Koyaanisqatsi

For f*ck's sake, leonarde! That's what this is all about? The fact that I mistakenly used the word "wounds" instead of "punctures" in my reiteration of what Meacham had said?

Well, you got me. You're absolutely right and I stand corrected. I mistakenly substituted the word "wounds" for "punctures." Congratulations.

I will withdraw my formal complaint and apologize most sincerely to your brilliance.

The totality of it however, is still Meaham's words, regardless of who he attributes the underlying studies to! Let me highlight the section I was extracting for reiterative purposes in that thread:

I will ask you one more time. Do you see any quotation marks around anything in that entire paragraph that would demonstrate a direct quote from Rodante? No, you do not!

Do you now? And is a "composite" of what RODANTE said the same as what RODANTE actually said? No, it is not! In fact, Meacham did almost exactly what I did! Summarized (actually, redacted, in my case) what a source had allegedly found and properly qualified the source it was taken from.

As I pointed out earlier, absent quotation marks, it is not a direct quote from Rodante; it is, at best Meacham's "summarization" of what Rodante said! Had it been what Rodante said, Meacham would have correctly included quotation marks as he does throughout his piece when directly quoting somebody as I demonstrated prior.

Here, I'll do it again.

From the second paragraph after the one in question (emphasis mine):

Unlike you, Meacham clearly understands the difference between a direct quote from a source and merely properly qualifying his own summarization (or, as you had put it previously, "review" and/or "composite") of Rodante! Had it been what RODANTE actually said, Meacham would have (or should have) put quotation marks around Rodante's words to clearly delineate what was a direct quote from Rodante and what was merely Meacham's summarization of what Rodante found.

Not quite. It is my trivially incorrect substitution of the word "wounds" instead of "punctures." Considering that Meacham uses the word "wounds" as a synonym to "punctures" in the very next sentence ("30 blood flows from spike punctures. These wounds..."), however, and considering the remarkably trivial distinction between those two words, you'll forgive me my mistake, as I freely and openly admit it.

But is not quoting Rodante directly, so how do you know this from what Meacham wrote? How do you know he isn't attributing the entire paragraph to Rodante?

Could it be because you recognize a basic literary tool being employed, wherein a person summarizes another person's findings (without directly quoting them) and then properly qualifies the source for this summarization?

Meacham is making his case and properly qualifying the source from which he bases his argument. How do any of us know what RODANTE actually said from the manner in which Meacham chose to summarize his findings? Did Meacham directly quote Rodante? No, he did not, so far as his presentation demonstrates, so your distinction is immaterial at best, trivial at worst.

Highlighting relevant sections from your own source and speculating on what that might mean is neither "dishonest" nor "innacurate" (save my admitted mistake of using the word "wounds" instead of "punctures"). Meacham stated that the clots could be either venous or arterial (based on Rodante's findings), which means precisely that. They could be venous or they could be arterial.

My argument was that, if they were arterial (a possibility that Meacham raised), then we're talking about a tremendous amount of blood loss. That is what I was arguing and I was using what Meacham had said to indirectly support this. As you'll recall, I did my own "composition" of sources to make the argument of a possible 34 total arterial wounds (including the wrist and feet wounds) as well and when it was pointed out to me by Ash'ahm that the head wounds would most likely not be arterial, thereby contradicting what Meacham had presented, I ceased making the argument.

I formally apologize to all involved and especially to leonarde for mistakenly using the word "wounds" instead of "punctures" in a thread from over a year ago having nothing to do with this thread.

Jesus Christ, what a pointless waste of time.

leonarde

If a person takes a paragraph written by person A and then:

1) takes a word from sentence 1 (say "spike")

AND

2) adds it to a word from sentence 2 (say "wounds")

AND

3) then purposely deletes via ellipsis something qualifying or counterindicative (say "either venous or") from a phrase in yet a third sentence (sentence 3), leaving "arterial" without any qualifying "venous or"

AND

4) puts those three words in quotation marks attributing them to
person A

AND

5) fails to inform the reader that the concept was merely being passed on by person A from person B (where person A is Meacham and person B is Rodante)

THEN

what you have is a manufactured quotation . That would be true even if the manufactured quotation WASN'T geared to support the writer's hypotheis. But in this case, we know it was:
to "prove" that the body would quickly be completely devoid of blood via these 'arterial spike wounds'.

So as to your challenge:

You accused me of deliberately inserting words into an actual quote from Meacham; of deliberately falsifying documentation!

I MORE than met it: you didn't merely add a word, you completely misrepresented what Meacham said. You put together 3 separate words from 3 separate sentences and made the (naive)
reader think that this was all in the SAME sentence AND that it was some idea of Meacham's, rather than him reporting on RODANTE'S 1982 investigation of the Shroud. If a journalist did that he would be fired.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

Enough of this stupidity, leonarde! I mistakenly used the phrase "spike wounds" instead of "spike punctures."

Meacham did not directly use the phrase "spike wounds" as I falsley stated he did. I officially apologize to you (and all who give a sh*t), for falsley attributing the wrong phrase ("spike wounds" instead of "spike punctures") to Meacham. Happy?

I did not take "three" words to comprise a whole, however, I simply exchanged one synonym for another (in exactly the same way Meacham did in his very next sentence) and redacted the relevant points to partially support the question I was raising, having nothing directly to do with Meacham's document at all.

My use of what Meacham had presented regarding this point was in support of a completely separate question I raised regarding whether or not the man Jesus (as compared to the image of the man depicted on the shroud of Turin; the point of that thread) had died of blood loss as a result of a possible total--according to the totality of arguments and evidence at that point presented in the thread--of 34 arterial wounds (including the wrists and feet; a point Meacham had not raised); a question I subsequently ceased making in the manner I originally presented, yet again, when it was demonstrated by Ash'ahm that head wounds, in general, could not have been "arterial;" an indictment of both my own proposition as well as Meacham (who raised the possibility of them being "arterial" initially, via his reliance upon Rodante).

All of which was hashed out in that thread, over a year ago.

Congratulations once again on the most elaborate, pointless evasion from anything substantive in a thread ever presented on these boards, so far as I know.

clark

As this thread has devolved into going around in circles, I am closing it.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark