You know, Blue, we get damned tired of responding to the same tired, outdated, refuted, wrong, and just plain repetitious lies not to mention the insults posted by trolls over and over again on Shroud threads.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 and that we must give their "experts," invariably non-scientists, published only in outdated skeptical journals which are never peer reviewed, the same credibility as the latest peer-reviewed published science.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.
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.”
An EXCELLENT response! “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”
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.