Home > Archive >Soul Searching Not Required
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Mon, Feb 13th, 2006 11:29:23 AM
Topic: Soul Searching Not Required

In the last days a former frequent contributor to steve price's website wrote in there with his take on the internal "soul searching" that is transpiring in clownland:
"Hello all
I started on **** as a rank amateur rug collector in 2001. I must say that in 4-5 years, I have progressed a little, but not very far in my knowledge of rugs.

On the positive side, I have learnt a lot from some very willing and Knowledgeable(sic) folks on ****. For that, I express my sincere thanks for your time, effort, and extreme patience.

But it's also very easy to read between the lines here. If someone posts a rug that is 'beneath' some of the true rug academics that frequent ****, there is little or no response from them. It is almost embarrassing.

One thing I have learnt about the rug world in my short time as collector is that some rug collectors are elitist, and choose to move within their own small circles, occasionally poking their necks out to make comments for the uneducated plebs to mull over.

That is one of the main reasons I chose to discontinue my participation on this website a few months back.

I guess it was my mistake to come back.

**** is suffering a crisis in terms of where it should be positioned.

Richard Tomlinson"

Mr Tomlinson raises several important points:
1.that he has not "progressed very far" in his knowledge of rugs"

RK know very well how hard it really is to learn about rugs and we sympathize with those honest seekers, like Tomlinson, who find it almost impossible to "progress".

However, that said spending time trying to "learn" anything from steve price=clown, or the majority of the other contributors to his website, is no way to progress.

These folks couldn't teach rug 101, let alone anything more advanced.

So trying to squeeze even a drop of "knowledge or expertise" from dry lemons like price, silverman, amstey or howe would truly be, and is, wasted effort.

2. the rug world is elitist

This statement, on the surface, is true but all societies, and rug collectors are a society, are elitist and RK sees no reason why some rug collectors should not be elitist.

However, the qualifications and performance of those elites is far more the question, rather than solely concentrating on the fact of their existence.

Most of the elites in rugdom are nothing more than a self- appointed and anointed elite who have, because of the power of the bank accounts, bought their way into calling themselves, or being seen by others, as the elite.

This is one of the major problems in rugdom -- an establishment, i.e. the elite, is that in name only.

Often these folks are as rug challenged as steve price and company -- a sad commentary to be sure.

Tomlinson's post and the one howe wrote are clear and present statements, from the inside mind you, that all is not well and right. Yet professor price=clown refuses to even countenance these rumblings, let alone take them to heart.

In fact, the only rejoinder to Tomlinson's post price could muster is "welcome back".

What a clown-- here Tomlinson is saying goodbye in no uncertain terms and price is "welcoming him back".

What more proof of price's ignoramus behaviour and ego-driven lust for recognition from rugdom could one possibly require?

We have said it before and will surely be prompted to say it again -- price is a clown of major proportions; his views worthless, his input to the rug world valueless and his real stature negligible, if not actually non-existent.

In all fairness to steve, the clown, he did say a bit more to Tomlinson and here's the rest of price's comments:
“Hi Richard

The number of academics whose specialty is rugs or rug related topics is very small.

To the best of my recollection, except for two museum curators, none have ever directly participated in **** or any other rug forum.

A third, Peter Andrews, sometimes contributes comments through John Howe.

I mention this only to point out that the more experienced collectors and dealers that have taken part in our discussions, some of whom are very knowledgeable indeed, are not "true rug academics".

Few, if any, of them would be permitted to participate in forums run by and for academic professionals in the field.

Welcome back, by the way.

Regards, Steve Price”

True to form price as always missed the boat, the pier and even the harbor with this flatulent and pompous retort.

For your information, steve, academics have degrees but not necessarily knowledge.

Just look at yourself, clown, you have degrees but what do you actually know, or have proven or added to your subject, except a teacher’s lesson plan?

