Why Andrew MacRae's opinion LACKS CREDIBILITY

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Conrad

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
it in -- leaving talk.origins.

I can only wonder why.

Before Andrew vanishes, however, I would like to raise a very
important point:

> Andrew's own admission that he had NEVER
> examined the cell structure of petrified bone
> prior to examining the specimens I had sent him.

About a month ago (in article <58c2p3$j...@news.ptd.net>, I defended
my position that the majority of my discoveries in Pennsylvania's coal
region are indeed petrified bone based on microscopic examination of
the specimens' cell structure -- the presence of the Haversian canals
(but minus the surrounding structure that had been removed as a result
of the petrification process).

> ``Yet the Haversian canals, a telltale indicator of the cell
> structure of bone, still exist and can be seen under the microscope."
> I wrote. ``But my opponents, the vast majority who have never examined
> *petrified* bone in their life, insist that it must precisely resemble
> the cell structure of bone that has not petrified.''

On Dec. 10, 1996, Andrew posted the following beneath the header --
Re: Welcome to Our World (Ed Conrad's) -- in article
58k4ht$g...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca:

> ``We will have to call the judges in on this one," Andrew wrote. ``Is this
> misrepresentation #16 of my claims? He (Ed Conrad) does not name me
> specifically, but it is pretty obvious it applies to me...

> ``He says, the vast majority who have never examined *petrified*
> bone, so I assume I was included in his "opponents" as an exception
> to that `vast majority.' But you are right. I'll err on the side of caution
> and keep the official misrepresentation count at 15. It isn't as if one
> or two instances are going to make a big difference at this point,
> although some people in the betting pool might be miffed.''

You stand corrected, Andrew.
You see, it DOES make ``a big difference at this point" because it is
the key determining factor whether the specimens you examined -- in
particular, the one which Wilton Krogman called a portion of a tibia
-- are indeed petrified bone.

Since, by your own admission, you totally lacked ANY previous
experience examining petrified bone, you certainly were not qualified
to have stated so adamantly -- as, indeed, you had -- that my
specimens are nothing more than rocks and concretions.

By insisting they are NOT petrified bone, you are not only challenging
but also belittling the expertise and integrity of Jeremy Dahl, a bone
expert at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, who -- in writing
and bearing his signature -- stated that one of my specimens he had
examined IS petrified bone.

Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
University of Calgary.

I only learned of this when Paul Myers let the cat out of the bag by
mentioning that you are only a grad student, a fact that you confirmed
in a somewhat saracstic follow-up posting.

Steve Jones - JON

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

edco...@postoffice.ptd.net (Ed Conrad) writes:

>
>
> I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
> it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>
> I can only wonder why.

Bored with repetition ? Has found a life outside ? Got a job ?

[snip some rather well worded stuff by Ed]

Welcome back Ed, nice to see you've got a little bit more polite in
the interim (even if you are still cross-posting off topic for 2 out of
3 groups).

I too have a few questions of you, if you would care to answer them, I'll
start with that old one that confused me before.

You say that you think the reason for the head being so perfectly preserved
is that it was in mud and the mud hardened thus preserving the skull. Having
been away in the UK for Christmas I was able to ask a friend what they would
expect to see in this case. After an initial "the skull would be crushed mud
isn't a very heard substance except when compressed, if the mud was compressed
then the skull would be too". So how did it happen ?

And the second one is the old price request, how much will it cost
to have the "skull" removed from the rock under proper supervision, I'm
sure several institutes would be willing to aid in this task.

And please in future keep the posts on topic (or at least close) and post
"alien vistors" and "after-death" experiences to the relevant groups.

Salute
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Jones | "Atticus says that carring a gun is a sure
Eurocontrol Experimental Centre | way to get shot" -- Scout Finch in
| To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not add me to any commercial mailing lists, all unsolicted commercial
email will be billed at my current rate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

In article <32cceccc...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@postoffice.ptd.net
(Ed Conrad) wrote:

Now that Andrew is no longer active in this newsgroup, Ed seems to feel
he can safely leap to the attack:

>I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
>it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>
>I can only wonder why.
>

And by YOUR own admission, Ed, you have absolutely no experience in
histology, anatomy, or geology. On your visit to my lab, I had to
explain the most elementary aspects of bone structure to you, and
I was surprised at the depths of your ignorance. You were not even
aware of the existence of different kinds of bone, cancellous and
compact, let alone of any differences in their histology.

It's more than a little galling to see someone who is as oblivious
of any of the basic facts of science as you are calling Andrew
MacRae inexperienced or unqualified.

>By insisting they are NOT petrified bone, you are not only challenging
>but also belittling the expertise and integrity of Jeremy Dahl, a bone
>expert at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, who -- in writing
>and bearing his signature -- stated that one of my specimens he had
>examined IS petrified bone.

We've all seen the text of the note from Dahl -- it is not an
endorsement, it simply parrots the label YOU gave to your specimen.
There has also been a statement here from somebody who had called
Dahl (forgive me, I can't recall who--speak up and I'll commit
your actions to memory!), and it seems to me that there was no
belief that your rocks were anything but funny-shaped rocks.

>
>Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
>the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
>that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
>University of Calgary.
>
>I only learned of this when Paul Myers let the cat out of the bag by
>mentioning that you are only a grad student, a fact that you confirmed
>in a somewhat saracstic follow-up posting.

Andrew NEVER misrepresented himself to anyone at any time, and it is
despicable of you to even imply such a thing.

As for calling him "only" a graduate student: trying to trivialize him
won't help your case at all. Being "only" a graduate student means he
had at least 4 years of college training in the sciences -- which is at
least 4 years more training than you've ever had. Being "only" a graduate
student means he had to commit to spending at least 4 more years in
training while being paid a stipend that is usually _way_ below the
poverty line, all because he loves a field and wants to spend his life
in the profession. Being "only" a graduate student means Andrew has
already expressed far more dedication and discipline to the sciences than
you ever will.

Also, I think everyone in this newsgroup will agree that if Andrew was
"only" a graduate student, he was a pretty remarkable and advanced
one.

Now what are we going to do with you? Are you, perhaps, a full-fledged
professor of Carboniferous histology at the University of Middle-of-
Nowhere, PA? Are you even "only" a graduate student in this field? Or
perhaps an undergraduate? Or you've taken a correspondence course?
Oh, maybe you saw a TV show about the Carboniferous once...

Better be careful with this kind of post, Ed. If you want to criticize
anyone's qualifications, it will only invite us to compare their training
to yours--and you come off rather poorly in that kind of pissing
contest. Actually, my 13 year old son knows more about biology and
geology than you do!

--
Paul Z. Myers my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology my...@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848

Dick Craven

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to
Ed is back, with a new address but the same old crap.

>
>I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
>it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>
>I can only wonder why.
As he said, he is getting his doctorate and has to move on. He may
or may not get access to the newgroups, but will be way too
busy to post.

>
>Before Andrew vanishes, however, I would like to raise a very
>important point:
Actually, you waited until you were sure he was gone.

>
>> Andrew's own admission that he had NEVER
>> examined the cell structure of petrified bone
>> prior to examining the specimens I had sent him.
So what, if he had no reason to then he wouldn't have. He did
examine the cell structure(I believe) when he needed to. And by
examining the cell structure he showed himself to be ready to
learn, and fair in his dealings with you.

>> ``Yet the Haversian canals, a telltale indicator of the cell
>> structure of bone, still exist and can be seen under the microscope."
>> I wrote. ``But my opponents, the vast majority who have never examined
>> *petrified* bone in their life, insist that it must precisely resemble
>> the cell structure of bone that has not petrified.''

At no normal magnification that shows the Haversian canals in all
other examples of petrified bone do any structures show up in your
samples.
>
Major snip

>Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
>the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
>that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
>University of Calgary.
>
>I only learned of this when Paul Myers let the cat out of the bag by
>mentioning that you are only a grad student, a fact that you confirmed
>in a somewhat saracstic follow-up posting.

Very few professors post here. A whole lot of grad students do. And a
whole lot of well informed lay persons also. A persons credentials don't
matter, but rather how much he knows and how he applies it.
Andrew MacCrae has proven himself knowledgeable, and fair.
2 things that you have shown that you are incapable of.
I had to jump in here because I could not allow someone of
Dr MacCrae's ability and expertise to be maligned, especially by
the ted and ed road show.

All opinions are mine, and no one elses.
to eliminate junk email I am using a junk email address
you can email me at di...@nwlink.com
http://www.nwlink.com/~dickc
dickc

Robert Grumbine

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

In article <32cceccc...@news.sunlink.net>,

Ed Conrad <edco...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>
>I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
>it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>
>I can only wonder why.

Change of job, as he announced, associated with completion of his
doctorate, also as announced.

[drivel deleted]

>Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
>the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
>that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
>University of Calgary.
>
>I only learned of this when Paul Myers let the cat out of the bag by
>mentioning that you are only a grad student, a fact that you confirmed
>in a somewhat saracstic follow-up posting.

Well, if you'd ever read Andrew's posts, you'd have know that he was a
graduate student no later than the second thin section he prepared (last
April?, quite some time ago) from your materials. He mentioned then that
his budget was constrained due to being a graduate student (this in the
context of why he didn't want to shell out for another thin section).
You, apparently, are the only person who was involved in the thread
who didn't know that Andrew was a graduate student at the time. (Did
he suddenly become much brighter when they handed him his doctorate?)
(If having doctorates matters, what was yours on?) Andrew never lied
about the fact, nor did he hide it.

--
Bob Grumbine rm...@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Gail Davis

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

Why Andrew MacRae's opinion LACKS CREDIBILITY

(Ed Conrad) wrote:


>I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
>it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>
>I can only wonder why.
>

>Before Andrew vanishes, however, I would like to raise a very
>important point:
>

>> Andrew's own admission that he had NEVER
>> examined the cell structure of petrified bone
>> prior to examining the specimens I had sent him.
>

>About a month ago (in article <58c2p3$j...@news.ptd.net>, I defended
>my position that the majority of my discoveries in Pennsylvania's coal
>region are indeed petrified bone based on microscopic examination of
>the specimens' cell structure -- the presence of the Haversian canals
>(but minus the surrounding structure that had been removed as a result
>of the petrification process).
>

>> ``Yet the Haversian canals, a telltale indicator of the cell
>> structure of bone, still exist and can be seen under the microscope."
>> I wrote. ``But my opponents, the vast majority who have never examined
>> *petrified* bone in their life, insist that it must precisely resemble
>> the cell structure of bone that has not petrified.''
>

>On Dec. 10, 1996, Andrew posted the following beneath the header --
>Re: Welcome to Our World (Ed Conrad's) -- in article
>58k4ht$g...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca:
>
>> ``We will have to call the judges in on this one," Andrew wrote. ``Is
this
>> misrepresentation #16 of my claims? He (Ed Conrad) does not name me
>> specifically, but it is pretty obvious it applies to me...
>
>> ``He says, the vast majority who have never examined *petrified*
>> bone, so I assume I was included in his "opponents" as an exception
>> to that `vast majority.' But you are right. I'll err on the side of
caution
>> and keep the official misrepresentation count at 15. It isn't
as if one
>> or two instances are going to make a big difference at this point,
>> although some people in the betting pool might be miffed.''
>
>You stand corrected, Andrew.
>You see, it DOES make ``a big difference at this point" because it is
>the key determining factor whether the specimens you examined -- in
>particular, the one which Wilton Krogman called a portion of a tibia
>-- are indeed petrified bone.
>
>Since, by your own admission, you totally lacked ANY previous
>experience examining petrified bone, you certainly were not qualified
>to have stated so adamantly -- as, indeed, you had -- that my
>specimens are nothing more than rocks and concretions.
>


Ed, you goober, *where* in your above quote does he admit that he
"totally lacked ANY previous experience examining petrified bone"?

Are you suggesting that the admission is contained in his statement
"But you are right"?

If so, I suggest you learn how to read english, because he was
obviously *not* saying that *you* were right in your accusation. You
are not "you" in the quote, but "he". It is rather clear that he was
talking to someone *else*, saying that person was right in their
point that you weren't necessarily misrepresenting him in this
particular accusation, because you'd said "the vast majority" which
means, maybe, he was not supposed to be included in that set of
folks. He was being gracious enough to grant you that loophole.

There is no suggestion in his statement that he had no experience
with petrified bone, but quite the contrary, that it would be a
misrepresentation if you were to say he did not.

In fact, it's clear as day that that's what he meant. Is this a
problem you have often, Ed? Do you often look at things, and want so
badly for them to be what you want them to be, that, by God, that's
really what you see? Do you often see admissions of guilt that
aren't there in the writings of your adversaries? Do you often look
at rocks, and see human fossils? Do you often look at clouds and see
faces? Do you often look in the mirror and see a great scientist?

You stand corrected, Ed.

If this is the "key determining factor", as you say, in determining
whether your specimens are what you claim, then, okay, I'll take your
word for it. They are determined not to be what you claim.

