FARMS and the Invention of Evidence

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:29 am

I have used the "contact us" function on the FARMS site a number of times, but never once got a response.

Post by **_Tarski** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:37 am

CaliforniaKid wrote:I have used the "contact us" function on the FARMS site a number of times, but never once got a response.

Interesting.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:22 am

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I hate to admit it, Prof. P., but it sounds like you are trying to send me on a wild goose chase!

You've more than earned such treatment, but, as it happens, I'm not.

Then prove it by answering my two questions below.

Contact them on Monday. If they don't respond within a reasonable period of time (say, by the next day; it's summer, and people are often out of town), let me know here and I'll put the question to somebody myself.

Who will you put the question to?

(You should, in that case, attempt to formulate an actual question.

I have formulated two:
1) Is there anybody who oversees and/or edits the content of the FARMS website? Y/N?
2) If 'Y', then who?

Post by **_dartagnan** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:24 am

I have used the "contact us" function on the FARMS site a number of times, but never once got a response.

Ditto here.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:26 am

dartagnan wrote:
I have used the "contact us" function on the FARMS site a number of times, but never once got a response.

Ditto here.

Gee... That's three people, and yet the Good Professor still expects me to do what will, in all likelihood, be nothing more than a waste of my time?

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:12 am

Mister Scratch wrote:Gee... That's three people, and yet the Good Professor still expects me to do what will, in all likelihood, be nothing more than a waste of my time?

That's right. I do.

If nobody responds to you within a reasonable amount of time (say, within a day or so), feel free to let me know on this thread, and I'll put the question to somebody myself. But you should actually formulate a question. I won't be inclined to pass on your typical accusations of dishonesty and unethical behavior.

If there is a problem with the "Contact Us" function on the web site, as it seems there may be, I'll be happy to raise that with the Powers That Be.

I can't speak to Tarski's experience or CK's, and I can only speculate as to Mr. Graham's. I wouldn't be surprised if his question went to a specific person who, recognizing his name, chose not to respond. But that's just a guess, and it may be completely wrong.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:17 am

Mister Scratch wrote:I have formulated two:
1) Is there anybody who oversees and/or edits the content of the FARMS website? Y/N?
2) If 'Y', then who?

Oh. Never mind.

I thought you had a substantive question regarding the evidence for a Florida horse.

It seems that you've now lost interest in that subject, and are simply trying to figure out something of the organizational chart at the Maxwell Institute. If that's all you're after, you can do that entirely on your own. If you can come up wth a name or two to add to your dirt-seeking operation, more power to you. But I have no interest in helping you in that regard.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:32 am

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I have formulated two:
1) Is there anybody who oversees and/or edits the content of the FARMS website? Y/N?
2) If 'Y', then who?

Oh. Never mind.

I thought you had a substantive question regarding the evidence for a Florida horse.

No, I don't. My initial post spoke to the fact that the Maxwell Institute has a bogus, totally fabricated assertion on its website. So far, instead of addressing the point of the OP, you have done nothing but dodge and obfuscate. I have put very, very simple and direct questions to you, and you have failed---repeatedly---to answer them. What are you hiding, Prof. P.? Why won't you answer my very, very simple questions?

It seems that you've now lost interest in that subject,

No... I was never interested in this non-existent "subject" (i.e., a 100 B.C. Florida horse) in the first place. Seriously, why would I be interested in pursuing the underlying science behind what is very clearly a fabrication? Or do you have some real evidence that the Florida horse is legit? You don't. Neither does Matt Roper. Neither does anyone.

and are simply trying to figure out something of the organizational chart at the Maxwell Institute.

And what is wrong with that? What you are doing is akin to someone asking you about the hierarchical structure of the Church itself, and then continuously saying, "Contact the Church. Here is a link. I won't tell you unless you contact them first. Then, if they don't reply, I still won't tell you, but I'll ask somebody within the Church to get back to you."

If that's all you're after, you can do that entirely on your own. If you can come up wth a name or two to add to your dirt-seeking operation, more power to you. But I have no interest in helping you in that regard.

If "dirt" was what I was after, you already gave it to me in the form of Matt Roper's name. I really don't know why you continue to dodge and avoid my very simple and innocent questions.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:43 am

moksha wrote:
Unusual Horse Found
LaBrea, California - Thought to be Pre-Columbian due to wooden sub-structure.

LOL.

I will now produce absolute proof that there were horses in Pre-Columbian America.

Here is a photo of one:

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:00 am

Hey Ray--- Who do YOU think is in charge of overseeing the content on the FARMS website?