Re: Good news for "J", Shroud of Turin is not a fraud
Tom S.
wrote:
>On Oct 8, 6:29�pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:04:42 -0700 (PDT), Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 8, 8:37�am, "Mr. B" <n...@supplied.com> wrote:
>> >> > There is no evidence it's a fake. If you read the latest findings,
>> >> > previous test done showed mistakes were made.
>>
>> >> The latest findings are hogwash, put out by people who are desperate to
>> >> believe the Jesus really existed and that his image is burned into the
>> >> cloth.
>>
>> >Or atheist are just in denial and ignore the fact that the findings
>> >are inconclusive and mistakes were made.
>> >Atheist are quick to judge and they have to keep a closed mind. It's
>> >part of the fear.
>>
>> The 1988 findings were accepted (endorsed?) by the Roman Catholic
>> Church. �Are you now declaring them to be atheists??
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > It's still inconclusive; however, I realize atheist are VERY quick to
>> >> > judgement and you HAVE to reject any idea or thought that it could be
>> >> > authentic.
>>
>> >> Hm, let's see...on the one hand, the likelihood that it is 2000 years old
>> >> and that somehow just placing it over a man caused that man's image to be
>> >> burned into it; on the other hand, that it is just a cloth from the middle
>> >> ages. �Which one sounds crazier to you? �Occam's razor.
>>
>> >Or on the other hand, one can accept the fact that mistakes were made
>> >in past test and at this time, the findings are inconclusive.
>>
>> Only in the minds of a very small, but vocal, group of long time
>> "Pro-authentic" advocates.
>>
>>
>>
>> >In other words, it's not known for a fact.
>>
>> In other words, it is known for a fact that it is a medieval fraud. If
>> you have valid, peer reviewed proof to the contrary, please feel free
>> to post it.
>>
>> Tom S.
>
>There is no conclusive evidence either way, end of story.
You have no knowledge of scientific testing, analysis of data
(especially test data and results), margins of error, or the
scientific method, end of story.
> The test
>that were done before have been found to have errors.
Every test is likely to have some error somewhere, especially the
current ones you seem to be choosing to believe. However none of the
errors were fatal. i.e., none invalidated the final results. No error
occurred in all tests and most of the tests contained no errors. And
the conclusions that were drawn from all of the tests, individually
and collectively is that the shroud was produced, by human hands in
the early 14th century, plus or minus about 50 years (if I remember
the error range correctly)
>You can hold on to your guessing all you wish. After all, you have too.
I have the weight of scientific evidence and testing to back my
conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. What do you have??
Why don't you go over to alt.turin-shroud to continue this?? There
you will find John Boatwright and a few others who believe as you do.
Although, I imagine they are a little more punch drunk then they were
10 years ago when I last subscribed to that group. And they were
pretty hopeless then, especially Boaty. ((^:
Tom S.
Osprey
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 21:56:13 -0700 (PDT), Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com>
You have absolutely no idea or proof to support such a statement.
>
> > The test
> >that were done before have been found to have errors.
>
> Every test is likely to have some error somewhere, especially the
> current ones you seem to be choosing to believe. However none of the
> errors were fatal. i.e., none invalidated the final results. No error
> occurred in all tests and most of the tests contained no errors. And
> the conclusions that were drawn from all of the tests, individually
> and collectively is that the shroud was produced, by human hands in
> the early 14th century, plus or minus about 50 years (if I remember
> the error range correctly)
The test are inconclusive.
>
> >You can hold on to your guessing all you wish. After all, you have too.
>
> I have the weight of scientific evidence and testing to back my
> conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. What do you have??
You have to reject ANYTHING that might even remotely link to proof of
a divine being.
>
> Why don't you go over to alt.turin-shroud to continue this?? There
> you will find John Boatwright and a few others who believe as you do.
> Although, I imagine they are a little more punch drunk then they were
> 10 years ago when I last subscribed to that group. And they were
> pretty hopeless then, especially Boaty. ((^:
>
> Tom S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom S.
wrote:
>On Oct 9, 7:02�pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
I have your postings - your mis-statement of what a theory is, your
inability to differentiate between good science and pseudo-science,
and your insistence that results that you don't agree with are wrong
or inconclusive. And I got all of that from this thread.
>
>
>>
>> > The test
>> >that were done before have been found to have errors.
>>
>> Every test is likely to have some error somewhere, especially the
>> current �ones you seem to be choosing to believe. �However none of the
>> errors were fatal. i.e., none invalidated the final results. �No error
>> occurred in all tests and most of the tests contained no errors. �And
>> the conclusions that were drawn from all of the tests, individually
>> and collectively is that the shroud was produced, by human hands in
>> the early 14th century, plus or minus about 50 years (if I remember
>> the error range correctly)
>
>The test are inconclusive.
You are wrong. And before you get bent out of shape and have to be
bitch slapped again, remember that I have a first class engineering
education and over 25 years experience designing and conducting
analyses. And that is just my formal experience. I have spent
considerable time reading and studying outside of the job.
Plus, I am demonstrably more intelligent than you.
>
>>
>> >You can hold on to your guessing all you wish. After all, you have too.
>>
>> I have the weight of scientific evidence and testing to back my
>> conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. �What do you have??
>
>You have to reject ANYTHING that might even remotely link to proof of
>a divine being.
You have no idea what my feelings and beliefs about a divine being
are.
Tom S.
Osprey
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com>
Yawn...and that's nothing.
> your mis-statement of what a theory is,
That would be a lie on your part, or you just attempting to twist
something I said.
your
> inability to differentiate between good science and pseudo-science,
That's just your opinion
> and your insistence that results that you don't agree with are wrong
> or inconclusive. And I got all of that from this thread.
Nope, what we have is just your opinion which is not much at all. We
are back to what I said.
You have absolutely no idea or proof to support such a statement
You just have what you wish to believe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > The test
> >> >that were done before have been found to have errors.
>
> >> Every test is likely to have some error somewhere, especially the
> >> current ones you seem to be choosing to believe. However none of the
> >> errors were fatal. i.e., none invalidated the final results. No error
> >> occurred in all tests and most of the tests contained no errors. And
> >> the conclusions that were drawn from all of the tests, individually
> >> and collectively is that the shroud was produced, by human hands in
> >> the early 14th century, plus or minus about 50 years (if I remember
> >> the error range correctly)
>
> >The test are inconclusive.
>
> You are wrong.
No I'm not, and I provided the sources to back up what I said.
And before you get bent out of shape and have to be
> bitch slapped again,
You can go fuck yourself.
Tom S.
wrote:
>On Oct 10, 12:24�am, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 9, 7:02�pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> >> You have no knowledge of scientific testing, analysis of data
>> >> (especially test data and results), margins of error, or the
>> >> scientific method, end of story.
>>
>> >You have absolutely no idea or proof to support such a statement.
>>
>> I have your postings -
>
>Yawn...and that's nothing.