I also nominate this very post of yours to be misrepresentation #16.

**********************
Visit a Classroom
**********************

Thomas Swanson

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

In article <32cceccc...@news.sunlink.net> edco...@postoffice.ptd.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
>
>I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
>it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>
>I can only wonder why.
>
This speaks volumes about your reading and comprehension capabilities.


____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick

><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner

henry l. barwood

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

Ed Conrad wrote:

I came back from Christmas vacation to find this pile of Ed cluttering up
the airways.

>
> I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
> it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>
> I can only wonder why.

Nothing to wonder about. Andrew announced that he finished his degree and
is out hunting for a job. What's your excuse Conrad?

>
> Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
> the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
> that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
> University of Calgary.

More piles of excreta from Conrad. Andrew announced many months ago who
and what he was, unlike Conrad. Since MacRae announced that he will not
see these posts, Conrad is certainly taking advantage of an empty field
to try and score points!

Henry Barwood

Ed Conrad

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 20:37:35 -0800, "henry l. barwood"
<hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:

>Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>> I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
>> it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>>
>> I can only wonder why.
>
>Nothing to wonder about. Andrew announced that he finished his degree and
>is out hunting for a job. What's your excuse Conrad?
>>
>> Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
>> the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
>> that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
>> University of Calgary.
>
>More piles of excreta from Conrad. Andrew announced many months ago who
>and what he was, unlike Conrad. Since MacRae announced that he will not
>see these posts, Conrad is certainly taking advantage of an empty field
>to try and score points!
>
>Henry Barwood

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Boy, are you a dreamer!
I am referring to your sarcastic comment: ``Conrad is certainly taking


advantage of an empty field to try and score points!"

Henry, you certainly should know I will never ``score points" in
talk.origins, etc., because, sad to say, I have long realized I am
bucking heads with the reigning SUPER BOWL champions
of Scientific Subterfuge.

Meanwhile, you certainly remember -- how can you possibly forget? --
that I had accused Andrew on several occasions of having produced
fraudulent test results, while he was still with us.

His total lack of experience examing petrified bone may be the primary
reason he had come up a pound light and a dollar short ``testing" my
two specimens..

You also should recall that I had complimented Andrew for his hard
work in preparing such good-looking web pages but, in the same breath,
informed him in no uncertain terms that his official conclusion was
totally incorrect.

It may well be that Andrew was unable to identify the cell structure
of petrified bone in my specimens because he lacked the knowledge
that the petrification process causes the surrounding structure of the
Haversian systems to disappear, leaving only the Haversian canals.

In his adamant denial of this scientific fact, Andrew MacRae was
wrong, he IS wrong and he forever will be wrong.

I have not changed my tune and I never will. The two specimens he had
examined in his laboratory at the University of Calgary are indeed
petrified bone.

I can only wonder, if Andrew had previous experience examining the
cell structure of petrified bone, would he have been honest enough to
admit that the cell structure of my specimens was strikingly similiar?

Sadly, I strongly doubt it!

Meanwhile, Henry, I strongly doubt that Andrew had done as you insist
he did, having ``announced many months ago who and what he was"
(a grad student, not a member of the faculty).

If you can produce evidence -- a posting -- that Andrew had done so
since I first joined the Internet last March -- ``many months ago" --
you will receive my public apology.

Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

In article <32cf8a9b...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed
Conrad) wrote:

Are you claiming that YOU have knowledge of such an effect? Your clueless
ignorance is becoming legendary on this newsgroup, so it's a bit much
to expect anyone to believe you over somebody who has any knowledge
of geology at all...and even less likely that we will trust you over
a paragon like MacRae.

>
> In his adamant denial of this scientific fact, Andrew MacRae was
> wrong, he IS wrong and he forever will be wrong.
>
> I have not changed my tune and I never will. The two specimens he had
> examined in his laboratory at the University of Calgary are indeed
> petrified bone.
>
> I can only wonder, if Andrew had previous experience examining the
> cell structure of petrified bone, would he have been honest enough to
> admit that the cell structure of my specimens was strikingly similiar?
>
> Sadly, I strongly doubt it!
>
> Meanwhile, Henry, I strongly doubt that Andrew had done as you insist
> he did, having ``announced many months ago who and what he was"
> (a grad student, not a member of the faculty).

Once again, I have the pleasure of proving you a clueless, opinionated,
ignorant twit in a public forum. Please see below.

>
> If you can produce evidence -- a posting -- that Andrew had done so
> since I first joined the Internet last March -- ``many months ago" --
> you will receive my public apology.


Here's a message from Andrew I found on DejaNews...note the date: June 3, 1996.

-----

Subject: Re: ED CONRAD's E-MAIL to Andrew MacRae (re: His colossal mistake)
From: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae)
Date: 1996/06/03
Message-Id: <4otd8o$u...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
References: <4orkfi$3...@ns2.ptd.net>
Organization: The University of Calgary
Reply-To: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins


[Newsgroups trimmed to talk.origins. I can not see the relevance to most
of these other groups until some new data is presented.]

In article <4orkfi$3...@ns2.ptd.net> edco...@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
writes:
> This is a copy of an E-Mail I have sent Andrew MacRae of the
> University of Calgary

I am not "of the University of Calgary". I do not represent the
University of Calgary in any capacity. My opinions are not theirs, and
vice-versa. Please do not represent me that way. My affiliation is only
as a student.

<remainder deleted>
-----


I don't think he could possibly have been any more explicit. We anxiously
await your public apology.

--
Paul Myers Department of Biology

chris brochu

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

In article <32cf8a9b...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad) says:
>
>

>It may well be that Andrew was unable to identify the cell structure
>of petrified bone in my specimens because he lacked the knowledge
>that the petrification process causes the surrounding structure of the
>Haversian systems to disappear, leaving only the Haversian canals.
>

>In his adamant denial of this scientific fact,

Seventeen.


chris

Polly

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

Steve Jones - JON wrote:

>
> edco...@postoffice.ptd.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
>
> >
> >
> > I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
> > it in -- leaving talk.origins.
> >
> > I can only wonder why.

Taking a cue from village politics, why don't we all just ignore Ed?
Disputing him is not going to yield any results other than feeding
some need of his for attention. So much space and energy is wasted in
this futile game. Surely there are more interesting things to discuss!

Repeat this:"I will not allow myself to be sucked into Ed Conrad's
game."

P.

henry l. barwood

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

Paul Z. Myers wrote:

> We've all seen the text of the note from Dahl -- it is not an
> endorsement, it simply parrots the label YOU gave to your specimen.
> There has also been a statement here from somebody who had called
> Dahl (forgive me, I can't recall who--speak up and I'll commit
> your actions to memory!), and it seems to me that there was no
> belief that your rocks were anything but funny-shaped rocks.

I have pointed out many times that I called Dahl and he denied endorsing
Conrad's "rocks" or making any tests on them at all. Conrad has
interepreted this as evidence of a conspiracy and not that he is a raving
lunatic.

> As for calling him "only" a graduate student: trying to trivialize him
> won't help your case at all. Being "only" a graduate student means he
> had at least 4 years of college training in the sciences -- which is at
> least 4 years more training than you've ever had. Being "only" a graduate
> student means he had to commit to spending at least 4 more years in
> training while being paid a stipend that is usually _way_ below the
> poverty line, all because he loves a field and wants to spend his life
> in the profession. Being "only" a graduate student means Andrew has
> already expressed far more dedication and discipline to the sciences than
> you ever will.
>
> Also, I think everyone in this newsgroup will agree that if Andrew was
> "only" a graduate student, he was a pretty remarkable and advanced
> one.

I agree with Paul here. By the time I was nearing the old Piled higher
and Deeper, I was teaching classes at VPI to support myself on a whopping
$350 per month teaching assistantship. Of course the supplemental income
from the apprenticeship program of the International Get Ed Conspiracy
kept me in a Rolls Royce while I went to classes (??!!!?).

>
> Now what are we going to do with you? Are you, perhaps, a full-fledged
> professor of Carboniferous histology at the University of Middle-of-
> Nowhere, PA? Are you even "only" a graduate student in this field? Or
> perhaps an undergraduate? Or you've taken a correspondence course?
> Oh, maybe you saw a TV show about the Carboniferous once...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Conrad is a raving lunatic,
period.

>
> Better be careful with this kind of post, Ed. If you want to criticize
> anyone's qualifications, it will only invite us to compare their training
> to yours--and you come off rather poorly in that kind of pissing
> contest. Actually, my 13 year old son knows more about biology and
> geology than you do!

My Bassett Hound knows more about geology (from going with me on field
trips) than Conrad does.

Henry Barwood

henry l. barwood

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

Ed Conrad wrote:

snip and sci.bio.paleontology deleted since Conrad has tortured them
enough

>
> Boy, are you a dreamer!
> I am referring to your sarcastic comment: ``Conrad is certainly taking
> advantage of an empty field to try and score points!"
>

Since Andrew clearly announced that he would be absent from t.o., what
would you call your comments? You, Holden, and Karl Crawford seem quite
adept at the old weave, bob, duck and skip town when asked to answer
questions point blank. Nonetheless you typically crosspost and reply to
other posts in multiple newsgroups where the original poster is likely
not to see your deranged comments and respond to them directly. Thus you
leave the impression on some newbies that you are going unchallenged.

> Henry, you certainly should know I will never ``score points" in
> talk.origins, etc., because, sad to say, I have long realized I am
> bucking heads with the reigning SUPER BOWL champions
> of Scientific Subterfuge.

Warning, Warning! Lack of politeness to follow! Conrad, you are the Super
Bowl champion of lunatics! You are an insignificant person and
diminishing all the time. If I didn't have time on my hands between long
experimental runs, I wouldn't even bother to respond, but there are times
you are truly amusing. Sort of like watching a really, really disgusting
slime mold. The thing is nauseating, but so fascinating you have to keep
looking at it.

snip of Conrad's delusions.

>
> I have not changed my tune and I never will. The two specimens he had
> examined in his laboratory at the University of Calgary are indeed
> petrified bone.
>

Ah, the Creationist credo. Say after me: "I am right, they are wrong"
1,000 times!

More delusions snipped.

> Meanwhile, Henry, I strongly doubt that Andrew had done as you insist
> he did, having ``announced many months ago who and what he was"
> (a grad student, not a member of the faculty).
>

I don't have the time to search (I damn sure don't archive Conradposts!),
could someone help me out with the earliest date Andrew mentioned he was
a grad student. Memory recalls that it was sometime last summer, but I
could be mistaken (unlike Conrad, I am fallible).

> If you can produce evidence -- a posting -- that Andrew had done so
> since I first joined the Internet last March -- ``many months ago" --
> you will receive my public apology.

Now that would certainly be a first. Ed Conrad actually apologising.
After months and months of invective, innuendo, insults, lies,
accusations of conspiracy and delusions of Godhood on his part, Ed Conrad
would stoop to acknowledging a fact, if someone hit him in the face with
it. Quick, get the search engines going!!!

Henry Barwood

Martyne

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

Ahh, I've been reading this newsgroup since the begining of october, and
I, a humble housewife, knew Andrew MacRae was a grad student. A bit
hint is his web page. Wonder why a journalist couldn't figure out that
one.

Martyne

--
There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
Shakespeare

Ed Conrad

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 21:02:10 -0800, "henry l. barwood"
<hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:

>Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>> Boy, are you a dreamer!
>> I am referring to your sarcastic comment: ``Conrad is certainly taking
>> advantage of an empty field to try and score points!"
>>
>Since Andrew clearly announced that he would be absent from t.o., what
>would you call your comments? You, Holden, and Karl Crawford seem quite
>adept at the old weave, bob, duck and skip town when asked to answer
>questions point blank.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't see where Andrew MacRae's recent departure has anything
to do with it.

After all, I didn't wait for Andrew to leave to inform him he had
reached an incorrect conclusion in ``officially'' declaring that
neither of my two specimens that he had examined microscopically
are petrified bone.

Meanwhile, I informed Andrew WHY he was wrong but, undoubtedly,
he turned a deaf ear when I tried to explain that the surrounding
structure of bone vanishes due to the petrification process.

Therefore, only the Haversian canals -- clearly visible at
http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/c2.jpg
-- can be seen in my specimens of petrified bone found between coal
veins.

Meanwhile, I strongly suspect that Andrew did not leave the scene
by his own choice. I am convinced he had been relishing in his own
glory too much to give it up voluntarily.

I distinctly remember how full of glee he was after proclaiming -- not
once but twice -- that my specimens which he examined microscopically
were nothing more than rocks and/or concretions. And I wanted to puke
when personal congratulations kept rolling in from people like you
heralding ``a job well (but dishonestly) done."

As time went on, though, Andrew realized he was being seriously
challenged he began running scared and was never the same afterward.

As for Andrew's web pages, I once-upon-a-time described them as Cecil
B. De Milesque and they still are. They certainly look good,
appearance-wise, but they are laden with deceit.

