Home > Archive >Dumb Bastard
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Tue, Jul 9th, 2019 01:59:51 PM
Topic: Dumb Bastard

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 can’t 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:


Dr. Price:

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.

M.C. Pierce


Dr. Price:

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: “Alternative views on this are, of course, welcome. That's what discussion forums are for.” (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 doesn’t 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 “I 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.”

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. “present his arguments in full” Do you have a crystal ball that tells you when someone you don’t even know is done making their case? I did not hear Mr. Allen rest his case, you summarily did that for him and that’s not very democratic no matter how big or small your body politic is or isn’t.

2. “kicked out for making people the subject” 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 “people”.

Additionally, I do not see where any of Mr. Allen’s 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 “insult” 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 word’s 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 ‘Fridge, Dr. Price, but don’t 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.

M.C. Pierce


Hello ****kers:

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 RK’s 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 “You 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 Price’s tautology.

Cassin did not say the rug was made for export and, frankly, Steve’s putting that word into Cassin’s mouth is an error, at least in my mind.

Cassin’s declaration it is a workshop product implies only that it was made outside the “confines” 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 can’t 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 Cassin’s conjecture that was, please everyone remember, never presented as anything other than another one of his provocative opinions initially puzzled me.

But Steve’s 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. Allen’s 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. It’s Steve’s website and he can do as he likes.

However, it is unfair to present someone’s, 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.

M.C. Pierce

Author: ybknseu
Tue, Jul 9th, 2019 01:59:51 PM

KQVNBw ygcrtentjptu, [url=http://nhapnbijjhcd.com/]nhapnbijjhcd[/url], [link=http://wbzwgahswojd.com/]wbzwgahswojd[/link], http://ergsdsyeaybl.com/

Author: Robert Allen
Sun, Aug 21st, 2016 01:53:32 AM

RK Replies:

Not to glorify your sentiments, or should we just refer to them as senselessness, might we call you a fan of dr. steve price?

And if so what is it about this pompous rug clown to attract a fanboy like thee?

Surely it can't be dr. steve price's rug studies knowledge. Nor have we ever heard anyone offer dr. price kudos for his lifelong career toiling as a baby-sitter for Virginia Commonwealth University students.

Perhaps, Mr Allen, you deeply appreciate dr. steve price's collection of airport-art weavings? Or it is the world-class collection of air-sickness he is said to possess?

Frankly speaking, RK sees you as just another dumbass mouth-breathing waste of natural rescources.

Maybe, there might be that one chance in a million we are wrong about you? If so the floor is yours to prove it.

If not, enjoy your castle in your mother's basement and don't forget to vacuum your abode occassionally. All those tiny bits of Doritos, potato chips and fast food you munch do attract ants and cockroaches.

So please enjoy your moment of fame here, thanks to RK's generosity, something fat-butt autocrat dr. price would never allow on his piss-puddle website turk0tek.com.


You REALLY do need psychiatric help. Your incoherent ramblings and constant use of third person indicate a very disturbed psyche.

Author: Barry OConnell Fri, Apr 22nd, 2016 03:33:25 PM

Glad to see see that tthese old gems have been preserved. Hope you are well. Barry

Author: jc
Mon, Sep 11th, 2006 06:31:42 AM

We have learned from several readers that steev-the rug-moron-price has been continuing to denigrate what is written here on RugKazbah.com, as well as what appears on WAMRI.org.

We could care less what price, a proven rug-idiot if there ever was one, says about anything, let alone our ideas.

So while we thank our readership for their concern we'd prefer everyone ignored, as we do, professor price=clown and his pathetic attempts to prove he is anything but the dumbbell clown of rugdom.

Author: jc
Mon, Jul 31st, 2006 03:17:51 PM

According to the several expert C14 specialist scientists we have spoken to personally over the past few years, we have learned that they believe it is possible to reliably date objects that are as young as circa 150 years old.

However, all these scientists stressed the necessity of de-contaminating the samples to remove any possibilities of extraneous material interfering with the results.

Frankly, except for one of these gentlemen, we do not put much credence in their assurances of obtaining true and reliable results for rugs.

And even the one who did convince us of his C14 expertise and the efficacy of his decontamination procedure left us feeling his procedures, as good as they sounded, are not 100% positive for dating the types of rugs and textiles we are interested in.

Let’s face facts—until some other testing procedures are developed, and none so far have panned out, there will be no reliable, positive way to date any non-archaeologically discovered weavings, regardless of the hype and claims some make for C14.

Author: jc
Sat, Jul 29th, 2006 06:38:49 PM

The issue of contamination and C14 dating reliability is one we have written about and believe still to be a major problem, since any rug or textile worth testing was used where open fires, candles and other oil-burning lamps were the rule.

Of course we know this but that would probably come as a surprise if you'd had been reading professor clown.

If price was busy, excusing this error would be easy but since he's got enough time on his hands to count page by page the number of posts we have written on RugKazbah why can't the Incapable dumb bastard get it right and know that or find the ebay listing for the right engsi.

Sluffing off everything else, price's belief an engsi without the gopaz motif could be the one in discussion is truly mind boggling, especially since he was a participant in the discussion.

And thanks to steev for writing "which is (in my opinion as well as in Cassin's) excellent..." about the ensi but quite frankly we found it unconvincing.

It's clear he doesn't have enough skill to be able to spot a piece like that on his own and any protestations he does would just be some more clowning around.

Author: jc
Fri, Jul 28th, 2006 08:16:25 PM

Brilliant words from rugdom’s highest profile dumb bastard:

Here’s steev’s latest goofy and patently incorrect assertions:

“Carbon-14 isn’t much help. It’s useless for anything less than about 350-400 years old, and can give results that are off by centuries if the sample has even a small amount of contamination from smoke.”

RK Replies: What a scientist steev is. If he even bothered to learn the basic principals of today’s C14 dating procedures he would have known such statements are blatantly wrong.

