Let's see if the GAO does the job to which it is entrusted,
to protect the wasteful spending of taxpayers' money
and, particularly, prevent it from being used for fraudulent
purposes. That is, taxpayers' dollars used to pay Sienkiewicz
to defend the facetious, falsified Theory of Evolution of man.
Let's make sure that we are understanding the rules that you are playing by,
Ed. If the GAO confirms that David is being paid by taxpayers' money, then
that would confirm what you've been saying. But what happens if the GAO do
not confirm it? There are two choices:
a) David is not being paid by taxpayer's money, and you have been wrong
about this all along, or
b) The GAO is part of the conspiracy, but David is nevertheless being paid
by taxpayers' money.
You'll choose (b), won't you? So the point here must be to confirm that the
GAO is manipulated by the "Pseudoscientific Establishment", mustn't it? And
this really has nothing to do with David at all, right?
In this case -- and it is UNMISTAKEABLE -- it is Sienkiewicz'
despicable attempt to discredit facts and physical evidence
that proves, BEYOND ALL DOUBT, that the Theory of Evolution
belongs in the landfill.
Ed, you yourself have done far more to discredit that "evidence" than David
ever will. When you refuse to permit inspection of your finds and then rail
at people because they've never inspected your finds, when you publish
documents on your website and don't answer the questions that arise when
those documents are read, when you are confronted with contrary evidence and
refuse to even acknowledge it ... You are discredited primarily through your
own behaviors, Ed.
I mentioned from Day One that the Pseudoscientific
Establishment -- the institutions, the research
laboratories, the anthropological and paleontological
associations, why even the "great" museums -- are
participants in deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy
in the coverup of a search for honest answers about man's
orgin and ancestry.
I have identified Attorney Sienkiewicz as "The Clown
Prince of Pseudoscientists." And he's confirming it
more and more with each and every posting.
I'm not so sure that David is deserving of that title, Ed.
Let's have a little competition between you and David, shall we, Ed? The
following items are considered to be hallmarks of pseudoscience.
(Specifically, I picked these up at
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/handouts/science-pseudoscience.pdf.) Let's
figure out whether you or David fit each category better. Read through the
descriptions of the categories at that site, think >>critically<< about
events over the past year or two (or 20), and compare your results to mine
below.
1. Anachronistic thinking - doesn't seem to apply to either
2. Seeking mysteries - doesn't seem to apply to either
3. Appeals to myths - doesn't seem to apply to either
4. Casual approach to evidence - Ed, definitely.
5. Irrefutable hypotheses - Ed, definitely
6. Spurious similarities - Ed, most definitely
7. Explanation by scenario - Ed, definitely
8. Research by literary interpretation - Ed, definitely
9. Refusal to revise - Ed, most definitely
10. Shift the burder of proof on the other side - Ed, most definitely
11. A theory is legitimate simply because it's new, alternative, or daring -
Ed, definitely
Well, Ed, I'd have to say that if David is the Clown Prince, you're likely
the Clown Emperor of Pseudoscience! All hail!
On a more serious note, Ed, if you feel that I've misjudged any of the
categories above, let me know, and I'll explain my reasoning. But, please,
only do so if you're willing to think critically about things. If you
continue to be as closed-minded as you have been, there is really very
little point.
<snip remainder>