Unfortunately, the end result -- the despicable result -- is that
Andrew's test results of my two specimens of petrified bone failed
miserably because he -- either deliberately or because of his lack of
expertise in histology -- totally ignored pertinent facts and evidence
that would turn this ballgame around.

This is the very thing that Thomas Alva Edison -- one of the greatest
scientists who ever lived -- so vehemently warned his fellow
scientists:

> ``The right to search for truth
> implies also a duty; one must
> not conceal any part of what
> one has recognized to be true."

chris brochu

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

In article <32d1060c...@news.sunlink.net> Ed Conrad,

edco...@sunlink.net writes:
>Meanwhile, I informed Andrew WHY he was wrong but, undoubtedly,
>he turned a deaf ear when I tried to explain that the surrounding
>structure of bone vanishes due to the petrification process.
>


eighteen.


(all other groups removed from recipient list.)


chris

henry l. barwood

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

Ed Conrad wrote:

Edsplatter deleted and s.b.p., also


> Unfortunately, the end result -- the despicable result -- is that
> Andrew's test results of my two specimens of petrified bone failed
> miserably because he -- either deliberately or because of his lack of
> expertise in histology -- totally ignored pertinent facts and evidence
> that would turn this ballgame around.

Conrad, with no technical training still has the gall to demean science
and a (promising) scientist. He should get a new song-and-dance routine,
because this one is really getting to be a bore!

Henry Barwood

TFarnon

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

I just took a look at Ed's pix at:

http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/c2.jpg

Now, I'm "only" an undergraduate student...but Ed's stuff, even at that
poor resolution, doesn't look like dense bone, even fossilized, to me.
How can I explain...it just doesn't look regular enough. There isn't a
fairly steady gradation of haversian canal size. The putative haversian
canals are all bunched up funny.

It looks like "just rock" to me , too.

Peter Nyikos

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

edco...@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad) writes:

[diatribe against Andrew MacRae deleted]

>This is the very thing that Thomas Alva Edison -- one of the greatest
>scientists who ever lived

You mean "inventors" or "technologists", don't you?

> -- so vehemently warned his fellow
>scientists:

>> ``The right to search for truth
>> implies also a duty; one must
>> not conceal any part of what
>> one has recognized to be true."

So, how about ceasing to conceal your authority for that big pointy
thing being a canine tooth, and not a shark tooth nor anything else?

How about answering some on-topic critiques, such as MY long
critique of your website?

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

In article <32d1060c...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed
Conrad) wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 21:02:10 -0800, "henry l. barwood"
><hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>Ed Conrad wrote:
>>
>>> Boy, are you a dreamer!
>>> I am referring to your sarcastic comment: ``Conrad is certainly taking
>>> advantage of an empty field to try and score points!"
>>>
>>Since Andrew clearly announced that he would be absent from t.o., what
>>would you call your comments? You, Holden, and Karl Crawford seem quite
>>adept at the old weave, bob, duck and skip town when asked to answer
>>questions point blank.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>I don't see where Andrew MacRae's recent departure has anything
>to do with it.
>
>After all, I didn't wait for Andrew to leave to inform him he had
>reached an incorrect conclusion in ``officially'' declaring that
>neither of my two specimens that he had examined microscopically
>are petrified bone.
>

>Meanwhile, I informed Andrew WHY he was wrong but, undoubtedly,
>he turned a deaf ear when I tried to explain that the surrounding
>structure of bone vanishes due to the petrification process.

I think that's nineteen.

>
>Therefore, only the Haversian canals -- clearly visible at
>http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/c2.jpg
>-- can be seen in my specimens of petrified bone found between coal
>veins.
>
>Meanwhile, I strongly suspect that Andrew did not leave the scene
>by his own choice. I am convinced he had been relishing in his own
>glory too much to give it up voluntarily.

What? Ummm...what could you possibly fantasizing about here?
Who do you think could have possibly pried him away from his computer,
and why would anyone have done such a thing?

>
>I distinctly remember how full of glee he was after proclaiming -- not
>once but twice -- that my specimens which he examined microscopically
>were nothing more than rocks and/or concretions. And I wanted to puke
>when personal congratulations kept rolling in from people like you
>heralding ``a job well (but dishonestly) done."

I don't recall any "glee" at all...more like a straightforward, sober
description of the work and results. Look at his web page now -- he
was bending over backwards to be as polite as possible, and to give you
as much benefit of the doubt as he could.

>
>As time went on, though, Andrew realized he was being seriously
>challenged he began running scared and was never the same afterward.

Wait, wait...now I think I get it. In your fantasy world, Andrew left
this newsgroup because he was so terrified of your intellectual might?
This is hilarious!

>
>As for Andrew's web pages, I once-upon-a-time described them as Cecil
>B. De Milesque and they still are. They certainly look good,
>appearance-wise, but they are laden with deceit.
>

>Unfortunately, the end result -- the despicable result -- is that
>Andrew's test results of my two specimens of petrified bone failed
>miserably because he -- either deliberately or because of his lack of
>expertise in histology -- totally ignored pertinent facts and evidence
>that would turn this ballgame around.

They failed because you've got rocks, nothing more.

>
>This is the very thing that Thomas Alva Edison -- one of the greatest

>scientists who ever lived -- so vehemently warned his fellow


>scientists:
>
>> ``The right to search for truth
>> implies also a duty; one must
>> not conceal any part of what
>> one has recognized to be true."

--
Paul Z. Myers my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology my...@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848

Michael D. Painter

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to


henry l. barwood <hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<32D150...@indiana.edu>...


> Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> Edsplatter deleted and s.b.p., also
>
>

> > Unfortunately, the end result -- the despicable result -- is that
> > Andrew's test results of my two specimens of petrified bone failed
> > miserably because he -- either deliberately or because of his lack of
> > expertise in histology -- totally ignored pertinent facts and evidence
> > that would turn this ballgame around.
>

> Conrad, with no technical training still has the gall to demean science
> and a (promising) scientist. He should get a new song-and-dance routine,
> because this one is really getting to be a bore!
>
> Henry Barwood

This was precisely the paragraph I was going to quote.
Mr. Ed has been challenged to show ANY information as to what his
qualifications are. I specifically stated that formal education was not
what was being requested.
His only response was an attempt at humor.
When he finally found out that someone did not have a Ph.D. he used this
information (known to all but him since day one - that sounds familiar) to
try to detract from the person's information.

Why do this if a formal education is not important, indeed why query
experts at all?

Mr. Ed, again I ask, what gives you the knowledge to know that your rocks
are anything but rocks?

Brandon M. Gorte

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

Ed Conrad (edco...@postoffice.ptd.net) wrote:
:
: I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing

: it in -- leaving talk.origins.
:
: I can only wonder why.
:
: Before Andrew vanishes, however, I would like to raise a very
: important point:
:
Stupid, he has already left. YOU waited until he was gone to post this,
didn't you? YOU have no ethics in addition to a very serious lack of
knowledge about the topic, (T)Ed. Don't bash someone after they have left.

BMG

Ed is as brainless as his rocks.

Gavin Wheeler

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

In article <32d1060c...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed
Conrad) wrote:

> Meanwhile, I informed Andrew WHY he was wrong but, undoubtedly,
> he turned a deaf ear when I tried to explain that the surrounding
> structure of bone vanishes due to the petrification process.

Is this misrepresentation number 17 or 18?



> Therefore, only the Haversian canals -- clearly visible at
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/c2.jpg
> -- can be seen in my specimens of petrified bone found between coal
> veins.

Circular structures can be seen - you have repeatably failed to requests
from many posters, including St Andrew, to show that these are indeed
cylindrical formations (canals) rather than spherical ones. All you have to
do is show a longitudinal section of the same sample.

--
Gavin Wheeler whe...@lpbc.jussieu.fr

mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to edco...@sunlink.net

Paul Myers forwarded Ed's latest post to me. I have attempted to respond via
DejaNews. I do not know if this is going to work, because my e-mail
is still somewhat flakey, and the local configuration is weird (possibly
causing problems with DejaNews authentication).

I will not be making a habit of this. It is really awkward for me
to either read news or respond to it. DejaNews is great, but not fast,
and
general browsing of a newsgroup does not seem to be possible. There are
also other practical reasons.

[actually edco...@sunlink.net]

Why did you switch providers, Ed? This is your chance
to set the record straight. People were speculating quite a bit
over the Christmas holiday.

|>I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
|>it in -- leaving talk.origins.
|>
|>I can only wonder why.

I finished my degree, have a new job, and have physically
relocated thousands of kilometres across the country, during the
holidays.
I have been just a *little* busy as a result. If you noticed that
I was departing, you should have noticed at least some of the reasons
I stated in the same posting (sheesh). It had nothing to do with you,
that is for certain. If anything, your continued misrepresentation
of my statements is an incentive for me to try to continue
participating, at least to the extent of checking for your latest
feeble and fallacious accusations with DejaNews from time to time.
It would help if you sent them to me via e-mail. If you are going
to accuse someone, it is common courtesy to let them know, or
are you used to being able to freely make your accusations without
worry of response? (e.g., Cuffey and Wise) Maybe you need
the advantage?

|>Before Andrew vanishes, however, I would like to raise a very
|>important point:
|>

|>> Andrew's own admission that he had NEVER
|>> examined the cell structure of petrified bone
|>> prior to examining the specimens I had sent him.

This is your twisted interpretation of what I said, and
it is absolutely incorrect. I have examined the cell structure of
petrified bone on many occasions over many years. Before examining
your specimens, the most recent time was a year or so ago, while
teaching introductory geology labs and "paleontology for
non-geology majors" (we used thin sections of Alberta petrified bone,
not unlike the specimens on my evaluation page, for demonstration
purposes). I can not remember the first time I saw petrified bone
in thin section, but it was certainly by my undergraduate
days, which would put it in the late 1980s, and I had collected and
observed other examples of fossil bone from a variety of localities
(including the Carboniferous in Nova Scotia) as far back as my teens.
So, you are simply wrong. Sheesh, Ed. Do you think I could get
through years of training in paleontology without ever looking at
petrified bone in thin section, let alone a whole lot of other things?

By contrast, you did not even seem to understand the distinction
between Haversian canals and Haversian systems when the discussion
began here:

"Secondly, ``Science in Archaeology'' emphatically states that bone is
always identifiable, no matter its age or petrification, because the
cellular structure ALWAYS remains. The concentric Haversian systems are
easily identifiable since they are the "canals'' through which bone in a
living animal had received oxygen and food."

-- Ed Conrad, April 17, 1996, article <4l2o3l$h...@ns2.ptd.net>

And, as Paul Myers pointed out, you did not seem to understand
that there are differences in bone texture depending upon location in the
skeleton (e.g., cancellous versus compact bone). You were also unable
to document your claims about the relative size of mammalian versus
reptilian Haversian canals, eventhough you claimed this was crucial.
These are not isolated examples. Your demonstrations of knowledge
in this subject have not been impressive.

Let me clarify what I meant in the sentences you have quoted
from me.


>About a month ago (in article <58c2p3$j...@news.ptd.net>,

Yes, about a month ago (Dec.7, I think). Why are you dredging
this up now? Why did you not respond to my post then, when I did
have access and could easily have responded? Why did you ignore
virtually all of my other postings in November and December? Why did
you fail to CC a copy of your serious accusations to me, when you
knew that I would be absent from the forum? Oh, I have a
hypothesis: Because you think you can get a cheap shot out of this
post now that you could not get away with before? I hope I am wrong.

>I defended
>my position that the majority of my discoveries in Pennsylvania's coal
>region are indeed petrified bone based on microscopic examination of
>the specimens' cell structure -- the presence of the Haversian canals

You have not demonstrated the presence of the tubes expected if
Haversian canals are preserved by *any* mode.

>(but minus the surrounding structure that had been removed as a result
>of the petrification process).

Fine. Granted. Not that you will listen to my acknowledgement of
this theoretical possibility. You have not on dozens of other occasions.


Okay. Let's stop there. First of all, I was sarcastically
referring to your continual misrepresentation (15 and counting) that I
claim
Haversian *systems* should be present in their entirety. I don't. As I
have said on many occasions, I grant the *theoretical* possibility that
Haversian canals *only* might be preserved, although the process to
accomplish this has not been documented before in any examples of fossil
bone that I am aware of (you have not provided any documentation of
this process either). In other words, you are clearly misrepresenting
my opinion here, *if* you meant to include me in your "opponents".
I assume you would regard me as an "opponent", right?

However, and this is the potentially confusing part, I also noticed
that you claimed "the vast majority [of your opponents] have
never examined *petrified* bone in their life", which
would *exclude* me, because I *have* examined petrified bone, many
times (see above). That is the "exception" to the "vast majority"
I was referring to: ME (although I expect there are many others too).
I will generously assume you had some reading difficulty
at that point, and accidentally twisted it to mean the exact opposite
of what I meant. It does pay to read things twice before making serious
accusations, Ed.

