| May 18, 2024, 12:45 pm 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 04:28AM |
<HTML>Hi Avry,
> 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.
So do I and as anybody with half a brain should be clearly aware we all know who your source on the grapevine is. I too have documented proof of this charade and I have absolutely no problem with pasting the relevant emails on this board (with your expressed permission of course) so that others can judge for themselves exactly what this was all about. Of course elements of that discussion remain fairly embarrassing to me but not nearly as embarassing as the comments you made.
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.
I thought you claimed you hadn't made contact with Nature? The key phrase above is "reasoned and strong arguments". Think about it.
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.
FWIW I have never been in contact with anybody at Nature. Do you really think I'd do something as pathetic as that?
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.
Rather strong rhetoric don't you think?
> But, it was only a threat.
It was nothing of the sort. I merely mentioned that were you to have conducted yourself towards Kate Spence in the manner you chose to use towards me that she would have good reason to ignore your comments. Consequently I warned Kate Spence by email that you had the habit of having temper tantrums and often said things you quickly regretted afterwards. But I'm sure you think she deserves to be called "a f------ t-shirt of the week" or any of the other phrases you used to describe me.
> 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.
You really are paranoid and you haven't got a clue have you?
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?
What on earth are you talking about?
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?
I gather she is aware of your rebuttal but considers it not worthy of even commenting on. If you can get it published then perhaps she will be inclined to write a response but the impression I get is that your paper is not of widespread concern as to even necessitate publication. Prove me wrong and I'll eat those words.
> What EXACTLY was meant to be gained by such threats? Think
> about <I>that</I> when you go to sleep tonite, Mike.
Mikey sleeps quite easily at night but I get terrible dreams involving a psychotic Canadian intent on doing me serious harm. I'd better stop eating cheese before bedtime unless you can think of a better explanation for it.
> I see no reason for you to continue to mock what we think is
> 'paranoia'.
It is paranoia though.
> (Anthony's answered your question for you on the t-shirts).
Thanks Anthony! I'm honored to be considered thus.
> 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).
No reason to drag anymore of this into public? You were the one who started alluding to it in the first place. I'm happy to drop this entire discussion but if you wish to continue to make false allegations on the basis of your paranoia then I'm happy to paste our email exchange in full on this board. Some how I don't think you'd be compliant with that.
All the best,
Duncan</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.
So do I and as anybody with half a brain should be clearly aware we all know who your source on the grapevine is. I too have documented proof of this charade and I have absolutely no problem with pasting the relevant emails on this board (with your expressed permission of course) so that others can judge for themselves exactly what this was all about. Of course elements of that discussion remain fairly embarrassing to me but not nearly as embarassing as the comments you made.
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.
I thought you claimed you hadn't made contact with Nature? The key phrase above is "reasoned and strong arguments". Think about it.
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.
FWIW I have never been in contact with anybody at Nature. Do you really think I'd do something as pathetic as that?
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.
Rather strong rhetoric don't you think?
> But, it was only a threat.
It was nothing of the sort. I merely mentioned that were you to have conducted yourself towards Kate Spence in the manner you chose to use towards me that she would have good reason to ignore your comments. Consequently I warned Kate Spence by email that you had the habit of having temper tantrums and often said things you quickly regretted afterwards. But I'm sure you think she deserves to be called "a f------ t-shirt of the week" or any of the other phrases you used to describe me.
> 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.
You really are paranoid and you haven't got a clue have you?
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?
What on earth are you talking about?
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?
I gather she is aware of your rebuttal but considers it not worthy of even commenting on. If you can get it published then perhaps she will be inclined to write a response but the impression I get is that your paper is not of widespread concern as to even necessitate publication. Prove me wrong and I'll eat those words.
> What EXACTLY was meant to be gained by such threats? Think
> about <I>that</I> when you go to sleep tonite, Mike.
Mikey sleeps quite easily at night but I get terrible dreams involving a psychotic Canadian intent on doing me serious harm. I'd better stop eating cheese before bedtime unless you can think of a better explanation for it.
> I see no reason for you to continue to mock what we think is
> 'paranoia'.
It is paranoia though.
> (Anthony's answered your question for you on the t-shirts).
Thanks Anthony! I'm honored to be considered thus.
> 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).
No reason to drag anymore of this into public? You were the one who started alluding to it in the first place. I'm happy to drop this entire discussion but if you wish to continue to make false allegations on the basis of your paranoia then I'm happy to paste our email exchange in full on this board. Some how I don't think you'd be compliant with that.
All the best,
Duncan</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.