That reply in 102 was to a troll, not to you; a troll who had (without evidence, and in fact despite the evidence) claimed that I neither knew science, nor cared to learn it.
The links in 102 were to prior posts *of mine* on prior Shroud threads, demonstrating to any disinterested parties the efforts I went to, in refuting shoddy "debunking" of the Shroud, based on discussions *of* the science.
That, is neither "science" itself, nor should be engaged in while simultaneously pounding the table, pointing towards one's own educational bonafides, and more or less saying the "science is settled" ala' Al Gore & Hanson (formerly of NASA), with this Hanson himself being something of a prime example of a piled high and deeper crackpot, whom himself as the rest of the global warming alarmists are, is evidently entirely unwilling to carefully consider possible challenges to or flaws inherent with, his own work/conclusions.
Now that sounds like backpedalling on your part? Or did you just get too eager at first, and then realize your netiquette mistake, and you're trying to recover with some dignity?
I didn't go around bragging about my pedigree; instead, dinodino asserted without evidence that not only did I not possess a pedigree, but that I more or less wasn't even capable of it. This is a standard troll tactic, intended to goad the insecure into proclaiming themselves, thereby making themself a target for ad hominem later on.
Unfortunately, most of the GNU atheist / script kiddie skeptic trolls fail to realize, that by making such an accusation, they have then introduced credentialism into the discussion: since they are used to bullying bewildered Hobbits, so to speak, they often get overconfident, and have NO defence when someone who really is far more intelligent and informed than them goes all pirhana on their ass in return: you note that dino has not responded to the inquiry as to his *own* credentials, nor did I turn around and brag about mine.
As far as the "comments scattered here and there" -- they were not intended to be (and I explicitly stated this in post #102, so you either didn't read carefully enough, or you let your emotions get the better of you) a *proof* of the Shroud: but explicitly a reference for lurkers of the times that I did discuss the science behind the attempted debunking technically -- not relying on "well *this* article says such and such, so neener, neener, I win" as the skeptics did, but explicitly attacking the methodology of the experiments cited.
And as you posted to Swordmaker:
Meanwhile, as a seeming promoter, if you could cut away the ad hominem yourself from your own discussions here, and not be so enthusiastically supportive of that same sort of thing being engaged in by others, it too would ease the burden.
It'd be nice if the erstwhile disputants against the authenticity of the Shroud, bothered to dispense with their own (unwarranted) ad hominem as though they were Prometheus himself, suffering daily to bring the light of true scientific knowledge to the beleaguered dupes enchained in the dark dungeons of superstition. You're not on Reddit/atheism/autofellators here.
Why don't you go back and READ my links in post #102 -- if you have sufficient scientific training yourself, you'll recognize a kindred spirit...even if it hurts your pride to have to acknowledge such.
Cheers!
First, they are dead links, in that it takes some effort to make them work. You do know how to make them active, I take it. For multiples, they can be built to open in a new tab. That coding might only need be typed once, then copied and pasted to all the rest in succession. But it is work.
Sorry, I did try reading a couple, but realizing I would need to backtrack the thread to pick up the precise little tidbit being discussed, from what sources, etc., left me disinterested in pursuing it any further. I thought I just explained that already. I guess I wasn't clear enough.
That reply in 102 was to a troll, not to you; a troll who had (without evidence, and in fact despite the evidence) claimed that I neither knew science, nor cared to learn it.
Yeah, the guy did kind'a go over the edge there, overstating the case.
Now that sounds like backpedalling on your part?
In your dreams. It was in fact more the opposite. Perhaps it is some combination of my own less than stellar communication skills, and your own hastiness that led you to such an opposite understanding of my comments. You quoted the juicy part. Think about it.
As far as the "comments scattered here and there"...
Asked and answered. I tried reading it, my eyes glazed over, that and I was pointing towards that sort of thing as example of how scattered information concerning the shroud really is, despite the plethora of web pages devoted to it (in some ways because of the plethora?) with forum comments scattered over multiple threads not exactly fun digging. But it does show that you are engaged on the subject. That still doesn't keep you from growing troll-like as you "hunt" trolls.
I'll post some IOU's for ya. promise.