Timothy Trower
Guest
*cough* Paul may just be on to something! *cough*
And, Michael; I never violate a confidence. Period.
And, Michael; I never violate a confidence. Period.
The Goodwins
- Thread starter Laura Melinda Varjo
- Start date
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>And, Michael; I never violate a confidence. Period.<<
That's nice, (And I wouldn't ask you to) but you're missing the point. The point is that a source which cannot be checked, or which is unwilling to be checked has no credibility.
It's just that simple.
Now if this person wishes to sign on with us and offer his/her insights or information, I'll cheerfully give it any and all appropriate consideration. If not, then we're right back to Plan A, which is to stand back and see how this all plays out.
That's nice, (And I wouldn't ask you to) but you're missing the point. The point is that a source which cannot be checked, or which is unwilling to be checked has no credibility.
It's just that simple.
Now if this person wishes to sign on with us and offer his/her insights or information, I'll cheerfully give it any and all appropriate consideration. If not, then we're right back to Plan A, which is to stand back and see how this all plays out.
Timothy Trower
Guest
But you are asking me to. And I won't.
And yes, YOU will have to wait a bit to see just what happened!
And yes, YOU will have to wait a bit to see just what happened!
Mike Poirier
Member
I don't think anyone at all is interested in the, 'I know something you don't know and I can't tell.' People used it in the course of research on this board and it got old... quickly.
As Mike said, and I agree with-
The point is that a source which cannot be checked, or which is unwilling to be checked has no credibility.
As Mike said, and I agree with-
The point is that a source which cannot be checked, or which is unwilling to be checked has no credibility.
Timothy Trower
Guest
Yawn.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>But you are asking me to.<<
No I'm not. I await the input of this source when they're willing to discuss it. Until then, there's nothing to discuss.
No I'm not. I await the input of this source when they're willing to discuss it. Until then, there's nothing to discuss.
Timothy Trower
Guest
Michael,
Clearly you are missing something here. The discussion centers around the mis-identification of the "Unknown Child", not a source of information.
Ruffman and Parr are the ones who CHOSE to prematurely release an identity of the "Unknown Child". They did so after completing only the first of two rounds of DNA testing. Both were available, but only one was used.
They CHOSE to use the opinions of supposed experts in the fields of footwear and dentistry to make the final determination of the identity instead of using the tools at hand -- that of an advanced DNA test -- that would have answered the question without a shadow of a doubt.
It is not a matter of timing of whether or not Ruffman and Parr THE NEXT DAY or YEARS LATER began the second round of testing. By then, it was too late, and the damage was done -- the damage to their reputations AND the damage to the Panula family.
If you have truly followed this story from day one, then you already know the full story. Literally every piece of evidence has been discussed over and over. If you are truly following this thread, then you've apparently missed a HUGE clue in the last post from Paul Lee.
To summarize, this is not about DNA mistakes. There WAS no mistake in the DNA testing process. It is not about Alice Cleaver the murderer. And it is not about who told me what. It is all about the error made by Ruffman and company -- AND THAT ERROR ONLY -- an error that could have and should have been avoided by following the long established protocols of the science of DNA testing. Ruffman has brought all of this on his own shoulders.
Discuss it with him.
Clearly you are missing something here. The discussion centers around the mis-identification of the "Unknown Child", not a source of information.
Ruffman and Parr are the ones who CHOSE to prematurely release an identity of the "Unknown Child". They did so after completing only the first of two rounds of DNA testing. Both were available, but only one was used.
They CHOSE to use the opinions of supposed experts in the fields of footwear and dentistry to make the final determination of the identity instead of using the tools at hand -- that of an advanced DNA test -- that would have answered the question without a shadow of a doubt.
It is not a matter of timing of whether or not Ruffman and Parr THE NEXT DAY or YEARS LATER began the second round of testing. By then, it was too late, and the damage was done -- the damage to their reputations AND the damage to the Panula family.