You are right for once. The words from your own keyboard are nothing.
>
>> your mis-statement of what a theory is,
>
>That would be a lie on your part, or you just attempting to twist
>something I said.
Well, why don't you just tell us again what a theory is.
>
> your
>> inability to differentiate between good science and pseudo-science,
>
>That's just your opinion
Backed up by your own postings.
>
>> and your insistence that results that you don't agree with are wrong
>> or inconclusive. �And I got all of that from this thread.
>
>Nope, what we have is just your opinion which is not much at all. We
>are back to what I said.
>You have absolutely no idea or proof to support such a statement
Just your postings from this thread.
>>
>> >> > The test
>> >> >that were done before have been found to have errors.
>>
>> >> Every test is likely to have some error somewhere, especially the
>> >> current �ones you seem to be choosing to believe. �However none of the
>> >> errors were fatal. i.e., none invalidated the final results. �No error
>> >> occurred in all tests and most of the tests contained no errors. �And
>> >> the conclusions that were drawn from all of the tests, individually
>> >> and collectively is that the shroud was produced, by human hands in
>> >> the early 14th century, plus or minus about 50 years (if I remember
>> >> the error range correctly)
>>
>> >The test are inconclusive.
>>
>> You are wrong. �
>
>No I'm not, and I provided the sources to back up what I said.
And I provided the source that refuted your sources. So, you have
nothing.
>
>And before you get bent out of shape and have to be
>> bitch slapped again,
As I said - and you deleted without attribution
------inserting deleted text from previous post------
remember that I have a first class engineering
education and over 25 years experience designing and conducting
analyses. And that is just my formal experience. I have spent
considerable time reading and studying outside of the job.
Plus, I am demonstrably more intelligent than you.
------------------ end of insertion----------------------
>
>You can go fuck yourself.
>
You are welcome to come down here and attempt to make me do
that....... And that is a challenge........
Tom S.
Tom S.
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:24:27 -0400, Tom S. <tsca...@cox.net> in
>alt.abortion with message-id
><dg20d55ieq7fvhkf1...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>>>>
>>>> Every test is likely to have some error somewhere, especially the
>>>> current �ones you seem to be choosing to believe. �However none of the
>>>> errors were fatal. i.e., none invalidated the final results. �No error
>>>> occurred in all tests and most of the tests contained no errors. �And
>>>> the conclusions that were drawn from all of the tests, individually
>>>> and collectively is that the shroud was produced, by human hands in
>>>> the early 14th century, plus or minus about 50 years (if I remember
>>>> the error range correctly)
>>>
>>>The test are inconclusive.
>>
>>You are wrong. And before you get bent out of shape and have to be
>>bitch slapped again, remember that I have a first class engineering
>>education and over 25 years experience designing and conducting
>>analyses. And that is just my formal experience. I have spent
>>considerable time reading and studying outside of the job.
>
>Be careful here. Isn't he going to a sort of 'higher education'
>facility that gives some kind of "advanced degree"? This would of
>course let him speak from a position of authority.
You think so??? Wow!! His first "degree" got him up to almost the
level of education some of my high school class mates had before they
dropped out in the 10th grade. I wonder how high his "advanced
degree" will take him. (((^:
>
>Especially when compared to your qualifications.
>
>>
>>Plus, I am demonstrably more intelligent than you.
>
>Nothing to brag about there. So is a holly shrub.
Tom S.
The Chief Instigator
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:07:03 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:24:27 -0400, Tom S. <tsca...@cox.net> in
>>alt.abortion with message-id
>><dg20d55ieq7fvhkf1...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every test is likely to have some error somewhere, especially the
>>>>> the errors were fatal. i.e., none invalidated the final results. ?No
>>>>> error occurred in all tests and most of the tests contained no errors.
>>>>> individually and collectively is that the shroud was produced, by
>>>>> human hands in the early 14th century, plus or minus about 50 years
>>>>> (if I remember the error range correctly)
>>>>
>>>>The test are inconclusive.
>>>
>>>You are wrong. And before you get bent out of shape and have to be bitch
>>>slapped again, remember that I have a first class engineering education
>>>and over 25 years experience designing and conducting analyses. And that
>>>is just my formal experience. I have spent considerable time reading and
>>>studying outside of the job.
>>
>>Be careful here. Isn't he going to a sort of 'higher education' facility
>>that gives some kind of "advanced degree"? This would of course let him
>>speak from a position of authority.
>
> You think so??? Wow!! His first "degree" got him up to almost the level
> of education some of my high school class mates had before they dropped
> out in the 10th grade. I wonder how high his "advanced degree" will take
> him. (((^:
Likely, a funny farm...sooner than later.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Texas 3, Houston 2 (October 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 10 vs. Texas, 7:35
Mike Painter
>
> I have the weight of scientific evidence and testing to back my
> conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. What do you have??
>
> Why don't you go over to alt.turin-shroud to continue this?? There
> you will find John Boatwright and a few others who believe as you do.
> Although, I imagine they are a little more punch drunk then they were
> 10 years ago when I last subscribed to that group. And they were
> pretty hopeless then, especially Boaty. ((^:
>
the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who
painted it.'
Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in
1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery.
Osprey
It very well may be a fake, but my point is...we don't know for sure.
All test done have errors and it's inconclusive.
You can jump on it if you wish, but from all the readings I've read,
there is not one single test that shows without any doubt it's a fake.
Puck Greenman
Thinking without moving his lips?
Nomen Publicus
Why assume that it is not a fake? The historical record contains reports of
a well known fake circulating in the 14c. If a shroud existed that was not
concidered a fake, wouldn't that be a famous relic? Where are the records?
--
"Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks"
Christopher Brookmyre
Osprey
wrote:
Again, questions we may never have answers for.
Tom S.
<Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 10, 2:25�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Tom S. wrote:
>>
>> �>> I have the weight of scientific evidence and testing to back my
>> > conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. �What do you have??
>>
>> > Why don't you go over to alt.turin-shroud to continue this?? �There
>> > you will find John Boatwright and a few others who believe as you do.
>> > Although, I imagine they are a little more punch drunk then they were
>> > 10 years ago when I last subscribed to that group. �And they were
>> > pretty hopeless then, especially Boaty. �((^:
>>
>> �You can also add the testimony of �Bishop Pierre d'Arcis who claimed that
>> the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who
>> painted it.'
>> Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in
>> 1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery.
>
>It very well may be a fake, but my point is...we don't know for sure.
But we do know for sure.... It is a fake.
>All test done have errors and it's inconclusive.
OK. You say it is inconclusive. A vast majority of the experts say
the tests conclusively prove it is a 14th century fake. Who do you
think we should believe??
>You can jump on it if you wish, but from all the readings I've read,
>there is not one single test that shows without any doubt it's a fake.
OK. You have the floor. Which tests had errors, what were the
errors, how did those errors negate the conclusions of the test.
