|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
2nd January 2016, 01:47 AM | #2281 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I beg your pardon!
It is correct now. But the fact that bishop d'Arcis said a thing doesn't mean that we have the evidence of this. D'Arcis' document is a draft that doesn’t present any evidence of his claims. It is possible that d’Arcis’ charges were invented in the course of a power battle with the Lirey canons. Pope’s opinion is obviously political. We have no idea whether it was well founded or not. Therefore, we have d'Arcis' opinion and pope's opinion. They are meaningful, but not conclusive. To be continued. |
2nd January 2016, 02:12 AM | #2282 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Be calm , gentlemen. Don't be excited and read what I have written. Was I defending the authenticity of the Shroud?
Thank you. I think this was evident from my claims here that I am not a sindonist. I think the Shroud is a medieval fake. And I think I have some evidence about this. But some people seem scandalized because my arguments are different to theirs. Bravo! Nicely tautological! But I think you are confusing indications with evidences. Evidence is conclusive, indications are not. The first example, in my previous comment about d’Arcis’ document. |
2nd January 2016, 04:36 AM | #2283 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
2nd January 2016, 05:25 AM | #2284 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
It takes the OP having an enforced absence for some kind of actual argument to break out.
|
2nd January 2016, 06:24 AM | #2285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
2nd January 2016, 06:28 AM | #2286 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Oh, my. You may, in fact, choose to reject Celement's opinion. You may, in fact, accuse Clement of the kind of duplicity of which Mme. F-L and Dr. McCrone have been accused, and which sidonists practice as a high art form. You may, in fact, indulge yourself in special pleading and conjecture about Clement's motivations.
None of which changes the fact that among the earliest historical references to the actual CIQ (not misidentifications like the Pray Codex; or red herrings, like the "Sudarium") is the D'Arcis Report and Clement's proscriptions as to the proper display of the CIQ, due to it not being the True Shroud". ...it's been continued for more than four years. Have you, perhaps, read the rest of this thread? Most of this has been hashed to death already. |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
2nd January 2016, 06:29 AM | #2287 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
2nd January 2016, 07:24 AM | #2288 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
2nd January 2016, 07:48 AM | #2289 |
Lost in translation
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
|
|
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright |
|
2nd January 2016, 12:52 PM | #2290 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
2nd January 2016, 01:16 PM | #2291 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
But why do the sentances have to be non-vague or conclusive, or non-debated?
Remember, your challenge was for "NON-SCIENTIFIC" evidence. Given your request, you can't complain that the evidence doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. In fact, when you made your request for "non-scientific evidence", the first thing I thought of was the letter from the middle ages that said it was a forgery and they knew who the forger was. As evidence goes, despite being non-scientific, it is far, far better than anything the burial cloth of Jesus side has (for Pete's sake, Jabba has claimed the "undocumented history" as evidence for authenticity!) The criticisms of the attempts to replicate the shroud because they don't account for every single detail are similarly pretty weak considering that the explanation for the image by authenticists, knowing that you can't get the image by wrapping a cloth around a body, is quantum radiation. AKA, a miracle occurred. At that point, vague and non-conclusive sentences are a major upgrade. |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
3rd January 2016, 12:51 AM | #2292 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
3rd January 2016, 01:08 AM | #2294 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
No, I don’t reject the opinion of pope Clement. I consider it just an opinion. I only say that we don’t know the rational or irrational basis of his opinion. Neither those of d’Arcis’ opinion. It is evident that Clement is playing a double game: He allows the public exhibition of the Shroud, he orders the canons to say that it is not “the true Shroud of our Lord” and then he orders to keep the mouth shut the unique person that was able to control the canons. This is exactly the same double game of the contemporary popes: they don’t affirm the Shroud is an authentic relic but permit the exhibitions as it were.