You have written a paltry and embarrassingly meager total of four or five "papers" in your entire career and are in reality nothing more than the baby-sitter of a classroom in a backwater of academia.

One doesn't have to have a degree to be an expert, clown, and just because one has a degree, that degree doesn't make the holder an expert.

When even the most simple logic, like this, is proved lost on a meat-head like price, how in God's green earth could he possibly tackle a complex and complicated subject like antique Oriental Rugs?

Clearly he and those of his ilk can't and that is the issue and reason RK is vocal in our insistence price and company remove themselves from public purview.

Dunces like price, silverman, amstey, howe, etc, etc should be placed in the corner, face to the wall wearing their pointed caps until they get it or at least face the fact they don't get it.

Author: Steve Price
Mon, Feb 13th, 2006 11:29:23 AM

RK Replies: Clown, calling what we published about your ‘paper’ writing a “lie” and even a “malicious lie”, is pedantic and dumb.

This describes you well, steve, a dumb pedant and not only in our opinion.

Throwing your hands up and squawking how horrible an error it was, not stating they were “selected publications”, begs the issue in many ways:

how many were they selected from;
how many were listed after the selection was made;
the importance of the publisher and type of publication;
and, of course, the importance of the content.

Also, clown, are you really so modest as to post fewer references on your webpage than say the head of the Department has on hers?

In the end it matters not what was on your page, clown, but how it compares with your colleagues.

And that, putz, was our point and the one you so vainly battle to avoid breaching.

It’s typical, steve, face it you’re a putz, who refuses to admit he knows nothing about rugs and has for a career babysitting undergrads in a backwater University.

Teaching is a noble profession but being a professor doesn’t automatically equate with being noble.

RK knows little about you and cares to know less but we’d venture to say you’re as lousy a teacher as you are a pseudo-rug collector or, Lord help us, expert.

If we are wrong prove it and quit hiding behind pedantic BS.

Show us your bursting at the seams CV that is so full of important “papers” and achievements and awards from your scientific peers.

We all know you know nothing about rugs, so wow us with your achievements in your field….or any field.

Prove RK wrong instead of this exaggerated blah-blah BS –calling us a “serial malicious liar”.

Get real, clown, you’re way off base and everyone who reads this knows.

You’ve again proven yourself too stupid to even realize what you write better start paying better attention, or even can you?

And as for that apology, re-read it, putz, and you’ll see it is not an apology, although it sure begins with one.

Read it carefully, over and over – eventually even a clod like you, who thinks he knows it all, will get it.

You’re no contest, steve, and for that reason RK has decided the buck stops here.

Your obtuse petty accusations and moral high ground pomposity are b-o-r-i-n-g to the max.

So we’re oh so sorry we characterized Nutrition as a newsstand glossy and did not clearly state these were “selected publications” on yours and everyone else’s webpages.

So putz, we leave you, again, looking the clown you can’t help playing.


Hi Jack

More yapping, more lies.

The info on my university web page is clearly labeled "Selected Publications". You lied when you represented it as the corpus of my output. Your characterizing NUTRITION as a newsstand glossy, not using peer review is another lie.

Your denial of having ever sent me an apology is another lie. Here it is, undedited.

Sent from wamri@earthlink.net, Monday, November 26, 2001, 6:07 PM
i must apologize for my poor behaviour towards you

there was no need for the level of theatrics i employed and must apologize for that

you are lost in what you are doing, and you are not alone,just look around

wasting valuable resource from the extremely limited pool available and that is the main reason i directed my displeasure at you....the titular head of turkotrek

so peace is my virtue but theater is often my choice

I assume that it was written during one of your rare lucid moments.

Author: Steve Price
Mon, Feb 13th, 2006 10:03:09 AM

RK Replies: Go ahead and post your CV instead of squawking about it, clown. And your statement you will only do it for something "worthwhile" is but another steve price boner.

Too bad you're too stupid to see what it reflects on your "character" and personality(sic).