Answer those questions and support your answers - with cites - and you
may begin to build some credibility in this group. Fail and you will
remain the laughing stock of the group.
Tom S.
Osprey
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Osprey
>
>
>
>
>
> <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 10, 2:25 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Tom S. wrote:
>
> >> >> I have the weight of scientific evidence and testing to back my
> >> > conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. What do you have??
>
> >> > Why don't you go over to alt.turin-shroud to continue this?? There
> >> > you will find John Boatwright and a few others who believe as you do.
> >> > Although, I imagine they are a little more punch drunk then they were
> >> > 10 years ago when I last subscribed to that group. And they were
> >> > pretty hopeless then, especially Boaty. ((^:
>
> >> You can also add the testimony of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis who claimed that
> >> the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who
> >> painted it.'
> >> Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in
> >> 1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery.
>
> >It very well may be a fake, but my point is...we don't know for sure.
>
> But we do know for sure.... It is a fake.
You have to believe that.
>
> >All test done have errors and it's inconclusive.
>
> OK. You say it is inconclusive. A vast majority of the experts say
> the tests conclusively prove it is a 14th century fake. Who do you
> think we should believe??
Not you, because you're lying. The test you referred to was debunked
a long time ago.
>
> >You can jump on it if you wish, but from all the readings I've read,
> >there is not one single test that shows without any doubt it's a fake.
>
> OK. You have the floor. Which tests had errors, what were the
> errors, how did those errors negate the conclusions of the test.
I've already proved you the source. It's my fault if you purposely
choose to ignore it.
Read this study from April 2009.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270810
U.S. researcher says 'Shroud of Turin' could be genuine
Mike Painter
And you can choose to ignore the comments of somebody who said it was a fake
at a time when the church made tons of money selling "relics" to people.
All tests have errors and are "inconclusive" by the standards of those who
defend the shroud. Perhaps you should read of those tests where the testor
said that it was a fake.
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
> I've already proved you the source. It's my fault if you purposely
> choose to ignore it.
>
> Read this study from April 2009.
>
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270810
>
> U.S. researcher says 'Shroud of Turin' could be genuine
investigation I'd given up on the shroud....But now I am coming to the
conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that
was used to bury the historic Jesus."
As I said people who want to believe will use anything.
Assume that a bad section was tested.
Ignore eye witness accounts.
Ignore other tests that used different methods but gave the same date range.
He believes it may be real because the wrong section may have been examined.
At best this is like somebody examining a river and deciding the ocean may
be fresh water because the wrong body of water was examined.
Tom S.
<Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 10, 8:05嚙緘m, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Osprey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 10, 2:25嚙緘m, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> Tom S. wrote:
>>
>> >> 嚙�> I have the weight of scientific evidence and testing to back my
>> >> > conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. 嚙磕hat do you have??
>>
>> >> > Why don't you go over to alt.turin-shroud to continue this?? 嚙確here
>> >> > you will find John Boatwright and a few others who believe as you do.
>> >> > Although, I imagine they are a little more punch drunk then they were
>> >> > 10 years ago when I last subscribed to that group. 嚙璀nd they were
>> >> > pretty hopeless then, especially Boaty. 嚙�(^:
>>
>> >> 嚙磐ou can also add the testimony of 嚙畿ishop Pierre d'Arcis who claimed that
>> >> the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who
>> >> painted it.'
>> >> Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in
>> >> 1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery.
>>
>> >It very well may be a fake, but my point is...we don't know for sure.
>>
>> But we do know for sure.... It is a fake.
>
>You have to believe that.
Because it is true. and it is more than mere belief. It is a
certainty based on scientific proof.
>
>>
>> >All test done have errors and it's inconclusive.
>>
>> OK. 嚙磐ou say it is inconclusive. 嚙璀 vast majority of the experts say
>> the tests conclusively prove it is a 14th century fake. 嚙磕ho do you
>> think we should believe??
>
>Not you, because you're lying.
Except I'm not. And you know it.
> The test you referred to was debunked
>a long time ago.
No. It wasn't.
>
>>
>> >You can jump on it if you wish, but from all the readings I've read,
>> >there is not one single test that shows without any doubt it's a fake.
>>
>> OK. 嚙磐ou have the floor. 嚙磕hich tests had errors, what were the
>> errors, how did those errors negate the conclusions of the test.
>
>I've already proved you the source. It's my fault if you purposely
>choose to ignore it.
Stop avoiding the questions!! I read your first source and provided a
site which contained a detailed refutation of Rogers assertions.
>
>Read this study from April 2009.
>
>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270810
>
>U.S. researcher says 'Shroud of Turin' could be genuine
>
Might? Could? Maybe? All this is is a newsbit - a condensation of
Rogers article. Nothing new in it.
Now, You have one more chance. Answer my questions or be branded a
gullible numbnuts.
The questions again are:
1. Which tests had errors,
2. What were the errors
3. How did those errors negate the conclusions of the test.
Provide cites for each of your answers.
Tom S.
The Chief Instigator
> On Oct 10, 2:25?pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Tom S. wrote:
>>
>> > conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. ?What do you have??
>>
>> > Why don't you go over to alt.turin-shroud to continue this?? ?There
>> > you will find John Boatwright and a few others who believe as you do.
>> > Although, I imagine they are a little more punch drunk then they were
>> > pretty hopeless then, especially Boaty. ?((^:
>>
>> ?You can also add the testimony of ?Bishop Pierre d'Arcis who claimed that
>> the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who
>> painted it.'
>> Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in
>> 1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery.
>
> It very well may be a fake, but my point is...we don't know for sure.
> All test done have errors and it's inconclusive.
> You can jump on it if you wish, but from all the readings I've read,
> there is not one single test that shows without any doubt it's a fake.
You're that old, and still can't get a grasp of proving the positive
assertion? (That's a sad situation.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Texas 1 (SO, October 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 16 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
Ray Fischer
> Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com>
>> >There is no conclusive evidence either way, end of story.
>>
>> You have no knowledge of scientific testing, analysis of data
>> (especially test data and results), margins of error, or the
>> scientific method, end of story.
>
>You have absolutely no idea or proof to support such a statement.
Since you don't (or didn't until I corrected you) have any knowledge
of how carbon dating even works, your whines are clearly motivated
solely by religious insanity and not based upon any knowledge or
fact.
>> Every test is likely to have some error somewhere, especially the
>> current �ones you seem to be choosing to believe. �However none of the
>> errors were fatal. i.e., none invalidated the final results. �No error
>> occurred in all tests and most of the tests contained no errors. �And
>> the conclusions that were drawn from all of the tests, individually
>> and collectively is that the shroud was produced, by human hands in
>> the early 14th century, plus or minus about 50 years (if I remember
>> the error range correctly)
>
>The test are inconclusive.