To avoid potential for futher confusion, let me reiterate:
In other words, I was not saying that I was included in the "vast
majority who have never examined *petrified* bone in their life". I
was not admitting that I "totally lacked ANY previous experience
examining petrified bone." The only thing I was admitting to was the
possibility that you regarded me as an "opponent" that "insist[s]
that it [petrified bone] must precisely resemble the cell structure
of bone that has not petrified", which is something you *have*
previously and incorrectly accused me of doing (picking
random examples: #12 is in article <55iiv4$k...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
posted Nov.3, see also article <52p5bs$c...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
posted Sept.30, article <51kfi9$l...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> posted Sept.16,
and article <529glq$m...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> posted
Sept.24).

If you want to change your accusation to reflect what I
actually have claimed, feel free. An apology for all those
misrepresentations would be nice too.

Maybe you were just a little too desperate to find something
wrong with my comments, Ed. With bizarre misinterpretation of
simple English like this, I no longer find it surprising that you
see endorsements in every vaguely ambivalent statement about
your specimens, and see conspiracy lurking behind every negative
statement. It takes a peculiar kind of desperation to twist
statements 180 degrees like this. It did not help that you
chopped my original posting to ribbons so that people could
not see that the "you" in the "But you are right" was referring
to someone else. I guess you were just wishing it was you.

The other issue is what I meant by, "It isn't as if one or two
instances are going to make a big difference at this point". For that,
I was referring to the number of times you have incorrectly claimed that
I, "insist that it must precisely resemble the cell structure of bone
that has not petrified". The count currently stands at 15, and, like
I said, whether it is 14 or 16 does not make much qualitative
difference at this point, so I erred on the side of caution and I did
not count the example you quoted.

You brought up experience. I have examined both
petrified bone, sandstones, concretions, and many other rock types in
thin section and in the field, and that experience was used to
formulate my opinion about your specimens. Can you claim the same
experience with rocks in thin section? Could you confirm this
sort of experience with different rock types and fossils for the
authorities you cite (e.g., Dahl, Krogman, the unnamed dentist,
etc.)? Have/had they "ever seen a concretion in their life"? Would
they be qualified to assess your specimens unless they had seen a wide
diversity of rock types and fossil preservation modes in thin section?
If you want to talk seriously about relevant expertise, apply it to
your (supposed) advocates too! It cuts both ways. At least, in any
fair evaluation it would.


>By insisting they are NOT petrified bone, you are not only challenging
>but also belittling the expertise and integrity of Jeremy Dahl, a bone
>expert at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, who -- in writing
>and bearing his signature -- stated that one of my specimens he had
>examined IS petrified bone.

I do not really care what Dahl *says*, I care about the
data he looked at and his reasoning, which you have never provided
in detail. I am not belittling Dahl anyway.
Your letter from Dahl was far less than a glowing
endorsement, and was simply quoting your identification in order to
refer to your specimens, in the same way that I refer to your
specimens as "Carboniferous human bones" all the time. I suppose
if I forgot the quotes, you would be saying I endorsed your claims
too. When contacted by another party, Dahl apparently did not
support your claims. Other endorsements are either from people
now deceased (i.e. unverifiable) or you have not specified them
well enough for people to try to contact them and find out
their opinion first hand.

Endorsements are not what matters to the evaluation anyway. The
issue is the data you have in your possession and which
other people have observed on your WWW site and my evaluation site
for themselves. Maybe if I could talk to Dahl first-hand, instead
of second-hand, his statements could influence my opinion. Do you
have his phone number or address handy? E-mail it to me if you do.

>Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
>the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
>that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
>University of Calgary.

I have not ever implied that I was. This is your own fabrication.

Perhaps I should scold you for not revealing that you are NOT a
full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the University of Shenandoah.
What's that? You have never implied that you were either? Welcome to
the club.

>I only learned of this when Paul Myers let the cat out of the bag by
>mentioning that you are only a grad student, a fact that you confirmed
>in a somewhat saracstic follow-up posting.

That late, huh? Did you ever ask me? No. I did clarify when
it became obvious that you may have been misinterpreting (see below,
although I do not think this was the earliest example).

And why shouldn't I be sarcastic? It amazes me that you think
it matters one iota in terms of the scientific issues, and it
amazes me that it took you several months to realize something
that was not hidden at all.

My affiliation as a student was clearly stated on my home page,
which is posted in my .sig in every posting from before you
started posting here. I did not and do not hide the fact.
You could easily have checked the faculty list at the department home
page. If you had asked, I would have told you my affiliation. It is
not my fault if you did not bother to look in obvious places or bother
to ask. It is not my fault if I did not realize you think it matters.
I can not read your mind. It is bizarre that you bring it up now.
It is obviously for the sake of more cheap, petty, irrelevant, ad
homenim attacks in lieu of dealing with the data.
Weak. Really weak.

There was no bag to let the cat out of, Ed, and no cat either.
You are just evading the real issues by trying to make something
out of nothing, because that is all you have left (and
because you are good making nothing sound superficially like
something :-)).

=========
From: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: talk.origins


Subject: Re: ED CONRAD's E-MAIL to Andrew MacRae (re: His colossal
mistake)

Date: 3 Jun 1996 00:56:56 GMT


Organization: The University of Calgary

Lines: 120
Message-ID: <4otd8o$u...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
References: <4orkfi$3...@ns2.ptd.net>
Reply-To: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: @pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca

[Newsgroups trimmed to talk.origins. I can not see the relevance to most

of these other groups until some new data is presented.]

In article <4orkfi$3...@ns2.ptd.net> edco...@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
writes:
> This is a copy of an E-Mail I have sent Andrew MacRae of the
> University of Calgary

I am not "of the University of Calgary". I do not represent the
University of Calgary in any capacity. My opinions are not theirs, and
vice-versa. Please do not represent me that way. My affiliation is only

as a student.
...
==========


My words and the evidence are the same no matter what
my affiliation, qualifications, or title, and you should be prepared
to deal with my words and the evidence regardless. The same should
be true of anyone else. It is a courtesy that I try to extend
to others, including you. Have I ever dismissed your scientific
claims just because you have no formal training in geology or
paleontology? No. I have questioned your experience, but only
on specific issues that you have demonstrated here, or in the
form of a question (e.g., have you ever looked at a concretion
in thin section?), and I have always tried to address the
evidence and logic you have used when you have provided it. When
I have talked about relative experience or qualifications, it
has almost invariably been only after you have questioned mine
on some point.

I am sure that if I *did* make a big deal
of my qualifications, you would be the first to
say they did not matter anyway, because you are fighting some
sort of righteous cause against biased scientists, right?

Maybe I should have put, "Andrew MacRae, 'only a graduate student
in paleontology'" in every posting so you would be satisfied? If so,
perhaps you should reciprocate with "Ed Conrad, 'no formal training in
paleontology'" in your .sig whenever you talk about paleontology in
your posts, so people would not have misconceptions about
your qualifications? If you think qualifications are important,
then you should be prepared to be judged on those grounds, but I can not
imagine what advantage you would think there was to playing such games.
They are not relevant to the scientific issues. They do not change
the evidence at all. It is an *advantage* for you that I am quite
willing to discuss scientific issues without reference to our
respective qualifications. I do not care what your qualifications
are -- speak your mind. I will give your words consideration
regardless. But if you want to play the "qualification game", you
will clearly lose in this instance when it comes to paleontology.

If you want to talk about supposed concealment of information,
let's talk about something that actually matters, like the way you
neglected to mention that 2 other qualified scientists had already
made thin sections of your specimens for you, years ago, and that
you did not mention details of the results of the tests
even while insisting that I make more. Why didn't you tell me this?
Why did you let me waste resources to duplicate the effort of others?
I was rather miffed when I found out about that. I will be kind
and assume that you did not reveal this information because you
wanted an independent evaluation from me to compare to the others.

Well, if so, you got it: 3 independent evaluators with the same
favoured identification -- concretions. If you have some other reason
for doing this, or if you think there was no reason to let me know
I was duplicating effort at some significant expense, let me know.

Where is the demonstration of the presence of *tubular*
Haversian canals in the thin section of the unidentified specimen you
have illustrated on Ted's WWW page? I'm still waiting for that.
Blurry circles are uninteresting when you need tubes to demonstrate
you have the Haversian canals of fossil bone. Good luck providing
genuinely useful evidence sometime in the new year, particularly to
support your interpretation of EC96-001 (which does not
even have "circles"). You need it.

You made two primary accusations in your posting: 1) that I was
admitting that I had not seen petrified bone before, and 2) that I
somehow hid my qualifications and affiliation with the University of
Calgary. Both have been demonstrated to be false, on multiple grounds
(English comprehension being the primary problem for the first, and
your lack of curiousity for the second -- neither are my fault).
In fact, the amount ofmisunderstanding necessary to make these
accusations is remarkable.I now expect some sort of public
acknowledgement that you have erred.I know an apology is too
much to ask for, but your usual tactic ofslinking away and
hoping people forget about your insults isnot acceptable in
this instance. The error is too obvious andthe accusations
too serious. Please defend your accusations or withdraw
them, preferably before another month has expired.

I probably will not see any posted replies, at least for a while,
so I recommend sending e-mail. This post is also CC'ed to Ed (assuming
it works at all).

--

-Andrew
mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (temporarily)
home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/current_projects.html
(temporarily)
Disclaimer: My statements represent nobody but myself.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

In article <32D298...@grci.com>, Mitchell Coffey <mco...@grci.com> wrote:

> Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> Crosspost to sci.bio.paleontology snipped
>
> >
> > On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 20:37:35 -0800, "henry l. barwood"
> > <hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> Other issues snipped


>
> > >> Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
> > >> the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
> > >> that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
> > >> University of Calgary.
> > >

> > >More piles of excreta from Conrad. Andrew announced many months ago who


> > >and what he was, unlike Conrad. Since MacRae announced that he will not

> > >see these posts, Conrad is certainly taking advantage of an empty field


> > >to try and score points!
> > >

> > >Henry Barwood
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
>
> Other issues snipped


>
> >
> > Meanwhile, Henry, I strongly doubt that Andrew had done as you insist
> > he did, having ``announced many months ago who and what he was"
> > (a grad student, not a member of the faculty).
> >

> > If you can produce evidence -- a posting -- that Andrew had done so
> > since I first joined the Internet last March -- ``many months ago" --
> > you will receive my public apology.
>
>

> Ed,
>
> You owe Andrew more than an apology.
>
> I've searched via DejaNews and discovered this post by you to
> Talk.Origins and elsewhere this past December 17th, quoted below in
> full. Everyone should note the eighth paragraph, wherein you wrote
> "My grevious fault with Andrew
> Macrae's Hollywoodesque home page is that he has been playing games --
> perhaps through ignorance, since he is only a grad student ..."
>
> In other words, Ed, you knew at least as of 12/17/96, little more than
> two weeks ago, that Andrew MacCrea was a gradutate student. And yet,
> here you are, after you knew MacCrea no longer to have access to
> Talk.Origins, attacking MacCrea's honesty, alleging that he hid from you
> the fact that he was not "a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at
> the
> University of Calgary." You are obviously not telling the truth.
>
>
> <BEGIN CONRAD QUOTE>
>
> Subject: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SIMPLY CANNOT BE DENIED
> From: edco...@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
> Date: 1996/12/17
> Message-Id: <595prb$7...@news.ptd.net>
> References: <583cls$n...@perki0.connect.com.au>
> <58c2tb$j...@news.ptd.net> <32aad02c...@news.crosslink.net>
> <58grv4$b...@news.ptd.net> <32ACFF...@swipnet.se>
> Organization: ProLog - PenTeleData, Inc.
> Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,sci.skeptic,alt.christnet
>
>
<stuff trimmed>
> My grevious fault with Andrew Macrae's Hollywoodesque home page
> is that he has been playing games -- perhaps through ignorance, since
> he is only a grad student -- with his weird and totally off-the-wall
> explanation of the miniscule ``circles" -- the Haversian canals --
> visible in my specimens.
>
>
> <END CONRAD QUOTE>


Yes, and he's been given definitive proof that Andrew was honest about
his status at least as long ago as early June.

We're still waiting for that apology: it's Day 3 since Ed was notified
by e-mail of his blatant error, and the countdown continues...

--
Paul Myers Department of Biology

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to Ed Conrad

Ed Conrad wrote:

Crosspost to sci.bio.paleontology snipped

Other issues snipped

Other issues snipped


Ed,


<BEGIN CONRAD QUOTE>

Dan Ullén <dan....@swipnet.se> wrote:

>Julia, welcome to our world. However, it's not one bit like the quarrels
>you see in this newsgroup. Please visit an ongoing excavation in your
>vicinty and you'll see that we're normal people, dedicated to our work,
>not a part of some great historical and archaeological conspiracy. Once
>again, welcome! (Oh, Ed, you're welcome too.)

>Dan Ullén
>Stockholm
>Sweden

Dan,
I agree wholeheartedly that you and many, many others around the world
are ``normal people, dedicated to our work, not a part of some great
historical and archaeological conspiracy."

