you know the answer, or at least should do. I cover it again in
> this post.
And do it poorly.
> > > > > I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
> > > >
> > > > That he has. I have, as well. You have done none.
> > >
> > > Then why make silly mistakes like the one above? Ed no more likes
> > > folks like the discovery instituted than he does those that are part
> > > of the psuedoscientific establishment.
> >
> > Why not? What's he got against the Discovery Institute?
>
> He recently wrote that he thinks they're a bunch of psuedos.
Why does he think that?
> > > You know that - so why even ask
> > > the question? Ed has not, as far as I'm aware, ever claimed that we
> > > are the act of a creator (could be wrong here) - for that reason he is
> > > also not a creationist.
> > >
> > > So if he's not young earth and he's not a creationist he can't be a
> > > young earth creationist.
> >
> > Stew, it's like asking why someone didn't pick up milk on the way home.
>
> Because they don't drink milk?
Why not?
> > Your answer would be that they didn't, so it's not important.
>
> Sorry but no, you're not understanding this.
It would seem to be a valid analogy.
> > But the
> > answer to that question *might* reveal something important about the
> > person in question, such as, they might have enough milk at home, or
> > they might be a vegan.
> >
> > Do you follow the rationale' now?
>
> I do but I finding it astounding that you have to explore this
> question.
>
> Ed's delusion is not compatable with that of being a YEC.
Sure it is. Why isn't it compatible? Ed claims he finds human remains
between coal veins. Why isn't that compatible with YEC?
> Like I said
> - if you're attempting to apply logic to a delusion you're lost before
> you've started.
No, I'm not trying to reason with a delusional person, rather I'm
attempting to understand the mechanics of the delusion.
> Ed wants to believe man is as old as coal, there's
> nothing you can say or do that will change that, especally not reason.
And YECs believe that coal is less than 6000 years old. Being a YEC
would still allow Ed to believe that man is old as coal.
> This is why I find the whole thing trivial, the answer should be self
> evident.
I fail to see how "because he does" is a self-evident answer. That's
like saying that apples fall to the ground "because they do".
> > > > You have never been to Pennsylvania, as near
> > > > as I can tell, and you have never actually interviewed people who know
> > > > Ed, knew Ed, knew Wilton Krogman, etc., etc...
> > >
> > > I don't need to. Ed is a kook and exhibits exactly the same kind of
> > > mental behavour of many men in this world. He is badly educated and is
> > > equiped with an ego that he cannot control. The result is what
> > > intellect he posseses is clouded by his inability to admit when he has
> > > made a mistake. He's not doing it for money but because he's got part
> > > of his world view confused, much like you David.
> >
> > I could have sworn that you recently claimed that Ed really thought that
> > Man is Old as Coal. Have you changed your mind or something?
>
> What makes you say that? I think he really does think man is as old a
> coal.
What mistake were you talking about just above?
> If he doesnt then that makes no difference as the same things
> are still in play.
Or he's lying to save face.
> If you cannot admit something to yourself or others
> than you hold that thing to be true, therefore you are delusional or
> simply in an advanced form of denial. You and Ed
Ed?
> are doing exactly the
> same thing on a smaller scale when it comes down to reasoning with Ed.
> You attempt to reason with Ed but when questioned about it, turn
> around and claim you dont. I at least can admit that's what I
> attempted to do,
Or maybe you're just projecting. Maybe transferring aspects of yourself
that you're not pleased with on to others is your way of dealing with
those aspects.
> just as I am currently trying to reason with you.
Then why do you avoid questions?
> Stew Dean
stew dean
His claims are consistant - man is as old as coal.
>Pointing out that Ed is
> inconsistent was the entire point.
But overall they're not. He uses the same arguements time and time
again.
> I was not claiming that Ed's ideas
> were reasonable.
I never thought you did.
> Now, do you agree or disagree that Ed's ideas are inconsistent?
His ideas are a mess - but he is consistent.
>
>
> > > > > > <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
> > > > >
> > > > > Chances are, you're snipping stuff you can't answer, that you avoided,
> > > > > or that you don't understand.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. I ever felt like I've covered it already or I can't be bothered
> > > > to work out why something is relevant.
