> Sorry but I don’t buy your “preciousness” over the privacy of
> our very lengthy email debate.
When I initially posted you my reasons, you accepted them without equivocation. Jameske, at least, understands (see his posting here). I see no reason to justify my desire for privacy. It is a right we all possess and it should be respected when invoked. You had no trouble respecting it earlier this month. Suddenly you can't. Strange, and convenient, timing.
How would other people here feel if Graham pulled a stunt like this on them? What makes you, Graham, think you have the right to pressure me into publishing a private correspondence and then try to claim the moral high ground when I refuse? Just get on with debating the issues. I'm ready and willing. You're hiding.
> Come on Garrett. How private was that letter really? I bet
> you shared it, and probably my reply too, with your class.
> Can you put your hand on your heart and say you didn’t? Did
> you all have a good laugh about the way the gallant Prof
> Fagan had taken on the imposter Hancock? Or did you
> honourably keep it to yourself?
You really are a slimy one, aren't you? I did no such thing. In any case, your reply did not get to me until Dec. 15, and classes ended here on Dec. 7th. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't have done as you suggest above. But what a nasty, mean-spirited, and baseless (how surprising for you) insinuation. "The gallant Prof. Fagan"? Colorful.
> Because I would visitors to this site to know how seriously I
> took our debate, I will publish at the end of this post my
> reply to your first email -- but that’s the last of this
> piecemeal approach until you agree to the full publication of
> both sides of our debate on this site. After that we can
> consider extending the debate further, if that’s what you
> want, but I’m adamant about putting the original debate up
> first and not unnecessarily rehashing ground that has already
> been covered there.
There is NO need to post my year-old opinions here. There is no "context" for this debate, either. It ranged all over the shop. If anything, this forum offers a better way to debate the issues, forcing us to keep on topic within a thread. If you don't want to "rehash," then cut-and-paste from your responses to my earlier critiques. How hard is that?
> I’m not asking you to do something impossible that no
> reasonable person could be expected to agree to. I think what
> I’m making here is a very simple request that is very easy to
> agree to and that it is you who is manoeuvring rather than me,
Pathetic attempt at turning the tables. I'm here, I'm ready. You're hiding. Get on with the debate.
>But what makes it really interesting is that it is a whole
> debate, nicely rounded and with both sides roughly equally
> represented in terms of input as I recall.
No reason why that can't be the case here.
> And above all else it exists now in electronic form and can
> be posted in a matter of days thus providing readers with a
> ready archive of reference on many contentious matters that
> you and I have discussed honestly between ourselves.
Let's do it here.
> Finally, how many other “fraudulent” authors do you know who
> so willingly provide their critics with a free venue like
> this website on which to attack them? My request to publish
> our earlier debate is made entirely in good faith and simply
> out of a desire to waste no more time than necessary on
> matters that we have already covered.
Graham, you're just the greatest. Is that what you want to hear? Cut and paste. How time-consuming is this?
> Best, Graham
> PS I note your continued silence on the Kate Spence matter
> and the bizarre concerted role of “Nature” (editor CSICOP
> member) and “New Scientist” (editor CSICOP member), and the
> simultaneous role of Ed Krupp (CSICOP member) in getting
> Spence’s wonderful “new discovery” about the alignment of
> the pyramids widely published and by feeding positive
> comments on her “discovery” to the press. Kate Spence
> remember is one of the hatchet-wielding Horizon lobby brought
> on to rubbish Bauval’s Orion correlation theory. How ironic
> therefore that a major part of her much hyped “discovery” was
> prefigured in Bauval’s published work years before (though
> not acknowledged by Spence) while the other major part of it
> now turns out to have been developed and published by a
> French astrophysicist Karine Gadre and others -- again years
> before (and again not acknowledged by Spence). See details on
> this site.
I cannot comment in detial on the Kate Spence affair. It's entirely outside my area of knowledge, so I don't know the literature well enough to comment on any of it. I think it impossible, in general terms, for a leading journal like "Nature" to publish a piece if, as you claim, it's all plagiarised from other people's work. Kate Spence must have had a unique contribution to make, or the referees would have advised the editors to reject it. I do think, however, that the venom you and Bauval have poured on this woman is disgusting and despicable. You whine endlessly about how your integrity was attacked and how horrible it felt blahblahblahblah. Then you do this to her in response. Eye-for-an-eye, is it? Then drop the moral indignation.
And get off the CSICOP thing. It's just boring. CSICOP is an open, public organization of scientists all around the world with an open, public agenda that seeks to ask people making extraordinary claims to subject those claims to rigorous testing. Now people like you who can't substantiate their claims naturally find this inconvenient, hence your desire to undermine the credibility of your critics by constructing a grand conspiracy, entirely in your mind with the object of fuelling your martyr syndrome. Since you are so used to working with no evidence, it matters not that you cannot substantiate a single detail of the grand conspiracy, except to make ridiculous claims and pile them on top of each other. But then again, that's how you make your living, isn't it?
The bald fact is, most CSICOP people don't even know you exist, let alone want to organize a conspiracy against you. You aren't THAT important, Graham. Believe me.
> Have you joined CSICOP yourself, yet by the way? I know
> you’re an admirer of theirs.
No, I haven't joined yet, since I've not killed enough virgins in their nocturnal, blood-soaked monthly gatherings under the full moon. A dozen or so more should see me in, though.
> Yours ever hopeful that you will allow me to publish our
> debate. [And if you really think this is just some sort of
> delaying tactic on my part then surely the best way to expose
> me is to allow me to publish the debate?]
I will not allow it, and you know it. That's why you're insisting on it now. You may fool a few of your fans here with this lamest of preconditions, but surely not all of them.
Stop the posturing and get on with the issues. Reply to my C-14 posting, put here in response to a challenge YOU issued.
Warm and fuzzy regards,
|Debate||397||Garrett Fagan||29-Nov-00 22:05|
|RE: Debate||285||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||170||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||154||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||171||jameske||30-Nov-00 01:53|