Calling me a "malicious liar" for referring to your own webpage on your University's website and publishing what is written there here?

Come on, clown, that move in itself takes the cake for malicious slander and only an idiot like you could miss it.

Go post your CV on your University's website for all to see if you are so proud of it, price.

By the way, RK is glad to see you wrote some "papers" early on in your career but the rest of your squawk is a bogus as saying RK ever apologized to you.

You must have been dreaming again to come up with that one.

Lastly, let's all remember the real discussion concerns price=clown's tramping around in the rug world and there, professor clown, you have no old as the hills “references” to post to refute our statements that you are a rug-ignorant and nuisance.


Hi Jack

Here is a direct quote of something posted by you in this thread.
You have written a paltry and embarrassingly meager total of four or five "papers" in your entire career ...
You did not present this as an opinion, but as a fact. Like so many of your "facts", it is a fabrication and you know it. All it takes to prove that you are a liar is six publications from my CV. Here are references to my first six papers in peer reviewed journals:
Exptl. Cell Res. 31:475-483, 1963
Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 103:196-199, 1963
Comparative. Biochem. Physiol. 10:245-251, 1963
Biochemical. Pharmacol. 13:659-662, 1964
J. Organic. Chem. 30:3575-3576, 1965
J. Chromatog. 23:182-183, 1966
Anyone with access to a university library can confirm this. Your malicious lie wouldn't even have been true 40 years ago.

Not satisfied with that whopper, you continued with this one. Again, I quote:
... even the most junior member of steve's Physiology department at his University has far more publication efforts, and those are in "peer review" journals not news stand glossies like Nutrition
As in the previous quotation, you present this as fact, not opinion. It is, of course, just more lies. NUTRITION is a peer reviewed professional journal, as you could have learned by visiting or telephoning any university library.

You are a serial malicious liar, and I'm not about to post my CV without an offer of something worthwhile. You offered me an apology. What do I want with another of your apologies? I haven't finished laughing at the last one yet. You offer to remove my professional career from the list of things about which you lie. Who cares? You are a liar, and everyone that reads this site knows it now if they didn't know it already.

Resume yapping.

Author: jc
Sun, Feb 12th, 2006 03:40:09 AM

Obviously price has been too busy writing important "papers" aimed at revolutionizing the study of Physiology to post his CV here.

But we are in no rush and trust very soon professor price will take a break from all the ultra-important scientific work he is perennially engaged in to let RK.com's readers in on his massive accomplishments in the world of Physiology and to marvel at all the awards and professional recommendations he has received over his illustrious forty year career at Virginia Commonwealth University.

For those readers who would like to see professor price's personal webpage on his university's website, here is the url:

By the way, while you're there take a look at some of his colleague's webpages:

We didn't look at every one but all those we did showed far more "papers", recognitions and awards than the paltry number professor price has racked up.

In fact, price lists only 3 papers (written in 1984, 1988 and 1991) and not one professional recognition or award for achievement in his scientific area. Guess he's too modest to show how important his work has been, huh?

These webpages are maintained by each individual professor and, considering professor price is the webmaster for the university's site, one would think his page would be a complete record of his career.

It probably is but RK is equally sure, professor price has written other "papers" and received some awards. However, those "papers" must have appeared in comic books or scientific magazines the quality of Reader's Digest and his awards for scientific achievement must have come from Cracker Jack boxes and Battle Creek Michigan (the home of breakfast cereal give-aways).

It is so clear and present price is the know-nothing nobody RK has called him out for being and, regardless of his objections, price can't substantiate his feeble protests with anything other than hot air -- and that's something steve is very good at mustering.

Author: Steve Price
Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 12:13:55 PM

RK Replies:

Putz, here is a bet for you:

Post your CV and full list of professional accomplishments, awards, officaial recognitions for your contributions to your field here on RK.com.

If it is not as barren as the Mojave as we have stated I will publicly apologize to you for my error here on RK.com and on your piss puddle of a website.