> > >
> > > Why do you expect me to explain everything when you're not willing to do
> > > it yourself?
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I've explained everything I
> > meant as I've gone along (it feels like several times over).
>
> So what does it mean when you write above that you "can't be bothered to
> work out why something is relevant"?
That question illustrates it perfectly. I explain everthing as I go
along - but I have to explain it several times before you begin to
understand it. I know if I persue some of the side issues I'll be here
until christmas and if they don't appear to be relevent I'm not going
down that path just to find out that, like the YEC question, you've
just failed to grasp something very obvious.
>
>
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > You make these assertions DESPITE gen2rev's denials. While HE should know
> > > > > better, you don't grant him that.
> > > >
> > > > But he doesnt - he was caught with cake on his face and denies he ate
> > > > the cake.
> > >
> > > Look up "rhetorical question" again.
> >
> > This is not to do with rhetorical questions (you where the one that
> > got the meaning of them wrong)
>
> Care to back up that claim with a dictionary reference?
"Why must I be a teenager in love?" or "what's up, doc?" or even "how
many roads must a man walk my friend?" are rhetorical questions - they
are questions designed not to be answered but to make a point.
Hang on - I'll look it up...
"A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical
effect."
What was your 'rhetorical' question again?
> > - it's to do with you and David trying
> > to reason with Ed. I lapsed recently and found myself attempting to do
> > that - you guys do it all the time then deny you do it.
>
> We deny it because we *don't* do it.
But you do. You cliam your aim is to 'engage' with Ed. Just how are
you going to do that if you don't use reason? You can't exactly call
in air strikes.
> > > > > > I wouldnt mind but you claim to have done your research.
> > > > >
> > > > > That he has. I have, as well. You have done none.
> > > >
> > > > Then why make silly mistakes like the one above? Ed no more likes
> > > > folks like the discovery instituted than he does those that are part
> > > > of the psuedoscientific establishment.
> > >
> > > Why not? What's he got against the Discovery Institute?
> >
> > He recently wrote that he thinks they're a bunch of psuedos.
>
> Why does he think that?
Same reason as everyone else - they disagree with his ideas, or his
ideas are different to theirs.
Again this should be obvious to you Jon. Do you read Ed's posts?
> > > > You know that - so why even ask
> > > > the question? Ed has not, as far as I'm aware, ever claimed that we
> > > > are the act of a creator (could be wrong here) - for that reason he is
> > > > also not a creationist.
> > > >
> > > > So if he's not young earth and he's not a creationist he can't be a
> > > > young earth creationist.
> > >
> > > Stew, it's like asking why someone didn't pick up milk on the way home.
> >
> > Because they don't drink milk?
>
> Why not?
YOu don't need a reason not to drink milk. I don't drink coffee, I
just don't like it.
> > > Your answer would be that they didn't, so it's not important.
> >
> > Sorry but no, you're not understanding this.
>
> It would seem to be a valid analogy.
It would? If someone has never claimed to drink milk or even talked
about bringing back any food on the way home why would you ask them
why thy didnt pick up milk?
If they drunk milk and where in the habit of stopping off at the shops
to buy milk when they where low then you might have a point.
To translate. You are asking why Ed is not a young earth creationist.
Ed thinks the earth is old (that is he doesnt drink milk) and has
never talked about a creator (has never talked about stopping off at
the shops on the way home).
The only way you milk analogy would be valid is if you where bonkers.
When people come over to visit do you ask them why they havnt brought
random items?
>
>
> > > But the
> > > answer to that question *might* reveal something important about the
> > > person in question, such as, they might have enough milk at home, or
> > > they might be a vegan.
> > >
> > > Do you follow the rationale' now?
> >
> > I do but I finding it astounding that you have to explore this
> > question.
> >
> > Ed's delusion is not compatable with that of being a YEC.
>
> Sure it is. Why isn't it compatible?
Now you're just being dumb.
> Ed claims he finds human remains
> between coal veins. Why isn't that compatible with YEC?