That is a lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 10, 2:25�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Tom S. wrote:
>>
>> �>> I have the weight of scientific evidence and testing to back my
>> > conclusions and acceptance of the 1988 results. �What do you have??
>>
>> > Why don't you go over to alt.turin-shroud to continue this?? �There
>> > you will find John Boatwright and a few others who believe as you do.
>> > Although, I imagine they are a little more punch drunk then they were
>> > 10 years ago when I last subscribed to that group. �And they were
>> > pretty hopeless then, especially Boaty. �((^:
>>
>> �You can also add the testimony of �Bishop Pierre d'Arcis who claimed that
>> the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who
>> painted it.'
>> Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in
>> 1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery.
>
>It very well may be a fake, but my point is...we don't know for sure.
>All test done have errors and it's inconclusive.
Just as it's not certain that the sun will rise in the east in the
morning.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Tom S.
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:18:18 -0700 (PDT), Osprey
><Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 10, 8:05�pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Osprey
>>>
>>> <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>> >It very well may be a fake, but my point is...we don't know for sure.
>>>
>>> But we do know for sure.... It is a fake.
>>
>>You have to believe that.
>
>Because it is true. and it is more than mere belief. It is a
>certainty based on scientific proof.
>>
>>>
>>> >All test done have errors and it's inconclusive.
>>>
>>> OK. �You say it is inconclusive. �A vast majority of the experts say
>>> the tests conclusively prove it is a 14th century fake. �Who do you
>>> think we should believe??
>>
>>Not you, because you're lying.
>
>Except I'm not. And you know it.
>
>> The test you referred to was debunked
>>a long time ago.
>
>No. It wasn't.
>>
>>>
>>> >You can jump on it if you wish, but from all the readings I've read,
>>> >there is not one single test that shows without any doubt it's a fake.
>>>
>>> OK. �You have the floor. �Which tests had errors, what were the
>>> errors, how did those errors negate the conclusions of the test.
>>
>>I've already proved you the source. It's my fault if you purposely
>>choose to ignore it.
>
>Stop avoiding the questions!! I read your first source and provided a
>site which contained a detailed refutation of Rogers assertions.
>
>>
>>Read this study from April 2009.
>>
>>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270810
>>
>>U.S. researcher says 'Shroud of Turin' could be genuine
>>
>
>Might? Could? Maybe? All this is is a newsbit - a condensation of
>Rogers article. Nothing new in it.
>
>Now, You have one more chance. Answer my questions or be branded a
>gullible numbnuts.
>
>The questions again are:
>
>1. Which tests had errors,
>
>2. What were the errors
>
>3. How did those errors negate the conclusions of the test.
>
>Provide cites for each of your answers.
>
On 11 Oct I posted the above challenge to Osprey. It appears the Fish
Hawk has turned into a Chicken Hawk, as he has not answered my
questions nor has he provided any support for his contention that the
recent tests performed by the Shroud-truthers were more credible than
the tests performed in 1988.
Therefore, one must conclude that Osprey cannot answer the questions
nor can he prove that the 1988 tests should be voided.
Ergo, Osprey must be branded as a gullible numbnuts or a liar. Take
your pick.
Tom S.
IAAH
Well, you have to admit that he's been busy, what
with uncovering the secret conspiracy and exposing
that of 8 or so regular posters, only 3 of them
are apparently real.
Plus he's busy trying to defend putting rape cases
into arbitration instead of court, so that takes
part of his day.
Tom S.
>On 10/19/09 7:02 PM, * Tom S. wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:08:22 -0400, Tom S. <tsca...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
<snip>
Plus trying to find a band that will let him play in it. ((^:
Tom S.
Osprey
It's noted you have no life after you posted this.
Your questions were addressed already.
Read this during your obsession over me.
Osprey
And Adam continues adding more lies
Osprey
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:09:34 -0400, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >On 10/19/09 7:02 PM, * Tom S. wrote:
What does this have to do with your failures on the issue?
Why are you worried about if I'm playing with any band, which I am if
you are so curious.
IAAH
Nobody named "Adam" has posted for quite a while
as far as I can tell, Bipolar Bob, and you are
certainly defending putting rape cases into
arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
But then, you are a coward, so we don't expect you
to man up to what you are defending.
Osprey
Adam, you think you are smarter than everyone else. You are not.
Bipolar Bob, and you are
> certainly defending putting rape cases into
> arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
That is absolutely wrong, and you're lying every time you make that
claim.
>
> But then, you are a coward,
"yawn"
so we don't expect you
> to man up to what you are defending.-
I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
You go after the people who committed the crime.
IAAH
No "Adam" here, Bipolar Bob.
Obsession is your thing, isn't it?
>
> Bipolar Bob, and you are
>> certainly defending putting rape cases into
>> arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
>
> That is absolutely wrong, and you're lying every time you make that
> claim.
It's absolutely right, Bipolar Bob.
>
>> But then, you are a coward,
>
> "yawn"
>
> so we don't expect you
>> to man up to what you are defending.-
>
> I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
> responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
the crime under wraps in arbitration.
>
> You go after the people who committed the crime.
>
Oh? Do show us, then, the crime committed by KBR
or any person in KBR when they tried to keep the
Jamie Leigh Jones case in arbitration - the
situation the Franken Amendment was written to
prevent.
Osprey
Hmm, I'll have to keep your Obsession statement in my files Adam.
Especially since you have to follow my every single posting.
>
>
> > Bipolar Bob, and you are
> >> certainly defending putting rape cases into
> >> arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
>
> > That is absolutely wrong, and you're lying every time you make that
> > claim.
>
> It's absolutely right, Bipolar Bob.
It's an absolute fabrication and strawman argument that's based on a
lie, Adam.
>
>
>
> >> But then, you are a coward,
>
> > "yawn"
>
> > so we don't expect you
> >> to man up to what you are defending.-
>
> > I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
> > responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
>
> You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
> the crime under wraps in arbitration.
You're a liar Adam.
>
>
>
> > You go after the people who committed the crime.
>
> Oh? Do show us, then, the crime committed by KBR
> or any person in KBR when they tried to keep the
> Jamie Leigh Jones case in arbitration - the
> situation the Franken Amendment was written to
> prevent.-
Adam,
Read what I said already. I'm saying you go after the person(s) who
committed the crime and they should be prosecuted.
You can't put a "company" in prison. You can put the person(s) who
committed the crimes in prison.
Maybe one day, when you grow up, you'll learn that.
IAAH
So that means if I find *one* post of yours that I
haven't replied to, it proves you a liar, correct?
Better yet, you have to prove that I've 'followed'
your every posting, Bipolar Bob.
>
>
>>
>>> Bipolar Bob, and you are
>>>> certainly defending putting rape cases into
>>>> arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
>>> That is absolutely wrong, and you're lying every time you make that
>>> claim.
>> It's absolutely right, Bipolar Bob.