My longstanding argument is NOT with you or them (except in
self-defense).

It is against the bigwigs of your profession who, for years, have been
treating you like first- and second-graders, forcing you to accept a
theory -- of man's inhuman origin -- that is totally absent of any
corroborating scientific evidence.

Yet, while sucking up every erroneous word of deceit and deception,
almost everyone out there is snarling at the presentation of an
overwhelming amount of evidence on Ted Holden's home page about
my discoveries of petrified bone, (etc.) between coal veins.

No one in the history of the world has ever discovered so many
compelling specimens to prove -- far is excess of reasonable doubt --
that creatures of substantial size had inhabited the earth while coal
was being formed (and, quite probably, even earlier).

Critics and hate-mongers insist they don't look like bone, etc. But
they're ignoring the fact that these specimens -- if they ARE bone
(etc.), which indeed they are -- cannot possibly be expected to look
exactly like non-petrified bones found on the skeleton hanging in your
doctor's office.

The bottom, BOTTOM line in this entire argument is whether the cell
structure of bone is visible under microscopic scrutiny (but only with
the knowledge that the petrification process leaves only the Haversian
canals as the proof, since the surrounding structure of the complete
Haversian systems had vanished with time).

My grevious fault with Andrew Macrae's Hollywoodesque home page
is that he has been playing games -- perhaps through ignorance, since
he is only a grad student -- with his weird and totally off-the-wall
explanation of the miniscule ``circles" -- the Haversian canals --
visible in my specimens.

All of his explanations in that regard are wrong (and I'm pretty sure
he knows it.).

Meanwhile, the fact that large land animals -- and even man, in almost
our present form -- existed during the Carboniferous, a minimum of 280
million years ago -- is neither flight of fantasy nor pipe dream.

It's high time some of the honest men and women out there finally
come to their senses and weighed the situation objectively, honestly
and courageously.

I am truly confident this eventually will happen because so much
scientific evidence simply cannot be denied.

<END CONRAD QUOTE>


--
Mitchell Coffey

********************************************
I read a book on cognative dissonance once,
but it only proved my point.

Jamie Schrumpf

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <myers-ya02338000...@cronkite.temple.edu>,
my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu says...

>
>In article <32d1060c...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed
>Conrad) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 21:02:10 -0800, "henry l. barwood"

>><hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Ed Conrad wrote:
>>>
>>>> Boy, are you a dreamer!
>>>> I am referring to your sarcastic comment: ``Conrad is certainly taking

>>>> advantage of an empty field to try and score points!"
>>>>
>>>Since Andrew clearly announced that he would be absent from t.o., what
>>>would you call your comments? You, Holden, and Karl Crawford seem quite
>>>adept at the old weave, bob, duck and skip town when asked to answer
>>>questions point blank.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>I don't see where Andrew MacRae's recent departure has anything
>>to do with it.
>>
>>After all, I didn't wait for Andrew to leave to inform him he had
>>reached an incorrect conclusion in ``officially'' declaring that
>>neither of my two specimens that he had examined microscopically
>>are petrified bone.
>>
>>Meanwhile, I informed Andrew WHY he was wrong but, undoubtedly,
>>he turned a deaf ear when I tried to explain that the surrounding
>>structure of bone vanishes due to the petrification process.
>
>I think that's nineteen.
>
>>
>>Therefore, only the Haversian canals -- clearly visible at
>>http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/c2.jpg
>>-- can be seen in my specimens of petrified bone found between coal
>>veins.
>>
>>Meanwhile, I strongly suspect that Andrew did not leave the scene
>>by his own choice. I am convinced he had been relishing in his own
>>glory too much to give it up voluntarily.
>
>What? Ummm...what could you possibly fantasizing about here?
>Who do you think could have possibly pried him away from his computer,
>and why would anyone have done such a thing?
>
>>
>>I distinctly remember how full of glee he was after proclaiming -- not
>>once but twice -- that my specimens which he examined microscopically
>>were nothing more than rocks and/or concretions. And I wanted to puke
>>when personal congratulations kept rolling in from people like you
>>heralding ``a job well (but dishonestly) done."
>
>I don't recall any "glee" at all...more like a straightforward, sober
>description of the work and results. Look at his web page now -- he
>was bending over backwards to be as polite as possible, and to give you
>as much benefit of the doubt as he could.
>
>>
>>As time went on, though, Andrew realized he was being seriously
>>challenged he began running scared and was never the same afterward.
>
>Wait, wait...now I think I get it. In your fantasy world, Andrew left
>this newsgroup because he was so terrified of your intellectual might?
>This is hilarious!
>
>>
>>As for Andrew's web pages, I once-upon-a-time described them as Cecil
>>B. De Milesque and they still are. They certainly look good,
>>appearance-wise, but they are laden with deceit.
>>
>>Unfortunately, the end result -- the despicable result -- is that
>>Andrew's test results of my two specimens of petrified bone failed
>>miserably because he -- either deliberately or because of his lack of
>>expertise in histology -- totally ignored pertinent facts and evidence
>>that would turn this ballgame around.
>
>They failed because you've got rocks, nothing more.
>
>>
>>This is the very thing that Thomas Alva Edison -- one of the greatest
>>scientists who ever lived -- so vehemently warned his fellow
>>scientists:
>>
>>> ``The right to search for truth
>>> implies also a duty; one must
>>> not conceal any part of what
>>> one has recognized to be true."
>
>--
>Paul Z. Myers my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
>Dept. of Biology my...@netaxs.com
>Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
>Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848

Let's talley up Ed's score real quick here.

Ed has submitted his samples to three different testers: Andrew MacRae, PhD
candidate in geology; Kurt Wise, creationist, and -- drat, I can't remember the
third, but there was another. Was is Dahl?

We all know Andrew's analysis; but the truly amazing thing is that Dr. Wise, a
prominent creationist, came to the exact same conclusion as did Andrew -- that
the "bones" were nothing more than concretions -- and how did Ed respond? He
now claims that Dr. Wise is a member of the mainstream scientific "conspiracy."

I think that this reaction speaks more about Ed's mindset than anything else:
anyone -- and I mean _anyone_ -- who does not agree with Ed is a member of the
conspiracy -- even if they are shining lights of the creationist movement.

Sad. Ed, why don't you read my sig file for a hint about proper scientific
behavior.

[sci.bio.paleontology removed from followups]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with [us], we resist with dislike
that which opposes us; wheras the very reverse is required by every dictate of
common sense." -- Michael Faraday


Jamie Schrumpf

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <myers-ya02338000...@netnews.netaxs.com>,
my...@netaxs.com says...

>
>In article <32D298...@grci.com>, Mitchell Coffey <mco...@grci.com> wrote:
>
><stuff trimmed>

>> My grevious fault with Andrew Macrae's Hollywoodesque home page
>> is that he has been playing games -- perhaps through ignorance, since
>> he is only a grad student -- with his weird and totally off-the-wall
>> explanation of the miniscule ``circles" -- the Haversian canals --
>> visible in my specimens.
>>
>>
>> <END CONRAD QUOTE>
>
>
>Yes, and he's been given definitive proof that Andrew was honest about
>his status at least as long ago as early June.
>
>We're still waiting for that apology: it's Day 3 since Ed was notified
>by e-mail of his blatant error, and the countdown continues...
>
>--
>Paul Myers Department of Biology

>my...@netaxs.com Temple University
>http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/ Philadelphia, PA 19122


You'll never see an apology from Ed. To do that, he'll have to admit he was
wrong about something, and he is pathologically unable to do that.

Watch as Ed proves me right.

Day three and counting...

Ed Conrad

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997, Andrew MacRae (mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca)
wrote a long and windy (hot air) response to my posting and, the way
I figure it, it's probably going to require a 14-part series to answer
it.

All I can do is try (although I fear my response might be somewhat
helter-skelter).

+++++

>: In article <32cceccc...@news.sunlink.net>,
>: Ed Conrad wrote:

>: Why did you switch providers, Ed? This is your chance


>: to set the record straight. People were speculating quite a bit
>: over the Christmas holiday.

The fact is, Andrew, Prolog (PenTelData based in Palmerton, Pa.)
had terminated my services -- unjustly and quite improperly when all
factors are taken into consideration.

Joann Norwood, Customer Service, informed me in an Email dated Nov.
27, 1996 that it had been receiving ``multiple complaints from users
of our service . . . from sci.groups . . . of harassment. Please
review the FAQs before posting . . .
``Any further complaints will result in the immediate termination of
your service. Please contact this office if you have any questions."
____

I phoned Ms. Barwood twice, on two different days, but both times
was told she was out of the office.

I left a message for her to return my call the first time, which she
failed to do. The following day I was told she wouldn't be in until 1
p.m. so I left another message, stressing that my phone call was
urgent and stressing the importance that she return the call
immediately upon receiving the message. She never did.

I simply wanted to explain that the sci.groupers were ganging up on me
-- as indeed they have been, and still are. But, most importantly, I
wanted to point out that if Prolog were to check the dates of postings
by various individuals, it would quickly learn that the very people
who were complaining about being harassed actually had been
responsible in a large way for institigating it.

Ms. Barwood never had the courtesy to return either call, sos I never
got a chance to explain anything to her.

Lo and behold, two weeks went by and I received a snail-mail letter
from Prlog, dated Dec. 13, 1996, in which Ms. Barwood wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Termination of Account #007790
User Name: Ed Conrad

Dear Mr. Conrad:

This is to advise you that your above referenced account has been
terminanted for the following reasons:
Usernet abuse;
Harassment;
Flame bait;
Multiple complaints have been received.

Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding this
matter.
_______

I phoned Prolog's office and asked for Ms. Barwood but this time was
asked who wanted to speak to her. Only then was I told she wasn't in.

I called back and once again had to say who was calling, then was told
once again that she wasn't available.

I wanted to inform Ms. Barwood that Prolog was playing the role of
both judge and jury in this matter. It had terminated my account
without even giving me an opportunity to defend myself, to giver my
side of the story.

I also wanted to ask her why the Email warning had mentioned
harassment but that the letter informing me of the termination of my
account suddenly accused me of ``Usenet abuse" and ``Flame bait."

I believe Prolog is out of line and presently am seriously pursuing
legal action against PenTelData for violating my First Amendment
rights of free speech.

It is not that Prolog, or any other server, can terminate a client's
services but it must be done according to defined procedures of
operation -- some rules of law -- which unfortunately apparently are
still unclear and rather vague on the Internet.

Common courtesy by Prolog, in Ms. Barwood's warning letter via Email,
would've been to mention all of these alleged ``abuses." This
certainly was NOT the case.

By outrageously terminating my account, Prolog failed to operate above
board in its dealing with a loyal, bill-paying client who apparently
caused it no problems in the first year or so, since it never had any
cause to issue any previous warnings .

It sort of reminded me of the sad, deplorable state of affairs
involving the publishing fiasco pitting the incredibly powerful
scientific establishment against Immaneul Velikovsky in 1950.

Even before Velikovsky's stirring, sensational book, ``Worlds in
Collision," was published, academicians and scientists -- denizens of
today's ``sci.groups" -- threatened the MacMillan publishing house
that it would exercise its forceful influence to assure that colleges
and universities across the country would refuse to purchase its
scientific textbooks if it didn't (1) cancel its plans to publish the
book, or (2) rid itself of the title if the presses had begun rolling.

Gutless MacMillan bowed to the intimidation and, even though ``Worlds
in Collision" was greeted with wide acclaim and meteorically rose to
No. 1 on the New York Times' Best Seller List, it transferred the
publishing rights, free of charge, to rival publisher Doubleday (not
a publisher of scientific textbooks).
.
~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> The followings will be a permanent fixture
>>> at the tail end of all 14 parts of this series
>>> of responses to Andrew MacRae's tearjerker:

>: Andrew MacRae's get-tough final paragraph:
_
>: I now expect some sort of public acknowledgement
>: that you have erred. I know an apology is too much
>: to ask for, but your usual tactic of slinking away and
>: hoping people forget about your insults is not acceptable in
>: this instance. The error is too obvious and the accusations


>: too serious. Please defend your accusations or withdraw
>: them, preferably before another month has expired.

=======
Andrew:
You do not deserve an apology and definitely will not get
one.
You are no better than the rest of the pathetic crew of pseudo
scientists I have had to deal with over these past 15-16 years,
the majority totally defiant of the advice about honest scientific
investigation offered so eloquently by good ol' Thomas Alva Edison:

>> ``The right to search for the truth


>> implies also a duty; one must not
>> conceal any part of what one has
>> recognized to be true."

My two specimens, which you had examined and tested in your
laboratory, are indeed petrified bone.

=====

Meanwhile, I once again remind you of the editorial in The
Princetonian in February 1964, responding to the deplorable tactics
that had been employed by the academia in opposition to Velikovsky's
eye-opening masterpiece, ``Worlds in Collision":

>> ``What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear . . .
>> is that the theories of science may be held not only
>> for the truth they embody, but because of the vested
>> interests they represent for those who hold them."


henry l. barwood

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

Ed Conrad wrote:

Snip.