You mean apart from the Y the E and the C of young earth creationism?
"Hell Jon, why so unhappy" - "Why didnt you buy me a bust of Mozart on
the way over".
> > Like I said
> > - if you're attempting to apply logic to a delusion you're lost before
> > you've started.
>
> No, I'm not trying to reason with a delusional person, rather I'm
> attempting to understand the mechanics of the delusion.
Delusions don't have mecahanics - they don't make sense.
> > Ed wants to believe man is as old as coal, there's
> > nothing you can say or do that will change that, especally not reason.
>
> And YECs believe that coal is less than 6000 years old. Being a YEC
> would still allow Ed to believe that man is old as coal.
So when Ed was talking about millions of years he actualy meant
thousands?
> > This is why I find the whole thing trivial, the answer should be self
> > evident.
>
> I fail to see how "because he does" is a self-evident answer. That's
> like saying that apples fall to the ground "because they do".
Actualy we don't know what gravity is but that's a different matter.
Ed has explained why he believes man is old as coal both in this group
and via email. The answer is not 'because they do' but more like
'because they don't'. Ed has no reason to be a YEC - he shares more in
common with David than he does the young earth creationists who have
shown up in this group.
> > > > > You have never been to Pennsylvania, as near
> > > > > as I can tell, and you have never actually interviewed people who know
> > > > > Ed, knew Ed, knew Wilton Krogman, etc., etc...
> > > >
> > > > I don't need to. Ed is a kook and exhibits exactly the same kind of
> > > > mental behavour of many men in this world. He is badly educated and is
> > > > equiped with an ego that he cannot control. The result is what
> > > > intellect he posseses is clouded by his inability to admit when he has
> > > > made a mistake. He's not doing it for money but because he's got part
> > > > of his world view confused, much like you David.
> > >
> > > I could have sworn that you recently claimed that Ed really thought that
> > > Man is Old as Coal. Have you changed your mind or something?
> >
> > What makes you say that? I think he really does think man is as old a
> > coal.
>
> What mistake were you talking about just above?
The one he made when he descided to part company with science.
> > If he doesnt then that makes no difference as the same things
> > are still in play.
>
> Or he's lying to save face.
Like I said he's either lying to save face or he's not aware he's
lying. Doesnt matter either way really. If you think he's lying that
doesnt get you anywhere.
> > If you cannot admit something to yourself or others
> > than you hold that thing to be true, therefore you are delusional or
> > simply in an advanced form of denial. You and Ed
>
> Ed?
Yes David and Ed. They...
> > are doing exactly the
> > same thing on a smaller scale when it comes down to reasoning with Ed.
> > You attempt to reason with Ed but when questioned about it, turn
> > around and claim you dont. I at least can admit that's what I
> > attempted to do,
>
> Or maybe you're just projecting. Maybe transferring aspects of yourself
> that you're not pleased with on to others is your way of dealing with
> those aspects.
I would be projecting if I wasnt open and honest about it. I've taken
the time, for once, go into things in more detail here than I usualy
do.
I admit that I was doing the wrong thing when I replied to ed and when
I did I was attempting to reason with Ed as I thought that I could
somehow engage with him. I was having a bad week.
> > just as I am currently trying to reason with you.
>
> Then why do you avoid questions?
I don't avoid questions, in fact I've answered the same ones, like the
YEC one several times over. Some questions I've either not seen,
ignored as I knew they'd be off topic and lead to another pointless
goose chace and some you ask when you already know the answer
(otherwise known as being deliberatly insolent). Oh and some I snipped
because I only had time to respond to part of a post. I have to have a
lot of patiece with you and David for different reasons, David talks
like a drunk and you tend to be a bit slow.
Don't expect such detailed responces in future.
Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
That claim is consistent, Skippy, yes - "man as old as coal." In
fact, that might be more the "theme" than the claim with respect to
Ed's postings; but he does make inconsistent CLAIMS.
All you're doing is repeating yourself.
> >Pointing out that Ed is
> > inconsistent was the entire point.
>
> But overall they're not. He uses the same arguements time and time
> again.
