| May 17, 2024, 11:08 am UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| September 28, 2001 02:10AM |
<HTML>Hi Mike,
No, I'm not paranoid.
Out of respect, I did not, nor will I, mention the source of my information. Rest assured, I've have documented proof of it.
"Kate already knows of your ravings on GHMB; the less said what she thinks of them the better. Kate doesn't this all-encompasing power to prevent articles from being published or from opposing viewpoints being heard - indeed it's an insult to even imply such a thing."
How do <I>you</I> know she's aware of my posts? Besides, I wouldn't expect her to comment on "ravings", rather my rebuttal.
"On the contrary, Kate has stated on more than one occassion she welcomes criticism of her hypothesis and she welcomed the differing viewpoint put forward by Pickering & Rawlins, which occurred in a friendly & professional manner (Duncan, John and I know - we saw them debating together at a conference in June)."
My rebuttal of her theory is as professional and friendly as they come, Mike. And it's not necessarily up to <I>her</I> whether or not she deals with commentaries. I kindly suggest you have a look at Nature's publication rules: It is the professional responsibility of the author <I>and</I>Nature to provide contact information and to reply to any reasonable questions. For either Nature or the author to refuse co-operation when reasoned and strong arguments are raised is both detrimental to the mission statement of Nature as well as the standing of the author in the scientific community. In this case, my argument is well thought out and presented, even though it was just a draft. There is <I>no</I> reason (either professional or personal) to refuse my course of honest reporting which covers inherent problems with her theory. For someone to want to destroy my position through private correspondence with either Dr Spence or Nature is not only extremely rude, but illegal. By deliberately ruining my involvement with Dr Spence and/or Nature with private e-mails, effectively marks such action as an attempt to remove any possibility of refuting her theory.
I have what I believe is very strong evidence, and to have this 'stricken' from the docket in any way (especially by ad hominem opinion) is purely and unequivocally dangerous to science. One might call it censorship of the truth. So, rather than deal with this new soap opera in the public eye (with Dr Spence and/or Nature), I will deal with people who will not be corrupted by slander and defamation of character. The threat to contact Dr Spence and/or Nature was equal to committing professional and scientific murder.
But, it was only a threat. Now it seems you have personal knowledge that Dr Spence has been made aware of completely irrelevant conversations. But we all have our moments. Even you, Mike. As much as I dislike your manner at times, I still take great pride in showing my twelve year old neice YOUR website - she's doing a project on ancient Greece, and the first thing I thought to show her was some of your references. I will continue to do so.
Now, you along with John Wall have now publicly admitted and alluded to either being privy to such a dasterdly act, or have yourselves intended to participate in directly in it. I ask you - heck, I ask any of you - if, in the course of possible involvement did you bother to draw her attention to my rebuttal, or was it just a few threads were I had over-expressed my opinions with uncaring words and insulting back talk? And in light of this, was my VERY public apology shown to her? Was Dr Spence made aware of my rebuttal? I doubt she's aware of it. Why? Because for her to continue television appearances in support of her theory whilst knowing it is false...well... I honestly don't believe she is that kind of lady. Why? Because she's said she's open to discuss and address serious concerns, yes?
Hey, c'mon, we're all passionate, and we ALL say things we don't mean, but that kind of charcter fault (or rare outburts for some) has NOTHING to do with the flow of data, discussions, and sharing of opinions on professional and scientific levels.
Though I could say 'good-bye' to you too, I won't. Instead I could ask that you not disrespect honest and powerful points in regards to Dr Spence's theory - or any reasoned position.
What EXACTLY was meant to be gained by such threats? Think about <I>that</I> when you go to sleep tonite, Mike.
So, No... I'm not paranoid. I'm just careful where to address my arguments (in the future) in light of what has been threatened, and what has now been apparently and effectively carried out. Why don't you and I just drop this? Because...
I have a question for you: Do you have an opinion of refutal to my brief commentary of Dr Spence's theory? Thanks, Mike.
______________________
Duncan,
I see no reason for you to continue to mock what we think is 'paranoia'. I was being straight forward, polite, and honest with my opening reply to you in this thread. I would expect the same courtesy, please. Thank-you.
(Anthony's answered your question for you on the t-shirts). Thanks Anthony. But for both of you, I'll say this: there's no reason to drag anymore of that into this conversation or onto this board, so now that it's been covered, let's get back to the more important concerns of Duncan (noted by his opening of this thread).
______________________
Don,
*lol*
That's a rich one! I'm not near the writer or wit-king he is. So, to me, that's a compliment. Thanks. Yep, real name's R Avry Wilson. Really.
To calm the rumour, I'd be honoured to have a picture taken with him for you... that is, when he and I ever meet.
Cheers,
Avry</HTML>
No, I'm not paranoid.
Out of respect, I did not, nor will I, mention the source of my information. Rest assured, I've have documented proof of it."Kate already knows of your ravings on GHMB; the less said what she thinks of them the better. Kate doesn't this all-encompasing power to prevent articles from being published or from opposing viewpoints being heard - indeed it's an insult to even imply such a thing."