I don’t intend to deny what the Pope and d’Arcis said. They said the Shroud was not authentic. But we don’t know why, we don’t know the basis of evidence of their claims. Therefore, we only know two opinions. And you cannot base evidence on opinions. NOTE: The episode of Ličge (Zantfliet, 1449) seems to me a stronger blow against the authenticity because it comes from a third testimony. Neutral, in some way. |
3rd January 2016, 05:35 AM | #2295 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
You are, of course, free to approach the CIQ in whatsoever way you choose. I still think you are missing the point of the D'Arcis/Clement bits. What is significant is not that a Pope (or an anti-Pope, depending upon your taste is sects' acts) declared that the CIQ was not to be considered the "true shroud"; the point is that the Pope and the Bishop (if there were a choir girl, it would be the set-up of a joke) danced their fandango in the closing days of the 12th Century, C.E., while the artist D'Arcis identified was still alive; and while the CIQ, from all contemporary renderings, was much different in appearance that it is today. Any claim of "authenticity" must deal with the fact that the CIQ has faded dramatically in the 700 years since its historical appearance.
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
3rd January 2016, 06:20 AM | #2296 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
3rd January 2016, 07:04 AM | #2297 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
3rd January 2016, 08:41 AM | #2298 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
3rd January 2016, 08:49 AM | #2299 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
3rd January 2016, 09:02 AM | #2300 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
If you are suggesting I'm off-topic or being inappropriate to the MA or something, that's what the /!\ icon on the lower left is for. There is no need to lose your composure because I said your position wasn't always easy to understand.
This is my final word on the matter. |
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
3rd January 2016, 09:25 AM | #2301 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
3rd January 2016, 09:29 AM | #2302 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
3rd January 2016, 09:38 AM | #2303 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Even if your position were correct, you still have to deal with the statements that the artist was identified contemporaneously with the first historical records of the CIQ.
This has all been done (and re-done, and re-re-done) in this thread and its progenitors. Welcome (if fashionably late) to the party... |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
3rd January 2016, 09:41 AM | #2304 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
3rd January 2016, 09:42 AM | #2305 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
3rd January 2016, 09:56 AM | #2306 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
3rd January 2016, 09:56 AM | #2307 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
3rd January 2016, 10:02 AM | #2308 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Maybe “non-scientific” was not an accurate word for what I was intending to explain. I try again.
The 14C dating is the stronger scientific evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud. The basic rules of radiocarbon dating are easily understandable with no much scientific knowledge, but there are other particular (and important) aspects that are not known by most. I assume that people that usually discuss about this matter are not expert in radiocarbon dating. I am not, of course. Therefore, in this kind of forums it is easy to find someone that claims that the very last essay of XXXX shows how the 1988 dating was flawed. These “very last” investigations are usually debunked in a period of time more or less large (Kouznetsov, Garza-Valdés, etc.). Other (Rogers) are more resistant. But there are others that avoid the attention of the experts. Do you know Alconchel-Pecino? These kind of academic works don’t deserve the attention of the experts, they are not criticised and they allow some obstinate sindonists to cling on to them indefinitely. So, the debate becomes impossible. I maintain that is more useful focussing the discussion in other points. These points don’t need a profound scientific knowledge, but common sense and critical spirit only. Of course, sometimes some scientific knowledge is implied, but not a specialized one. That is why I have called them “non-scientific”. The advantage is that you can ask some basic questions to sindonists that don’t imply sophisticated devices or theories. My experience is that the sindonists are not able to answer by appealing strange scientists that work in some Lithuanian lab. This is what I call a “conclusive” argument. The inability to answer is evident to everybody. You have quoted one of them: the position of the sheet. I have mentioned others: -The position of the hair. -The absence of squashing in the back of the body in the image. - The blood trickles on the hair in the back of the head. -The direction of the blood trickles. -…and some other. Discuss Mr. Alconchel-Pecino seems to me really boring and useless. It is more interesting to see how the sindonists react to the simple questions I have proposed. And therefore is important to separate what is a conclusive evidence from what is only an indication. See my argumentation about d’Arcis memorandum, please. |
3rd January 2016, 10:17 AM | #2309 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
There is only one person here who defends the authenticity of the shroud. If you ask him anything like what you are proposing, he will ignore it and reply that the 14C dating is invalid because of magical patches, that McCrone was difficult to work with, that Mme F-L was incompetent, and "Undocumented History". Therefore, the shroud is "probably" authentic
No one to date has found a way to have a meaningful discussion with him, but be my guest. It would be refreshing to see someone actually get him to engage honestly. |
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
3rd January 2016, 10:22 AM | #2310 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
Fair enough, but 'conclusive' is the wrong term. The C14 dating is conclusive evidence.