Yes, but also uses different arguments and contradictory arguments.
You are still stupidly under the impression that using the same
arguments cannot mean that he ever uses contradictory arguments. But
if any of those same arguments are contradictory, he DOES use
contradictory arguments.
You are incapable of seeing your errors. You are as bad as Ed.
> > I was not claiming that Ed's ideas
> > were reasonable.
>
> I never thought you did.
Whom should we thank for THIS small favor?
> > Now, do you agree or disagree that Ed's ideas are inconsistent?
>
> His ideas are a mess - but he is consistent.
Oh, now HE is consistent?
Yes, HE is consistent. We know this much; but some of his CLAIMS and
arguments are not.
Is it a petrified penis, a petrified snake or a petrified garden hose,
Skippy?
> > > > > > > <snip stuff I've gone over several times>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chances are, you're snipping stuff you can't answer, that you avoided,
> > > > > > or that you don't understand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. I ever felt like I've covered it already or I can't be bothered
> > > > > to work out why something is relevant.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you expect me to explain everything when you're not willing to do
> > > > it yourself?
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I've explained everything I
> > > meant as I've gone along (it feels like several times over).
> >
> > So what does it mean when you write above that you "can't be bothered to
> > work out why something is relevant"?
>
> That question illustrates it perfectly. I explain everthing as I go
> along
No, you don't. We even see that again in your message today. You
yammer in vague generalities or you dismiss some commentary or another
as "that is just dumb" (while whining about "ad hominem" elsewhere and
frequently).
Making assertions is not the same as providing explanations, Skippy.
Mostly, that's what you do - you make assertions. On those rare
occasions that you try to "explain" something, you show why you are
wrong.
> - but I have to explain it several times before you begin to
> understand it.
Provide an example.
> I know if I persue some of the side issues I'll be here
> until christmas and if they don't appear to be relevent I'm not going
> down that path just to find out that, like the YEC question, you've
> just failed to grasp something very obvious.
And then you whine about others insulting YOU.
Skippy, it is amazing that you decide things can be side issues, and
it's usually true that those "side issues" are illustrations or
related to the basic premise and you have no answer for them.
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > You make these assertions DESPITE gen2rev's denials. While HE should know
> > > > > > better, you don't grant him that.
> > > > >
> > > > > But he doesnt - he was caught with cake on his face and denies he ate
> > > > > the cake.
> > > >
> > > > Look up "rhetorical question" again.
> > >
> > > This is not to do with rhetorical questions (you where the one that
> > > got the meaning of them wrong)
> >
> > Care to back up that claim with a dictionary reference?
>
> "Why must I be a teenager in love?" or "what's up, doc?" or even "how
> many roads must a man walk my friend?" are rhetorical questions
Actually, the are better as examples of catch phrases. They can all
be legitimate questions for which a reasonable answer is expected, as
well.
INTENT is what decides whether or not a question is rhetorical,
Skippy.
> - they
> are questions designed not to be answered but to make a point.
>
> Hang on - I'll look it up...
It's about time.
> "A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical
> effect."
Look at the whole concept, Skippy - not just the part that you think
you can twist.
> What was your 'rhetorical' question again?
Try to keep up, Skippy.
< snip for later >
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
> > <rest snipped>
>
> Stew, here's a list of items you left unanswered in the snipped section:
>
> Do you admit that you snipped my claims regarding the "Calvarium" three
> times in a row?
>
> Can you explain why ego wouldn't be a motive for deception?
>
> Can you point out where you addressed Ed's contradictory "penis" and
> "calvarium" claims?
>
> Can you explain how a deception is different from a lie?
>
> Is speculation as to why Ed's not a YEC or why you're not a mormon
> pointless?
>
> Do you seriously claim that there's no rational foundation to
> psychology?
>
> Do you really thing that calling me an idiot is going to have the
> desired effect?
>
> Do you want to force your views on others?
>
> And finally, did you read the article at
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml>?
What about all of this, Skippy?
I'll add why you called gen2rev a liar and then tried to squirm out of
it, pretending that you didn't as a question that should be answered.