If you have truly followed this story from day one, then you already know the full story. Literally every piece of evidence has been discussed over and over. If you are truly following this thread, then you've apparently missed a HUGE clue in the last post from Paul Lee.
To summarize, this is not about DNA mistakes. There WAS no mistake in the DNA testing process. It is not about Alice Cleaver the murderer. And it is not about who told me what. It is all about the error made by Ruffman and company -- AND THAT ERROR ONLY -- an error that could have and should have been avoided by following the long established protocols of the science of DNA testing. Ruffman has brought all of this on his own shoulders.
Discuss it with him.
Jim Kalafus
Member
>It is not about Alice Cleaver the murderer
See- that is why misinformation is so dangerous. You are naming Alice Cleaver as a murderer. She was NOT a murderer, only mistakenly identified as such by a historian who did not take the time to check his facts. More than a decade after that book came out, people such as yourself who read the Alice Cleaver segments and took them to heart, are still making that erroneous accusation. My point was about the long line of shoddy research faux-pas that we've been subjected to...had you said "this is not about OTHER researchers who've made equally stupid mistakes" you'd have been closer on target to making a worthy point.
Despite your obvious pleasure and palpable puerile chortling over this issue, it is hardly the first~ and will not be the last~ time style has taken precedence over substance in the Titanic world. Did you get yourself into pants-soiling high dudgeon over the inclusion of the doctored Olympic photo in that other book? If so, I'd like to see the posts. Link me to them. Did you crow about the public disgrace of a museum that deliberately altered a Captain Smith quote and left it on their website for over a year? Again, if so, I'd like to see the posts. Link me to them ASAP. Or, is this yet another example of immature factionalism rearing its ugly head?
Since the worst that was said by either of the other two players in this discussion was "Let us take a wait and see approach," and it was you who introduced the I Have To Protect My Sources Tangent, I'd tone down your aggrieved whine when called on it a bit if I were you. There has not been a single bit of apology for Ruffman offered by either Mike or Michael, ONLY the advising of a Wait and See approach, and a mention of the regrettable fact that when this story broke some months ago there was quite a bit of misinformation (perhaps deliberate)flwoing from sources who might politely be termed "partisan."
>Literally every piece of evidence has been discussed over and over. If you are truly following this thread, then you've apparently missed a HUGE clue in the last post from Paul Lee.
This isn't Scooby-doo. There WAS no huge clue since his post was devoid of anything of note, to be blunt. That is what is delightful about omitting names and then citing confidentiality. I could just as easily write:
"*cough* Maybe in the time elapsed since the initial round of testing, someone with *cough* vested interest in seeing this fail *cough* substituted a second pair of vintage children's shoes and a second set of teeth."
and then claim to be protecting my sources when people rightfully ask "Where did you get THAT garbage from?" Until the names are given, his supposedly factual post is just as lacking in substance as my silliness above. So, speaking for myself and Mike I can say that the initial responses it generated were *cough* derision and pity. Not quite what was intended, I am sure, but when you play the "I know something you don't know" game that is what you set yourself up for.
>It is all about the error made by Ruffman and company -- AND THAT ERROR ONLY -- an error that could have and should have been avoided by following the long established protocols of the science of DNA testing. Ruffman has brought all of this on his own shoulders.
No, it is really about a long standing rift between two groups, and you having an opportunity to rub something in.
The fact is, you know NOTHING about DNA testing or protocols other than what someone else has told you or what you have read in mass market publications. Your opinion is a regurgitation. You come across as obtuse, at best. As far as I know, there are NO DNA specialists on this board and therefore no one on the entire site who has the right to offer more than a qualified opinion. (Yes, there are doctors, but being an expert in one field does not make one qualified to comment in another) You DON'T understand the tests that were or were not used; could not explain DNA protocol in a way that would not get you laughed at by those who do; cannot explain the success and failure rate of the tests applied to the shoes OR for that matter if there are any factors which can induce a false positive or a false negative....in short, your sledgehammer-like statements at the outset of this discussion sounded good but, in fact, are a bunch of sound and fury related by an...well you know...signifying nothing.
