Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
The invisible patch again???
And bacterial contamination, and carbon monoxide and Vatican fakery and pretty much every lunatic idea the shroudies have ever pandered..

Pharaoh is generous to remind me the paper was read at the Valencia ShroudCom last Spring.

Jabba, is this really what you have to offer the thread?
Yep.. No peer-review, no qualification, no experience; the usual shroudie.
 
And power. Don't forget the power.]

Yes.
Power.
The city where I work is preparing for the yearly show of power called Semana Santa.
To paraphrase a famous citation:
There are no atheists in Spain during Semana Samnta.
 
Carbon Dating/The Plan

...Jabba, I've explained this to you before: the reason you seem to have all kinds of questions thrown at you is because you're thrashing around like an eel dumpted into fomaldahyde (always did feel sorry for that poor thing, but the EPA wanted a biological grab sample). If you'd stick to one single issue, and actually acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms, it would be relatively easy to address...
Dinwar,

- OK. I'll try to do exactly that. (Though again, I'm telling you what I'm going to do rather than just doing it...)
- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case. This will take awhile -- though, I'll plan on introducing the evidence and arguments as I go along. Even so, there will probably be some long gaps between "introductions."
- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. This might be the hardest part in that there is likely to be numerous criticisms presented, and then numerous criticisms of each of my attempts to address a criticism.
- We'll see what happens.

--- Jabba
 
Dinwar,

- OK. I'll try to do exactly that. (Though again, I'm telling you what I'm going to do rather than just doing it...)
- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case. This will take awhile -- though, I'll plan on introducing the evidence and arguments as I go along. Even so, there will probably be some long gaps between "introductions."
- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. This might be the hardest part in that there is likely to be numerous criticisms presented, and then numerous criticisms of each of my attempts to address a criticism.
- We'll see what happens.

--- Jabba

Rich:

Here's a novel idea: When you "dig up" something "against" the 14C dating, run a search of the thread. If what you have "dug up" has already been refuted, don't bother posting it.

Don't just repeat the same old stuff.
 
Dinwar,

- OK. I'll try to do exactly that. (Though again, I'm telling you what I'm going to do rather than just doing it...)


You don't really wonder why people have long since stopped taking you seriously, do you?



- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case.


It just now occurred to you that this is the way forward, did it?



This will take awhile -- though, I'll plan on introducing the evidence and arguments as I go along.


You appear to have invented a new tense - the future non-indicative conditional pluperfect.

And here we all were thinking this thread would never produce anything worthwhile.



Even so, there will probably be some long gaps between "introductions."


You don't say.



- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. This might be the hardest part in that there is likely to be numerous criticisms presented, and then numerous criticisms of each of my attempts to address a criticism.


It may eventually occur to you that the reason underlying this endless cycle is that what you glibly refer to as "acknowledging and addressing" is readily apparent to everyone else as and "obstructing and obfuscating".

Although I won't be putting any money on it.



- We'll see what happens.

--- Jabba


We've already seen.

You'll be back.
 
Last edited:
And after all this time and discussion Jabba still has to go "dig up" the evidence. He still does not have it at hand and still cannot explain it.

I used to waiver between thinking Jabba was serious but disorganized and thinking Jabba was not serious at all. I no longer waiver. Jabba has no intent to discuss seriously or honestly.
 
- OK. I'll try to do exactly that. (Though again, I'm telling you what I'm going to do rather than just doing it...)

Yeah, it would be much better if you did what you should do rather than just saying it.

- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case. This will take awhile

How many years are we talking about ?
 
Rich:

Here's a novel idea: When you "dig up" something "against" the 14C dating, run a search of the thread. If what you have "dug up" has already been refuted, don't bother posting it.

Don't just repeat the same old stuff.

Jabba,
Just to remind you, there is a thread search tool, upper right on the page when you are logged in, that should make this easy.

I know this tool was pointed out to you before. However you must have forgotten, because you recently indicated uncertainty as to whether you had previously posted a link to a particular paper. Indeed you had posted that link, multiple times.
 
Rich:

Here's a novel idea: When you "dig up" something "against" the 14C dating, run a search of the thread. If what you have "dug up" has already been refuted, don't bother posting it.

Don't just repeat the same old stuff.
Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...
- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.
- We'll see.
--- Rich
 
Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...




- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.


You don't even remember what you've posted yourself.


- We'll see.
--- Rich


We've already seen.

You'll be back.


Smeg!

The time loop we're stuck in here seems to be getting shorter and shorter.
 
- OK. That will slow me down some more...

What a funny guy you are. I'm sure those 2 minutes of search will, obviously, delay you a bit, but I'm not sure it was worth mentioning it.

- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.

I hear vitamin B12 is useful for memory problems, Jabba.
 
- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. This might be the hardest part in that there is likely to be numerous criticisms presented, and then numerous criticisms of each of my attempts to address a criticism.

Well that's how rational discourse works. Were you expecting some other approach?
 
...
- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case. This will take awhile -- though, I'll plan on introducing the evidence and arguments as I go along. Even so, there will probably be some long gaps between "introductions."
- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. ...

Hi, Jabba.
I think it would be a great idea if you just post up what you have found to be the most convincing evidence against the dating.
I think you'd do well to stick to the one paper or study until we're through with it.
Keep in mind that unless it's something new, it's most likely been rebutted and refuted several times. If you think the rebuttal isn't solid enough, give some reasons why that is so.



Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...
- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.
- We'll see.
--- Rich

Come, come. The invisible patch idea has been thoroughly refuted.
 
from: http://messiahornot.com/challenge99.php

From:http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=68
So in a nutshell, we have cutting and pasting from one or more websites, avoidance of legitimate questions, repeating of points already shown to be without merit, empty promises to provide evidence, multi day sabbaticals and obfuscation.
Am I the only one here to smell a troll? Jabba, are you DOC?

I'd like to celebrate the anniversary of the above post, as relevant today as it was when it was posted.
 
- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.

Memory not required. To 'rebut' is to 'refute' using evidence or argument (in many dictionaries ;).

Why do you have to rush out to the flaky argument store again, when your 'years of research' should have provided a stock of flaky arguments big enough to last many threads-worth of shroud debunking?
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...
- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.
- We'll see.
--- Rich

Rich:

The only one of your claims that has not been refuted, rebutted, shown to be wishful thinking, demonstrated to be unsupported allegation of conspiracy, or thoughroughly shown to be just flat wrong is the fact that you want the medieval artifact to be the True ShroudTM.

When you "dig up" something "against" the 14C dating, do the thread search. If you have posted it before, read the comments. If you do not feel that the comments adequately address the idea that the 14C dating is dependable, and accurate, then explain why, with support and citations.

Hint:
1. Don't bring up the "invisible patch" that isn't there; the patch that has never been noticed by anyone who has actually handled the cloth.

2. Don't try the "bioplastic contamination" dodge, until you do the math to show just how much contamination all three labs would have had to miss.

3. Don't try the "14C dating isn't reliable" routine, unless and until you can demonstrate how three independent labs would make the same idenstical mistake.

4. Don't try the Pray Codex route.

5. Don't even worry about the artistic and stylistic problems, the anatomical impossibilities (did you ever even try to assume the Shroud Slouch TM?), the historical inaccuracies, or any of that. Those only address the nature of the medieval artifact. They do nothing to change the fact that three different labs demonstrated conclusively that whatever the cloth may be, it is a medieval artifact.
 
From
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Nature 337, 611 - 615 (16 February 1989) [/FONT][FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin[/FONT]
Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.
The phrase "conclusive evidence" is not uttered lightly in trusted scientific publications such as Nature. They did not say "some evidence that is ambiguous" and may allow for an error of 1500 years.

Publishing in Nature is one of the most prestigious feats any scientist can aspire to. I am trying to imagine, in all seriousness, doubting or dismissing the findings of the following group of people who have signed off on the paper:

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif]P. E. Damon*[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], D. J. Donahue†[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], B. H. Gore*[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], A. L. Hatheway†[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], A. J. T. Jull*[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], T. W. Linick†[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], P. J. Sercel†[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], L. J. Toolin*[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], C. R. Bronk‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], E. T. Hall‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], R. E. M. Hedges‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], R. Housley‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], I. A. Law‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], C. Perry‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], G. Bonani§[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], S. Trumbore ∥£[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], W. Woelfli§[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], J. C. Ambers¶[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], S. G. E. Bowman¶[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], M. N. Leese¶[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif] & M. S. Tite¶[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
in favor of and deference to an obvious religious zealot, and less clearly an outright fraud, Marinelli, and her followers who merely try to raise doubts in the guise of science with no evidence whatsoever.

The world of honest scientific endeavor is very different from the sphere of the religious or political desire or need to believe.
 
I'd like to celebrate the anniversary of the above post, as relevant today as it was when it was posted.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Filippo Lippi.
When I read over the posts for that day, I was touched to find it was the day my favourite shroudie vid was posted to the thread, too.

That's not the explanation given by Jabba, it's just the explanation given in this pro-authenticity video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

It's pretty funny, but not the explanation given by Jabba, in fact Jabba has offered no explanation for the non-distorted image.