We have no time to once again set the rug idiot straight about the pros and cons of C14 but we do wonder how he can still be spewing this nonsense when the truth about C14 is so readily available.

“What Tim calls the “lifelessness” of the color is almost certainly a result of the yarn being very uniformly dyed. This implies that the wool is machine spun (therefore, of very uniform thickness) and that the dyes are modern chrome dyes.”

RK Replies: Here’s steev-the-clown proving his dumb bastard handle. What stupid conclusions he has drawn from the questionable observations a babe in the woods like tim adam opines.

Reading price’s comments, as always, make a Tom and Jerry comic book look erudite.

“The “life” seen in older pieces comes from each bit of yarn being slightly more or slightly less intensely dyed than its neighbor.”

RK Replies: Oh, really now, steev. Is that why genuine rugs have life?

You idiot, please, shut the fuck up and go piss in your shoes.

Your rug-related ignorance is monumental and your belief anyone with a brain, no matter howe miniscule, would even bother to listen to you is even larger.

“To some extent, this is a result of nonuniform thickness of hand spun yarn.”

RK Replies: Guess steev forgot great hand spinners can create plied, or even unplied yarns, that rival any machine spinning. Come to think about it, professor clown didn’t forget that, he never knew it. Why? Because he has been too busy patting himself on the back for his rug expertise.

“Remember, when we look at the surface of a pile piece, we are looking at the cut tips (cross-sections through the yarn) as well as short lengths of the yarn sides. If the yarn thickness is not uniform, the centers will not be uniformly dyed.”

Whoa now clown, you have really just thrown yourself into an even deeper pool of brown stuff.

And your dumb-arse comments are not excused by claiming “I wonder if this is coherent. It’s been a long day, and I’m tired.”

You’re right about one thing, steev, you are tired. Might we suggest a dirt-nap in the cemetery of your choice?

And BTW, clown, if you question the coherence of your post, why’d ya bother posting it?

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Tue, Jul 18th, 2006 02:47:58 PM

RK Replies: John, we agree with some of the points you raised but not all of them.

Firstly, we have never seen much value in the types of classification done by pinner, reuben, thompson(his “S” group identification excepted) or other who have studiously compiled data and then made pie charts and graphs based on their “findings”.

Most, if not all of this, is what RK calls busy work as it leads to what you have correctly characterized as nothing to do with “the price of fish”.

We also agree with your condemnation of the lack of “science” in rug studies in light of the fact there are now certain investigative techniques that might, if correctly applied, yield some important results.

HPGLC (High Pressure Gas Liquid Chromatography) is one of the best of these but so far the procedure those who you cite have used is not exactly the most effective.

In fact, as soon as WAMRI is properly funded we intend to try a new protocol we have conceived.

We expect it will have greater success because not only will our methodology be different but our sample range will be far more likely to yield results.

Naturally we intend to limit our investigations to early pieces—ones we believe are pre-1800.

On another note, we find the statement you made about structural analysis -- that is it “not reproducible”, quite vexing.

If there is anything that is reproducible in studying carpets, it is analyzing their structure. So either you do not fully understand what structural analysis is or you are referring to something else.

In our estimation, structural analysis is presently the only positive technique we have to group rugs together into the clusters you mentioned.

While this type of classification does not yield anything to tell us the when, by who and where about a weaving, it does help us to understand them.

We recognize that by combining structural analysis and our approach to dye analysis, we will be able to possibly answer the where and perhaps the by who questions.

There is a tremendous amount of work involved in trying to answer these and other questions and regrettably rugdom is totally disinterested in doing anything other than prancing around at more meaningless conferences and exhibitions and reading a worthless rag like hali magazine.

We also recognize our words generally fall on deaf ears and dull minds but at least we are creating some sort of path for the future of rug studies by critiquing the current crop of pointless and unimportant efforts, like C14 dating, that are extant today.

By the way, let us reiterate the following: We recognize the value of C14 dating but do not recognize its effectiveness when dealing with highly contaminated samples like those from the vast majority of Near Eastern rugs and textiles.

Speaking of C14 dating, we have heard for several years about jorge rageth’s “C14 project” dating Turkmen rugs.

We got some good laughs reading the “book” he made after doing this with Kelims and we are quite sure when the results of his “project” with Turkmen rugs are released we will be similarly unimpressed.

As far as we are concerned rageth and company are creating pseudo-science from real science and “selling” it to suckers and mokes who are foolish enough to believe their sales patter.

A much more reliable and efficacious approach would be to undertake detailed art historical comparisons for each “type” of weaving, i.e. Yomud chuvals, Star Kazaks, etc.

But this, like most other real avenues of inquiry, requires genuine expertise and knowledge of the idiom and, of course, a lot of hard work.

This approach is no comparison for snipping a small sample of a weaving and sending it and $500.oo to a C14 lab for, what RK likes to call, a “benediction”.

In our opinon rageth is but another hustling carpet-bagger who found a hustle dopey ruggies are willing to support and he is riding that wave as far as it will go.


I am not as busy as usual, so I have more time to read these sites, but yes Jack, I agree, there is no point in wasting any more time on the bozo.

I’ll have a few friends around and get them to describe what they see – they don’t need to be rug experts.

Eddie, as for “science” – I don’t know how much of that you will find applied to rug studies.

C-14 dating is of limited use. HPGLC analysis of dyes has been undertaken. For weavings before 1860, cluster analysis may enable groups of weavings with the same set of dyes to be identified – that could be fruitful and I have not seen it done.

Thompson, and more recently David Rueben (analysis of Tekke main carpets in Hali) have produced tables of rugs with similar design characteristics, but this is hardly science and these studies beg the question “what has this to do with the price of fish?”

I do not mean to denigrate David Rueben’s work and I do not have his study to hand (it is buried in a stack of boxes during re-decoration work) but I do not recall many clear conclusions coming out of it – although he is lucky to have studied so many and clearly has a very good collection.

Structural analysis is scientific if you allow any form of methodology to be “scientific” – a point that others can argue, but the results are not always conclusive (repeatable).