Perhaps you could say "immidiately convincing". However, I think the main failing is the idea that anything will convince folks like Jabba. What we do here is batting back any and all of his arguments, lest he confuse any spectators. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
3rd January 2016, 12:10 PM | #2311 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
Yes, but the same people will come up with all sorts of arguments against whatever other evidence you propose using instead. Worse, in Jabba's case he will then introduce another Gish gallop of debunked and/or irrelevant information that he says belongs in his "pro-authenticity pan", and claim that since the carbon dating is now out the "preponderance of evidence" must favour authenticity. |
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
3rd January 2016, 12:57 PM | #2312 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
OK.
While generally true, I can think of at least one exception to this. Your assumption is incorrect. Which assumes that the protagonist actually wants an honest discussion of the facts. This is not the case in this thread. Again, you assume that the goal is to resolve the matter. It isn't. The goal is and always has been to prolong the "debate" in the hope of being able to declare a Pyrrhic victory over science. Introducing these other issues is simply grist to the sindonist mill and will be used as a blunt instrument with which to attack science, history and sheer common sense to artificially create a sense that there is any controversy at all. The disadvantage is the sindonists simply don't care. Been there and done that again and again and again. Everyone who has been here since the start of this nonsense is heartily sick to death of all of the evasions, dodges, fringe resets, Gish gallops, in fact everything from the woo playbook over and over and over. Seems to me that your real problem is that all of us who have been here from the start look at your posts and groan because it will mean yet another turn of the hamster wheel of doom that is this thread and issues long thought to be firmly put to bed will (haha) be resurrected once again. That may seem a little harsh, but after four years and multiple threads tolerance levels are just a bit on the low side. This is not your fault. I am simply trying to convey to you why there is so much cynicism in this thread. Alconchel-Pecino published an article, not a peer reviewed paper. And he sets out his stall right from the title, which is...
Quote:
Here is the full article. Enjoy. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
4th January 2016, 12:47 AM | #2313 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
When I speak of the sindonists I am not thinking in Jabba… only.
I don’t know whether he is honest or dishonest. I suppose he is honest by principle.The method “I-come-back-again-and-again” is popular between the low levels of sindonism but I know many other species. There are more coriaceous and more sophisticated kinds of sindonism. There are even indecisive sindonsits. I don’t pretend to persuade anyone. I intend to make evident some of their contradictions with no way out. Everybody can draw his own conclusions. I am not a believer of the peer review religion. Many of the best articles about the Shroud by Nicolotti, Rinaldi or Garlaschelli were publied in a non peer reviewed journal. I know many flawed cases of the peer review system. Once again the peer review is an advisable requisite, but not definitive. |
4th January 2016, 12:50 AM | #2314 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
4th January 2016, 12:56 AM | #2315 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Yuou are assuming that d'Arcis was saying the truth on this point. Why?
Charles Freeman has other interesting hypothesis that doesn't imply any forger artist. See here: http://www.historytoday.com/charles-...s-shroud-turin |
4th January 2016, 04:13 AM | #2316 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
4th January 2016, 05:04 AM | #2317 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
4th January 2016, 05:56 AM | #2318 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
|
Those who have very much enjoyed the intellectual cut-and-thrust of shroudstory.com have been upset by its recent closure, although with competent searching it remains an essential repository of primary sources and intelligent opinions. There was a time when I found internationalskeptics worthwhile, and indeed, followed chiefly mathematical arguments from an authenticist to a non-authenticist viewpoint. Since then, I have scrupulously examined every authenticist argument for discrediting the radiocarbon date, and found nearly all of them spurious, although there are still one or two grey areas. Many of the other evidences for a medieval date have also been scrutinised, in detail, with a view to determining their level of support. The d'Arcis memorandum is one of these.