>
> It's an absolute fabrication and strawman argument that's based on a
> lie, Adam.
>
No, it's what you've been arguing the whole time,
Bipolar Bob, and it's based on what the Franken
Amendment is about; something you're sadly
ignorant of.
>>
>>
>>>> But then, you are a coward,
>>> "yawn"
>>> so we don't expect you
>>>> to man up to what you are defending.-
>>> I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
>>> responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
>> You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
>> the crime under wraps in arbitration.
>
> You're a liar Adam.
Not a liar, not Adam.
We can tell when you're out of oomph, Bipolar Bob.
You always fall back to nonsensical accusations.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> You go after the people who committed the crime.
>> Oh? Do show us, then, the crime committed by KBR
>> or any person in KBR when they tried to keep the
>> Jamie Leigh Jones case in arbitration - the
>> situation the Franken Amendment was written to
>> prevent.-
>
> Adam,
>
> Read what I said already. I'm saying you go after the person(s) who
> committed the crime and they should be prosecuted.
What does that have to do with the Franken
Amendment, Bipolar Bob? What does that have to do
with an amendment that limits government contracts
to companies that try to require arbitration?
You're avoiding the questions in the other thread,
too. It's because you don't understand the
situation, no doubt.
>
> You can't put a "company" in prison. You can put the person(s) who
> committed the crimes in prison.
What does that have to do with the Franken
Amendment, Bipolar Bob? What does that have to do
with an amendment that limits government contracts
to companies that try to require arbitration?
>
> Maybe one day, when you grow up, you'll learn that.
>
Wow, you ARE stupid.
Tell you what. Why don't you actually find out
about the facts of the case and then argue it,
because you've only managed to make a huger fool
of yourself here.
"Franken Amendment". Look it up, fool.
Osprey
You can say what ever you want Adam, but the fact remains, you are
absolutely obsessed and I have no doubt in my mind you'll ramble off
now about how I sadi every single posting.
So you just go right ahead and do what ever you want.
It's your obsession problem, not mine.
>
>
> >>> Bipolar Bob, and you are
> >>>> certainly defending putting rape cases into
> >>>> arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
> >>> That is absolutely wrong, and you're lying every time you make that
> >>> claim.
> >> It's absolutely right, Bipolar Bob.
>
> > It's an absolute fabrication and strawman argument that's based on a
> > lie, Adam.
>
> No, it's what you've been arguing the whole time,
No, you are a liar. I've NEVER said that a criminal rape case should
go into arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
>
>
> >>>> But then, you are a coward,
> >>> "yawn"
> >>> so we don't expect you
> >>>> to man up to what you are defending.-
> >>> I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
> >>> responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
> >> You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
> >> the crime under wraps in arbitration.
>
> > You're a liar Adam.
>
> Not a liar, not Adam.
Yes you are a liar, and yes you are Adam.
>
>
>
> >>> You go after the people who committed the crime.
> >> Oh? Do show us, then, the crime committed by KBR
> >> or any person in KBR when they tried to keep the
> >> Jamie Leigh Jones case in arbitration - the
> >> situation the Franken Amendment was written to
> >> prevent.-
>
> > Adam,
>
> > Read what I said already. I'm saying you go after the person(s) who
> > committed the crime and they should be prosecuted.
>
> What does that have to do with the Franken
> Amendment, Bipolar Bob?
I've NEVER discussed the Franken Amdendment with you Adam.
I said, and I'll say it again, that you go after the person(s)
responsible for committing the crime.
IAAH
Okay, so you lied. What else did you lie about,
Bipolar Bob?
>
>>
>>>>> Bipolar Bob, and you are
>>>>>> certainly defending putting rape cases into
>>>>>> arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
>>>>> That is absolutely wrong, and you're lying every time you make that
>>>>> claim.
>>>> It's absolutely right, Bipolar Bob.
>>> It's an absolute fabrication and strawman argument that's based on a
>>> lie, Adam.
>> No, it's what you've been arguing the whole time,
>
> No, you are a liar. I've NEVER said that a criminal rape case should
> go into arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
Bipolar Bob.
So your support is clear, and now you're lying
about it.
>
>
>>
>>>>>> But then, you are a coward,
>>>>> "yawn"
>>>>> so we don't expect you
>>>>>> to man up to what you are defending.-
>>>>> I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
>>>>> responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
>>>> You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
>>>> the crime under wraps in arbitration.
>>> You're a liar Adam.
>> Not a liar, not Adam.
>
> Yes you are a liar, and yes you are Adam.
Prove it, Bipolar Bob. Present ONE piece of evidence.
Of course, you cannot. This kind of foolish
nattering always signals the end of any minimal
sense from you.
Every time you get schooled, you always retreat to
accusations such as that.
You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
Bipolar Bob.
>
>>
>>
>>>>> You go after the people who committed the crime.
>>>> Oh? Do show us, then, the crime committed by KBR
>>>> or any person in KBR when they tried to keep the
>>>> Jamie Leigh Jones case in arbitration - the
>>>> situation the Franken Amendment was written to
>>>> prevent.-
>>> Adam,
>>> Read what I said already. I'm saying you go after the person(s) who
>>> committed the crime and they should be prosecuted.
>> What does that have to do with the Franken
>> Amendment, Bipolar Bob?
>
> I've NEVER discussed the Franken Amdendment with you Adam.
> I said, and I'll say it again, that you go after the person(s)
> responsible for committing the crime.
The Franken Amendment was the TOPIC of the thread
that you're now avoiding, Bipolar Bob. It was what
those 30 jackhole Republicans voted against, you
colossal idiot!
I hadn't thought that you could get stupider after
last night.
That was optimism on my part, obviously. You don't
even know what you were posting about!
Osprey
This is your obsession problem Adam, not mine.
>
>
> >>>>> Bipolar Bob, and you are
> >>>>>> certainly defending putting rape cases into
> >>>>>> arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
> >>>>> That is absolutely wrong, and you're lying every time you make that
> >>>>> claim.
> >>>> It's absolutely right, Bipolar Bob.
> >>> It's an absolute fabrication and strawman argument that's based on a
> >>> lie, Adam.
> >> No, it's what you've been arguing the whole time,
>
> > No, you are a liar. I've NEVER said that a criminal rape case should
> > go into arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
>
> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
> Bipolar Bob.
I said that the Republicans who voted against that amendment are not
endorsing rape.
It was silly and absurd to think that they are endorsing rape.
>
> So your support is clear, and now you're lying
> about it.
You just love to make things up.
>
>
>
> >>>>>> But then, you are a coward,
> >>>>> "yawn"
> >>>>> so we don't expect you
> >>>>>> to man up to what you are defending.-
> >>>>> I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
> >>>>> responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
> >>>> You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
> >>>> the crime under wraps in arbitration.
> >>> You're a liar Adam.
> >> Not a liar, not Adam.
>
> > Yes you are a liar, and yes you are Adam.