There are many pieces that are “borderline” between different weaving groups e.g. structural analysis says Tekke, design elements say Yomud.

I have seen papers attempting to describe rugs using the mathematics of group theory (point groups), but I have never seen a turkmen rug that shows any symmetry in the whole.

Looking at turkmen weavings, we have very few “knowns” Some people mean “knowns” when they use the word scientific i.e. they are looking for science to provide evidence or certainty or to back-up their viewpoint.

I could measure the gul heights on 100 Yomud chuvals, produce some nice tables and it would tell me very little because there is no other yardstick – e.g. no age progression or easily identified weaving area.

Besides, I have better things to do.

I find old turkmen weavings beautiful and the fact that so much about them is “unknowable” including their provenance, adds to their interest compared to say the Chippendale chair illustrated on page XX of his book.

Author: Eddie Tue, Jul 18th, 2006 12:10:00 PM

Hi Jack. Thanks for the response, and for the candid way in which you have addressed John's theory. I agree with you that it is off-base and trivial in the whole scheme of this field. I also agree that time would be better spent on more substantive issues, and think that a more serious approach to the discussion of variable gul heights and proportionality in Turkmen weavings would be an interesting topic area. If you have any thoughts on this, perhaps you could share them. John, I won't waste my time on your "experiment" and Jack has made it clear that he won't either. Maybe you'll be able to find others who will want to discuss this topic further and who are willing to try your "experiment". Still, I think that getting stoned and looking at old Yomut chuvals is probably a pretty cool way to spend an evening. But cool experiences, connected with other tangentially related historical data is hardly science, is it?

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Mon, Jul 17th, 2006 02:13:29 PM

RK Replies:

Greetings, John

You are really going at this, aren't you.

Forget about professor steev price=clown. He is a sock-puppet moron and his University probably knows it, too.

He is nearing the end of his time there and from what RK has learned from talking to several of the other professors in his department and the staff, they all know price is a clown.

Let's find some other issues to discuss as RK is not interested in waving banners but more in trying the dfecipher the sources of those banners, for example.


Apparently, according to Dr Price, I need "anger management". Since I am probably one of the most chilled out people on the planet - I don't think so.

I do find it incredible that a US university can employ such a bozo.

I am quite happy for people to disagree with me. If they do not wish to (admit to) repeat the experiment because of a medical condition, or because they are worried that they may be perceived as a dope-head, I understand that. But then, they have no right to comment on what I see.

I made some obervations

1 Some early Yomud chuvals have uneven gul heights (and this is deliberate).

2 Turkmen used cannabis and other narcotic/hallucogenic compounds.

3 viewed by me when stoned (on cannabis), the banners "wave"

4 later weavings do not seem to show this effect.

and other people (Dr Price) have chosen to distort what I said, either maliciously, or because (I give him the benefit of the doubt) he is stupid.

The weavers may or may not have been stoned (I doubt they were) but that does not mean that they did not know how to weave so that their pieces had dimensionality.

Whether the degree of dimensionality is due to age as suggested by Jim Allen - I don't know.

Whether dimensionality exists in other weaving groups, I cannot comment. Why don't you (Eddie) try the experiment?

Author: Eddie
Sun, Jul 16th, 2006 10:29:44 PM

RK Replies:

Well, Eddie, if that's really your name, let's just say you seem to be operating under several misconceptions.

1. First off RK owes neither you nor anyone one else anything in the way of our posting anything here on RugKazbah.com. Nor do we owe anyone any reply to what they or others post here.

This website is our pleasure not our duty. Don't forget that, mate.

2. What we do write is always our unbiased opinion. Our thoughts are not colored by anything nor are they influenced by anyone.

OK then, concerning John's "theory" we have stated quite clearly what we think but if anyone needs to have it more blatantly expressed the following should be enough to put this issue to bed.

We don't believe being "Stoned" was any component of Turkmen weaving culture. A weaver might have been under the influence while weaving or a viewer might also have been similarly displaced when viewing.

But so what?

The jimbo allen "theory" is nothing more than am observation of certain pieces. It is not all encompassing nor is it universal.

RK's position on this is a big so what, is that now clear?

We find those who get involved in such nit picking, pedantic concentration on non-issues like these boring and their "findings" totally unimportant.

There are so many larger issues to focus on.

However, RK does recognize most of these larger issues require real knowledge and expertise of this idiom to even understand, let alone solve.

Clearly that leaves out most of the internet pundits and clowns who would like to make fools of themselves discussing meaningless non-issues.

By the way, we don't include John Lewis in that crowd but his "theory" is, like 99.9% of the other non-issues that have been raised in clownland, not interesting to us.

'Nuff said now, Eddie?


Hi Jack. actually, I am disappointed in the way you are playing footsie with John and not giving him your frank opinion about his theories.

I thought that your ability to candidly set things straight was a distinguishing feature of your approach (kind of like Pope in his article on your other thread).

John, if you are serious about your theory and respect Jack's expertise then you should stop beating around the bush present him with the same conditions you presented to Price and others. 1) John, ask Jack directly if he thinks that Turkmen women deliberately wove chuvals to create a "waving banner" effect that would be seen under the influence of drugs.

Jack, you owe an answer to that direct question, otherwise we will know that for some reason you are unwilling to share with him and all of us your real thoughts. Of course, if you actually agree with John, please let everyone know why.

2) John, ask Jack to repeat the experiment (looking at old chuvals while stoned) and report his results back to you and the rest of RK's readers.

You have asked everyone else except Jack to do this, and yet you seem to respect his opinion the most.

Jack, you owe everyone a response as to whether you think this will be an important scientific activity, and if so, whether you plan to pursue it and report your results.

Of course, Jack if you prefer to continue to provide "non-contradictory" responses to John, that is fine.

But then it will be hard to know when you are serious, and when you are not when sharing your opiniions.

