Is Ed Conrad Rich?
John Richards
As much as he posts, he seems like he doesn't spend
much time working or otherwise earning a living. He
must be either rich or retired and he certainly isn't
married gievn all of the time and enegry he has to
spend on the INTERNET.
Yours.
Johnny
Midland, Texas
David Sienkiewicz
news:Ykf99.23252$Aw4.1...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
As near as I can tell, Ed ekes out a supplemental living of sorts selling
old postcards and other collectibles on eBay.
He's a hack writer and a failed newpaper man. I suspect he might even be on
some sort of government program - disability, perhaps.
But I doubt if anyone knows.
I doubt if even ED knows.
>
> Yours.
>
> Johnny
> Midland, Texas
>
gen2rev
Well, according to
http://archives.pottsville.com/archives/2001/Jul/6/E477309A.htm he's a
former editor of a paper called the Evening Herald. Now-a-days he works
for the Hazelton Standard-Speaker, at http://www.standardspeaker.com/ .
Call up http://www.standardspeaker.com/Pages/AboutUs.htm and look under
the "Reporters" heading.
Larry Tapper
They say he made a lot of money in the coal boom back in the 70s.
David Sienkiewicz
news:3D6651B5...@crosswinds.net...
Indeed!
I did not know this.
I wonder if his editor would be interested in knowing what a fool he makes
of himself and, by association, his newspaper, on usenet?
>
gen2rev
Glad to be of service.
> I wonder if his editor would be interested in knowing what a fool he makes
> of himself and, by association, his newspaper, on usenet?
His editor might not see it that way. What Ed does on his own time might
not matter to them. On the other hand...
It wouldn't surprise me if his editor (and everyone else at the paper)
knew about Ed's "Man Old as Coal" claim. They may just see him as a
harmless kook.
Moi
news:RIt99.133599$983.206056@rwcrnsc53:
>> Well, according to
>> http://archives.pottsville.com/archives/2001/Jul/6/E477309A.htm he's
>> a former editor of a paper called the Evening Herald. Now-a-days he
>> works for the Hazelton Standard-Speaker, at
>> http://www.standardspeaker.com/ . Call up
>> http://www.standardspeaker.com/Pages/AboutUs.htm and look under the
>> "Reporters" heading.
>
> Indeed!
>
> I did not know this.
>
> I wonder if his editor would be interested in knowing what a fool he
> makes of himself and, by association, his newspaper, on usenet?
>
No need to destroy the man's livelihood. If it really is an issue with
his editor, I'm sure he could do a reasonable job of shooting himself
down.
--
** --------------------------------
This space left intentionally blank
Mike Dunford
news:RIt99.133599$983.206056@rwcrnsc53:
> "gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
That would be a bit underhanded, especially since Ed does not
advertise his affiliation with the paper when he posts.
--Mike Dunford
--
The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact.
--Thomas H. Huxley
cats...@yahoo.com
<spam2d...@attbi.com> wrote:
>"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
>news:3D6651B5...@crosswinds.net...
>Indeed!
>
>I did not know this.
>
>I wonder if his editor would be interested in knowing what a fool he makes
>of himself and, by association, his newspaper, on usenet?
Maybe, but I have to agree with the others that it wouldn't be right
for us to do anything about it. We have no reason to believe that Ed
is attempting any actual fraud or other illegal scheme to gain money
from his rocks. It appears to be an obsession that is unrelated to
his employment. Or, if it impinges on his journalistic duties, it is
hard to believe that Ed could conceal it anyway. Tattling on him
could only appear petty.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
gen2rev
My original intent with my first post in this thread was to point out
that, contrary to David's initial belief, Ed is not a failed newspaper
man (although I'm curious as to how and why he went from editor to
reporter). He may not be extremely successful, but continuing to working
in his field doesn't indicate failure either.
In addition, because Ed does seem to be gainfully employed, he may have
the ability to pay damages if a suit was brought against him.
David brought up the idea getting in touch with Ed's editor, something
that hadn't occured to me, and I'd like to clarify my position on this.
Should Ed's boss be contacted because he believes Man is Old as Coal?
No. Should Ed's boss be contacted because Ed's a liar? Possibly.
Reporters are expected to have a certain amount of ethics and integrity,
things which haven't been displayed by Ed of late. On the other hand, as
far as I can tell Ed doesn't get assigned stories of much import, so any
lies he tells in his capacity as a reporter wouldn't likely be of much
consequence (and he's so bad at it he'd probably be caught).
Any ideas or insights anyone can bring to the table would be welcome.
Moi
news:3D66C389...@crosswinds.net:
> My original intent with my first post in this thread was to point out
> that, contrary to David's initial belief, Ed is not a failed newspaper
> man (although I'm curious as to how and why he went from editor to
> reporter). He may not be extremely successful, but continuing to
> working in his field doesn't indicate failure either.