Back in January 1984, I sent one specimen to Yerkes Regional
> Primate Research Center located at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.
> The following is the complete text of that letter (return address
> removed):
>
> Dear Mr. Conrad:
> Thank you for your letter of January 10 and the information I
> requested concerning the fossilized bone fragment sent to us for
> identification.
> The information on location indicates that the bone fragment is not
> from a nonhuman primate species: the only nonhuman primates ever found
> in the United States became extinct about 20 million years agio, and
> all of these primates were far too small to possess a bone that might
> incorporate your fragment.
> It is possible, however, that the bone fragment could be human in
> nature, but its structure tends to rule this out.
> Its cross-section and size are possibly those of a longbone (humerus,
> radius, ulna, femur, tibia or fibula). but in none of these bones is
> there such a rapid reduction in cross-sectional area as occurs in your
> specimen (see figure).
> In conclusion, I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that
> the fragment is primate material.
> If you wish to pursue its identification, I suggest you send it to the
> Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural
> History, Central Park West and 79th Street, New York, NY 10024.
> Good luck with additional enquiries.
> Sincerely,
> Jeremy F. Dahl, Ph.D
> Affiliate Scientist and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology
>
> cc: Dr. F. A. King, Director
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For your information, Andrew, Jeremy Dahl mentions that the specimen
> he had examined is INDEED bone on three separate occasions
> in his letter.

Yes, he does because that is what Conrad called it, not because he
believed it was bone. Note that Dr. Dahl gave Conrad the brush-off and
refered him to a paleontologist at the AMNH. Conrad has asserted that
Dahl prepared thin sections and performed microscopic examination of his
samples. Note that nowhere in this letter is any such examination
mentioned (prepare yourself for the usual Conrad rant about conspiracies
and there is evidence "they" cut/scraped/altered my sample)


> For him to deny that he said so would be an outright and outrageous
> lie.


Dr. Dahl denied that they examined your spcimen in more than a cursory
way, as you had claimed. He also stated (as best he could remember) that
you misrepresented your rock as being of pleistocene age and coming from
somewhere in Canada. Your delusions are overwhelming!


> What I think may have happened is that Dahl might well have been
> asked, ``when contacted by another party,'' if he felt the specimen
> he examined was human, hominid or even primate material.


Wrong! I'm the "other party" (CONSPIRACY, CONSPIRACY!!!) and I asked him
if I could examine the thin sections YOU claimed he had prepared. Guess
what, there were no thin sections. They blew you off as a nut-case.
Little did they know that years later it would return to haunt them!


> To that question, he rightly would have answered in the negative.
> However, we are not asking THAT question. We are asking if he
> determined that the rock-like specimen he had examined and tested
> is bone.


I have a suggestion, Conrad. Why don't YOU contact Dr. Dahl and ask him
to post a clarification to the web? This would be better than such
speculation as to what he meant. Just post his response here for all to
see!

> To that, Jeremy Dahl had given a resounding YES (based on the fact
> that he said so several different times in the letter).

No, he referred to your sample in the manner you had referred to it, as
bone. Since no tests were performed, no judgement as to bone/not bone
could be made, could they?

> Any subsequent denial by Dahl that he identified the specimen as bone
> just doesn't hold water.

Just as any assertions by you have no basis in fact either? Have you
considered that, in past posts, you have used Dr. Dahl as support for
your contention that your rocks are bone and now you are calling him a
conspiratorial liar?

Rest deleted

Henry Barwood

Kenneth Fair

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


I've been following this Ed Conrad/Andrew MacRae controversy on and off for
some time now and thought I'd add my two cents. I'll start off by saying
I have no ax to grind here, as I don't know either of the participants.
I'll also comment that although there is some scientific training in my
background, I have no connection to the scientific community since I'm
attending law school.


In article <32d33454...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed
Conrad) wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jan 1997, Andrew MacRae (mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca)
>wrote a long and windy (hot air) response to my posting and, the way
>I figure it, it's probably going to require a 14-part series to answer
>it.

Starting off with insults isn't the best way to endear your readers to
your position, Ed. You might consider toning down your responses a
bit in the future.


>All I can do is try (although I fear my response might be somewhat
>helter-skelter).
>
> +++++
>
>>: In article <32cceccc...@news.sunlink.net>,
>>: Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>>: Why did you switch providers, Ed? This is your chance
>>: to set the record straight. People were speculating quite a bit
>>: over the Christmas holiday.
>
>The fact is, Andrew, Prolog (PenTelData based in Palmerton, Pa.)
>had terminated my services -- unjustly and quite improperly when all
>factors are taken into consideration.
>
>Joann Norwood, Customer Service, informed me in an Email dated Nov.
>27, 1996 that it had been receiving ``multiple complaints from users
>of our service . . . from sci.groups . . . of harassment. Please
>review the FAQs before posting . . .
>``Any further complaints will result in the immediate termination of
>your service. Please contact this office if you have any questions."
> ____

I notice you state here "Joann Norwood" . . .


>I phoned Ms. Barwood twice, on two different days, but both times
>was told she was out of the office.

. . . but then you call her "Ms. Barwood." Hmmmmm.


>I left a message for her to return my call the first time, which she
>failed to do. The following day I was told she wouldn't be in until 1
>p.m. so I left another message, stressing that my phone call was
>urgent and stressing the importance that she return the call
>immediately upon receiving the message. She never did.
>
>I simply wanted to explain that the sci.groupers were ganging up on me
>-- as indeed they have been, and still are. But, most importantly, I
>wanted to point out that if Prolog were to check the dates of postings
>by various individuals, it would quickly learn that the very people
>who were complaining about being harassed actually had been
>responsible in a large way for institigating it.

I'm always a bit leery of believing someone, especially on USENET, who
claims they are being "ganged up on." It usually indicates incipient
paranoia or at least that the person has been making enough of an ass
of themself to anger a whole *bunch* of people. It almost always
indicates that USENET is being taken too seriously.

Mr. Conrad probably should have been given an opportunity to explain
himself before termination, whether or not it was part of the
contractual terms of his service agreement.


>I also wanted to ask her why the Email warning had mentioned
>harassment but that the letter informing me of the termination of my
>account suddenly accused me of ``Usenet abuse" and ``Flame bait."
>
>I believe Prolog is out of line and presently am seriously pursuing
>legal action against PenTelData for violating my First Amendment
>rights of free speech.
>
>It is not that Prolog, or any other server, can terminate a client's
>services but it must be done according to defined procedures of
>operation -- some rules of law -- which unfortunately apparently are
>still unclear and rather vague on the Internet.

Mr. Conrad, feel free to pursue such a suit--as a lawyer-to-be, I'd
like to see some better definition of legal rights on the Internet.
(Not to mention having some business when I get out of law school. :-))
However, if I were Mr. Conrad's lawyer, which I'm not, I'd advise him
against pursuing this in court. His contract with Prolog is limited
to the terms of that contract, which were probably spelled out in an
"Acceptable Use Policy" or "Terms of Service" document of some sort.
As the Internet is not a public place, but is an amalgamation of private
interests, it would be hard to claim that his First Amendment rights
have been violated, especially since he seems to have been able to get
service from another provider without too much trouble. If Prolog
violated the terms of its contract with him, he could sue them for
breach of contract, but that's about it. Those *are* the "defined
procedures of operation" that adhere to his agreement with Prolog.

And this is to say nothing about the time and expense of such litigation.


>Common courtesy by Prolog, in Ms. Barwood's warning letter via Email,
>would've been to mention all of these alleged ``abuses." This
>certainly was NOT the case.

Agreed.


>By outrageously terminating my account, Prolog failed to operate above
>board in its dealing with a loyal, bill-paying client who apparently
>caused it no problems in the first year or so, since it never had any
>cause to issue any previous warnings .

Careful here. Although Prolog may have an implied guarantee of good faith
and fair dealing with respect to Mr. Conrad's contractual arrangements
(depending on the state law governing the contract), Mr. Conrad may have
the same requirement as well. A court might well find that Mr. Conrad
breached his end of the bargain through his actions on USENET. (I can't
say whether it would or wouldn't without seeing the evidence myself.)


>It sort of reminded me of the sad, deplorable state of affairs
>involving the publishing fiasco pitting the incredibly powerful
>scientific establishment against Immaneul Velikovsky in 1950.

Self-martyrdom works only if one does it with humility. If one tries to
claim that "all hands are turned against him," one is fairly likely to
be disbelieved. It's much the same as throwing a bridal shower for
oneself; it's a pretty tacky gesture. Let others throw the shower
and rail against the persecuters.


>Even before Velikovsky's stirring, sensational book, ``Worlds in
>Collision," was published, academicians and scientists -- denizens of
>today's ``sci.groups" -- threatened the MacMillan publishing house
>that it would exercise its forceful influence to assure that colleges
>and universities across the country would refuse to purchase its
>scientific textbooks if it didn't (1) cancel its plans to publish the
>book, or (2) rid itself of the title if the presses had begun rolling.

I find this very hard to believe. Publishers publish all sorts of
books all the time, including many things that the scientific or
academic communities might consider to be crap. Look at the flap
over "The Bell Curve." I'd hazard a guess it was considerably more
controversial than anything Velikovsky wrote, but I don't remember
a huge outcry for the publishers to stop the presses.


>Gutless MacMillan bowed to the intimidation and, even though ``Worlds
>in Collision" was greeted with wide acclaim and meteorically rose to
>No. 1 on the New York Times' Best Seller List, it transferred the
>publishing rights, free of charge, to rival publisher Doubleday (not
>a publisher of scientific textbooks).

If this is a true statement, which I don't know one way or the other,
it might be that they transferred the rights in exchange for rights
to other books. Publishers trade publishing rights back and forth
all the time.

I sincerely suspect that this quote has been taken out of context.

In any event, I don't see why Mr. Conrad feels so put upon by the
scientific community. If one's scientific views are not accepted by
the majority, there are two possibilities; the first, that the views
are correct, and just need to be better explained, or second, that the
views are incorrect and need to be revised to take into account the
evidence presented by reality. In my experience, the second is usually
the more common, although the first does sometimes occur.


>My two specimens, which you had examined and tested in your
>laboratory, are indeed petrified bone.

As far as I can tell, this is Mr. Conrad's theory only. I remember
Mr. MacRae's initial post about the observations he conducted on the
samples provided by Mr. Conrad. Mr. MacRae, if I remember correctly,
volunteered his time and no small expense to slice thin segments of
the Mr. Conrad's samples. He described the procedure he used and the
observations he made in language that even I, a non-geologist, could
follow. Although Mr. MacRae admitted that he was skeptical of Mr.
Conrad's claims, he agreed to perform the experiment with an open
mind. Throughout his observations, Mr. MacRae did his best to give
Mr. Conrad's claims the benefit of the doubt and to interpret the
data in the best light for Mr. Conrad. However, he still came to
the conclusion that the samples provided by Mr. Conrad were not the
petrified bone he claimed them to be, but rock concretions. Mr.
MacRae then placed the results with pictures on his Web site for
all to examine. This seems to me to have been proper scientific
methodology throughout.


>Meanwhile, I once again remind you of the editorial in The
>Princetonian in February 1964, responding to the deplorable tactics
>that had been employed by the academia in opposition to Velikovsky's
>eye-opening masterpiece, ``Worlds in Collision":
>
>>> ``What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear . . .
>>> is that the theories of science may be held not only
>>> for the truth they embody, but because of the vested
>>> interests they represent for those who hold them."

I'm really not sure what this has to do with Mr. Conrad's situation,
or his disagreement with Mr. MacRae. Very little, I suspect.


In any event, there's my take on this disagreement as viewed from the
outside. It seems to me that Mr. Conrad does owe Mr. MacRae two
apologies, one for claiming that Mr. MacRae had misrepresented his
academic status, and another for claiming that Mr. MacRae did not
fairly consider his claims or his sample.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMtPpk5cMVxc4tG8xAQER7AQApgYekDHANSeSju+pwfSS/wp8aeZBQV2r
OoF9ZbPqFsTINYJtZ9UzfOkf0PSybWbaONzJ1KDAneHsMuK0IfxB4BCRPtFzYsLh
Va9Wx9YPOSNK6rHiSDVK7KUsXqFEJDAsZzbZUhc7s9c9kS2okCGkyhH27Ej/meIO
dDjyKTLnC7A=
=twTO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Isaac Asimov

henry l. barwood

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

Ed Conrad wrote:

In response to Andrew Macrae's inquiriy about Conrad's switching net
providers:


> Joann Norwood, Customer Service, informed me in an Email dated Nov.
> 27, 1996 that it had been receiving ``multiple complaints from users
> of our service . . . from sci.groups . . . of harassment. Please
> review the FAQs before posting . . .
> ``Any further complaints will result in the immediate termination of
> your service. Please contact this office if you have any questions." ____

Note that the correspondent is Joann NORWOOD. Now see who Conrad says he
talked with:



> I phoned Ms. Barwood twice,

> Ms. Barwood never had the courtesy

> Ms. Barwood wrote:

> I phoned Prolog's office and asked for Ms. Barwood

> I wanted to inform Ms. Barwood

Remainder snipped, since is a mindless rant about Velikovsky. Obviously
Conrad has a problem with me and this is called a Freudian slip! There
are only 26 Barwoods in the U.S. and none of them (as far as I know) work
for Prolog.