Author: john Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Sun, Jul 16th, 2006 02:18:48 PM

RK Replies:

There is nothing you or I can say or do to convince the rug idiot, professor price, he provides any service, let alone any other function, by running clownland.com.

Steev is a moron of major proportions. Speaking or writing about him nothing more than a waste of time.


JC, you are quite right to say there is no documented EVIDENCE that the turkmen used cannabis (or any similar substance) to design, weave or view their carpets. I have never seen any but someone else may have.

However, since the turkomen used cannabis (etc.) and were surrounded by weavings, it is LIKELY that they viewed them "under the influence" - by accident or design. We do not know what they saw.

Your statement and mine are not logically inconsistent. The dumb bastard seems to think they are. You are quite right the guy seems to have shit for brains as well as being ill-mannered.

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Sat, Jul 15th, 2006 04:08:20 AM

Dr Price. In making a fool of yourself you forgot to answer my question about whether and when you are going to repeat the experiment. I await your answer, but please post it on this site.

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Sat, Jul 15th, 2006 03:58:51 AM

RK Replies:

Greetings, John. Dr. price is not only wrong about that but he is even more incorrect in his absurd accusation that you are my "bitch".

Since we have never met or talked in person the clown of rugdom is, once again, just spewing more dumb talk and bull-crapola. Something that is par for his lumpy course.

As for the cannabis question, another piece of support is the discovery of carbonized cabbabis seeds and stems in a kurgan in Southern Siberia.

The fact they were carbonized led the discovery team to the conclusion this kurgan was closed up and the cannabis burned in a fire and the resulting smoke inhaled by those who were inside.

Prehistoric and early historic periods of human development show the knowledge of the medicinal, as well as the hallucinatory, effects of cannabis as present in many places of the earth and it is highly unlikely the Turkmen were not also aware of this plant.

However, there is clearly is no documented evidence the Turkmen were using cannabis, especially to design, weave or view their rugs.

I can appreciate your "theory" and ideas but quite honestly RK finds Turkmen weavings to be trippy enough without having to inhale or believe the original users of these weavings need to as well.


Dr Price questions the use of cannabis by the turkmen. Cannabis was one (of many, including fermented mare's milk and opium) of the narcotic substances listed as being used by the turkmen, at an exhibition (summer 2002?) held at the Linden Museum of Ethnography in Stuttgart. Since cannabis has been cultivated in Turkestan since 3000BC any suggestion that the Turkmen did not use cannabis is dumb. So, more evidence to back-up the name of this thread.

Author: john lewis
Fri, Jul 14th, 2006 04:22:03 PM

RK Replies:

Yes, John you did.

But don't worry we had our equally turned-on webmaster remove it without a trace.


Oh wow, man, did I do that twice?

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Fri, Jul 14th, 2006 03:13:34 PM

In a post on **** Dr Price asks what I see when viewing a chuval under the influence of cannabis. I have already answered this question, but what does he see? Well Dr Price - have you repeated the experiment? If so, what did you see? If you have not repeated it, why not? There should be an ample supply of suitable substances on your campus and I am sure that you have an old chuval. I await your findings. Are you a real scientist or not? If you are, you should know the value of experimentation. There is documentary evidence that the turkmen were substantial users of narcotic substances, so the idea that they may have looked at chuvals when stoned and seen them waving is not stupid. That they were deliberately woven to exhibit dimensionality (enhanced when viewed whilst stoned) is also not stupid. I hope this is clear enough for you, it is written in simple English and I have avoided using long words.

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Fri, Jul 14th, 2006 02:54:25 AM

Frank, I have it confirmed from 3 sources that you are not Steve, so my apologies.

I was indignant because others were mis-interpreting the point I was making, putting words in the summaries that were not in my original posting.

Steve Price was one of the main offenders. I was very clear but people were dismissing the theory without trying the experiment.

Whilst I do not claim to be an expert in weaving, I know something, I don't need a weaving 101 and I can count. I can tell that the difference in gul heights is not accidental, but deliberate.

As for posting pictures of yomud chuvals - there are lots of them already, in books, on the web and it serves no purpose; if you want to repeat the experiment sit in front of the real article.

Author: jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Thu, Jul 13th, 2006 07:59:48 AM

RK has been occupied with other matters during the last few weeks, hence our lack of timely responses to some of the posts in this thread.

That said we did add a few words to the post steve, the rug idiot, price posted here some days ago.

We can also assure John Lewis that "Frank" does appear to be posting from Switzerland, at least the IP his posts ostensibly are coming from is located there.

RK does not believe he is price=clown but, frankly, we don't care.

The issues raised in this thread by John Lewis deserve some comments from us but we don't have the time now to open that can of worm in its entirety.

We will state for the record our former and now well known dismissals of jim allen's "theories" still hold and, while we do recogize there is occassionally something pertinent there, they are surely not earth shaking, nor can much of what windbag jimbo has claimed be relied upon as factual.

It is sure early weavers were attuned to the perceptual tricks of changing colors and motif proportions to create distance and perspective.

Was this limited to a certain period? We say no.

Does this imply a weaving with such technical facets is a better one than one without them? We say no, again.

The is no doubt early Turkmen weavings, like any other "type" -- be it Turkish Caucasian, etc, are able to appear to the viewer as being "alive" and animate.

However, often what inexperienced or inexpert viewers "interpret" as animation may fall short of what more expert ones can discern or agree with.

This is an interesting topic and one that needs to be addressed on an individual basis, one weaving at a time. RK will be glad to add our thoughts and replies as time permits.