>
> Prove it, Bipolar Bob. Present ONE piece of evidence.
That's been done already Adam. Get over it and grow up.
>
> Of course, you cannot. This kind of foolish
> nattering always signals the end of any minimal
> sense from you.
>
> Every time you get schooled, you always retreat to
> accusations such as that.
"yawn" you couldn't school a group of kindergarten children.
>
> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
> Bipolar Bob.
"yawn" you just love to lie, it comes so easy for you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> You go after the people who committed the crime.
> >>>> Oh? Do show us, then, the crime committed by KBR
> >>>> or any person in KBR when they tried to keep the
> >>>> Jamie Leigh Jones case in arbitration - the
> >>>> situation the Franken Amendment was written to
> >>>> prevent.-
> >>> Adam,
> >>> Read what I said already. I'm saying you go after the person(s) who
> >>> committed the crime and they should be prosecuted.
> >> What does that have to do with the Franken
> >> Amendment, Bipolar Bob?
>
> > I've NEVER discussed the Franken Amdendment with you Adam.
> > I said, and I'll say it again, that you go after the person(s)
> > responsible for committing the crime.
>
> The Franken Amendment was the TOPIC of the thread
> that you're now avoiding, Bipolar Bob. It was what
> those 30 jackhole Republicans voted against, you
> colossal idiot!
And I said it's absurd and stupid to think that because they voted
against it, that it means they endorse rape.
Lets say a female employee gets raped in a back room at Walmart.
Do you think that Walmart should be prosecuted and sued?
IAAH
Well, there's that lie, of course. What else,
Bipolar Bob?
>
>
>>
>>>>>>> Bipolar Bob, and you are
>>>>>>>> certainly defending putting rape cases into
>>>>>>>> arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
>>>>>>> That is absolutely wrong, and you're lying every time you make that
>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>> It's absolutely right, Bipolar Bob.
>>>>> It's an absolute fabrication and strawman argument that's based on a
>>>>> lie, Adam.
>>>> No, it's what you've been arguing the whole time,
>>> No, you are a liar. I've NEVER said that a criminal rape case should
>>> go into arbitration instead of a criminal trial.
>> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
>> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
>> Bipolar Bob.
>
> I said that the Republicans who voted against that amendment are not
> endorsing rape.
> It was silly and absurd to think that they are endorsing rape.
>
>
>> So your support is clear, and now you're lying
>> about it.
>
> You just love to make things up.
Are you saying now that you did NOT defend voting
against the Franken Amendment? Is that so?
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> But then, you are a coward,
>>>>>>> "yawn"
>>>>>>> so we don't expect you
>>>>>>>> to man up to what you are defending.-
>>>>>>> I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
>>>>>>> responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
>>>>>> You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
>>>>>> the crime under wraps in arbitration.
>>>>> You're a liar Adam.
>>>> Not a liar, not Adam.
>>> Yes you are a liar, and yes you are Adam.
>> Prove it, Bipolar Bob. Present ONE piece of evidence.
>
> That's been done already Adam. Get over it and grow up.
Oh? Produce it again, then. Let's say I missed it
the first time, Bipolar Bob. It *is* easy to miss
something that was never there, of course.
Let's give you one more chance. Of course, failure
to produce this evidence in your next post will
prove that you've been lying about it.
>
>
>> Of course, you cannot. This kind of foolish
>> nattering always signals the end of any minimal
>> sense from you.
>>
>> Every time you get schooled, you always retreat to
>> accusations such as that.
>
> "yawn" you couldn't school a group of kindergarten children.
>
>> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
>> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
>> Bipolar Bob.
>
> "yawn" you just love to lie, it comes so easy for you.
So if I can demonstrate that you defended the vote
against the Franken Amendment, that will settle
this, correct?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> You go after the people who committed the crime.
>>>>>> Oh? Do show us, then, the crime committed by KBR
>>>>>> or any person in KBR when they tried to keep the
>>>>>> Jamie Leigh Jones case in arbitration - the
>>>>>> situation the Franken Amendment was written to
>>>>>> prevent.-
>>>>> Adam,
>>>>> Read what I said already. I'm saying you go after the person(s) who
>>>>> committed the crime and they should be prosecuted.
>>>> What does that have to do with the Franken
>>>> Amendment, Bipolar Bob?
>>> I've NEVER discussed the Franken Amdendment with you Adam.
>>> I said, and I'll say it again, that you go after the person(s)
>>> responsible for committing the crime.
>> The Franken Amendment was the TOPIC of the thread
>> that you're now avoiding, Bipolar Bob. It was what
>> those 30 jackhole Republicans voted against, you
>> colossal idiot!
>
> And I said it's absurd and stupid to think that because they voted
> against it, that it means they endorse rape.
You're very free with opinions on matters that you
evidently have not familiarized yourself with.
Since you have shown that you don't even
understand the topic of the thread you decided to
sound off about, your opinions are irrelevant.
>
> Lets say a female employee gets raped in a back room at Walmart.
> Do you think that Walmart should be prosecuted and sued?
Did Walmart do or NOT do something that makes them
a material cause? Your question betrays an obvious
lack of understanding.
Do you think that someone raped in a Walmart
should be required to undergo arbitration instead
of taking the case to court because of a clause in
their employment contract?
Because right now you are defending mandatory
arbitration in a rape case, Bipolar Bob.
You're also obviously running from the last post I
made in the original thread. Why is that?
Osprey
Let me think about it.
I've got to decide if you're worth it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Of course, you cannot. This kind of foolish
> >> nattering always signals the end of any minimal
> >> sense from you.
>
> >> Every time you get schooled, you always retreat to
> >> accusations such as that.
>
> > "yawn" you couldn't school a group of kindergarten children.
>
> >> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
> >> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
> >> Bipolar Bob.
>
> > "yawn" you just love to lie, it comes so easy for you.
>
> So if I can demonstrate that you defended the vote
> against the Franken Amendment, that will settle
> this, correct?
You can't demonstrate that because you will not find me defending
their vote. What you will find is me defending them against loons
like you who claim they are enabling rape.
No one is enabling rape.
Take note: Adam decides to totally avoid my questions.
>
> Because right now you are defending mandatory
> arbitration in a rape case, Bipolar Bob.
Because right now Adam, you are lying.
So you have an obsession problem
you have a lying problem
and you have a problem answering simple straight forward questions.
All signs of mentally ill.
IAAH
Well? Which is it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But then, you are a coward,
>>>>>>>>> "yawn"
>>>>>>>>> so we don't expect you
>>>>>>>>>> to man up to what you are defending.-
>>>>>>>>> I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
>>>>>>>>> responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
>>>>>>>> You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
>>>>>>>> the crime under wraps in arbitration.
>>>>>>> You're a liar Adam.
>>>>>> Not a liar, not Adam.
>>>>> Yes you are a liar, and yes you are Adam.