Over the years the weakness of the authenticist position on this site has resulted in some very slack counter-arguments from non-authenticists, with the result that, although Jabba is frequently blamed for the pointless continuation of this thread, which must surely for heading for the Guinness Book of World Records, it has really been maintained by his opponents. In more or less the same three words ("I'll be back"), posted every month or so, Jabba has managed to keep a pack of hounds snarling at his heels, without achieving the slightest progress in denting his belief in the Shroud's authenticity. Mostly, the site has become an increasingly inaccurate re-iteration of supposed non-authenticist arguments, to the edification of nobody. There may be an unrecognised worthwhile reason for the maintenance of this thread, which is to demonstrate the weakness of authenticist arguments, or the strength of non-authenticist ones, to readers who follow it, but never comment. For several years they have been largely disappointed, I fear. Neither the Pope, nor Bishop d'Arcis, nor Bishop Henri, nor anybody else, has left any record that they knew the painter responsible for the image of the Shroud. All we have is an unsigned, undated draft of a letter addressed to the Pope from d'Arcis, claiming that the Shroud being exhibited in Lirey in 1389 was not a true relic of Christ, but a deceitful fraud, and that the whole thing had been investigated by Henri of Poitiers, "the truth being attested by the artist who painted it," after which it had been hidden for 34 years or so, a date so precise that it suggests some knowledge (or assumed knowledge) that the first time the Shroud was exhibited was in 1355 or so. ("Or so" perhaps being crucial, as we shall see. The Latin is "vel circa") This is important. We do not have Bishop Henri's report. What we do have is his signed, dated, effusive commendation of Geoffroi de Charny written on 28 May 1356, with no mention of a fraudulent Shroud. It seems unlikely that Bishop Henry would have been so kind if he had just condemned a fraudulent relic. Geoffroi de Charny died at the battle of Poitiers on 19 September 1356. Suppose, for a moment, that d'Arcis' information, whether or not he actually sent his letter, was correct. An interpretation of the evidence could be that the Shroud began to be exhibited after de Charny's death ('vel circa' being the operative words here), and Bishop Henri, having commended de Charney only the previous Spring, was shocked to discover that by the Autumn the canons at Lirey had exceeded their remit. This seems possible, and to me the most likely. It is sometimes claimed that since there is no proof that d'Arcis' letter was sent, that no credence should be given to it. However, even if this particular complaint was not received by the Pope, he nevertheless commanded in 1389 that the Shroud could only be shown as a representation, and without all the ceremonial trappings of sanctity that might attend the display of the real thing, suggesting that at least somebody had complained. It is not obvious whether he personally thought the Shroud was genuine or not, but he certainly acted as if it wasn't. On the other hand, if we decide that the "vel circa" is not adequate to reconcile the conflicting evidence from 1356, we could claim that Bishop Henri knew all about the Shroud and commended Geoffroi de Charney for building a chapel for its veneration. His commendation specifically states: "after scrupulous examination [...] of the said knight's sentiments of devotion, which he has hitherto manifested for the divine cult, and which he manifests ever more daily. And ourselves wishing to develop as much as possible a cult of this nature, we praise, ratify and approve the said letters in all their parts - a cult which is declared and reported to have been canonically and ritually prescribed, as we have been informed by legitimate documents." What could this "cult" have been, if not that of the Holy Shroud? Well, the fact that the church is dedicated to St Mary may be related to that. It may be worth considering how we know about the two conflicting documents in this case. The d'Arcis memorandum has been researched twice, by the Catholic Historian Ulysse Chevalier, at the turn of the 19th/20th century, and by Hilda Leynen in the 90s. The document by Bishop Henri was discovered by Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, who is a fairly extreme fundamentalist Catholic and Shroud authenticist, who thinks that the radiocarbon date was falsified by Dr Tite and Cardinal Ballestrero in the sacristy of the Royal Chapel in Turin in 1988. Although his discovery of the Bishop Henri document was presented to the St Louis Shroud Symposium in 1991, it was not referred to at all by Luigi Fossati in his two articles for Shroud Spectrum International in 1992, or in Jack Markwardt's 'The Conspiracy Against the Shroud' in 2001. Finally, Luigi Fossati draws our attention to an interesting change of phrase in successive communications from Pope Clement to Troyes, at around that time, beginning with "figura seu representatio" (July 1389) amending it to "pictura seu tabula" (January 1390), but reverting to "figura seu representatio" in May 1390. References: D'Arcis memorandum: https://archive.org/details/tudecritiquesur00chevgoog Bishop Henri commendation: "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity" (google.books) Markwardt Discussion: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n55part3.pdf Fossati Discussions: http://shroud.com/pdfs/ssi41part3.pdf and http://shroud.com/pdfs/ssi42part14.pdf Bruno Bonnet-Eymard: http://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine...-shroud-turin/ |
4th January 2016, 06:40 PM | #2319 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
4th January 2016, 07:16 PM | #2320 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|