Is this the correct explanation, Jabba?

Ward

The question remains unanswered to this day, IIRC.
 
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Filippo Lippi.
When I read over the posts for that day, I was touched to find it was the day my favourite shroudie vid was posted to the thread, too.



The question remains unanswered to this day, IIRC.

That video presents "Dame" Isabel Piczek as a particle physicist, but the internet doesn't know her as that, it knows her as a "mosaic artist." More dubious qualifications of shroudies?
 
That video presents "Dame" Isabel Piczek as a particle physicist, but the internet doesn't know her as that, it knows her as a "mosaic artist." More dubious qualifications of shroudies?

Quantum confusion indeed, Filippo Lippi.
Here
http://www.fishpond.com.au/c/Books/a/Dame+Isabel+Paczek
the lady is Dame Isabel Paczek, yet in the vid she's identified as Dame Isabel Piczek.

Could be the same person, I'll hunt out some images of both names. The hairdo wold probably clinch matters, I daresay.

Ah.
Apparently the lady is both a physicist AND artist.
Hmm.
Others claim the is not a physicist.
What I do know is she's connected to the Friends of the Shroud.Com (director) as well as the Turin Shroud Center of America (director). Both concerns are private businesses.

According to wiki, she and her sister made the mural behind the altar of the st Thomas Aquinas Cathedral in Reno, Nevada
" The great mural painting behind the altar is 3,500 square feet (330 m2) and was the first mural executed by Hungarian artists Edith and Isabel Piczek. "

Edith, the sister, died in 2012 in her obituary http://www.the-tidings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2855 we read
"Edith Piczek (like her sister) was born in Hungary where their father was a noted artist and art professor, and graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts in Budapest. After World War II, however, the sisters fled to Rome during the Communist regime to pursue their work in sacred art.

There, they won a 1949 competition to paint a mural at Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute — to the chagrin of the priests who, upon learning that the sisters were teenagers, hesitated to let them finish the project. Several years and 42 murals later, the Piczeks had removed all doubt about their qualifications."

So, particle physicist, not likely.

Here's anther biography of the lady
http://www.lasvegas-diocese.org/GA_Gallery.html
"
Isabel Piczek, born in Hungary, began the study of art at an early age under the guidance of her father, Zoltan Piczek, who was himself an artist.
She had her first exhibition of works at the age of eleven. She won several first prizes through the next three rears, clearly establishing her career as an artist.
Sharing those formative years with Isabel, her sister Edith nurtured her own artistic capacity. Their artistic partnership blossomed and matured through the years, which makes their personal history difficult to separate.
The Sisters were only young students, when already they were beginning to visualize the contours of a new Sacred Art form, — a new world culture — and they knew there would he no opportunity to create that in the suppressed world behind the iron Curtain under a Communist regime. It was not an easy decision, yet there could he no alternative. They must attempt an escape across the border to Austria. It was extremely dangerous, but good fortune prevailed and they found their way to freedom.
After a brief stay in Vienna, they “painted” their way across Europe, traveling from one monastery to the other, enduring great hardships along the way-which included crossing three borders on foot, once for three days they wondered in the snow of the Alps, finally finding their way to the Italian side. From there they traveled on to Rome which was to become their home for the next three years."

And so on.
So, particle physicist, no.
Dame is a Hungarian honour and her stained glass work is rather good, IMO.
 
Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...
- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.
- We'll see.
--- Rich

That's because you don't understand the system enough to identify adequate refutations. This is a product of your own ignorance, not a flaw in our arguments.

We've calculated the amount of contamination necessary to provide the errors necessary for you to be right. It amounts to more than the weight of the cloth. Thus, even if every protocol was ignored, as long as you agree that 1) it was Shroud cloth that went through the process, and 2) the process functioned normally (meaning the actual process of producing the radiometric dates--the seed reactors and all the associated machines), you'd still be wrong. As an aside, you proved that you were incapable of doing this calculation,w hich is foundational to radiometric dating.

We've also demonstrated that even if there were an invisible patch (there isn't--we've demonstrated that they're only hard to see, NOT invisible upon close examinationo), the methods used use fibers from other parts of the shroud. Thus, any rewoven patch would be a BETTER sample, as it would be more representative of the shroud as a whole.

We've more than adequately addressed your arguments. They are wrong. If you can't see that, that's your problem, not ours.
 
...We've also demonstrated that even if there were an invisible patch (there isn't--we've demonstrated that they're only hard to see, NOT invisible upon close examinationo), the methods used use fibers from other parts of the shroud. Thus, any rewoven patch would be a BETTER sample, as it would be more representative of the shroud as a whole. ...

