What I did see is that much of your own argument depended greatly on ad hominem itself, with a little worshipfulness of "peer review" thrown in for good measure. Meanwhile, it's like depending upon reports of reports, which too isn't all that great of a scientific method, but might get one in the neighborhood of where to further look.
Dishing out "troll" accusation to those who on this forum are unconvinced, just for being unconvinced is uncalled for, and is beneath you... you used to be otherwise usually polite, so more's the pity. It's pretty obvious you have much personally invested here, in pride and opinion. I'd much prefer to rely upon those more disinterested, if such could be found.
Speaking of pitys, it's too bad the best information, along with any best possible challenges and questions, isn't assembled all in one place. Somebody chimes in with this same sort of idea (or whine) every year, so it's not an original thought on my own part.
Clumps of shroud info can be found here and there, but often enough just raise questions answered elsewhere, and not always answered all that well or completely when they are. Dare to ask some to think...get abused for one's troubles.
Where's the fun in that, unless one just hangs around seeing how many people one can get away with "besting"? Troll inspectors turn into trolls themselves, as they troll for a hobby, hunting for trolls. Get it?
You know, Blue, we get damned tired of responding to the same tired, outdated, refuted, wrong, and just plain repetitious lies not to mention the insults posted by trolls over and over again on Shroud threads. It gets old. Your complaint is just one more whine. Same old stuff, same old whine.
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.
I've posted links to two comprehensive sites. . . repeatedly. . . for each and every one of these trolls on every Shroud thread on Freerepublic. 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.
Both sites ignore the twaddle from the non-scientists and non-scientists who inhabit the 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. Grey_whiskers, the Freeper you are attacking, is a scientist. . . and DOES know what it means. None of the trolls here are. . . or even have a clue. This thread is a prime example as one Freeper keeps insisting that falsified C-14 data still has validity, despite irrefutable proof the sample tested was compromised. No legitimate scientist would argue that. He would recognize garbage in equals garbage out.
One sure sign of Trollish behavior is the demand for proofs, but then NEVER bothering to read them when presented, or even visit the links to the sites holding the proofs. . . then claiming the link is not authoritative, when it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal reporting work in the field of its expertise.
The trolls always demand that we do THEIR research for them. . . and that we must give their "experts," invariably non-scientists, published only in outdated skeptical journals which are never peer reviewed, the same credibility as the latest peer-reviewed published science. The skeptical articles which ALWAYS cite a handful of already falsified claims, never cite the latest research, or even the earlier research accurately, and use ad hominems attacks in describing any Shroud researchers who actually do work on the Shroud as "Psuedo-scientists" because they are researching the Shroud, which, according to the skeptics is obviously a fraud. Science and scholarship simply don't work like that.
Yes, you are dead on the money. I posed a couple of legitimate skeptical questions and received hysterical, shrieking ad hominem attacks for my trouble. It’s clear that grey et al. not only have no clue how science works, but don’t care to know.