Posted on 03/30/2013 1:29:01 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Shroud of Turin continues to spark intense theological debate. While one side believes that the cloth is nothing more than a medieval forgery, the other contends that the x-ray-like image imprinted on it was supernaturally created during Jesus Christ’s resurrection.
In the past, claims that it was the work of a renaissance artist, an optical illusion or, as mentioned, a legitimate, faith-inspired phenomenon have abounded. Without a doubt, the cloth has confounded supporters and detractors, alike, for decades.
Now, “The Mystery of the Shroud,” a book that examines new chemical and mechanical tests that were more recently conducted on the shroud, seems to side with the latter assessment. Journalist Saverio Gaeta and Giulio Fanti of Italy’s University of Padua (professor of mechanical and thermal measurement) collaborated on the new book that maintains that the Shroud of Turin dates back to the 1st century and not to a later time period as some have contended.
As TheBlaze previously reported, the shroud features an image of a bearded man (i.e. Jesus) whose body appears to have wounds from nails in his hands and feet — the same locations that some believe were affected when Christ was nailed to the cross....
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
You claim that all scientists are in agreement that the C-14 test results are invalid, and that is NOT the case. Perhaps you should try reading articles from journals other than the, “Evangelical Holy Jesus Shroud Monthly.”
I get tired of dealing with willfully ignorant trolls; and have spent many threads eviscerating them and their arguments on scientific grounds; only to receive cut-and-paste arguments from "skeptic" sites, or cut-and-paste from ordinary Shroud sites, where the assertions made by the troll who was posting, was contradicted by the site they had quoted from, in the sentence or paragraph literally adjacent to the text they had cut-and-pasted.
By the way, you say that I have no clue how science works, but have no care to know.
Where's your PhD from, and what in?
I'm not responding to you for your sake: it is obvious you are a professional disruptor. But for the sake of the lurkers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2058949/posts?page=73#73
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2058949/posts?page=80#80
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2058949/posts?page=100#100
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2058949/posts?page=106#106
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2058949/posts?page=119#119
Or yet another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2092383/posts?page=75#75
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2092383/posts?page=175#175
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2092383/posts?page=200#200
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2092383/posts?page=211#211
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2092383/posts?page=237#237
Nice try, troll-boy.
But FAIL.
An EXCELLENT response! “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”
Actually, it was a bunch of self-justification bull.
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.
I say, hey you, get off of my shroud!
lol !
No, dinodino. grey IS a scientist. You are the one on here who has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how science works. You have repeatedly shown a preference for falsified work that plays into your prejudices, rather than the later work that falsified your desired outcome. . . the same flaw that blinded the researchers to the problem in the first place. This issue IS now settled science with five independent researchers coming to the same factual conclusion: the tested sample was NOT consistent with the make-up of what the researchers were intending to date. Even the editor of Nature, the journal that published the findings of the original C14 tests, has agreed that the results are now invalid.
When a test or result has been falsified, dinodino, it no longer has any probitive value and can NOT be used as proof in any scientific discussion. This one has been falsified FIVE TIMES OVER.
Just because YOU and the others don't like that it has been falsified does not allow you to ignore the falsification. . . and repeating the falsified data as true and yelling louder that you don't believe the peer-reviewed work that falsified it does not help your case. . . and it really doesn't help when your "authoritative" sources have degrees in English Literature or whose work has never been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal anywhere.
Again, you devolve to ad hominem attack. I have read far more scientific and scholarly articles on the Shroud from all sorts of sources than you, including those from the skeptical sources, yet you choose to attack me and attribute statements to me that I have not made. I am not responsible for the opinions of "all scientists" but I do know that any REAL scientist with an open mind who examines the facts of this case would have to agree the C14 test is invalid. your snarky statements are not those of an unbiased scientist but those of a person who has a pre-concluded goal in mind that all research MUST prove or if it falls toward authenticity it must, by your definition, be pseudo-science and the researcher, because of what he found, a pseudoscientist, and damned. More ad hominem
You see, BlueDragon? THIS is what we put up with... after numerous responses and numerous links with the links to proof, he STILL repeats the outdated twaddle that the C14 test is still valid after five independent researchers using five different approaches have shown it can't be. . . and EIGHT YEARS have passed with those falsifications standing and with out them being disproved! All we see is the skeptics foaming at the mouth and denying the work is valid because it and the researchers involved in pseudoscience.