>>>> Prove it, Bipolar Bob. Present ONE piece of evidence.
>>> That's been done already Adam. Get over it and grow up.
>> Oh? Produce it again, then.
>
> Let me think about it.
>
> I've got to decide if you're worth it.
Okay, so that was a lie on your part.
Not that we didn't already know it...
Let's face it, you've been making this ridiculous
assertion for months, and the best you ever had
was an IP address that was completely wrong.
Yes, the BEST you had was something that was
completely inapplicable.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Of course, you cannot. This kind of foolish
>>>> nattering always signals the end of any minimal
>>>> sense from you.
>>>> Every time you get schooled, you always retreat to
>>>> accusations such as that.
>>> "yawn" you couldn't school a group of kindergarten children.
>>>> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
>>>> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
>>>> Bipolar Bob.
>>> "yawn" you just love to lie, it comes so easy for you.
>> So if I can demonstrate that you defended the vote
>> against the Franken Amendment, that will settle
>> this, correct?
>
> You can't demonstrate that because you will not find me defending
> their vote. What you will find is me defending them against loons
> like you who claim they are enabling rape.
> No one is enabling rape.
But you DID defend that vote, Bipolar Bob.
Actually, I (not Adam) decided to put the topic
back where it was, instead of following your
pointless diversion.
>
>> Because right now you are defending mandatory
>> arbitration in a rape case, Bipolar Bob.
>
> Because right now Adam, you are lying.
No, you defended a nay vote on the Franken Amendment.
Now, since you have decided to run from the other
thread, lie in this one, and argue about something
that is not part of the Amendment, I suppose your
humiliation is complete.
I won't be continuing this until you provide this
'evidence' that you claim to have, AND you get
yourself back on-topic in your defense of
mandatory arbitration in rape cases. You can post
it after my last post in the "Re: Here are the 30
Republican Senators, 3/4 of Their Representation,
Who Voted to Enable Rape" thread.
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 20, 2:23�am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> On 10/20/09 1:40 AM, * Osprey wrote:
>> > And Adam continues adding more lies
>>
>> Nobody named "Adam" has posted for quite a while
>> as far as I can tell,
>
>Adam, you think you are smarter than everyone else.
It just seems that way to you, Asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Osprey
I could say the sky is blue and you will say I'm lying.
You're like Fischer, a loon who just rants too much.
So, we will say since you can't prove I'm "Bipolar" that it was a lie
on your part.
You lied again, I defend their right to not be labled for enabling
rape. No one is enabling rape.
What ever their reasons are for voting against the bill, is their
reason. But I can assure you, they aren't voting against it because
they want to enable rape. In fact, you can't find one of them saying
they want to enable rape.
You, Adam, took the cowards way out and refused to answer my
questions.
You run away from questions all of the time.
>
>
>
> >> Because right now you are defending mandatory
> >> arbitration in a rape case, Bipolar Bob.
>
> > Because right now Adam, you are lying.
>
> No, you defended a nay vote on the Franken Amendment.
You are lying again.
>
> Now, since you have decided to run from the other
> thread, lie in this one, and argue about something
> that is not part of the Amendment, I suppose your
> humiliation is complete.
I suppose your hallucinations is all you have left.
>
> I won't be continuing this ....
Naturally
But rest assure you'll be making comments about me and following my
postings.
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 20, 12:46�pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> On 10/20/09 12:35 PM, * Osprey wrote:
>> > On Oct 20, 12:31 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> >> On 10/20/09 12:13 PM, * Osprey wrote:
>> >>>> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
>> >>>> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
>> >>>> Bipolar Bob.
>> >>> I said that the Republicans who voted against that amendment are not
>> >>> endorsing rape.
>> >>> It was silly and absurd to think that they are endorsing rape.
>> >>>> So your support is clear, and now you're lying
>> >>>> about it.
>> >>> You just love to make things up.
>> >> Are you saying now that you did NOT defend voting
>> >> against the Franken Amendment? Is that so?
>>
>> Well? Which is it?
No response.
>> >>>>>>>>>> But then, you are a coward,
>> >>>>>>>>> "yawn"
>> >>>>>>>>> so we don't expect you
>> >>>>>>>>>> to man up to what you are defending.-
>> >>>>>>>>> I am defending people who are raped and saying that the person(s)
>> >>>>>>>>> responsible should pay the price for their crimes.
>> >>>>>>>> You are defending the hiding of rape by keeping
>> >>>>>>>> the crime under wraps in arbitration.
>> >>>>>>> You're a liar Adam.
>> >>>>>> Not a liar, not Adam.
>> >>>>> Yes you are a liar, and yes you are Adam.
>> >>>> Prove it, Bipolar Bob. Present ONE piece of evidence.
>> >>> That's been done already Adam. Get over it and grow up.
>> >> Oh? Produce it again, then.
>>
>> > Let me think about it.
>>
>> > I've got to decide if you're worth it.
>>
>> Okay, so that was a lie on your part.
>
>I could say the sky is blue and you will say I'm lying.
Lying about what people would say doesn't make you less a liar, Asshole.
It's just another one of your pathetic squirms.
>> Not that we didn't already know it...
>>
>> Let's face it, you've been making this ridiculous
>> assertion for months, and the best you ever had
>> was an IP address that was completely wrong.
>>
>> Yes, the BEST you had was something that was
>> completely inapplicable.
>> > You can't demonstrate that because you will not find me defending
>> > their vote. �What you will find is me defending them against loons
>> > like you who claim they are enabling rape.
>> > No one is enabling rape.
>>
>> But you DID defend that vote, Bipolar Bob.
>
>You lied again,
Squirm.
> No one is enabling rape.
This is where you play your usual game. You take an utterly stupid
and immoral position and, rather than admit that you were wrong, you
pile lie upon lie in order to justify your lack of morals.
>What ever their reasons are for voting against the bill, is their
>reason. But I can assure you, they aren't voting against it because
>they want to enable rape.
They want to ensure profits even if it means protecting rapists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Osprey
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 20, 12:46 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >> On 10/20/09 12:35 PM, * Osprey wrote:
> >> > On Oct 20, 12:31 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >> >> On 10/20/09 12:13 PM, * Osprey wrote:
> >> >>>> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
> >> >>>> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
> >> >>>> Bipolar Bob.
> >> >>> I said that the Republicans who voted against that amendment are not
> >> >>> endorsing rape.
> >> >>> It was silly and absurd to think that they are endorsing rape.
> >> >>>> So your support is clear, and now you're lying
> >> >>>> about it.
> >> >>> You just love to make things up.
> >> >> Are you saying now that you did NOT defend voting
> >> >> against the Franken Amendment? Is that so?
>
> >> Well? Which is it?
>
> No response.
I've made my case very clear.
Those Republicans who voted against the bill, for what ever their
reasons were, are not enabling rape.