>
> In addition, because Ed does seem to be gainfully employed, he may
> have the ability to pay damages if a suit was brought against him.
>
> David brought up the idea getting in touch with Ed's editor, something
> that hadn't occured to me, and I'd like to clarify my position on
> this. Should Ed's boss be contacted because he believes Man is Old as
> Coal? No. Should Ed's boss be contacted because Ed's a liar? Possibly.
> Reporters are expected to have a certain amount of ethics and
> integrity, things which haven't been displayed by Ed of late. On the
> other hand, as far as I can tell Ed doesn't get assigned stories of
> much import, so any lies he tells in his capacity as a reporter
> wouldn't likely be of much consequence (and he's so bad at it he'd
> probably be caught).
>
> Any ideas or insights anyone can bring to the table would be welcome.
/my 2 cents
I see that the sort of action such as contacting a man's employer about
him is akin to kicking a man when he's down. To my mind, what he does for
his living (as long as it's legal) is of no consequence to anyone here
though it might explain one or two things such as his ability to write
and to spell correctly.
Whatever accord a person has with their employer is between that person
and the employer. Since we don't know what the arrangement is between
them, I don't see it as our place to do anything. If the person is that
incompetent, I'm sure that the employer would take appropriate measures.
Furthermore, is it even the same Ed Conrad?
If someone were to do that, why not get onto everybodies employers and
tittle tattle on them about stirring up religious vilification or
whatever. To remove a person's means of support is below the belt and not
warranted. However, if that person attacked first then all bets are off.
This is a forum for debate and it gets a little heated occasionaly so let
us not lose sight of that.
/my 2 cents
David Sienkiewicz
It was just a musing, after all.
I will add that a reporter is expected to have some degree of
integrity and if Ed can lie about things he lies about in
talk.origins, how can he be trusted to tell the truth in anything
written in a news publication?
Ah, but maybe, for Ed, it's punishment enough to know that he will
hear from The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. But then,
that's why I think he's so angry at scientists.
David Sienkiewicz
Actually, I'm sure there WOULD be concern.
For most, what is done on one's own time is, indeed, one's own
business.
But there are certain groups for whom public displays with respect to
integrity must always be above reproach.
Reporters are one such group.
However, it was just a musing, as I said before.
> It wouldn't surprise me if his editor (and everyone else at the paper)
> knew about Ed's "Man Old as Coal" claim. They may just see him as a
> harmless kook.
They may not be aware of the extent of Ed's lies in support of his
claims.
There are lots of kooks, sure.
But manufacturing or manipulating evidence is a serious no-no in
journalism every bit as much as it would be in law, criminal justice
or science.
John Wilkins
Somebody should write up a declaration of rights or something, in which
people are entitled to express their opinion (however stupid) without
fear of being penalised, so long as those ideas do not cause damage to
others or break the law. So far as I can tell, Ed is harmless in both
respects, and what he does on the internet is nobody's business but his
and those who read him. Leave his employer right out of it.
I do not agree with Ed's opinions, but I defend to the, err, pain of
having to defend it, his right to express them here.
--
John Wilkins
Sweet Analytics, 'tis thou hast ravished me [Marlowe's Faust]
David Sienkiewicz
news:3d66ad87...@news-server.optonline.net...
As I noted earlier, it was just a musing and I'll admit that I wanted to
throw a little scare into Ed.
Check out his attacks on Paul Myers recently with respect to his version of
this.
Sauce for the goose.
David Sienkiewicz
I think he is.
I think that he wanted that "big story" and resents the scientific community
for exposing it as false.
So Ed is stuck at some small-town newspaper instead of working for the "New
York Times."
He's the Ted Baxter of newspapers.
> In addition, because Ed does seem to be gainfully employed, he may have
> the ability to pay damages if a suit was brought against him.
I suppose that depends on the circulation of the paper and it's frequency of
publication.
> David brought up the idea getting in touch with Ed's editor, something
> that hadn't occured to me, and I'd like to clarify my position on this.
> Should Ed's boss be contacted because he believes Man is Old as Coal?
> No. Should Ed's boss be contacted because Ed's a liar? Possibly.
> Reporters are expected to have a certain amount of ethics and integrity,
> things which haven't been displayed by Ed of late. On the other hand, as
> far as I can tell Ed doesn't get assigned stories of much import, so any
> lies he tells in his capacity as a reporter wouldn't likely be of much
> consequence (and he's so bad at it he'd probably be caught).
*IF* I really were more interested in reporting Ed to his superiors (as
opposed to simply making an illustration), I could argue that the importance
of a story is irrelevant when it comes to the expected integrity of a
reporter or editor.
> Any ideas or insights anyone can bring to the table would be welcome.
That's mine. It's not much, but there you have it.