See- that is why misinformation is so dangerous. You are naming Alice Cleaver as a murderer. She was NOT a murderer, only mistakenly identified as such by a historian who did not take the time to check his facts. More than a decade after that book came out, people such as yourself who read the Alice Cleaver segments and took them to heart, are still making that erroneous accusation. My point was about the long line of shoddy research faux-pas that we've been subjected to...had you said "this is not about OTHER researchers who've made equally stupid mistakes" you'd have been closer on target to making a worthy point.
Despite your obvious pleasure and palpable puerile chortling over this issue, it is hardly the first~ and will not be the last~ time style has taken precedence over substance in the Titanic world. Did you get yourself into pants-soiling high dudgeon over the inclusion of the doctored Olympic photo in that other book? If so, I'd like to see the posts. Link me to them. Did you crow about the public disgrace of a museum that deliberately altered a Captain Smith quote and left it on their website for over a year? Again, if so, I'd like to see the posts. Link me to them ASAP. Or, is this yet another example of immature factionalism rearing its ugly head?
Since the worst that was said by either of the other two players in this discussion was "Let us take a wait and see approach," and it was you who introduced the I Have To Protect My Sources Tangent, I'd tone down your aggrieved whine when called on it a bit if I were you. There has not been a single bit of apology for Ruffman offered by either Mike or Michael, ONLY the advising of a Wait and See approach, and a mention of the regrettable fact that when this story broke some months ago there was quite a bit of misinformation (perhaps deliberate)flwoing from sources who might politely be termed "partisan."
>Literally every piece of evidence has been discussed over and over. If you are truly following this thread, then you've apparently missed a HUGE clue in the last post from Paul Lee.
This isn't Scooby-doo. There WAS no huge clue since his post was devoid of anything of note, to be blunt. That is what is delightful about omitting names and then citing confidentiality. I could just as easily write:
"*cough* Maybe in the time elapsed since the initial round of testing, someone with *cough* vested interest in seeing this fail *cough* substituted a second pair of vintage children's shoes and a second set of teeth."
and then claim to be protecting my sources when people rightfully ask "Where did you get THAT garbage from?" Until the names are given, his supposedly factual post is just as lacking in substance as my silliness above. So, speaking for myself and Mike I can say that the initial responses it generated were *cough* derision and pity. Not quite what was intended, I am sure, but when you play the "I know something you don't know" game that is what you set yourself up for.
>It is all about the error made by Ruffman and company -- AND THAT ERROR ONLY -- an error that could have and should have been avoided by following the long established protocols of the science of DNA testing. Ruffman has brought all of this on his own shoulders.
No, it is really about a long standing rift between two groups, and you having an opportunity to rub something in.
The fact is, you know NOTHING about DNA testing or protocols other than what someone else has told you or what you have read in mass market publications. Your opinion is a regurgitation. You come across as obtuse, at best. As far as I know, there are NO DNA specialists on this board and therefore no one on the entire site who has the right to offer more than a qualified opinion. (Yes, there are doctors, but being an expert in one field does not make one qualified to comment in another) You DON'T understand the tests that were or were not used; could not explain DNA protocol in a way that would not get you laughed at by those who do; cannot explain the success and failure rate of the tests applied to the shoes OR for that matter if there are any factors which can induce a false positive or a false negative....in short, your sledgehammer-like statements at the outset of this discussion sounded good but, in fact, are a bunch of sound and fury related by an...well you know...signifying nothing.
Timothy Trower
Guest
Mr. Kalafus,
You are the one who dragged Alice Cleaver the murderer into this discussion ("then it is really just an extension of the whole Alice Cleaver Was a Murderer fiasco of the 1990s").
Frankly, that is as far as I got into your hateful diatribe before quitting. Stop writing with your emotions, and look at the facts of Ruffman and Parr and their screwup with the identity of the "Unknown Child".