If it is as we have characterized it, you apologize here on RK.com and on your website for trying to present a position that was untrue.

If you do not respond everyone will know your failure to produce your supposed credentials will prove RK.com's picture of you.

If you do and what you produce is impressive, RK will admit our error and never assail your career as a science professional and academic.

The move is yours,clown.


Hi Jack

You wrote, ...it is a fact steve's CV (curriculum vitae, i.e. catalog of academic accomplishments) is as barren as the Mojave desert, as we so characterized it. Whether or not he has published more than 5 "papers"(be it 6 or 16) in journals ... is not the point here: it's the meager number of such efforts he has made in his 40 year "career" as a "scientist" and his lack of professional accomplishment.
The number of publications I have authored was raised by you, not by me. Your numbers are fabrications. My offer to prove it stands, under the terms I specified. We can extend that to include professional accomplishments if you like.

You continued, ... even the most junior member of steve's Physiology department at his University has far more publication efforts, and those are in "peer review" journals not news stand (sic) glossies like Nutrition.Again, no truth in any of this. Make it worth my while, and I'll prove it. "Nutrition" is a newsstand glossy? That's positively Cassinesque.

You then go on, with There is little doubt steve price’s efforts fall into the inaccurate and obnoxious categories and his trying to win a pointless bet centering on his having published more than 5 "papers" in a 40 scientific career is just another dumb as a rock proof of what a pompous egotistical jerk and buffoon he is.
Again: my academic credentials was raised by you, not by me. We went through all this about 2 years ago, when you made similar statements about my publication record, level of professional recognition, even that my degrees came from diploma mills. All of those things were shown to be lies, all motivated by malice. You were a malicious liar then, you are a malicious liar now. You probably always will be a malicious liar, with all the compelling evidence that any other yapping dog presents as he imagines his own importance.

Jack, no matter how fervently you fantasize that I am as complete a failure as you are, no matter how often you present your fantasies as facts, you fool nobody but yourself.

Sorry it took awhile for me to get around to responding. I had to babysit a roomful of medical students for most of the morning. I had them sing a few songs, then they practiced coloring with their Crayolas until nap time.

Let the yapping resume.

Author: Stephen Louw
email: louws@social.wits.ac.za
Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 03:21:11 AM

RK Replies:

Well, well, mr low makes another appearance here on RK.com.

Glad to know you're spending some time here. Hopefully you are learning something or is this visit only a one off to support your buddy, price=clown.

First of all, mr low, your dopey sarcasm and stupidly presented reinforcement of steve's absurd pre-occupation with the fact RK knows and has publicly stated he is a nobody in the world of science (forget his position in the world of rugs, as it is lower than an ant in a wheel rut) runs parallel with the opinion RK has of you. Zero.

You proved yourself to us some years ago and if you like RK will be glad to embarrass you further by recounting our brief interaction.

Secondly, it is a fact steve's CV (curriculum vitae, i.e. catalog of academic accomplishments) is as barren as the Mojave desert, as we so characterized it.

Whether or not he has published more than 5 "papers"(be it 6 or 16) in journals, like Nutrition Magazine(one of the three acknowledged publication efforts on his University’s website) is not the point here: it's the meager number of such efforts he has made in his 40 year "career" as a "scientist" and his lack of professional accomplishment.

By the way, even the most junior member of steve's Physiology department at his University has far more publication efforts, and those are in "peer review" journals not news stand glossies like Nutrition.

As for the more senior member of his department? Their CV's are loaded with accomplishments -- publications, scientific achievements, awards, etc. -- and compared to steve’s they look like the Empire State building standing next to porta-san on 34th street and 5th Ave.

We could go on, mr low, but frankly neither you nor steve are worth the effort.