David Sienkiewicz
news:1fhf2t4.t5f3wk1hdx8gmN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
In fact, there is clear intent to cause damage and I'm pretty sure Ed does
break the law.
As for the rest, John, see my responses to Mike and gen2rev.
< snip >
Simplicius
<gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
in their professional lives. I don't see any reason to doubt that Ed is a
competent journalist, and that's pretty much the only thing his employer
should be interested in. Unless he is writing up his discoveries for the
Science section of his newspaper, his hobby is none of their business,
and his work is none of ours.
Usenet is an imaginary universe whose only substance is words on a
screen. The only real pain that can be inflicted here is the humiliation
that comes from making an ass of yourself. This is how it should be.
Ed is a classic crackpot, and he can be really rude, and even
infuriating. None of those is a hanging offense. This newsgroup
(t.o.) particularly should be a crackpot-safe zone. If you run off every
guy who claims to have discovered a 280-million-year-old
petrified penis, is it really going to make the world a better place?
John "save the loons" McKendry
Keith
....text deleted...
> David brought up the idea getting in touch with Ed's editor, something
> that hadn't occured to me, and I'd like to clarify my position on this.
> Should Ed's boss be contacted because he believes Man is Old as Coal?
> No. Should Ed's boss be contacted because Ed's a liar?
Technically speaking Ed might not be a liar. To be a liar, a
person must have actual intent to decieve. As off-the-wall as
he is in his ideas, Ed likely believes what he states in a
sincere manner. That Andrews, Paul Meyers, and many other
people are lying about him is the only explanation, given what
he believes to be true and the depth of conviction he his in
his delusions of rocks being human fossils. Ed is likely no
more lying than the person who believes himself to be Jesus
Christ, is lying about being persecuted by doctors and people
who committed to a hospital for being Jesus Christ. More
likely, Ed lives in his own version of reality, in which the
only explanation for people not agreeing with his ideas is
that they are liars, cheats, and frauds out to get him and
persecute him for his ideas.
Ed is not lost, but simply lost in his own version of reality,
in which according to his own delusions, everybody else is
lying and out to get him. That is the only way that he can
explain to himself why he gets no respect for what he sincerely
believes to be marvelous discoveries of ancient fossils bones.
Ed is just a poor human being who has lost all touch with
reality and living in the Twilight Zone of his imagination.
The question we have to answer here is a person who is deluded
to the point that they sincerely believe something to be true
a liar, if he interprets the action of others according to
imaginary delusions. Is a person who sincerely believes that
the Trilateral Commission is out to get him for his beliefs
lying if he believes that the local postmaster is monitoring
his mail for the Trilateral Commission makes accusations that
the postmaster is illegally opening his mail and has the local
mail carrier watching his house 24 hours a day? It seems if the
person is completely selling reale estate in the twilight zone
and the person sincerely believes what he states is completely
true, than he is technically not lying even if what he says is
laughably false.
Just Some Thoughts
Kieth
catshark
> <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3d66ad87...@news-server.optonline.net...
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:56:40 +0000 (UTC), "David Sienkiewicz"
> > <spam2d...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> > >news:3D6651B5...@crosswinds.net...
> > >> David Sienkiewicz wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "John Richards" <NOSPAM...@vnet.net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:Ykf99.23252$Aw4.1...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
[snip]
> > >I wonder if his editor would be interested in knowing what a fool he
> makes
> > >of himself and, by association, his newspaper, on usenet?
> >
> > Maybe, but I have to agree with the others that it wouldn't be right
> > for us to do anything about it. We have no reason to believe that Ed
> > is attempting any actual fraud or other illegal scheme to gain money
> > from his rocks. It appears to be an obsession that is unrelated to
> > his employment. Or, if it impinges on his journalistic duties, it is
> > hard to believe that Ed could conceal it anyway. Tattling on him
> > could only appear petty.
>
> As I noted earlier, it was just a musing and I'll admit that I wanted to
> throw a little scare into Ed.
I didn't really think that you would do it. You do not strike me as
the type who would circle 'round his opponent and sneak up from behind
(which makes it hard to go for the jugular, anyway). ;-)
>
> Check out his attacks on Paul Myers recently with respect to his version of
> this.
Yes, that is troubling, but, at most, it might ("justify" is the wrong
word) make it understandable (acceptable?) if Paul was to do it.
>
> Sauce for the goose.
Frequently doesn't taste as good as you think it will . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
[T]he mind is how we perceive what the brain does . . .
- Carl Sagan -
gen2rev
Certainly I would never communicate with someone's employer based on
that someone's beliefs. That would be reprehensible, akin to what
happened to Velikovsky, or what happened to hundreds in the McCarthy
era.
