Replies

> you are accusing both shroudie and I of being liars.

Hey, if the shoe fits... You now have all the proof you need to determine that I'm quite aware of the principles of science. To claim otherwise emans you are either a liar or crazy. I don't much care which.

> Then there is the possibility you left out that betrays your agenda:

Blah, blah, blah. There was a *reason* I changed the "natural phenomenon" to "thing.". One is reasonably specific. The other covers more turf.

The rest of your cut-and-paste snipped, again unread. I suppose you'll use that as evidence that I'm illiterate, despite the fact I've written hundreds of published pages?

The most important thing of all for anyone readign along: note the COMPLETE failure of Shroudie and Swordmaker to answer the question... "If there's a mystery with two explanations, one of which is "fraud," and the other is "mircale," which should a rational person consider most likely?"

The silence on this is telling, because to answer honestly would publicly demonstrate an abandonement of the basic precepts of science for many people.

The rest of your cut-and-paste snipped, again unread. I suppose you'll use that as evidence that I'm illiterate, despite the fact I've written hundreds of published pages?

You are very insulting, Orion. I assure you that NONE of that post was "cut and paste" and all of it is original with me. That makes you a liar. You refuse to even look at the evidence. That is what both shroudie and I mean when we state that "You don't read." and what little you do, you fail to apply logic and the rules of evidence to, instead preferring your unsupported opinion.

Because of that, I give your opinion exactly no weigh, Orion, because you are uninformed, ignorant of the research and DELIBERATELY remain so.

"If there's a mystery with two explanations, one of which is "fraud," and the other is "mircale," which should a rational person consider most likely?"

I see you cut and paste your question... same misspelling of "miracle" again. I find it interesting that you demand answers, but you provide none to our questions. You want an answer?

I would come down on the side of "Fraud."

There, does that make you happy?

In fact, about 30 years ago, that is where I started with the mystery that is the Shroud of Turin. However, I would want to prove that Fraud... you don't.

Your position is "I've decided it is a fraud so I can safely ignore the evidence. Your attitude is "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up: it's a Fraud." So you keep bringing up things that have already been disproved, conclusively, and refuse to even look at the evidence of why they have been falsified.

You have proved it to everyone's satisfaction on this thread. You are a twit who's purpose here is disruption, not discussion.

Now that I have answered YOUR question, answer mine. What scientific principle would allow an unrepresentative sample's test results to be applied to the thing it does not represent?

You have claimed authoritative knowledge of the scientific principles. Please enlighten us.

Hey, if the shoe fits... You now have all the proof you need to determine that I'm quite aware of the principles of science. To claim otherwise emans you are either a liar or crazy. I don't much care which.

No, Orion, I don't -- because you refuse to apply the principles of science. Since you are "quite aware" of them I must conclude that your refusal to apply them or to think logically has an ulterior motive.

It may be that you have hoist yourself on your own petard and cannot back down without losing face. As a result, you keep climbing back up on that same petard.

Quite frankly, I wonder why you are even on this thread. You are not here to learn anything; you've as much as said you will not read anything shroudie or I post. You sneer at our references and documentation. You are not here to impart any knowledge you have on the subject, because you have posted nothing but long discard hypotheses and incorrect "factoids" you think will support your position. You ignore the evidence. You ignore the expertise of the researchers and ridicule them. You become abusive when you are called on your "factoids." You belittle people of faith who have the temerity to disagree with you. You insult and ridicule shroudie and me and several other Freepers on this thread.

Your claims of not reading our replies and accusations of "cut and paste" writing are just attempts to marginalize us... and are a fallacious form of discussion or argument.

I can only conclude that you are here only to throw stinkbombs and turds.