Mysteries :  The Official 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
Dear All -

Over a year ago I contacted Graham Hancock and we engaged in a rough-and-tumble debate on e-mail about various issues. It was a private exchange. I had no intention of publishing it, and wrote in a relaxed and open fashion, as is all of our customs, no doubt, when engaged in private correspondence.

When I first appeared at this site, GH asked me privately if he could post our exchange here. As a junior, untenured faculty member I have to be mindful what goes into the public forum with my name on it as a "publication." Such an unready document was not something I wanted my name on in anyone's website. Had I desired that, I could have posted it on my own website (with GH's approval of course). I explained this to Graham and he replied that he understood my position. I thanked him for his understanding and stated my appreciation of his seeing this from my perspective. That, I thought, was that.

When I embarked on a more considered debate on this site, Graham took it upon himself first to "out" me and then to reveal the existence of our prior exchange and to urge me, now in public, to allow its publication. I considered this, and still do, a rather despicable breach of trust and suggestive of a contempt for my desire for privacy. I explained, again, that I could not consent to the posting and why.

Now, in response to a challenge issued by GH on this site, I posted a lengthy considered document about C-14 dating and awaited a response. GH says he will not reply to the numerous issues I raise in that response until I allow him to post our prior exhange to this site. It is worth asking why this posting has suddenly become such a critical issue. (Answer below.)

What is more, whereas C-14 did play a role in our earlier exchange, I said nothing there that I have not repeated in the "Hancock's Challenge: A Response" thread here at this site, only in a more polished and expanded fashion. GH also said nothing about C-14 in our exhange that he has not said here or to the BBC. I therefore fail to see why posting our respective one-year-old positions is so critical now. I have said, and I say again, that Hancock is free to mine any portion of his contributions to our prior debate as he sees fit. He can cut and paste his comments to me into his replies here, if he wishes. My only desire is that my contributions to that debate remain private, as they were always intended to be. I will, however, be happy to discuss many matters in this forum, as I have done all month.

Now GH says, "No debate until you allow me to post your year-old positions, as privately communicated to me, in full on this site." I hope everyone here can see this for the cheap ploy that it is. He knows I will not allow this request, so he insulates himself from having to address my substantive points made in three considered postings, none of which have been answered by anyone here to date. It is a manoeuvre worthy of the OJ Simpson defence team.

Hancock asks for criticism, then demeans his critics when they show up; he says he seeks debate, then sets preconditions on their unfolding. It's transparent posturing. Don't be fooled by it. If people want to read my positions on various matters, they can read them here. There is no need for the prior debate to be published save to insulate Hancock from having to face the facts. In this capacity, it is serving him excellently.

Best wishes to all,


Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Debate 395 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 22:05
RE: Debate 284 Graham Hancock 30-Nov-00 01:37
RE: Debate 179 Geoff Stocks 30-Nov-00 01:56
RE: Debate 183 jameske 30-Nov-00 03:39
RE: Debate 169 Garrett Fagan 30-Nov-00 04:04
RE: Debate 201 Graham Hancock 30-Nov-00 11:32
RE: Debate 170 Dr E 30-Nov-00 11:52
WEAR SPECTACLES 169 Bryan 30-Nov-00 12:56
RE: WEAR SPECTACLES 161 Sharif 30-Nov-00 13:16
RE: WEAR SPECTACLES 178 Dr E 30-Nov-00 13:59
RE: WEAR SPECTACLES 230 Bryan 30-Nov-00 15:18
RE: WEAR SPECTACLES 153 Dr E 30-Nov-00 18:04
RE: Debate 210 Mark 30-Nov-00 09:57
RE: Debate 142 Geoff Stocks 30-Nov-00 19:54
RE: Debate 170 jameske 30-Nov-00 01:53

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.