It is obvious that I need to start checking my mail for letter bombs and
other explosive devices. Somebody please contact Social Services in
Shennandoah, PA and ask them to have the mental health unit give Conrad a
visit, Please!

Henry Barwood

Ed Conrad

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 10:21:08 -0600, mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca wrote:

Ed Conrad wrote:

>>By insisting they are NOT petrified bone, you are not only challenging
>>but also belittling the expertise and integrity of Jeremy Dahl, a bone
>>expert at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, who -- in writing
>>and bearing his signature -- stated that one of my specimens he had
>>examined IS petrified bone.
>

MacRae's response:

>I do not really care what Dahl *says*, I care about the
>data he looked at and his reasoning, which you have never provided
>in detail. I am not belittling Dahl anyway.

>Your letter from Dahl was far less than a glowing
>endorsement, and was simply quoting your identification in order to
>refer to your specimens, in the same way that I refer to your
>specimens as "Carboniferous human bones" all the time.

>I suppose if I forgot the quotes, you would be saying I endorsed
> your claims too.

>When contacted by another party, Dahl apparently did not
>support your claims. Other endorsements are either from people
>now deceased (i.e. unverifiable) or you have not specified them
>well enough for people to try to contact them and find out
>their opinion first hand.

>Endorsements are not what matters to the evaluation anyway. The
>issue is the data you have in your possession and which
>other people have observed on your WWW site and my evaluation site
>for themselves.

> Maybe if I could talk to Dahl first-hand, instead
>of second-hand, his statements could influence my opinion. Do you
>have his phone number or address handy? E-mail it to me if you do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew:
You have a short memory. Back on April 19, 1996, I posted the
following to talk.origins and other petinent news groups:
-----
Do I have AT LEAST one specimen of petrified bone discovered
between anthracite veins in the Carboniferous-dated strata of
Pennsylvania?
THAT is the question.

For him to deny that he said so would be an outright and outrageous
lie.

What I think may have happened is that Dahl might well have been


asked, ``when contacted by another party,'' if he felt the specimen
he examined was human, hominid or even primate material.

To that question, he rightly would have answered in the negative.


However, we are not asking THAT question. We are asking if he
determined that the rock-like specimen he had examined and tested
is bone.

To that, Jeremy Dahl had given a resounding YES (based on the fact


that he said so several different times in the letter).

Any subsequent denial by Dahl that he identified the specimen as bone


just doesn't hold water.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In any event, Andrew, Jeremy Dahl's mailing address is:
The Woodruff Medical Center


Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center

Emory University
Atlanta. Ga. 30322
(You'll have to get Directory Assistance to fish out the phone
number.)

~~~~~~~~
>>> The following will be a permanent fixture


>>> at the tail end of all 14 parts of this series
>>> of responses to Andrew MacRae's tearjerker:

+
>>> ANDREW MacRAE's GET-TOUGH PARAGRAPH

>I now expect some sort of public acknowledgement

>that you have erred. I know an apology is too much
> to ask for, but your usual tactic of slinking away and
>hoping people forget about your insults is not acceptable in
>this instance. The error is too obvious and the accusations


>too serious. Please defend your accusations or withdraw
>them, preferably before another month has expired.

=======


Andrew:
You do not deserve an apology and definitely will not get
one.
You are no better than the rest of the pathetic crew of pseudo
scientists I have had to deal with over these past 15-16 years,
the majority totally defiant of the advice about honest scientific
investigation offered so eloquently by good ol' Thomas Alva Edison:

>> ``The right to search for the truth
>> implies also a duty; one must not
>> conceal any part of what one has
>> recognized to be true."

My two specimens, which you had examined and tested in your
laboratory, are indeed petrified bone. Nothing you can EVER say
or do will turn them into rocks or concretions.

=====

Meanwhile, I once again remind you of the editorial in The
Princetonian in February 1964, responding to the deplorable tactics
that had been employed by the academia in opposition to Velikovsky's
eye-opening masterpiece, ``Worlds in Collision":

>> ``What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear . . .
>> is that the theories of science may be held not only
>> for the truth they embody, but because of the vested
>> interests they represent for those who hold them."

________

> Ed Conrad (edco...@sunlink.net)
> Home page (actually Ted Holden's):
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
> and
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/contest1.htm

> Disclaimer: I, Ed Conrad, am solely responsible for any statements
> that I make which for some strange reason always seem to ruffle
> a lot of scientific feathers.


Jim Foley

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <5aurlm$a...@news4.digex.net>,
Jamie Schrumpf <ja...@dcd00745.slip.digex.net> wrote:

>Ed has submitted his samples to three different testers: Andrew MacRae, PhD
>candidate in geology; Kurt Wise, creationist, and -- drat, I can't remember the
>third, but there was another. Was is Dahl?

Don't forget Alan Walker:

Some 14 years ago I had written to Dr. Allan Walker of John Hopkins
University after becoming aware of his so-called ``expertise" in
identifying prehistoric teeth, especially of hominids discovered in
Africa.

Walker is a world expert in hominid fossils, but of course to Ed, he's
just a "so-called" expert.

No doubt about it; Ed is shaping up to be a world-class loon.

--
Jim (Chris) Foley, jim....@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest:
Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)

Michael D. Painter

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to


Ed Conrad <edco...@sunlink.net> wrote in article
<32d33454...@news.sunlink.net>...
>
< The world picking on Mr. Ed snipped>

There's a name for the behavior exhibited by Mr. Ed, medicine sometimes
helps, but there are bad side effects.

When are you going to tell us of your education Mr. Ed?

Alan Barclay

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <32d347e8...@news.sunlink.net>,
Ed Conrad <edco...@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>On Tues., Jan. 7, 1997, Andrew MacRae (mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca)
>wrote to talk.origins in response to Ed Conrad's posting entitled,

Yes, he did. I've already read this reponse in that group, why did you
reply to 3 different groups?

When you reply to someone's message on Usenet, you should only reply ONCE,
and post that message to those groups which the message is appropriate.

This behaviour is something which I would not allow on any of the systems
I administer, and it looks like Prolog don't tolerate it either. Good for
them. I expect that sunlink will soon been reviewing if they want their
reputation tainted with your acts.


Jamie Schrumpf

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <32d39c88...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net says...

>
>
>Andrew:
>You have a short memory. Back on April 19, 1996, I posted the
>following to talk.origins and other petinent news groups:
> -----
> Do I have AT LEAST one specimen of petrified bone discovered
>between anthracite veins in the Carboniferous-dated strata of
>Pennsylvania?
> THAT is the question.
> Back in January 1984, I sent one specimen to Yerkes Regional
>Primate Research Center located at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.
> The following is the complete text of that letter (return address
>removed):
>
>Dear Mr. Conrad:
>Thank you for your letter of January 10 and the information I
>requested concerning the fossilized bone fragment sent to us for
>identification.
>The information on location indicates that the bone fragment is not
>from a nonhuman primate species: the only nonhuman primates ever found
>in the United States became extinct about 20 million years agio, and
>all of these primates were far too small to possess a bone that might
>incorporate your fragment.
>It is possible, however, that the bone fragment could be human in
>nature, but its structure tends to rule this out.
>Its cross-section and size are possibly those of a longbone (humerus,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ed, where exactly in Dahl's letter does it say that he did _any_ kind of
testing on the order of Andrew's thin sections? The only reference Dahl makes
to the physical nature of your sample is where he says "its cross-section and
size are possibly those of a longbone."

He makes no reference to any testing at all; if anything, one can only infer
that he took _your_ identification at face value and said, "Well, it might be a
longbone from the looks of it."

This is hardly a ringing endorsement, Ed.

Ed, repeat after us: Andrew is not on Usenet anymore. He cannot read what you
are saying.

And no one has to say a word to turn your samples into concretions; Andrew's
thin section pictures prove that in beautiful silence.

>
> =====
>
>Meanwhile, I once again remind you of the editorial in The
>Princetonian in February 1964, responding to the deplorable tactics
>that had been employed by the academia in opposition to Velikovsky's
>eye-opening masterpiece, ``Worlds in Collision":
>
>>> ``What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear . . .
>>> is that the theories of science may be held not only
>>> for the truth they embody, but because of the vested
>>> interests they represent for those who hold them."
> ________
>
>> Ed Conrad (edco...@sunlink.net)
>> Home page (actually Ted Holden's):
>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>> and
>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/contest1.htm
>
>> Disclaimer: I, Ed Conrad, am solely responsible for any statements
>> that I make which for some strange reason always seem to ruffle
>> a lot of scientific feathers.

Then take some responsibility for what you've said and apologize to Andrew _in
absentia_ for saying that he misrepresented himself as a professor, when you've
been emailed YOUR OWN POST of Dec. 17 where you demonstrate that you knew very
well he was a grad student.

Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <32d33454...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed
Conrad) wrote:

Is it Barwood or Norwood? I think your animosity to another fellow here
on TO is showing...

>
> I left a message for her to return my call the first time, which she
> failed to do. The following day I was told she wouldn't be in until 1
> p.m. so I left another message, stressing that my phone call was
> urgent and stressing the importance that she return the call
> immediately upon receiving the message. She never did.
>
> I simply wanted to explain that the sci.groupers were ganging up on me
> -- as indeed they have been, and still are. But, most importantly, I
> wanted to point out that if Prolog were to check the dates of postings
> by various individuals, it would quickly learn that the very people
> who were complaining about being harassed actually had been
> responsible in a large way for institigating it.

This is ridiculous, Ed. You posted completely off-topic messages about
pyramids & coal mines & columbus & carboniferous bones & whatever struck
your fancy to various sci. newsgroups, and also did bizarre things like
respond to serious requests for help with fossil thefts with accusations
that the scientists involved had done it. NOBODY asked you to post these
things, and most of the participants in those newsgroups were totally
baffled by the sudden appearance of this irrelevant loon. How can you
possibly claim that the complainers instigated your participation?


<sob story about Prolog terminating his account deleted>

I'll confess--I was one of the people who submitted complaints to
Prolog. Because I had posted a few messages on various sci. newsgroups
asking everyone to restrain themselves from replying to Conrad,
I got a few dozen messages from various people who were outraged
at some of his comments. Rather than filling up these newsgroups with
more pointless replies to Conrad, they sent their complaints to me.

Basically, all I did was forward Ed Conrad's very own messages straight
back to the postmaster at Prolog. I never requested that Ed get
kicked off his account, but I did ask them to set him straight on
posting rules and net etiquette. Just before he was actually thrown
off the net, though, I forwarded his unfounded insinuation that
several scientists were guilty of fossil theft; this was accompanied
by the names of half a dozen readers of several sci. newsgroups who
had also sent me their expressions of disgust at this latest low
mark in Ed's behavior. I presume this was the final insult that finally
convinced Prolog that Ed was a major liability.

By that time, Ed probably had a long history of complaints against him.
I had forwarded several, I know of several others who had made
complaints, and I'm sure that a large number of other people had also
inundated Prolog with e-mail without letting anyone know. I'd be
curious to know how big the Ed Conrad complaint file at Prolog was:
I suspect it was huge, and that's probably why they didn't feel much
incentive to talk with Ed before terminating his contract.

>
<typical comparison with that other "martyr", Velikovsky, deleted>

> .
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> The followings will be a permanent fixture
> >>> at the tail end of all 14 parts of this series
> >>> of responses to Andrew MacRae's tearjerker:
>
> >: Andrew MacRae's get-tough final paragraph:
> _
> >: I now expect some sort of public acknowledgement
> >: that you have erred. I know an apology is too much
> >: to ask for, but your usual tactic of slinking away and
> >: hoping people forget about your insults is not acceptable in
> >: this instance. The error is too obvious and the accusations
> >: too serious. Please defend your accusations or withdraw
> >: them, preferably before another month has expired.
>
> =======
> Andrew:
> You do not deserve an apology and definitely will not get
> one.

I guess I expected that. May I mention that you promised a
public apology for one specific insinuation, that Andrew had misled
you about his status at the University of Calgary? You've had the
proof for 4 days now that he had explicitly stated that he was a
student way back in June. He certainly deserves an apology for that
misstatement, error, or lie on your part.

> You are no better than the rest of the pathetic crew of pseudo
> scientists I have had to deal with over these past 15-16 years,
> the majority totally defiant of the advice about honest scientific
> investigation offered so eloquently by good ol' Thomas Alva Edison:
>
> >> ``The right to search for the truth
> >> implies also a duty; one must not
> >> conceal any part of what one has
> >> recognized to be true."
>
> My two specimens, which you had examined and tested in your
> laboratory, are indeed petrified bone.

They failed all the tests for bone, which was the entire point of
Andrew's examination. He followed the precept you quoted above, and
honestly reported the truth of his tests. It seems to me that you are
the one who is ignoring all the facts to cling to an unfounded falsehood.

Stephen Watson

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <32d33454...@news.sunlink.net>,

Ed Conrad <edco...@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 07 Jan 1997, Andrew MacRae (mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca)
>wrote a long and windy (hot air) response to my posting and, the way
>I figure it, it's probably going to require a 14-part series to answer
>it.

Coming from Ed, that sounds like a threat ;-).

>All I can do is try (although I fear my response might be somewhat
>helter-skelter).

>>: In article <32cceccc...@news.sunlink.net>,


>>: Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>>: Why did you switch providers, Ed? This is your chance
>>: to set the record straight. People were speculating quite a bit
>>: over the Christmas holiday.
>
>The fact is, Andrew, Prolog (PenTelData based in Palmerton, Pa.)
>had terminated my services -- unjustly and quite improperly when all
>factors are taken into consideration.
>
>Joann Norwood, Customer Service, informed me in an Email dated Nov.
>27, 1996 that it had been receiving ``multiple complaints from users
>of our service . . . from sci.groups . . . of harassment. Please
>review the FAQs before posting . . .

Well justified complaints, I am sure, since you insisted on spamming
your crap all over sci.*, despite repeated attempts by t.o people to
keep it here.

>``Any further complaints will result in the immediate termination of
>your service. Please contact this office if you have any questions."
> ____
>
>I phoned Ms. Barwood twice, on two different days, but both times
>was told she was out of the office.

Is that "Norwood" or "Barwood"? Is that just a typo, or are you
trying to imply some sort of conspiratorial connection with t.o's
Henry B.?

[stuff about termination warnings from ISP, phone tag with
Ms. Nor/Barwood, deleted]

You know, on reading that story I would be prepared to believe that
Prolog had behaved in an unfair, unilateral, and bureaucratic manner
-- yes, a user should have the right to reply to charges made against
them before having access terminated. Unfortunately, Ed, you've got
such a history here of managing to misinterpret *everything* that
happens so it comes out in your favour, that your credibility is just
about zilch. In short, it just sounds like another Conspiracy Against
Ed Conrad.

[Whining about shoddy treatment of the Late Great V-Man, deleted]

> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> The followings will be a permanent fixture
>>>> at the tail end of all 14 parts of this series
>>>> of responses to Andrew MacRae's tearjerker:

Good, Ed. Andrew's complaint is spot-on, deserves to be repeated, and
I'm very happy that you will be including his indictment of your
behaviour.

>>: Andrew MacRae's get-tough final paragraph:
>_
>>: I now expect some sort of public acknowledgement
>>: that you have erred. I know an apology is too much
>>: to ask for, but your usual tactic of slinking away and
>>: hoping people forget about your insults is not acceptable in
>>: this instance. The error is too obvious and the accusations
>>: too serious. Please defend your accusations or withdraw
>>: them, preferably before another month has expired.

>Andrew:
>You do not deserve an apology and definitely will not get
>one.

Ed, do you withdraw your accusation that Andrew deceived you about his
status at the U of Alberta? Please note, everyone else here seems to
have known he was a student (I've known ever since Andrew first showed
up, about 4 years back), and he said so explicitly in a previous post
which he included in his latest post -- but *you deleted* that part!
In which episode of your 14-part series do you plan to address it?

BTW, before you accuse me of being part of the Evil Scientific
Establishment, let me make clear: I'm a EE who hacks telephone switch
code for a living. Everything we know about evolution could be wrong,
Velikovsky could be the new Messiah, and it wouldn't make the slightest
difference to *my* professional standing, or livelihood.

--
#Steve Watson# swa...@nortel.ca #Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont. Canada #
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not BNR's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##

Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <32d39c88...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed
Conrad) wrote:

No, the entire point of your long tirade against the "scientific
establishment" is your claim that you have HUMAN bone from the
Carboniferous. A bone from the Carboniferous is rare but not
impossible; a human bone from that era is extremely unlikely.

>
> To that, Jeremy Dahl had given a resounding YES (based on the fact
> that he said so several different times in the letter).
>
> Any subsequent denial by Dahl that he identified the specimen as bone
> just doesn't hold water.

This is totally bogus, Ed. That is NOT a letter supporting your claims.
You sent him something you called a piece of human bone; he refers to it
as a "bone fragment" in his letter, simply using a convenient label
that you provided. He is being very polite in that letter--it would
have been less than polite if he had called it a "funny-shaped rock".

Pay attention to what he DOES say, though: it is not from a non-human
primate, anatomically it does not correspond to any human bone, and it
can't be from any primate at all. These are things quite a few of us
have been telling you all along. YOUR ROCKS DO NOT LOOK LIKE ANY KIND
OF HUMAN (or otherwise) BONE. Anyone with even the most rudimentary
training in anatomy could tell you that these concretions do not have
any of the diagnostic, gross anatomical features of human bone, and
your persistence in claiming that they do is a testament to your total
lack of training.

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In any event, Andrew, Jeremy Dahl's mailing address is:
> The Woodruff Medical Center
> Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center
> Emory University
> Atlanta. Ga. 30322
> (You'll have to get Directory Assistance to fish out the phone
> number.)
>
> ~~~~~~~~
> >>> The following will be a permanent fixture
> >>> at the tail end of all 14 parts of this series
> >>> of responses to Andrew MacRae's tearjerker:

<14 parts?!?? Are they all going to be as feeble and self-destructive
as this one?>

>
> > Disclaimer: I, Ed Conrad, am solely responsible for any statements
> > that I make which for some strange reason always seem to ruffle
> > a lot of scientific feathers.

Hmmm. I wonder why people might get irritated when a clueless loon like you
reacts with personal insults and invective in response to honest evidence?

henry l. barwood

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

Stephen Watson wrote:

> Ed Conrad wrote:
> Is that "Norwood" or "Barwood"? Is that just a typo, or are you
> trying to imply some sort of conspiratorial connection with t.o's
> Henry B.?


No conspiracy here. I didn't even complain! Of course, now that I know it
might do some good...

Henry Barwood

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to Jamie Schrumpf

Jamie Schrumpf wrote:

Much good sense.

I'm particularly disgusted that Corad waited for Andrew to leave the NG
before he lied about him.

Chris Heiny

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

In article <5ajjac$h...@access5.digex.net>, rm...@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>In article <32cceccc...@news.sunlink.net>,
>Ed Conrad <edco...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>>
>>I've noticed that Andrew Macrae has announced that he is packing
>>it in -- leaving talk.origins.
>>
>>I can only wonder why.
>
> Change of job, as he announced, associated with completion of his
>doctorate, also as announced.
>
>[drivel deleted]

>
>>Another thing, Andrew, I don't think you were fair in concealing
>>the fact -- in all of our dealings, pro or con, over many months --
>>that you are NOT a full-fledged professor of earth sciences at the
>>University of Calgary.
>>
>>I only learned of this when Paul Myers let the cat out of the bag by
>>mentioning that you are only a grad student, a fact that you confirmed
>>in a somewhat saracstic follow-up posting.
>
> Well, if you'd ever read Andrew's posts, you'd have know that he was a
>graduate student no later than the second thin section he prepared (last
>April?, quite some time ago) from your materials. He mentioned then that
>his budget was constrained due to being a graduate student (this in the
>context of why he didn't want to shell out for another thin section).
>You, apparently, are the only person who was involved in the thread
>who didn't know that Andrew was a graduate student at the time. (Did
>he suddenly become much brighter when they handed him his doctorate?)
>(If having doctorates matters, what was yours on?) Andrew never lied
>about the fact, nor did he hide it.

Andrew certainly didn't hide it. Long before Ed's arrival on talk.origins,
it was obvious from Andrew's posts that he was a grad-student, studying
palynology. It's possible, though, that Andrew becan concealing that
fact once Ed started posting, all as part of his devious long term plan
to discredit Ed's magnificent discovery. Fortunately, Ed is just too
smart for such a ruse to work for long. Although....

Maybe if Ed had read Andrew's web page, he might have noticed that Andrew
was still working on his doctorate. Very very few "full fledged"
professors are still working on their doctorates.

Then again, maybe Ed had Andrew confused with Bill Jefferys, who
really is a professor but artfully conceals that fact by not
mentioning it at all in his .sig. I can see where
it would be an easy for someone like Ed to make such a mistake.

However, in the interests of openness and freedom of information and
to emulate the high moral standard of honesty that Ed so forthrightly
represents, I suggest that every poster on talk.origins add a line
to their .sigs explicity telling Ed what they are not a "full fledged"
professor of at their alma mater. That way the facts will all be
right there on the table, and no-one can deceive Ed in this way again..

Chris

--
Christopher Heiny Professor of Bizarre Theories
University of Ediacara Offther-Hocking Chair of Lunar Influences
ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com

For Ed Conrad: I am >NOT< a full-fledged professor of earth
sciences at Michigan Technological University
- - - - - - - - -
"You are lying, Ted!"
Shrieked Mrs Anomalocaris,
"Liar,
liar!
LIAR!
You are a liar, Ted!
You were mating with that _nathorsti_ tramp again,
Weren't you, Ted? Liar!"
And then she threw the platter of trilobites at him.
'Song of Anomalocaris - The Soap Opera'
Season 246, Episode 118a: Edward and Agnes Divorce

Brandon M. Gorte

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

So I guess Prolog is part of the conspiracy now, too, eh? Ed?

I can easily see why they terminated you, but as Ken said, if you can
find a breach of contract, then you can sue. However, if the contract
stated that you were not to be harrassing the newsgroups, then there was
no breach of contract.

On the other hand, your continual harrassment of Andrew MacRae on groups
other than t.o may have been enough for them. Anyway, there was no
excuse to harrass him after he said he was leaving for the reasons he has
already stated. Not especially on the sci.* groups.

Here's some of what Ed has done so far:

lying
slander
impertinant posting
(I suspect) fraud (correct me if I'm wrong, or I may be guilty of slander)
misrepresentation of facts
misrepresentation of quotes and ideas

Just these would be enough for Prolog to discontinue service to you, so I
don't think that there may have been a breach of contract. But then
again, I haven't seen the contract.

There is no conspiracy.

Brandon Gorte

Michael Grice

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

edco...@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:

[snip]

Has anyone else noted the irony that the man whose only supporters are
dead and whose "bones" were found not to be bones by several
mainstream scientists and a young earth creationist is claiming that
*Andrew MacRae's* opinion lacks credibility?

Michael [I know I should shut up but I can't help myself] Grice

Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

One little, itty-bitty flaw in this whole mess of rationalizations by
Ed is this: it doesn't seem to matter. If Dr. So-and-So IS a "full-fledged"
professor, then he is either A) a corrupt member of the scientific
establishment if he disagrees with Ed, or B) a distinguished and world-
renowned authority if he agrees with Ed. If Mr. So-and-So is not an
academic, then he is either A) a hoodwinked dupe of the scientific
establishment if he disagrees with Ed, or B) an open-minded student of
truth if he agrees with Ed.

Obviously, the only relevant datum is whether So-and-So agrees or
disagrees with Ed Conrad, not his academic qualifications. Therefore,
the only degree that could possibly matter is one conferred by
Ed Conrad.

Alternatively, of course, since I really am an assistant professor
of biology, Ed ought to accept my authority without question :-)
Somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

>
> Chris
>
>--
>Christopher Heiny Professor of Bizarre Theories
>University of Ediacara Offther-Hocking Chair of Lunar Influences
>ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com
>
>For Ed Conrad: I am >NOT< a full-fledged professor of earth
> sciences at Michigan Technological University
>- - - - - - - - -
> "You are lying, Ted!"
> Shrieked Mrs Anomalocaris,
> "Liar,
> liar!
> LIAR!
> You are a liar, Ted!
> You were mating with that _nathorsti_ tramp again,
> Weren't you, Ted? Liar!"
> And then she threw the platter of trilobites at him.
> 'Song of Anomalocaris - The Soap Opera'
> Season 246, Episode 118a: Edward and Agnes Divorce

--
Paul Z. Myers my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu

Chris Heiny

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

Newsfroups restricted to talk.origins.

In article <32cf8a9b...@news.sunlink.net>, edco...@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
>It may well be that Andrew was unable to identify the cell structure
>of petrified bone in my specimens because he lacked the knowledge
>that the petrification process causes the surrounding structure of the
>Haversian systems to disappear, leaving only the Haversian canals.

Wow! Just like eating swiss cheese leaves only the holes behind!
I never new bone histology was so simple....

Brandon M. Gorte

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

Michael Grice (gib...@mailbag.com) wrote:

Now that you mention it...

Brandon Gorte (Undergrad in Geo. Eng.)

Brandon M. Gorte

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97