So tell steve, or he'll read it here himself on one of his 2 or 3 daily visits here to RK.com (jezzz if only he could learn something by coming here): RK will be glad to take his money on any type of real wager that would pertain to RK's mission here and not to one dealing with our distain for price's, or yours as well mr low, propensity to publicly prove your inferior rug knowledge and expertise.

Oh, in case you are confused what that mission is, let RK put your straight: RK.com's stated purpose is to share our experience and expertise of historic carpets and related weavings with the public at large, provide an accessible forum where anyone can post their views without fear of moderation or censorship and yes, mr low, to critique, rebut and ridicule fools, clowns and poseurs who write nonsense about rugs only to see their names in print or to further obnoxious, greedy, inaccurate and disingenuous personal agendas under the guise of providing truthful or expert knowledge.

There is little doubt steve price’s efforts fall into the inaccurate and obnoxious categories and his trying to win a pointless bet centering on his having published more than 5 "papers" in a 40 scientific career is just another dumb as a rock proof of what a pompous egotistical jerk and buffoon he is.

And your support for him, mr low, appears to RK to be best described by the old "birds of a feather" adage.


Come on Jack, endlessly rehearsing your wild accusations against Steve is nothing more than a "proof by repetition." Steve called you out: in his view, the basis upon which you mount your attack, that he has not published much, is erroneous - a fabrication, much like most of your attacks on other people. There is a question of fact, and a wager. Are you willing to take Steve on or not? Are you right in your claim (in which case Steve is wrong?) or are you simply making things up on the assumption that no-one would ever check your facts?

This challenge is especially important to me, and, I am sure, to many other rug lovers. Ordinarily, I believe everything you say because I know that you are infallible, and the repository of all wisdom. I need to know that you are right here, or else my faith might be shattered!

Author: Steve Price
email: sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
Tue, Feb 7th, 2006 02:16:01 PM

RK Replies:

Posts from price are allowed on RK.com's board but RK is not allowed to post on his website.

If this plain and simple fact doesn't tell all about price=clown's stilted and pompous “know-nothing but thinks he's right on” idiocy, we have nothing more to add.

As for his "career" as a scientist? Well, he does have a PhD but all he has done with it is baby sit undergrad classes.

His CV is a barren as the Mojave Desert and, regardless of his bogus bravado, he can't prove differently.

RK.com is the best thing that ever happened to price and his piss puddle of a website because gets more notoriety here in a week than he has gotten anywhere else in a month of Sundays.

Too bad it's all been put down, critique and rebuttal.

But to an ignoramus like price, seeing his name in print here on RK.com is far more important than the critical pounding he receives along with it.

What else to expect from a meat-head whose major claim to fame was sharing a 2 minute dunkin’ donut’s breakfast one morning with johnny-boy Thompson at some icoc or acor meet?

We’re sure stevie treasures the photo-op he recorded with Thompson, as much as he does that PhD hanging on his office wall -- and why not -- there's nothing else hanging but them and his favorite piece of airport-art.


Hi Jack

You again evaluate my academic career, about which you know even less than you do of most things. I thought we put this to rest a few years ago, but evidently I was mistaken.

You again assert that my published work totals 4 or 5 papers. Let me preface what comes next with a few definitions, just so we are talking about the same thing.

A "paper" in academic parlance means an article published in a journal or as a chapter in a book. There are also publications seen as less important, but still sometimes called papers - published letters to the editor, and published abstracts of oral presentations made at professional society meetings or symposia. Let's call those "secondary papers", so there will be no confusion.

I offer you the following opportunity:
1. If your statement that I have published only four papers is correct, I will promptly sign ownership of **** over to you. "Secondary papers" won't count toward this total, only articles and book chapters.
2. If your statement is incorrect (that is, if I have published more than 5 papers, not counting "secondary papers"), you will promptly pay me according to the following schedule:
a. $100 for each article or book chapter, plus
b. $50 for each "secondary paper".

You should jump at this oppportunity. There can be risk to you only if you're mistaken , and everyone knows that you're never mistaken.

Are we on?

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service