And he still brings up Walter C. McCrone and his claims of seeing PAINT in his microscope 29 years after he has been conclusively falsified by far better instrumentation and specialists working in their fields and multiple peer-reviewed published articles showing no pigments associated at all with image or blood stains (including McCrone's own damning admission he blocked his own Electron Microscopy Department from falsifying his conclusions!)
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!
The claims of Walter C. McCrone to have seen Red Ocher (iron Oxide) and Vermilion (Mercury Sulfide) through his polarized optical microscope were completely falsified by Electron microscopy, X-ray micro spectroscopy (which could identify the composition of the vinyl baggies the samples were transported in, as well as all compounds and element on the threads) which found NO pigments. This work has been replicated, numerous times, and confirmed. These are proved facts. Yet the skeptics keep trotting McCrone out.
McCrone reported he found his standard forensic tests for blood were negative so he reported no blood on the Shroud in 1979. A test run by Italian forensic experts using the same standard tests were also negative. However two specialists in hemoglobin, blood derivatives, and blood chemistries, A. Adler, and R. Heller, confirmed by B. Cameron, whose double doctorate specializes in methemoglobin, report that standard forensic tests won't work on old denatured blood unless it can be gotten into solution. Both mcCrone and the Italians reported being unable to get the "blood stain" into solution. However, the specialist knew how to do it, and confirmed the substance as blood, using over thirty different tests, all of which were positive, including 12 that were specific for human blood. These are proved facts published in multiple medical and scientific journals. Their work has been replicated, several times. On the skeptics side they have the 1979 McCrone and 1973 Italian tests and the statements of a Geologist and a police forensic tech with an AA degree claiming the more modern test mistook egg albumin and plant porphyrins for human blood with no evidence. Yet they keep trotting McCrone's and the Italian's tests out.
And, the invalidation of the C-14 test sample by five independent researchers. Three by physical and chemical examination of surviving sample threads, photo micrographs of the tested samples, the surviving sample 'c' kept by the C-14 team for later examination, all showing they were NOT homogenous with the item intended to be dated. Three alternative approaches, finding the same thing, approaches certainty the hypothesis is factual. . . the sample is contaminated with spurious non-original material. In this case, the original 100% Linen Shroud was skillfully repaired in the area the sample was cut from with dyed medieval Cotton, thus introducing a carbon containing substance of a differing, unknown origination date than the unknown origination date of the material intended to be dated.
Then two studies done statistically showing conclusively that even within the four tested C14 sub-samples, the variation in results were statistically so far from normal range, that none of the reported results could have come from a homogeneous sample! I.E., internally, the sample varied in date so much from one sub-sample to the next, that the degrees of confidence DID NOT OVERLAP! This was a big RED FLAG that the testers should have seen—in fact the Arizona lab DID note the discrepancy and averaged their results instead of reporting it!—and alerted the testers something was seriously wrong with their sampling! The C14 statisticians said the samples could have just as easily come from totally different sources. The odds they came from the same homogenous source were astronomical. The statistical work has been doubly checked by other statisticians and found to be correct. These results invalidated the sample, thus invalidating the results of the C14 test. These are proved facts. Yet the skeptics keep trotting out the C14 test date as if it has a meaning. It doesn't.
The settled science is that which has been proved and NOT been falsified. . . Yet. I follow the science. I find it very tiresome to keep arguing with the same individuals who refuse to listen, read, or accept the scientific method merely because the results disturb their world view. . . and then use ad hominem attacks when they run out of facts. I think we are justified in being short with them. Perhaps you got caught in the friendly fire.
First, they are dead links, in that it takes some effort to make them work. You do know how to make them active, I take it. For multiples, they can be built to open in a new tab. That coding might only need be typed once, then copied and pasted to all the rest in succession. But it is work.
Sorry, I did try reading a couple, but realizing I would need to backtrack the thread to pick up the precise little tidbit being discussed, from what sources, etc., left me disinterested in pursuing it any further. I thought I just explained that already. I guess I wasn't clear enough.
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.
Yeah, the guy did kind'a go over the edge there, overstating the case.
Now that sounds like backpedalling on your part?
In your dreams. It was in fact more the opposite. Perhaps it is some combination of my own less than stellar communication skills, and your own hastiness that led you to such an opposite understanding of my comments. You quoted the juicy part. Think about it.
As far as the "comments scattered here and there"...
Asked and answered. I tried reading it, my eyes glazed over, that and I was pointing towards that sort of thing as example of how scattered information concerning the shroud really is, despite the plethora of web pages devoted to it (in some ways because of the plethora?) with forum comments scattered over multiple threads not exactly fun digging. But it does show that you are engaged on the subject. That still doesn't keep you from growing troll-like as you "hunt" trolls.
I'll post some IOU's for ya. promise.
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.
There are still potential problems. Can you see them? If not, then I'll just go ahead and assume those problems have been argued away by polemical, for otherwise, I see some mention, but not exactly precise follow up.
Now who's work along these lines relied upon some scant few threads scooped up on the sly? There is so much of this recent Shroud claim and counter-claim (and missing counter claims, as in questions that should be asked) it's difficult to keep track of. Which threads, which sample, how were the threads obtained, etc. Broken threads...with threads of differing composition it is said...had been held together by some resin. Ok. What resin? was that possible to ascertain? Possibly not, and though there may be good cause that could be reasonably excusable, they DID say "resin".
For one small example of previous contentions I've encountered;
The two thread portions...where they both cotton, or was one cotton, and one linen? Stuff like that, loose ends hanging, I find among EVERYTHING argued one way or another regarding this relic. It never ends, with each item having the same sort of holes, or potential for serious holes.
How much of this work did they actually show instead of simply tell ? How many "good cause" exceptions to this, that or another, along with tentatively or not "good cause" for assuming this, that, and the other, do we need keep track of in all this Shroud biz, anyway? The thundering herd seems much unaware of their own assumptions, even as they add in all sorts of little tidbits of second-hand scuttlebutt.
Some or most of(?) the evidences are up to these experts judgments. Not having access to those types of things more directly, or access to those in position to engage in critical review of those discussions (that I can trust), leaves me having to rely upon second-hand accounts, though it may be reasonable to trust that guys like Shroudie are faithfully enough transmitting what the various author's have declared their own results or opinions to be.
When evidences are subject to interpretation, or are more directly required to be subject to an investigator's judgement (along with some occasional special pleadings, it seems!) the much vaunted " peer review", at that stage loses much of the value...for it's not exactly like someone can replicate tests themselves. Sticking with protocols, having some qualification, training etc., plus having something of interest to publishers -- that's about it for "peer review", for that phrase does not mean that anyone else has examined the work closely AND critically, or that there may not be weak points existent, much less that anyone else has replicated the same processes followed with the same materials (impossible in this instance) and gotten the same results.
You almost got no reply from me.
So what? That's not my problem. Except you waited until weeks later to reply at all, then late on a Saturday night, and I get the self-justification tap dance, that I have to read first thing Sunday morning. If it's any consolation to you, you have ruined my day. No really. Go ahead and smile.
You immediately previous post was extremely trollish in content and uncalled for.
I'm not sure about that. This one, well yeah. But you've pissed me off. There was no "immediate previous post" from me to YOU, anyway. I wasn't talking to you, but another. Your own opinion of such things, is more than a bit lopsided. Besides, I was making a joke, offering him IOU's. Perhaps I'll now scrounge around for a jpeg and really pay the man since I just again today promised. Then again, that could be one of those little things enjoyable to postpone. You on the other hand, will have to do without completely, with no hope of any coming your way. No IOU's for you at all. Just grin and bear it. ;^)
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. This one is close. You are asking me to do your research for you.