Author: Frank Thu, Jul 13th, 2006 06:40:22 AM

Hi John. I am not Steve, and I am not sure why you came to that conclusion. Steve always posts under his own name, and is based in the US. I am in Switzerland (that should save Mr. Cassin the time from searching for the location of my Internet Provider). I think that many people have read your postings on the "other website" (name censored) and here on RK.com and have been annoyed at your judgemental response to others' assessment of your theory. Nobody has disputed what you see, or under what conditions. In fact I personally remain intrigued by the issue and theories proposed regarding dimensionality in old Turkmen weavings, and found some writing by Jim Allen based on your reference to it. The problem for me was that your theory went in another direction that seemed a bit far-fetched, and so your new theory was challenged. That is not an uncommon occurrence with a new and unusual theory, but the usual intellectual response to criticism is to dig a little deeper and look at ways to strengthen the hypothesis. Instead, you seemed to get indignant quickly, and questioned the integrity and intelligence of those who were skeptical. I noticed that you have not addressed my suggestion that you have Mr. Cassin post pictures of your pre-1850 chuvals as part of the census of old Turkmen weavings that you asked him to initiate. Should we assume that you are no longer interested in that study?

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Thu, Jul 13th, 2006 03:04:50 AM

Frank/Steve - Please do not claim that you are unaware of the LACMA scandal. As I said in one of the postings that you censored on ****, the LACMA issue had been raised on **** and swept under the carpet so as, I am sure, not to upset the luminaries in the rug world. This is moral cowardice and since it is a live issue - read the LACMA posting on RugKazbah - why do you persist in banning people who try to raise it, unless you are afraid to discuss it?

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Thu, Jul 13th, 2006 02:56:16 AM

Frank/Steve - now that you have banned me from **** and admitted that you have censored my posts there, there is no need to hide behind false names. I continue to believe that Jim Allen was on to something when he introduced the concept of dimensionality (although I do not have an opinion as to whether the degree of dimensionality can be directly correlated with age). I have observed the waving effect and to me that is all that really matters, although I am curious as to whether others have. As for the "2nd generation Saryk chuval" - I have said that in my opinion it is ugly - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Author: Frank Wed, Jul 12th, 2006 05:33:16 PM

Hi again John. Sorry, I forgot to address a couple of other issues. I have heard that others have discussed the issue of dimensionality, and have indicated that this was deliberately created. I personally don't know if those theories are true or not. But it is clear that you have gone a few steps further in your inference by saying that when you are stoned there is a "waving" effect, and that this effect was part of the intention, partly because Turkmen also got stoned and might have experienced the same thing. As far as I can tell, that hypothesis is your own, and goes in a different direction than what Jim Allen had proposed and examined. Still, I would be interested to hear Mr. Cassin's views on the different theories on dimensionality put forward by you and others (e.g. Mr. Allen). I am not familiar with the "LACMA" controversy so I can't comment on that issue.

Author: Frank Wed, Jul 12th, 2006 05:11:03 PM

Hi John, There must be some misunderstanding. Leaving aside the issue of "waving" visual effects, didn't you suggest to Mr. Cassin that he should collect pictures of old Turkmen rugs held in museums or private collections as a census to create benchmark data for Turkmen weavings in different time periods (pre-1700, pre-1800, pre-1850)? I am referring to your post of July 7th. You have previously mentioned that you own some Yomut chuvals from the first half of the 19th century so I was suggesting that you begin the database by sending pictures of your chuvals to Mr. Cassin so that he can post them and perhaps discuss them. I wasn't planning on trying to see the "waving" effect on my computer (with our without drugs), but I would at any time be interested to see examples of old Turkmen weaving.

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Wed, Jul 12th, 2006 03:41:30 PM

Frank, as I have explained posting pictures achieves nothing - you need to look at the real thing. The theory of "dimensionality" is not mine - others (Jim Allen) have previously raised it; I merely observed that under the influence of narcotics (Turkmens are documented users) the effect is very pronounced. I made it clear that I am not proposing that dimensionality is directly proportional to age (i.e. the more dimensionality the older the piece is), but that older pieces have it and newer pieces do not. I am fairly sure that I remember seeing a post on **** stating that LACMA was not to be discussed. If I am wrong, then the issue is still alive and can be opened - it raises a key moral issue.

Author: Frank Wed, Jul 12th, 2006 01:46:57 PM

Hi John, What I meant was that you should be the first one to send photos of your early Yomut chuvals to RK.com. Your original proposition was "how many pre-1700 Turkmen weavings are there in existence. most of these will now be in museums or in private collections where the collector has a pretty good idea as to what they have. Why not make a census - ask people who have such weavings to send you photos. Then move to pre-1800 and pre-1850 - there are not a lot of these." Your early 19th century chuvals would certainly qualify and could get the ball rolling. I am a surprised that you don't want to reopen the discussion about "waving" Turkmen chuvals and recreational substance use with Mr. Cassin. You certainly seemed indignant that the theory wasn't taken seriously by those on the "other website" (**** - name censored) because of the closed minds and lack of knowledge there. I would have thought that you would be eager to discuss this with someone like Mr. Cassin who you find to have greater knowledge and a much more open mind. I guess you weren't really all that serious about that theory after all.

Author: Steve Price
email: sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
Wed, Jul 12th, 2006 07:39:01 AM

RK Replies:

Anything posted in the direction of mr teflon, steev price=clown, has been proven to be a waste of energy.

RK will no longer glorify mr price by answering his stupid positions, opinions and thoughts.

One thing we will say is RK has, nor did we ever have, any ulterior motive for our criticism and critique of the dodds sale of that miserable pseudo-Bellini to LACMA.

The accussation professor clown floated is nothing more than but another one of his ridiculously unsupportable positions concerning RK's activities.

'Nuff said.


Hi John

The "stunning silence" on Turk0tek on the LACMA purchase was because nobody raised the subject (you or your beagle could have done so). If anyone had raised it, we would have permitted discussion of the rug's attribution and/or aesthetics.

We don't permit comments about market value or comments that bear on the reputation of sellers, and have had those rules posted at the top of our discussion forum pages since we took the site over about 8 years ago. Those were the focus of JC's posts. Rumor has it that his motive was related to having been denied a place on the ICOC program or an exhibition of his own stuff at ICOC. Sounds a lot more plausible than "moral outrage", Cassin's excuse for every act of malice he performs.

Enjoy your position as his bitch. Sooner or later your expressions of adoration will fall short of 100%, and you will know that what your beagle tells his friends about you was accurate.

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Wed, Jul 12th, 2006 02:59:01 AM

It needs someone with authority (expertise) and an existing website - I have no interest in srtting up yet another turkmen discussion site - I am too busy. My suggestion is to start the census with pre-1800 turkmen pieces and then extend it to pre-1825 or 1833. There is no point in posting pictures of chuvals - the experiment needs to be carried-out with full size ones. If people do not want to recreate the experiment (I can understand that they may not wish to admit to doing so) that is up to them but then they should not dismiss the waving effect unless they have tried the experiment. The dismissal of the effect was an exampled of closed minds. I have never met JC, but I appreciate his stand on moral issues such as LACMA. There was a stunning silence on **** and it was, I recall, swept under the carpet, I suspect because it might have offended "friends of ****".

Author: Frank Tue, Jul 11th, 2006 08:06:17 PM

Hi John, If you want to follow up on this proposal why don't you start the process yourself? You could post pictures of your own collection of Yomut chuvals from the "first half of the 19th century" -- those are the ones that you said are "waving" when you look at them while you are stoned. While you are at it, since you value his opinion and expertise highly, why don't you ask Mr. Cassin's opinion about your thesis that Turkmen weavers deliberately created this "waving" effect? You should also ask him if he agrees with you that this could be related to the fact that the Turkmen liked to use recreational drugs and other substances, and that they have an innate ability to "see differently" than other ethno-cultural groups. I followed your discussion about these theories on that "other website" (**** -- name censored) and just to set the record straight, it was you and not others who displayed a lack of openness to discussion about your theories on "waving" chuvals. I think that we all know how Mr. Cassin would have treated your hypothesis if it had been presented to him by someone that he doesn't know or respect. But I expect he'll go easy on you since you seem to be a bit of an acolyte, and he will appreciate that.

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Tue, Jul 11th, 2006 04:42:30 PM

Please excuse me for posting the following, but it seems my posts are no longer welcome on **** rebuttals of the professor's comments are censored and do not appear on his website so I feel that i need to post the following here "I suggested that JC conduct a census because he has the expertise to do so and I think it would be a useful contribution to the turkmen knowledge base. I don't believe that it has been attempted so far but with the increasing use of the internet it is now feasible. The number of turkmen dealers and collectors is fairly limited. Do you not agree that such a census would be a useful contribution? Only JC, **** and Hali have the "reach" to undertake such an exercise. If you on **** feel that you should do it instead, power to you but I would have much less confidence in the result. If you consider the thread on the second generation Saryk to be real scholarship, you have a lot to learn about scholarship - scholarship requires more than reading about a subject, it requires THINKING. I am reminded of the story told about Lady Astor and Churchill (but more likey to have been Birkenhead) when he was observed to be drunk. "Sir, you are drunk" she remonstrated. "Yes madam, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly". IMHO, whether it is Salor, Saryk or Ersari - at that time the distinctions had ceased to have real meaning - doesn't really matter (and cannot be proven) it is still a late, ugly rug. You can try and insult me but I have a thick skin and you will find it very hard to provoke me in the way that you do some others."

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Fri, Jul 7th, 2006 01:10:04 PM

It seems you have your own section on their website. They must be very afraid of you. Reviewing the posts there, it seems that ther are a lot of closed minds (my own experience) and that it is inhabited by several "instant experts" - read the Saryk thread - especially the first posting and some of the later ones. From novice to expert in less than a month is pretty impressive. It seems to me that regards turkmen weavings we have minimal benchmark data. For example, "how many pre-1700 Turkmen weavings are there in existence. most of these will now be in museums or in private collections where the collector has a pretty good idea as to what they have. Why not make a census - ask people who have such weavings to send you photos. Then move to pre-1800 and pre-1850 - there are not a lot of these.

Author: jc
Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 03:43:59 AM

Watching the clowns in clownland, particularly the head ones steev and filly, pontificate their nonsense and cry-baby BS about RK is equally as ludicrous as reading their dumb-bell opinions about Oriental Carpets.

Everything they have offered up distorts the truth at the least, and, at the most, is totally fallacious.

Clearly they are now scraping the bottom of their barrels in their attempt to marginalize our distain for their antics and their futile efforts to denigrate what we have accomplished.

It is true RK has told them to shut up shop and get off the public airways of the Internet but all the rest is nothing more than tear-jerking.

We have no time to waste countering their dopey comments but felt this utterance from steev deserves a reality check:

"In any case, it reflects the fact that I’ve run out of patience with his steady stream of acts of malice, lies, and misrepresentations about **** and me, which has been going on for more than 5 years. "

Acts of malice? Lies? Misrepresentations? A steady stream of them?

Phuleeze, professor clown provide some proof and, while yer at it, pray tell, when does innuendo pass for fact in the ral world?

FYI, it never does but in clownland of course it masquerades as if it does.

Notice price and filly never offer up any proof of these alleged acts RK has supposedly perpetrated.

Know why they are never enumerated?

Simply put, because they don’t exist -- everything we write is true and factual.

Those two rug-idiot sock puppets know it and this is the reason they can't substantiate their bogus tear-jerking claims we are bullying them, etc, etc.

Like the terminator they keep complaining no matter how many times they are hit with the reality our complaints result from their actions.

Will they ever stop?

The answer to that question has so far been shown to be no and that is why we characterize them as dumb bastards – a moniker they wear right next to the phony red badges of stupidity they have pinned on their lapels for all to see.

Author: jc
Fri, Jun 16th, 2006 09:23:12 PM

Greetings John:

Trying to have a discussion with professor price=clown is pointless, as his tendency to demonstrate what a pompous pedant he is precludes any possible avenue of real "discussion”.

However, we just read the thread you are participating in on his website and saw steev did offer to allow "discussion" of the LACMA rug and the pacquin embroidery embarrassments.

RK suggests you take him up on that and see how far you get. We’d believe not very far but…

And by the way, calling price an arse-hole is pointless, as he is not one but rather what's in one!

