We have written quite a bit about steve price.
We have ridiculed his stupid assertions and comments about rugs that issue forth almost every time he pecks at his keyboard.
We have also criticizing him and his cohorts for ostensibly operating an open forum on the internet that is open only to what they deem appropriate.
Even worse, the purpose of that forum professes to provide expertise about oriental rugs to the public at large who have questions about this topic. Sadly they are clearly way over their heads in trying to fulfill that mission.
It is blatantly clear price and his group cannot provide even a modicum of help, we need not catalog the litany of gaffs, errors and downright dumb answers they unabashedly have provided in seeking to answer those questions.
If the truth be known, and by the way it is known to just about everyone other than themselves and the poor unfortunates who come seeking help, they need help as much as the people who come seeking it.
Their website professes to be an "open forum", however, just like Russia in the old days, or China today, the only openness is lip service, as nothing they deem unacceptable is allowed.
How anyone could profess such libertarian sentiments and then act as they do can only be described as dumb bastard activity, and these clowns, fools and idiots are dumb bastards and price is the biggest of the bunch.
To make matters even worse, as difficult as that could possibly be, price believes they are doing public service and stands behind his right to censor and to remove anything he doesn't like or agree. He likewise takes exception to anyone who feels his actions are anything but an affront to openness and professionalism.
To state price is a leading rug world dumb bastard for his abject pomposity and stupidity sullies those two words to no end.
We were banned long ago by price for allegedly being "uncivil" (translation=presenting facts that counter price's).
In fact, we circumvented every attempt he made to keep us from posting until he was forced to vet every post and put it on their board by hand.
Only in this manner was he able to keep us out.
We then posted there several times under pseudonyms and have successfully skirted his vetting procedures whenever we wanted to -- some he recognized and others not.
The Tekke ensi sold at grogan's was a topic price and fellow idiots like j.r. howe and others, some of whom are not as dumb as price, howe and filiberto (but equally as rug challenged) have taken up discussing
The dopey nonsense they wrote about it and what we published prompted us to post there yesterday under two pseudonyms -- Robert Allen and Dr. M.C. Pierce.
Robert Allen got three posts in before price banned him and Dr. Pierce got one in before he experienced the same fate.
Because posts we wrote exposed price and company's inability to say anything cogent or intelligent about the ensi and placed price in a corner because of his stupidity in trying to reply to the issues Allen and Pierce raised, he claimed we were making ad hominem remarks and used that excuse to ban their participation
This has happened before when anyone who says anything seriously in opposition to price's beliefs or who seriously questions his rug knowledge, or even his knowledge in general.
Because price canít really debate anything about an old rug due to his pathetically limited experience and knowledge he quickly circles the wagons, plays the ad hominen card and removes the offender.
Needless to say this is only the tip of price's dumb bastard iceberg, as he ignores facts and denigrates anyone who is not a rug world grandee for their novel and provocative ideas and opinions about rugs.
Allen and Pierce did just that, cornered price by criticizing his opinions and actions and price responded by once more playing the victim and sobbing into his well used ad hominem crying towel.
For these actions RK believes price needs to be publicly rebuked and that is why we write this here today.
But instead of cataloging price's stupidity and stilted approach to openness and proper debate, we republish the two posts we sent him under the pseudonym of Dr. M.C. Pierce.
Read them and have a laugh but realize price is a poster boy for numerous other dumb bastards who believe they, too, are rug cognoscenti, experts and devoted advocates of oriental rugs.
The first of these is one price would not allow to appear on his site and the second one he did post.
The three Robert Allen ones are still there on his website but probably as soon as our revealing we were the author those too will disappear like others have.
Should that happen we have back up copies of them, as well as the feeble replies he and the rest of the piss-poor idiots who answered what Robert Allen wrote:
I sent in the post below last evening and now see you refusal to post it publicly.
Because once again it presents evidence contrary to what you have written?
Or that is shows your logic to be inadequate? or flawed?
This is quite distressing and disheartening especially since you are an educator and a scientist by trade.