Excuse me, but you said to me previous, that you included such links as you now have done, "in each thread". I looked, didn't see them on this thread, made oblique mention I did not, including I didn't have much desire of following another's links to FR threads (where he was doing some ax-grinding?) and wade through those threads, including all the acrimony, just to find some outside links (which still underwhelm). But thanks for providing them this time. Better late than never, even as they are repeats. I'll take your word they are typically in previous threads...but they weren't in this one, which would leave me wondering upon finding the links myself (which I did earlier today) if those were the ones you were talking about, or not. Thanks for clearing that up.
What's missing is critical examination of the very evidences upon which "true believers" are relying. Perhaps it will be forever that way, for one thing I have noticed concerning the miraculous, things of the Lord's doing, is there will always be some way for those not present and experiencing his presence directly, to explain it all away. It's almost as if He wants it to be that way, on PURPOSE. Then again, folks run around repeating false but hopeful claims, at the same time.
I'll thank you for post #46, for there you rationally gave refutation and reasonable explanation for one of the breathless claims which had been circulating concerning the shroud and the other, "head napkin" relic. Even there, I still wonder about an aspect or two...but nevermind, for now.
Ok, fair enough. But the Shroud info is still scattered all over 'tarnation. Even things like the debunking of the previous C14 tests can still leave reasonable, lingering doubts. That all hinges on the invisible repairs, doesn't it? That, and declarations the cloth is otherwise all linen. You may have seen enough high magnification photos for comparison...but most have not. What can be found easily enough, is talk concerning these many and combined items, and not all of it first hand, or if first hand, the "work" itself is not that accessible to public, though the commentaries concerning it are oft enough put forward in their place as "proof".
Otherwise it does seem to me;
The closer one looks at what was done, how it was done, how it all came about, almost anywhere one looks concerning the investigations, the more head-scratching bizarre it appears as question after unanswered question come to mind concerning it all. Phhftt. I get sick of it.
Obviously, from your comments, you did NOT bother to explore the Shroud.com page at all. I did tell you that Shroudie's page was more readable for the non-techies. . . But Shroud.com is far more comprehensive. You just need to explore a bit. Try this:
Shroud.com: Scientific Papers and Articles
That's just one of dozens of pages on that website you didn't find.
As for ShroudStory.com, check the sidebar for similar links to less formal articles in the blogs.
Now, try reading the articles for your answers to your questions. Look for Raymond N. Rogers as author. They are answered. Pay attention to publication dates so you know what has been invalidated. . . and I assure you that every square centimeter of the Shroud has been surveyed and microphotographed over the years. You seem to not have the understanding that this item is the single most studied object in existence.
That's one part of the enigma of the Shroud, Blue. The more answers one finds the more questions it opens up.
I wasn't trying to provide that; and, from your point of view, I could see how you might think my links were "scattershot".
Except that this is the third time that I've pointed out, my links were never intended to suit that purpose.
As far as reaching my links, just open up another browser window and cut and paste the URL given for my link into the URL space (the address bar, as it were).
If you want to reach the top of the relevant thread than remove the ? and all following text from the URL, like this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2058949/posts?page=73#73 becomes http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2058949/posts and you will go directly to that thread.
Freepmail on the trollling.
Cheers!
You've almost got it. Neighborhood-ish. Perhaps you could see the usefulness. What you seem to be getting mixed up on, is that I'm not asking (or expecting) anyone here to supply it.
I wasn't trying to provide that; and, from your point of view, I could see how you might think my links were "scattershot".
I didn't say you were. But this isn't all about you. All the info concerning the Shroud suffers from being widely scattered.
Except that this is the third time that I've pointed out, my links were never intended to suit that purpose.
I didn't at any time think or say you were. This "pointing out" biz is superfluous. You seem to understand what my meanings were all about, but then go all egocentric with it immedietly afterwards. Feel free to consider this reply my paying of toll, if that's what will satisfy you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.