And then take your frustrations out on Mr. Ruffman.
You are the one who dragged Alice Cleaver the murderer into this discussion ("then it is really just an extension of the whole Alice Cleaver Was a Murderer fiasco of the 1990s").
Frankly, that is as far as I got into your hateful diatribe before quitting. Stop writing with your emotions, and look at the facts of Ruffman and Parr and their screwup with the identity of the "Unknown Child".
And then take your frustrations out on Mr. Ruffman.
Mike Poirier
Member
It is all about the error made by Ruffman and company -- AND THAT ERROR ONLY
Hmmm.... You have a very narrow view of what the topic is about. I suspect because you do not know all the facts. And the credibility of your posts is low considering that you have been posting not 2nd, but 3rd hand info about the situation which came out of the BTS convention.
Why can't Ruffman and Parr explain what happened? I would like to know the science behind what happened. It is not like they chase ghosts and talk to spirits to get their answers.
Funny, I have yet to see other researchers who made errors (as Jim pointed out above such as claiming poor Alice Cleaver was a baby killer) make public recantations such as Ruffman did. It is all germane, of course, as you are castigating people who do so! But only certain people.
Hmmm.... You have a very narrow view of what the topic is about. I suspect because you do not know all the facts. And the credibility of your posts is low considering that you have been posting not 2nd, but 3rd hand info about the situation which came out of the BTS convention.
Why can't Ruffman and Parr explain what happened? I would like to know the science behind what happened. It is not like they chase ghosts and talk to spirits to get their answers.
Funny, I have yet to see other researchers who made errors (as Jim pointed out above such as claiming poor Alice Cleaver was a baby killer) make public recantations such as Ruffman did. It is all germane, of course, as you are castigating people who do so! But only certain people.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>The discussion centers around the mis-identification of the "Unknown Child", not a source of information.<<
Not to be a pest, but I'm not the one who mentioned having information which was given in confidence. You did that. If you don't wish discuss that or can't, that's fine.
But the credibility problem remains, and it doesn't go away. I didn't create that. I just pointed it out.
Now until Parr and Ruffman have their say, I'm done with this.
Not to be a pest, but I'm not the one who mentioned having information which was given in confidence. You did that. If you don't wish discuss that or can't, that's fine.
But the credibility problem remains, and it doesn't go away. I didn't create that. I just pointed it out.
Now until Parr and Ruffman have their say, I'm done with this.
Timothy Trower
Guest
Michael S.,
Then again, please reread Paul Lee's post. I know that a good researcher like yourself can figure it out from that.
Then again, please reread Paul Lee's post. I know that a good researcher like yourself can figure it out from that.
Timothy Trower
Guest
Mr. Poirier and Mr. Kalafus,
When you've quite finished your lovefest with each other's posts, maybe you could ponder a quote from one of my earlier posts and then answer a simple question:
"It is all about the error made by Ruffman and company -- AND THAT ERROR ONLY -- an error that could have and should have been avoided by following the long established protocols of the science of DNA testing."
Why did Ruffman and Parr cut corners for a quick (and erroneous) identification instead of completing the task at hand?
When you've quite finished your lovefest with each other's posts, maybe you could ponder a quote from one of my earlier posts and then answer a simple question:
"It is all about the error made by Ruffman and company -- AND THAT ERROR ONLY -- an error that could have and should have been avoided by following the long established protocols of the science of DNA testing."
Why did Ruffman and Parr cut corners for a quick (and erroneous) identification instead of completing the task at hand?
Mike Poirier
Member
There you go with your forte, rumors, innuendos... Maybe it is you who should stick with facts, as we know them (not what you think they might be from 'sources') and not 2nd or 3rd hand info...
Are you 100% positive that they cut corners? Wait and see till they speak.
Are you 100% positive that they cut corners? Wait and see till they speak.
Timothy Trower
Guest
Wrong answer, Mr. Poirier.
Good bye.
Good bye.