RK will watch from the sidelines as you attempt to bring some "reality" to the fairy-tale land those clowns have made for themselves.

As for the LACMA rug, and you can bet on this one, RK says it will eventually be returned to dodds or, at least, the Museum will face the consequences of its purchase publicly and admit the error, instead of continuing the nonsense they have formerly been wont to demonstrate.


Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Fri, Jun 16th, 2006 03:04:49 PM

In re-posting only one of my posts Steve Price is being an asshole.(RK Replies: What else would/should/could anyone expect from professor clown)

You can read them all on his site together with all of his (deliberate?) mis-understandings and comments that were made by him in an attempt to clarify what I was saying.(RK Replies: It's apparent price doesn't understand what he says, so how could he possibly understand what anyone else would postulate?)

You have to read his comments to understand my comment about Ben (my beagle). (RK Replies: Your beagle, Ben, probably could out think professor price if only he could talk instead of just bark. Professor clown definitely has him beat there but nowhere else as far as we are concerned.)

I have had my posts on his site censored. I made comments about the lack of criticism of the "rug establishment" over the LACMA and Pacquin issues. (RK Replies: RK wants to thank you, John, for your saying so publicly. We know you are not the only one who knows this but all the others who do, and there are legions we believe, are still too afraid to speak out. And, in our book, that's even worse than believing dodds and pacquin's positions are anything other than foolish and patently ridiculous).

I do not agree that the autostereogram effect is responsible for the 3D/waving effect and Vincent Keers comments can be discounted.(RK Replies: Vincent Keers is one of the sharper tools in that tool box but his being so amounts to little in the real world. That being the case, RK does agree with him, though, not for the same reasons. We do not believe depth per se is very important, as it is but one of the perceptual "tricks" any expert artist would employ in creating a living, versus a dead, piece of art. We can expound on this thesis, and will, if anyone presses the case further here on RugKazbah.com)

Author: Steve Price
email: sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
Fri, Jun 16th, 2006 02:11:34 PM

Hi JohnI read your post about the waving guls. It's pretty thin on detail, so I will help out with a more fleshed out version that you posted on T-u-r-k-o-t-e-k a few days ago. I'm sure he Who Knows All will be able to explain it to everyone in terms we can all understand.
I am supporting the view that the early weavers DELIBERATELY sought to create a 3D effect, indeed more than that, they sought to create an effect whereby the weaving is seen to be "alive" - waving like a flag in the wind. This is what I see - it is more than the autosteriogram effect.

. Just for confirmation I looked at some old 9-gul yomut chuvals first half 19th century last night (whilst under the influence) and sure enough - they were "waving". Unfortunately I could not repeat it with a modern piece because I don't have any any more. However, I did try it with a tekke wedding rug (which also has different gul heights (but I suspect for different reasons) and that "waved".

That is why I said that IMHO (John Lewis's) the autostereogram effect is a red herring - it does not re-create what I see.

The autostereogram effect may be partly responsible - screwing your (the weaver's) eyes up against the sun could bring it into play, but I do not believe that modern weavers have the abilty to DELIBERATELY create the effect that I see.

Of course, there may be a third effect - genetic. Taking the observation that that the turkmen "saw differently" (discussed by Donovan(?)) - it may be that over many generations this became a genetic ability, but this contradicts the supposition that the turkmen only became nomadic shepherds fairly late (Pinner).

How the old weavers did it - I don't know, but the difference in gul heights, the thickness of the outlines, colour (and perhaps, the interplay with the border - that forms a frame) all, I suspect, contribute.

Whether the dimensionality can be used as a direct correlation to age, I don't know, but I think that James Allen was on to omething.

Is it limited to turkmen weaving? I don't know. I collect turkmen and have not had the opportunity to try my experiment with non-turkmen weavings.

How does it fit with other tukmen theories? I don't know but there are some interesting clues in the turkmen literature.

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Fri, Jun 16th, 2006 01:54:15 PM

RK Replies: Good Day John:

First let RK once again congratulate you for your bravery in posting with your name but, even more so, for your verbalizing what anyone with enough sense to cross a busy street knows: steev price=clown’s website is nothing more than a charade. In fact, it is an embarrassment to read.

By the way for any new readers, RugKazbah does not allow the name of price’s website to appear here and when it is written the name is automatically deleted and **** appears.

Doing this is a small token representation of our disgust for what professor clown and his band of rug challenged idiots are doing.

We realize it is truly a token, and perhaps sometime soon will change it, but for now we have decided to leave this as it is.

Getting back to John Lewis’s reference to steev and filiberto, what can we say other than these two clowns have proven themselves to be idiots and pompous ones at that. They are ostensibly immune to criticism and rebuke but, obviously, when they look into the mirror of truth they realize what morons they are.

Clearly we agree with John and ‘nuff said on this one.

As for the differing heights in chuval gols? We are a bit more sanguine than he is and would not personally put too much credence in this type of articulated aberration—yes, sometimes it surely seems to have been purposely done but, most other instances, feel to us like it was nothing more than an unplanned irregularity.

Actually there are other far more sophisticated techniques expert weavers could and did employ to create depth and since we are interested in examples made by skilled weavers, and not those made by later airport-art artists, we’d have to demure on discussing those pieces.

We’d be glad to comment on any individual instances you might like to discuss, John, and if you want to send us by email those we could entertain yours or anyone elses ideas about them.


I have a dog - a beagle - and he is REALLY stupid.

However, he is very happy because he does (not)realise how stupid he is. If he realised how stupid he is, he would be depressed.

Having recently participated in **** I understand your comments on the forum.

However, most annoying aspect of **** is the censorship - even mild enquiries as to why **** failed to pick-up on the LACMA and Pacquin issues were censored in case they offended the "names" in the rugworld.

I don't think Steve and Filiberto are depressed.(RK Replies: they're not, they're like your beagle only they walk on two legs and not four, etc.).

