A brilliant strategy. You missed your true calling: you should have been a laywer. You put the onus on me, rather than you to answer my C-14 postings. In our debate, C-14 dating was not a major issue. Certainly, nothing as systematic was discussed as I present here. Posting it makes not one difference to this particular discusssion and I have given you full rein to draw from your contributions to that debate by "cut-and-paste" as you see fit, once you keep my contributions private, as they were always intended to be.
Some time ago you wanted to "get a discussion going" on, among other things, C-14. I comply. You react by predicating your response on what you know I will not allow, thus making me look obdurate and, without basis, denying a simple request. This, as with so much else you do, is a powerplay. The fact is you have no response to the C-14 postings or to those revealing your shoddy and pseudohistorical methods to all.
I really am sorry, Laura, but I cannot concede to the publication of the debate. It was a private correspondence conducted in a rough-and-tumble manner. I am a junior faculty member, untenured. I have to be mindful of what goes into the public forum as a "publication" with my name on it. Such an unready document is not something I should allow out into the public at this stage in my career. I explained this to Graham on my first visit to teh site and he replied that he fully understood and respected my position. Now it becomes critical. Convenient timing, isn't it? Finally, I have changed my mind on several issues we discussed (hardened my positions in fact) in that debate. That is why I spent two days updating and extending my C-14 views for posting here. Why is the posting of my year-old positions now so critical.
I hope everyone not blinded by Hancock's aura can see this for the pathetic posturing it really is.
Finally, Graham's sly attack on "academic types" who have lots of time on their hands caused me a great laugh. He, the great writer who is soooooo busy fighting off the evil conspiracies of CSICOP and the BBC and writing such a superb book -- has everyone pre-ordered, by the way? I'm not sure he mentioned it, but it's called "Underworld." Has he mentioned that at all? -- has so much time to respond to every posting on this site. Another underhand, sly and nasty dig laid on by Hancock for doing precisely what he invites his critics to do: come to the site and lay out their positions. Damned if you do, damnded if you don't. And when youy lay out your position, he wiggles out from under the discussion.
Risable and pathetic charlatanism.