How do <I>you</I> know she's aware of my posts? Besides, I wouldn't expect her to comment on "ravings", rather my rebuttal.
"On the contrary, Kate has stated on more than one occassion she welcomes criticism of her hypothesis and she welcomed the differing viewpoint put forward by Pickering & Rawlins, which occurred in a friendly & professional manner (Duncan, John and I know - we saw them debating together at a conference in June)."
My rebuttal of her theory is as professional and friendly as they come, Mike. And it's not necessarily up to <I>her</I> whether or not she deals with commentaries. I kindly suggest you have a look at Nature's publication rules: It is the professional responsibility of the author <I>and</I>Nature to provide contact information and to reply to any reasonable questions. For either Nature or the author to refuse co-operation when reasoned and strong arguments are raised is both detrimental to the mission statement of Nature as well as the standing of the author in the scientific community. In this case, my argument is well thought out and presented, even though it was just a draft. There is <I>no</I> reason (either professional or personal) to refuse my course of honest reporting which covers inherent problems with her theory. For someone to want to destroy my position through private correspondence with either Dr Spence or Nature is not only extremely rude, but illegal. By deliberately ruining my involvement with Dr Spence and/or Nature with private e-mails, effectively marks such action as an attempt to remove any possibility of refuting her theory.
I have what I believe is very strong evidence, and to have this 'stricken' from the docket in any way (especially by ad hominem opinion) is purely and unequivocally dangerous to science. One might call it censorship of the truth. So, rather than deal with this new soap opera in the public eye (with Dr Spence and/or Nature), I will deal with people who will not be corrupted by slander and defamation of character. The threat to contact Dr Spence and/or Nature was equal to committing professional and scientific murder.
But, it was only a threat. Now it seems you have personal knowledge that Dr Spence has been made aware of completely irrelevant conversations. But we all have our moments. Even you, Mike. As much as I dislike your manner at times, I still take great pride in showing my twelve year old neice YOUR website - she's doing a project on ancient Greece, and the first thing I thought to show her was some of your references. I will continue to do so.
Now, you along with John Wall have now publicly admitted and alluded to either being privy to such a dasterdly act, or have yourselves intended to participate in directly in it. I ask you - heck, I ask any of you - if, in the course of possible involvement did you bother to draw her attention to my rebuttal, or was it just a few threads were I had over-expressed my opinions with uncaring words and insulting back talk? And in light of this, was my VERY public apology shown to her? Was Dr Spence made aware of my rebuttal? I doubt she's aware of it. Why? Because for her to continue television appearances in support of her theory whilst knowing it is false...well... I honestly don't believe she is that kind of lady. Why? Because she's said she's open to discuss and address serious concerns, yes?
Hey, c'mon, we're all passionate, and we ALL say things we don't mean, but that kind of charcter fault (or rare outburts for some) has NOTHING to do with the flow of data, discussions, and sharing of opinions on professional and scientific levels.
Though I could say 'good-bye' to you too, I won't. Instead I could ask that you not disrespect honest and powerful points in regards to Dr Spence's theory - or any reasoned position.
What EXACTLY was meant to be gained by such threats? Think about <I>that</I> when you go to sleep tonite, Mike.
So, No... I'm not paranoid. I'm just careful where to address my arguments (in the future) in light of what has been threatened, and what has now been apparently and effectively carried out. Why don't you and I just drop this? Because...
I have a question for you: Do you have an opinion of refutal to my brief commentary of Dr Spence's theory? Thanks, Mike.
______________________
Duncan,
I see no reason for you to continue to mock what we think is 'paranoia'. I was being straight forward, polite, and honest with my opening reply to you in this thread. I would expect the same courtesy, please. Thank-you.
(Anthony's answered your question for you on the t-shirts). Thanks Anthony. But for both of you, I'll say this: there's no reason to drag anymore of that into this conversation or onto this board, so now that it's been covered, let's get back to the more important concerns of Duncan (noted by his opening of this thread).
______________________
Don,
*lol*
That's a rich one! I'm not near the writer or wit-king he is.
So, to me, that's a compliment. Thanks. Yep, real name's R Avry Wilson. Really.To calm the rumour, I'd be honoured to have a picture taken with him for you... that is, when he and I ever meet.
Cheers,
Avry</HTML>
| Subject | Author | Posted |
|---|---|---|
|
Anonymous User | September 27, 2001 06:31AM |
|
R. Avry Wilson | September 27, 2001 03:39PM |
|
Mikey Brass | September 27, 2001 04:24PM |
|
Anonymous User | September 27, 2001 05:08PM |
|
Anthony | September 27, 2001 05:56PM |
|
Don Holeman | September 27, 2001 07:22PM |
|
R. Avry Wilson | September 28, 2001 02:10AM |
|
Anonymous User | September 28, 2001 04:28AM |
|
Anthony | September 28, 2001 06:32AM |
|
Anonymous User | September 28, 2001 07:52AM |
|
Anthony | September 28, 2001 09:18AM |
|
ISHMAEL | September 28, 2001 08:29AM |
|
Anonymous User | September 28, 2001 08:45AM |
|
ISHMAEL | September 28, 2001 12:45PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.