Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Graham -

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.

GF

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Hancock's Challenge: A Response 465 Garrett Fagan 27-Nov-00 22:34
C-14 an academic joke!! 170 William John Meegan 27-Nov-00 23:52
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 166 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 00:05
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 164 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 00:11
Be more inventive than that: PLEASE 160 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 00:55
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 170 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 00:50
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 160 jameske 28-Nov-00 00:23
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 164 oziris 28-Nov-00 02:10
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 149 Bryan 28-Nov-00 02:18
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 172 Brian A 28-Nov-00 14:50
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 165 Bryan 28-Nov-00 14:58
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 176 Brian A 28-Nov-00 14:48
To Brian 155 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 15:35
RE: WJ Meegans sanity 160 CSICOPdivision2 28-Nov-00 16:53
CSICOP is a very rude child: a cry baby 122 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 17:26
RE: CSICOP is a very rude child: a cry baby 156 Bryan 29-Nov-00 02:19
RE: To Brian 203 Brian A 29-Nov-00 17:41
To Brian: THE KABBALISTIC QUEST 195 William John Meegan 01-Dec-00 01:57
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 202 Graham Hancock 28-Nov-00 02:24
RE: Hancock The Underdog 123 Mark 28-Nov-00 11:42
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 167 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 16:10
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 199 Graham Hancock 28-Nov-00 19:10
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 122 laura 28-Nov-00 21:27
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 131 CSICOP 29-Nov-00 09:29
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 200 Graham Hancock 29-Nov-00 10:37
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 151 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 15:02
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 173 Graham Hancock 29-Nov-00 15:51
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 156 Pilgrim333 28-Nov-00 05:22
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 181 Sky 29-Nov-00 17:24
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 160 Robert G. Bauval 28-Nov-00 07:40
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 151 Christophe Leijnen 28-Nov-00 11:08
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 158 R. Avry Wilson 28-Nov-00 11:55
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 142 Mark 28-Nov-00 12:41
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 162 R. Avry Wilson 28-Nov-00 13:43
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 163 Mark 28-Nov-00 13:49
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 174 Pilgrim333 29-Nov-00 01:12
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 154 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 15:49
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 197 R. Avry Wilson 29-Nov-00 11:18


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.