Naturally, I do not know you or the University you are affiliated with but I am sure the way you have acted in regards to my contribution to this discussion fall far short of anything anyone would characterize as professional.
I am now requesting you publish what I have written below and should you ignore this request I will see to it that my words here and below will become public.
You are more than welcome to critique and even criticize what I write.
This is to be expected in any forum.
But your refusal to allow me, or anyone else who does it within acceptable bounds, to voice their opinions in a public form like **** is conduct that is unbecoming and extremely unprofessional.
While you are correct in your defining democracy in a most limited sense, i.e. you and your compatriots being the body politic of reference; your website is, after all, a public forum.
Ignoring this factor, like others you seem wont to feel are as easily dismissed, is rather, may I say, stilted.
I surely did not mean, for example, you should consult me, a newcomer, on an issue like preventing an individual from posting.
But there are others who post here frequently who are outside your circle (but surely might be included in a somewhat larger one) who voices you might benefit from listening to. Doing so would surely come a lot closer to being genuinely democratic than your current system.
For a scientist you sure have created a number of, how can I describe them but, operationally defined paradigms that wither when examined in regards to any larger reality.
At the slightest notion of any viewpoint not in step with your own you frequently, and fervently, begin circling the wagons. This is, Professor Price, quite alarming to someone like myself who knows the myriad of connotations democracy should imply, none of which relate to your stated style of operation.
Everyone has positions and the concomitant desire to protect them but when those positions are expressed in universal terms: ďAlternative views on this are, of course, welcome. That's what discussion forums are for.Ē (I am sure you recognize these words for you wrote them at the end of your last post to Mr. Allen).
Please tell me how can you then countenance this offer in regards to your actions in Mr. Allen case?
Removing Allen surely doesnít add credence to those words, or does it in your operationally defined world?
I have never read the Weidersperg catalog but when someone says it is full of innuendo, etc. as Allen did, this cannot be likened to an ad hominem attack as you have so declared it to be.
You surely could have asked Allen to provide documentation but you were way out of line to jump and chastise him for saying what he did about the books authors, Eiland and Pinner.
Or are those gentleman Gods who are above critique?
It appears from your words that they are and quite frankly I find that to be another careless error on your part.
I would like to find some common ground with you, Dr. Price, but, as a social scientist, I fear your predilection to ignore some very basic tenets of debate and intelligent interaction will preclude that possibility.
You also ignore subtle, and at times, gross points of argument like your failure to differentiate workshop (atelier) from factory.
You are right both are commercial enterprises but there is a substantial difference in both quality and quantity of good these two type of establishments.
I feel one last comment of yours deserved my attention.
You said ďI also hasten to point out that Mr. Allen was permitted to present his arguments in full, and was finally kicked out for his insistence on making people the subject.Ē
If you really believe the fallacies you present are anything but fallacy then, Dr. Price, I fear we will never see eye to eye on any subject.
Let me restate those fallacies:
1. ďpresent his arguments in fullĒ Do you have a crystal ball that tells you when someone you donít even know is done making their case? I did not hear Mr. Allen rest his case, you summarily did that for him and thatís not very democratic no matter how big or small your body politic is or isnít.
2. ďkicked out for making people the subjectĒ Dr. Price, people are always the subject, as words never exist without people. Perhaps, you have spent too much time in a lab dealing with mice or bottles or reagents to believe anyone could discus anything without referencing ďpeopleĒ.
Additionally, I do not see where any of Mr. Allenís remarks were worthy of your removing him or even objectionable on any other level. That is unless anyone whose ideas differ from yours are to be so deemed solely for that fact.
I suggest you look up the word ďinsultĒ and after doing so think about what Webster had to say.
It is unthinkable to imagine what Mr. Allen wrote could be interpreted as an insult by anyone who was cognizant of that wordís meaning or had a hide thicker than a layer of onion skin.
Rugs are rugs and I admit I cannot discuss them with you.
But as a trained, and highly trained one at that, social scientist I can easily prove your vulnerability in dealing with anyone who is going to take a position diametrically, or even slightly, opposed to your own.