That's always been the thing about the 'invisible patch' that Shroudies never seem to grasp- that a French woven patch or darn is made using fibers from the cloth itself.
As Dinwar points out, this make it the IDEAL place from which to take a sample.
Why is this difficult to understand?
 
That's always been the thing about the 'invisible patch' that Shroudies never seem to grasp- that a French woven patch or darn is made using fibers from the cloth itself.
As Dinwar points out, this make it the IDEAL place from which to take a sample.
Why is this difficult to understand?

At this point, I'm willing to give Jabba the benefit of the doubt on the invisible patch claims. His own original research seemed to convince him that this was nonsense. Given his memory and organization skills, he might still come back with patch claims. So far, he has not. He might have reposted long lists published by other people who have patch claims, but I hope that that was just laziness (I can relate) and we were meant to look at the other non-patch stuff. I think we've answered that other stuff, as well, but Jabba answered the patch claims himself with secondary research and his own primary research.

Ward
 
At this point, I'm willing to give Jabba the benefit of the doubt on the invisible patch claims. His own original research seemed to convince him that this was nonsense. Given his memory and organization skills, he might still come back with patch claims. So far, he has not. He might have reposted long lists published by other people who have patch claims, but I hope that that was just laziness (I can relate) and we were meant to look at the other non-patch stuff. I think we've answered that other stuff, as well, but Jabba answered the patch claims himself with secondary research and his own primary research.

Ward
Jabba, is this the case? Do you admit that the invisible patch hypothesis has been rebutted/refuted, i.e., shown not to be true?

If you are not willing to say it about this, then there is no point engaging you regarding anything save to continue the demonstration to lurkers the emptiness of your case.

Helpful hint: Your response need only be "yes" or "no."
 
At this point, I'm willing to give Jabba the benefit of the doubt on the invisible patch claims. His own original research seemed to convince him that this was nonsense. Given his memory and organization skills, he might still come back with patch claims. So far, he has not. He might have reposted long lists published by other people who have patch claims, but I hope that that was just laziness (I can relate) and we were meant to look at the other non-patch stuff. I think we've answered that other stuff, as well, but Jabba answered the patch claims himself with secondary research and his own primary research.

Ward

I agree completely with you. Sorry if I wasn't clear that my comments were general, not specially referring to Jabba!

My comments were in the nature of musing on the nature of the Shroudies' resistance to the facts. I was influenced by having just finished reading the wiki entry on the TS, which mentions the 'invisible patch' idea without pointing out the absurdity of the claim.
 
Jabba, is this the case? Do you admit that the invisible patch hypothesis has been rebutted/refuted, i.e., shown not to be true?

If you are not willing to say it about this, then there is no point engaging you regarding anything save to continue the demonstration to lurkers the emptiness of your case.

Helpful hint: Your response need only be "yes" or "no."
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman
 
Last edited:
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman

There has got to be some way to nominate this. For SOMETHING...
(cleans beer off monitor)
 
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman
He shoots, he scores. LOL
 
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman



Will you not also need to organise everyone here into different streams and divisions, voting to appoint team leaders who are awarded different levels of posting privileges etc, whence we can all be formally enrolled into quite different forums and websites unconnected with JREF? I think you will find the urge to do that irresistable.
 
Rich:

The only one of your claims that has not been refuted, rebutted, shown to be wishful thinking, demonstrated to be unsupported allegation of conspiracy, or thoughroughly shown to be just flat wrong is the fact that you want the medieval artifact to be the True ShroudTM.

When you "dig up" something "against" the 14C dating, do the thread search. If you have posted it before, read the comments. If you do not feel that the comments adequately address the idea that the 14C dating is dependable, and accurate, then explain why, with support and citations.

Hint:
1. Don't bring up the "invisible patch" that isn't there; the patch that has never been noticed by anyone who has actually handled the cloth.

2. Don't try the "bioplastic contamination" dodge, until you do the math to show just how much contamination all three labs would have had to miss.

3. Don't try the "14C dating isn't reliable" routine, unless and until you can demonstrate how three independent labs would make the same idenstical mistake.

4. Don't try the Pray Codex route.

5. Don't even worry about the artistic and stylistic problems, the anatomical impossibilities (did you ever even try to assume the Shroud Slouch TM?), the historical inaccuracies, or any of that. Those only address the nature of the medieval artifact. They do nothing to change the fact that three different labs demonstrated conclusively that whatever the cloth may be, it is a medieval artifact.
It'd be nici if he dropped the silly Vatican conspiracy nonsense also.

Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman
:D
Have a muffin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom