Peter Kirby

Maybe a lawyer could clear this up. Are there laws in Israel against writing Aramaic letters on an old box?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

If people don't drop it, they'll get abused for being idiots. Fact of life. You dropped it, no one is abusing you. Shanks, however, so long as he persists in this nonsense, will continue to invite abuse.

Vorkosigan

Sauron

Well, considering BAR's request for geologists, and Shanks's pathetic "I'm still not convinced" article ...maybe you should ask Shanks and BAR??

They apparently aren't willing to "drop it", even though everyone else knows it's over.

Sauron

No, it isn't "pretty easy" to say that.

Do you have evidence of anything like that? Other than wishful thinking and sour grapes whining, I mean?

First you say it is "pretty easy" to say that political pressures caused the IAA report to be slanted.

Now you say it is a "remote possibilty".

Which is it?

Your own desperate argument isn't even internally coherent, Haran. Perhaps if you weren't so hell-bent on shielding your co-religionists, you might not have made such an obvious mistake.

Haran

Whatever... I was not the one who brought the ossuary up again. There is no contradiction in my statements. You have made too much of it. Are you sure you don't still have some need to make absolutely sure that everyone believes the ossuary is a fake?? Why?? There will always be some who believe. Give it a rest... You are looking very much like you have and have had quite an agenda.

Complete slander... I think you deserve to be called a few colorful names for these thoughtless remarks, but I'll spare everyone else.

I have already said that I lean toward inauthenticity now, Sauron. You obviously have an agenda with the fact that you must now still bring up the ossuary. Who cares if Shanks still believes? More power to him. Why do you all care so much? Some were even preaching to Xtalk about it. I doubt most there even care much one way or the other. If you really think you must preach to others about the errors of their ways, then you're not much different than fundamentalist Christians.

Scholars will go their own way as well as Christians who want to believe in the relic, regardless of what Mr. Shanks (and others like him) believes. You can make no difference with your continued rantings.

So, as I was told. Drop it. You're looking really silly and letting your biases hang out for all to see.

Vorkosigan

Relax, Haran. Quite a lot of us are amused by Shanks' continued nonsense. Sauron has every right to alert us to something amusing and diverting. Part of being in the community here, you know. And you have to admit, there's some really delicious irony out there....there's really nothing for you to complain about, here.

And yes, I preached on XTALK about it. Yea, and I truly confess: it was a great pleasure watching Kilmon, Grondin, and the others who made nasty remarks on- and off-list eat shit and die. Amen, but that was rich. And watching them do the post mortem and see what they all missed that Kelly and I and Sauron and others all saw and understood....and have them still not understand how they fooled themselves. Remind me again how they know the 7 letters of Paul are authentic.....was it those finely-tuned bullshit detectors they've developed?

Of course, let me hasten to add that I share your complaint about Golan. I'd love to know what is causing the delay in the arrest and arraignment...although they may be developing an ironclad case to use on his accomplice.

Vorkosigan

Haran

I, personally, see a lot of gloating, vengeance, and preaching. So, for me, there is something to complain about. And that's not even counting Sauron's slanderous comments aimed directly at me.

I still feel that several of you have been overconfident from the beginning. All we had in the beginning was the paleography and a statement from IGS that the thing was authentic. I will still say that FM Cross' opinion is tops in the field of paleography and he still sees nothing wrong with it. The decisions were made on the hard sciences. Oh well. That's my opinion and I'm not getting into it again any more than that. You're going to believe what you will believe as I will.

I'm glad we can agree on something. I'm not sure I completely understand Peter's comments on the issue. I'm pretty sure this would be more than just being accused of writing on an old ossuary (which, of course, would make no difference). It seems to me that it would be promoting and perpetrating a fraud for the purposes of defrauding insurance companies and others. There have to be some serious laws broken in there somewhere. Maybe I'm wrong?

Sauron

Ah. You do not, in fact, have any evidence for your claim:

IAA's decisions were a slanting of the facts due to political pressures in the country.

Just as I thought.

Why does it matter who brought the topic up?

1.You made a claim:
IAA's decisions were a slanting of the facts due to political pressures in the country.

2. I challenged you on it.
3. You failed to support it.

Why does it matter who brought up the topic first?

Wrong again, Haran.

First you say:
It's still pretty easy for one to say that the IAA's decisions were a slanting of the facts due to political pressures in the country.

Then you remarked:
I would hope this is not the case, but it is still a remote possibility.

Those two statements are a contradiction. Something cannot be "pretty easy" and at the same time be a "remote possibility."


Huh?

Considering how you labored, page after page, exploring totally implausible "what if" scenarios in an effort to salvage this phony artifact -- and the reputations of your co-religionists -- I'd say that the person acting from emotional/psychological need is YOU, Haran.

I'm merely pointing out how the incredible biases of Shanks and BAR are affecting their ability to be impartial in this matter. And, of course, to quesiton whether or not they will ever be taken seriously again, considering their inability to admit a mistake and move on. Now, if you want to rush to their defense, to stand up for such actions, then you get what you deserve.

Agenda? Says the man who posted page after page of implausible "rescue scenarios", in a wistful attempt to salvage the authenticity of this ossuary? Which was doomed from the start, because you didn't understand the roles of the various sciences employed in authentication/falsification of such an artifact? Yeah, there's an agenda floating around here - but it's yours.


While the rest of the world is foursquare in the camp of this being a fraud, you merely *lean* towards inauthenticity. How generous of you, Haran.

You do this, while simultaneously tossing out the unproven assertion that political pressures were behind the IAA's decision to call the ossuary a fake. And when confronted with that statement, you handwave and fail to support it.

Yep - no agenda on your part.

aikido7

(Didactic omissions mine)

This has become a fascinating game but unlike, say, tennis, it will not be played for the purpose of winning but for the purpose of continuing the game--no matter what one's "intentions" are.

There is a principle in theoretical physics known as the "indeterminancy principle" which states that at the microscopic level any attempt at measurement disturbs the very system under investigation--with a resulting increase in ambiguity and lack of prescision.

If it occurs at the macro level it may be too large for us to clearly notice it.

In biblical scholarship, theories and interpretations seem to change like the width of neckties. For myself, the "fact" of Markan priority and the existence of the Q source seem fairly self-evident, but I am also uncomfortably aware that many respected and critical scholars (though now perhaps in the minority) hold radically different views and use the evidence to demonstrate those differences.

My thoughts on this have been influenced, among others, by James P. Carse in his book Finite and Infinite Games.

Carse writes that in a "finite game" the purpose is to win, the game improves through the fittest surviving, winners take all and exclude losers, the rules are fixed in advance and resemble debating contests and games result in short-term decisive contests.

"Infinite games," on the other hand, have one purpose--to improve the game by evolving. Winners teach losers better plays, winning is widely shared, the aims are diverse and the game itself is relatively complex and geared toward the long term.

We all have our biases, our beams of timber in our own eyes, our "good intentions."

A black and white world--isn't it pretty to think so!

Vorkosigan

<jaw drops> Haran, we had tons more than that. I'm not going to go into it for the 1000th time why Cross' opinion is irrelevant or what constitutes evidence of fraud. Clearly, at this late date, such an act of education is pointless. Apparently, despite months of posting, you haven't listened to one thing that's been said. And that's sad.

Vorkosigan