So please enjoy what is in your ĎFridge, Dr. Price, but donít forget when guests come over any good host makes sure he has stocked up enough different edibles and libations to please any palate, not only his own.
I attended the Grogan Sale preview and visited the exhibitions at ACOR.
I also spent some time, and some money, at the dealer's fair.
Not being a professional ruggie has kept me from posting to this discussion board in the past but the tenor of the discussion surrounding the ensi has pushed me into contributing my two cents.
I also confess to visiting Rugkazbah.com and must agree with some of the views mentioned here about RKís rather brutal style. However, often there is quite a comical nature to the verbal knockout punches he delivers and just as frequently he is not out of bounds in choosing who he sends down for the count.
When I was growing up the expression ďYou get more flies with honey than with vinegar" was often recited to me and, although Mr. Cassin might win more personality contests would he adopt this, the validity/or invalidity of his opinions and arguments would be unchanged.
The Internet is a wild and woolly place and while ****.com's insistence on "civility" is admirable, I do agree with Mr. Allen's point that the threshold set for ringing the ad hominem bell could be higher.
What I am getting at is this: calling someone a four-letter word or verbally threatening them is, I agree, totally impolite in almost any situation. But I, for instance, do not agree that Mr. Allen's comments should have caused such a fuss, nor do I think he should be removed from posting here in the future.
****'s main moderator, Steve Price, obviously does not agree and because he has the unilateral power to remove any poster, as he has just done to Mr. Allen, strikes me as a bit extreme and undemocratic.
Perhaps there should be some agreement among a number of participants before someone is banned.
This is just a suggestion and maybe it will gain favor here?
I do not know much about Turkoman rugs, so I cannot join in the discussion about the ensi but I can make a decision about what has been written here and what has appeared on Rugkazbah.
Steve Price presented the following points that could easily be called a tautology: if the Grogan ensi were a workshop production then there would be many more of them extant.
This too strikes me as extreme because workshop is not a factory, in any regard.
It was clear to me at the Grogan Sale preview, which was when I handled it; the ensi is old enough to have been made long before Turkmenistan could have conceivably hosted such facilities.
It is surely not an end of the 19th century piece, nor could it possibly have been made during the following Russian commercial period.
The word atelier might have been far more descriptive had Cassin used it but back to Priceís tautology.
Cassin did not say the rug was made for export and, frankly, Steveís putting that word into Cassinís mouth is an error, at least in my mind.
Cassinís declaration it is a workshop product implies only that it was made outside the ďconfinesĒ of the weaving mainstream, he does not suggest or infer anything else, only Steve does.
So the tautology Steve setup: the rug is a workshop product, workshops make multiples (another erroneous statement because there is the distinct possibility this rug was made as a one off, as no other one has yet to be published), therefore more of than would be more extant and because there are none; therefore it canít be a workshop product.
This is nothing more than a false flag flying on a flag pole Cassin never touched.
It is also untrue for more reasons than the one I mentioned in parenthesis.
Like I said, I am not conversant or knowledgeable about Turkoman rugs.
I am however very logical, as my profession requires, and has trained me, to be logical.
I think it is clear to all, even Steve Price, Cassin is knowledgeable about Turkoman rugs.
But why Steve Price chose to be on the other side of Cassinís conjecture that was, please everyone remember, never presented as anything other than another one of his provocative opinions initially puzzled me.
But Steveís enlarging that opposition, which does have more than a smidgen of fact behind it, into his false flag tautological statement does not exactly help to convince anyone Cassin is on shaky ground.
Actually it does quite the opposite.
I hope what I wrote will not put me in the penalty box along with Mr. Allenís but if it does than so be it, nothing ventured nothing gained.
Dr. Price is the only arbiter here, and that too I find to be somewhat disenchanting but it is definitely not wrong or unfair.
Itís Steveís website and he can do as he likes.
However, it is unfair to present someoneís, even an opponents, position unjustly or to put words into the mouth of someone who never voiced them.
I admit I like rugs but, more than my interest in them, is my interest in reading cogent argument, not one-sided presentations where one side overpowers the other unjustly just because he has the power to do so.