Obviously I'm aware of the overall history, since you quoted me saying, in regards to the idea of central repository of info;
What I was driving at, is something along the lines of best evidences, with best possible exculpatory challenges, set side by side for ease of comparison. Which is a rather neutral desire...for it comes from a place of neither belief, or disbelief concerning the shroud itself, but is more towards convenient access to simply the best available information itself.
As far as you or a royal "we" getting "damn tired" of responding, I have some sympathy towards that. An informational repository, if not polemical itself, could ease those burdens. Meanwhile, as a seeming promoter, if you could cut away the ad hominem yourself from your own discussions here, and not be so enthusiastically supportive of that same sort of thing being engaged in by others, it too would ease the burden. First off --- don't take doubts or disputations personally, or if you do, stay in the realm of discussion of information only, as much as possible. Being as that can be quite difficult under the circumstances here...the back-and-forth chatter itself, particularly the personal clashes and insults, etc., can make it difficult to not respond to in kind, I do know... but all of that sort of thing DOES much obscure the information itself. Hence the desire for some neutral central aggregation of info, so as to not be dragged into (or need wade through) all the personal animosity crap, which was the type of thing I was criticizing.
One of the sites I link to is the repository of every scientific and scholarly article on the Shroud. The other is a more accessible and readable and also links to the articles and translates the science for those who may have trouble understanding it, and puts the scholarship in context.
Which two are those? I'm not saying you haven't, just that among all the comments such becomes quickly buried, and in reviewing this thread, I don't see it --- which would leave myselfand any other stumbling along needing to chase down links to other un-named threads, then re-read thosein search of the missing sought for links, which may or may not contain all which they are said to.
"...majority of the skeptic sites who seem to have no concept of peer-review or what it means to be accepted for publication in a scientific journal, or just how difficult that is. You, yourself, seem to think that is meaningless."
The anthropogenic Global Warming promoters have published much of their work in "peer review" journals. Does that mean their own conclusions are beyond dispute? Yet you seem to be taking the position that publication itself puts all matters beyond possible doubt. Blandly, generically, as applicable to most any scientific endeavor, such is not so. The details which are themselves published, are open to further examination, generically speaking.
As to your statement that "it's too bad the best information, along with possible challenges and questions, isn't assembled all in one place" is totally wrong and just shows you haven't bothered to even do cursory investigation of the issue before spouting off and flaming participants such as grey_whiskers. I assure you he is not a troll.
First off, on this thread he claimed to be a "troll hunter". If I flamed him, it was for his own flaming, and flame-baiting contentiousness, enough in evidence here on this thread. That's what I'm rebuking...with that sort of thing always including personal insult portions having nothing to do with information or "science" itself, but are from personal opinion, expressed in ways demeaning to others. Which makes it trollish, as in trolling for "getting personal" from position of his own self-pride & ego. Whatever we are doing here, let's NOT call those aspects "science".
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with hoping for some informational repository which strips away self-pride, showing opinions for what they are, with basis for such opinions, all in one convenient place. Assembling one could be a daunting task, one could easily enough guess, so don't misunderstand --- I'm not expecting you yourself or any other here to build one. If I'm not recalling what links you've given previously, how can I and others be blamed for it, any more than I could blame you for not remembering something I myself have stated to you directly, some years ago now? Namely, I neither "believe" nor disbelieve the shroud is authentic, even as I'm more fond of the idea it be authentic.
Just look at grey whiskers reply @102 this thread. One is supposed to chase down all those scattered arguments? Really? That's the sort of thing, sending others off on a wild goose chase, first to comments scattered here & there, which one would then need backtrack to find the precise argument or item under discussion and allegedly being refuted, that is the establishment of some [imagined] great height from which one can stand to hurl "nice try, troll boy" insults?>>
That, is neither "science" itself, nor should be engaged in while simultaneously pounding the table, pointing towards one's own educational bonafides, and more or less saying the "science is settled" ala' Al Gore & Hanson (formerly of NASA), with this Hanson himself being something of a prime example of a piled high and deeper crackpot, whom himself as the rest of the global warming alarmists are, is evidently entirely unwilling to carefully consider possible challenges to or flaws inherent with, his own work/conclusions. When such flaws, either actual or more theoretical are exposed, what do the likes of Hanson and the alarmists do -- but resort to ad hominem? Guys like Anthony Watts, on the other hand, though arguably of anti-alarmist agenda himself(?) does appear to be willing to present and discuss pros and cons more dispassionately, and has a reference page. Though his work may lack full coverage of every shrill alarmist claim, it does appear aimed at the sources or foundations of those claims.
That you yourself believe any and all possible contrary argument has been laid to rest, is neither here nor there, for even as it can be granted that position be possibly correct, it still IS difficult to even find all the elements of possibly relevant or important discussion, with the "wheat" separated from the chaff, so to speak, so that each item can be critically examined on it's own merits, with again, as I have mentioned, any best possible argument against items touted as "evidence" be honestly considered also.
I'm looking for some degree of impartiality, with the relative merits on either side of possible discussion not scattered hither and yon, which I'm not seeing in the polemic typically engaged in, on these (shroud of Turin) threads, most of which you yourself initiate.
If there be any apology due from myself towards either grey_whiskers or yourself, it would be that I first did not contact either of you two gentlemen privately, before dealing out a public scolding. For that I do offer apology.
Otherwise, I do expect better out of the both of you, and ask you both to refrain from damaging your own arguments in support of authenticity for the shroud, which you've both been indulging yourselves in, with the shroud itself being used as basis to launch attacks towards others.
If there is a proper place for holy relic, it's not for bashing anyone over the head with...that is unless either of you can dig up the jaw-bone Samson used to slay a thousand Philistines.
You almost got no reply from me. You immediately previous post was extremely trollish in content and uncalled for. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. This one is close. You are asking me to do your research for you.
The sites are:
The first site is maintained by Barrie Schwortz, who is Jewish. Barrie was the principal visible light photographer for STURP. It is the official repository for scholarly and scientific papers on the Shroud. The second is maintained by fellow Freeper Shroudie. It is much more accessible and understandable.
That reply in 102 was to a troll, not to you; a troll who had (without evidence, and in fact despite the evidence) claimed that I neither knew science, nor cared to learn it.
The links in 102 were to prior posts *of mine* on prior Shroud threads, demonstrating to any disinterested parties the efforts I went to, in refuting shoddy "debunking" of the Shroud, based on discussions *of* the science.
That, is neither "science" itself, nor should be engaged in while simultaneously pounding the table, pointing towards one's own educational bonafides, and more or less saying the "science is settled" ala' Al Gore & Hanson (formerly of NASA), with this Hanson himself being something of a prime example of a piled high and deeper crackpot, whom himself as the rest of the global warming alarmists are, is evidently entirely unwilling to carefully consider possible challenges to or flaws inherent with, his own work/conclusions.
Now that sounds like backpedalling on your part? Or did you just get too eager at first, and then realize your netiquette mistake, and you're trying to recover with some dignity?
I didn't go around bragging about my pedigree; instead, dinodino asserted without evidence that not only did I not possess a pedigree, but that I more or less wasn't even capable of it. This is a standard troll tactic, intended to goad the insecure into proclaiming themselves, thereby making themself a target for ad hominem later on.
Unfortunately, most of the GNU atheist / script kiddie skeptic trolls fail to realize, that by making such an accusation, they have then introduced credentialism into the discussion: since they are used to bullying bewildered Hobbits, so to speak, they often get overconfident, and have NO defence when someone who really is far more intelligent and informed than them goes all pirhana on their ass in return: you note that dino has not responded to the inquiry as to his *own* credentials, nor did I turn around and brag about mine.
As far as the "comments scattered here and there" -- they were not intended to be (and I explicitly stated this in post #102, so you either didn't read carefully enough, or you let your emotions get the better of you) a *proof* of the Shroud: but explicitly a reference for lurkers of the times that I did discuss the science behind the attempted debunking technically -- not relying on "well *this* article says such and such, so neener, neener, I win" as the skeptics did, but explicitly attacking the methodology of the experiments cited.
And as you posted to Swordmaker:
Meanwhile, as a seeming promoter, if you could cut away the ad hominem yourself from your own discussions here, and not be so enthusiastically supportive of that same sort of thing being engaged in by others, it too would ease the burden.
It'd be nice if the erstwhile disputants against the authenticity of the Shroud, bothered to dispense with their own (unwarranted) ad hominem as though they were Prometheus himself, suffering daily to bring the light of true scientific knowledge to the beleaguered dupes enchained in the dark dungeons of superstition. You're not on Reddit/atheism/autofellators here.
Why don't you go back and READ my links in post #102 -- if you have sufficient scientific training yourself, you'll recognize a kindred spirit...even if it hurts your pride to have to acknowledge such.
Cheers!
Incidentally, the thread that was rife with the comments on the C14 issue was another thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3001134/posts
Incidentally, your lumping me in with trolls IS uncalled for and I think you would be hard pressed to find examples where I have been unwarranted in my postings. You will find that I am most times polite, even to trolls.