That's just a liberal spin, a scare tactic, a smear campaign. Only
the looniest of the loons would believe they are enabling rape.
Hey, how about this. The loons who want to reveal our CIA tactics on
interrogations are committing treason.
Why not? We can use the same logic you loons used in this case.
All you have to do is find where I said I defend their vote.
>
> > No one is enabling rape.
>
> This is where you play your usual game. You take an utterly stupid
> and immoral position and, rather than admit that you were wrong, you
> pile lie upon lie in order to justify your lack of morals.
>
> >What ever their reasons are for voting against the bill, is their
> >reason. But I can assure you, they aren't voting against it because
> >they want to enable rape.
>
> They want to ensure profits even if it means protecting rapists.
Oh? Did you actually hear them say that? Do you have evidence they
want to protect rapist?
I don't defend anyone who would defend a criminal.
elizabeth
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:09:34 -0400, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> >On 10/19/09 7:02 PM, * Tom S. wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
cackle~cackle . .. . is that band site still up?
Tom S.
<Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 9:40�ｿｽpm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:09:34 -0400, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> >On 10/19/09 7:02 PM, * Tom S. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:08:22 -0400, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>> Might? Could? Maybe? �ｿｽAll this is is a newsbit - a condensation of
>> >>> Rogers article. �ｿｽNothing new in it.
>>
>> >>> Now, You have one more chance. �ｿｽAnswer my questions or be branded a
>> >>> gullible numbnuts.
>>
>> >>> The questions again are:
>>
>> >>> 1. �ｿｽWhich tests had errors,
>>
>> >>> 2. �ｿｽWhat were the errors
>>
>> >>> 3. �ｿｽHow did those errors negate the conclusions of the test.
>>
>> >>> Provide cites for each of your answers.
>>
>> >> On 11 Oct I posted the above challenge to Osprey. �ｿｽIt appears the Fish
>> >> Hawk has turned into a Chicken Hawk, as he has not answered my
>> >> questions nor has he provided any support for his contention that the
>> >> recent tests performed by the Shroud-truthers were more credible than
>> >> the tests performed in 1988.
>>
>> >> Therefore, one must conclude that Osprey cannot answer the questions
>> >> nor can he prove that the 1988 tests should be voided.
>>
>> >> Ergo, Osprey must be branded as a gullible numbnuts or a liar. �ｿｽTake
>> >> your pick.
>>
>> >> Tom S.
>>
>> >Well, you have to admit that he's been busy, what
>> >with uncovering the secret conspiracy and exposing
>> >that of 8 or so regular posters, only 3 of them
>> >are apparently real.
>>
>> >Plus he's busy trying to defend putting rape cases
>> >into arbitration instead of court, so that takes
>> >part of his day.
>>
>> Plus trying to find a band that will let him play in it. �ｿｽ((^:
>
>What does this have to do with your failures on the issue?
I haven't failed any issues. You, however, have totally failed to
support your contention that the 1988 tests on the Shroud were
inconclusive or that the current tests by the Shroud-truthers in any
way repudiate the previous tests or their conclusions. Simply saying
"there were errors" without substantiation is woefully inadequate.
Now where is your proof to back up your assertions??
>Why are you worried about if I'm playing with any band, which I am if
>you are so curious.
Just a red herring to get your attention. Looks like it worked. (((^:
Tom S.
The Chief Instigator
> On Oct 19, 6:40?pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:09:34 -0400, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> >On 10/19/09 7:02 PM, * Tom S. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:08:22 -0400, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>> Rogers article. ?Nothing new in it.
>>
>> >>> Now, You have one more chance. ?Answer my questions or be branded a
>> >>> gullible numbnuts.
>>
>> >>> The questions again are:
>>
>>
>> >>> 2. ?What were the errors
>>
>> >>> 3. ?How did those errors negate the conclusions of the test.
>>
>> >>> Provide cites for each of your answers.
>>
>> >> Hawk has turned into a Chicken Hawk, as he has not answered my
>> >> questions nor has he provided any support for his contention that the
>> >> recent tests performed by the Shroud-truthers were more credible than
>> >> the tests performed in 1988.
>>
>> >> Therefore, one must conclude that Osprey cannot answer the questions
>> >> nor can he prove that the 1988 tests should be voided.
>>
>> >> your pick.
>>
>> >> Tom S.
>>
>> >Well, you have to admit that he's been busy, what
>> >with uncovering the secret conspiracy and exposing
>> >that of 8 or so regular posters, only 3 of them
>> >are apparently real.
>>
>> >Plus he's busy trying to defend putting rape cases
>> >into arbitration instead of court, so that takes
>> >part of his day.
>>
>>
>> Tom S.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> cackle~cackle . .. . is that band site still up?
It's still up...and the message board on the front page has this up-to-date
message: "Next concert will be at the Fred Fifer Middle School on Sept.
25th, 2009...". (Osprey's still in the picture on the front page, but the
Band link has no trace of him.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Texas 5, Houston 1 (October 17)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, October 21 vs. Lake Erie, 7:05
Tom S.
No. They haven't been.
>
>Read this during your obsession over me.
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23742885/
Besides the fact that MSNBC is heavily slanted towards reporting the
assertions of a Shroud-truther, without any results from the "new"
tests, it is rife with inaccuracies, confusing the 1978 tests with the
1988 tests.
I do have to give it some props though. It does report that the
Shroud "...was pronounced a fraud in 1389 by Bishop Pierre D�Arcis,
who claimed to have talked to the man who painted it." It also
accurately reported that " The Catholic Church continues to hold that
the shroud is not authentic, but the faithful are allowed to venerate
it as a symbol of Christ's death and resurrection."
Now, where are your answers to the questions I asked. And do remember
to provide your cites. Published, peer-reviewed scientific reports
would be sufficient.
Tom S.
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 20, 1:13�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Osprey �<Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 20, 12:46�pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> >> On 10/20/09 12:35 PM, * Osprey wrote:
>> >> > On Oct 20, 12:31 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> >> >> On 10/20/09 12:13 PM, * Osprey wrote:
>> >> >>>> You defended voting AGAINST an amendment that
>> >> >>>> would have prevented arbitration in those cases,
>> >> >>>> Bipolar Bob.
>> >> >>> I said that the Republicans who voted against that amendment are not
>> >> >>> endorsing rape.
>> >> >>> It was silly and absurd to think that they are endorsing rape.
>> >> >>>> So your support is clear, and now you're lying
>> >> >>>> about it.
>> >> >>> You just love to make things up.
>> >> >> Are you saying now that you did NOT defend voting
>> >> >> against the Franken Amendment? Is that so?
>>
>> >> Well? Which is it?
>>
>> No response.
>
>I've made my case very clear.
Both ways.
>Those Republicans who voted against the bill, for what ever their
>reasons were, are not enabling rape.
Yes they are.
>That's just a liberal spin,
Yours is just the misogynist bullshit.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net