Let me try to explain it this way: what if you knew someone who had a
problem with alcohol, someone who operated heavy machinery, or worse,
drove a school bus? And what if that someone caused an accident, a
direct result of their problem? Isn't there some onus on people to try
to prevent these things before they happen? Even as simple as making
sure your buddy doesn't have his car keys when he leaves the pub?
Ed lies. Might a lie in a news story end up causing problems for his
employer? Maybe. Is this in the same class as driving a school bus while
drunk? No. But what class *is* it in? It's a question that has
absolutely nothing to do with "Man Old as Coal", and everything with
wanting to do the right thing.
Of course, Ed may be on the straight-and-narrow while in the newsroom. I
don't know. There's a lot about Ed that I don't know (nor do I want to),
and for all we know his employer may be completely aware of his
activities on usenet, and monitor his postings. There are to many
unknowns to decide on what action to take, if any. But contacting Ed's
paper was *not* something that I would have looked forward to, and I was
more afraid that David would do so, fears which have now been put to
rest.
> I do not agree with Ed's opinions, but I defend to the, err, pain of
> having to defend it, his right to express them here.
Certainly Ed's a pain in the ass, but yes, he has a right to express his
opinions here. I just wish he'd actually *discuss* them. I certainly
wouldn't want to see him fired, and I sincerely hope he behaves
differently as a professional than he does here.
Michael Painter
Well said and you're right.
I still have an urge to run an ad in his newspaper with the names of those
who want to be sued by him and a request for information on his lawyer.
John Wilkins
Asking for accuracy, veracity and comprehension on the part of
journalists is like asking for lawyers to always fight only for justice.
It's one of those nice ideas that totally misunderstands the nature of
the profession.
If Ed does something wrong in his reportage, then it is the function of
the legal, review and public debate process to take this under
discussion. But it's just persecution to take something that is not part
of his career to his employers. Now if you find he's misreported
something in the paper, or taken bribes to report things the way someone
wants it reported, *then* you'd have a cse. IMO.
David Sienkiewicz
news:273ab496.02082...@posting.google.com...
Exactly.
Look 'em dead in the eye - show 'em their heart as they die.
That kinda thing.
(Methinks I've watched too many Arnold movies...)
> > Check out his attacks on Paul Myers recently with respect to his version
of
> > this.
>
> Yes, that is troubling, but, at most, it might ("justify" is the wrong
> word) make it understandable (acceptable?) if Paul was to do it.
I'm sure U of MN would have quite a laugh over the whole thing, but that's
hardly to the point.
> > Sauce for the goose.
>
> Frequently doesn't taste as good as you think it will . . .
I'm sure it would taste just awful to Ed.
catshark
Yep. That's the David we've all come to know and . . .
love, hate, fear - one of those emotions. ;-)
P.S. Have you noticed just *who* has been going hot and heavy at Ed of late?
<Exit stage right to the sound of another tune>
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Man was made at the end of the week's work
when God was tired.
-- Mark Twain --
John Wilkins
> "catshark" <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:273ab496.02082...@posting.google.com...
...
> > I didn't really think that you would do it. You do not strike me as
> > the type who would circle 'round his opponent and sneak up from behind
> > (which makes it hard to go for the jugular, anyway). ;-)
>
> Exactly.
>
> Look 'em dead in the eye - show 'em their heart as they die.
>
> That kinda thing.
>
> (Methinks I've watched too many Arnold movies...)
You *can* go for the jugular from behind, if the knife is sharp enough.
It's also a lot more quiet, and you don't get all that messy veinous
blood all over your combat gear. It's a bugger to get out in the wash.
...
David Sienkiewicz
Ah well. It's my fate to be unappreciated in my time. < wink >
> P.S. Have you noticed just *who* has been going hot and heavy at Ed of
late?
>
> <Exit stage right to the sound of another tune>
'Fraid not. No one out of the ordinary, I suppose.
catshark
Well . . . if you want to get all *fastidious* about it . . . sure!
catshark
Just someone that ordinarily would have been in a stew about paying Ed
all the attention.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The Moral Sense teaches us what is right,
and how to avoid it . . .
-- Mark Twain --
David Sienkiewicz
> "David Sienkiewicz" <spam2d...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<QPga9.185207$me6.23885@sccrnsc01>...
> > "catshark" <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:273ab496.02082...@posting.google.com...
< snip >
> > > Yep. That's the David we've all come to know and . . .
> > >
> > > love, hate, fear - one of those emotions. ;-)
> >
> > Ah well. It's my fate to be unappreciated in my time. < wink >
> >
> > > P.S. Have you noticed just *who* has been going hot and heavy at Ed of
> late?
> > >
> > > <Exit stage right to the sound of another tune>
> >
> > 'Fraid not. No one out of the ordinary, I suppose.
>
> Just someone that ordinarily would have been in a stew about paying Ed
> all the attention.
Ah, well, that doesn't surprise me.