Have you observed differing gul heights in Yomud chuvals and a 3D / waving effect and do you have an explanation for them?

Author: jc
Fri, Jun 16th, 2006 01:39:25 AM

Here's a short quiz for RugKazbah.com's readers:

1. Who is a rug-idiot sock puppet of major proportions?

2.In 100 words or less why is this person an idiot sock puppet of major proportions?

If you answered steev price=clown for question 1 you were right.

If you said because he believes he is able to offer anything but idiotic comments about rugs and he thinks RK is disturbing his website by posting the truth about him and his dumb as a rock opinions about these rugs, you got question two right as well.

The simple fact professor clown, or anyone associated with him, cannot mount any credible critique or commentary to contravene anything we have said concerning historic rugs is a given considering he knows next to nothing about them -- the fact we will eventually haul his sorryful butt into court for the ongoing defamation, slander and inneundo is also a given.

Keep it up steevy and you will see us in action -- just make sure you have a good lawyer on retainer, you clown.

Author: jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Mon, Jun 12th, 2006 10:01:02 AM

The fact steev price is an idiot sock puppet of major proportions is known to all.

The fact he refuses to credit RK as an expert means little to us and to say price is located in a murky backwater of rugdom is to give him too much credit.

He is a nobody with a big mouth and a collection of airport-art rugs.

However, RK will not stand silent to his continuing efforts to demean what we have done.

Today price wrote the following on his piss-puddle website and we offer the following underlined factual comments to once more to prove price's erroneous and prejudiced interpretation of the truth:

"Jack Cassin has appeared on ****'s forums (under three pseudonyms) in the past month or so. I once thought he was an expert, but no longer consider him a trustworthy source of information. Let me explain. Some years ago, before I had any contact or communication with him, I was aware of his reputation as an eccentric with expertise in very old Turkish village rugs and kilims (among other things). I knew very little about older Turkish weavings (don't know much about them now, either), and read some of his writing, hoping for education.

Well, steev did you get that "education" or not? From what you write about it would seem like you did, after all you once "thought" me to be the expert at that time, right?

How about commenting on what you read instead of glossing over this obvious obstacle to your assault on my expertise?

About 4 years ago, he opened a new website on which he writes extensively, and routinely trumpets that he is an expert (a red flag, in my view).

Because RK has said we are knowledgeable is meaningless unless proven we aren't and you, dear boy, have not the skill or intellect to prove that.

You can only cite dumb misinterpretations, as you have done below, of what we say.

As the scope expanded, it entered the range of topics about which I know a thing or two. It turns out that much of what he's written is wrong, although presented with absolute certainty.

Hyperbole and exaggeration, forget generalities, are the meat of your position, price.

And that's no position at all -- especially since you claim to be a scientist.

Here are a few examples: 1. He criticized Sotheby's for calling a Turkmen piece in their catalog a camel trapping. He said it couldn't possibly be one, because "Turkmen had no camels." In fact, the Bactrian camel is native to Turkmenistan, there are traveler's reports and photographic documentation of Turkmen owning camels, and some old Turkmen weavings that illustrate camel processions. It appears that he presented his fantasy as fact.

This is taken out of context -- we implied no one has shown such a "trapping" on a camel and that few Turkmen had camels.

So get it straight once and for all, steev, and stop repeating ad nauseum your dumb interpretation of what we said.

2. He claimed that antique rugs with arches in their layout were never used for any purpose other than Moslem prayer. No evidence for this was cited, and there is at least one 19th century photo showing a mullah leading a political rally while kneeling on a Belouch prayer rug. Again, fantasy was presented as fact.

One problem price has is differentiating between the artistic tenets, cultural and social mores governing historic weaving and those related to airport-art post commercial ones.

To state price is someone whose reasoning ability could not fill a midget's thimble would be correct.

Remember, prayer rugs were originally used for prayer and not political rallies, something a moron of price's ilk can't fathom.

3. Concerning the use of C-14 to date rugs, he offered the following criticisms: Carbon-14 analysis only gives relative dates; a second method must be used with it for calibration.

Again we never said that -- what we said is that the quotient that results from any C14 dating procedure MUST be compared to a known result.

But again price's in name and degree only claims to be a scientist are destroyed by his performance as a dunce.

In fact, C-14 dating is the method by which other dating techniques (thermoluminescence, for instance) are usually calibrated. This is another fantasy presented as a fact. His second objection to the use of C-14 analysis is that it gives probabilities of dates, not absolute certainties. This is true, but no scientific method provides anything except statistical probabilities.

Hello steev reality talking: "No scientific methodology provides anything but statistical probabilities"? Please you boob with this one statement you have disproven 200 years of empirical scientific method and prove everything and more about what RK claims about you.

This objection to C-14 dating simply reveals the depth of his ignorance of science and how it works.

Ha Ha you ignorant clown, you don’t even understand your own field’s raison d’etre and you have a doctorate since 1964? Did you get it in a cracker-jacks box or was Princeton so desperate for matriculating students they gave you one in exchange for your university fee?

4. He has made assertions about my sexual potency, a subject of which he cannot possibly have information. Another fantasy presented as fact.

Go prove me wrong you impotent dickhead.

I'll pay for a doctor's visit to prove my contention -- any doctor of your choice, providing the test results can be seen and corroborated by a doctor of our choice.

Provide some facts to prove your points. steev, not more innuendo and bluster.

5. He has made a number of assertions about my professional accomplishments and qualifications, all incorrect. Again, fantasy presented as fact.

RK claims you are a baby-sitting school marm teacher and a failure as a scientist – again, go prove me wrong. The fact you haven't and you can't is enough of a reply to your claims, mr scientist.

Author: ?????
email: rugkazbah@hypocrite.com
Fri, Jun 2nd, 2006 12:57:44 PM

RK Replies

Yo, dingo.

Get on the program or get squashed by it.

It's not who makes up the rules, it's what those rules comprise and convey.

Even a no mind of your caliber should be able to discern the fallaciousness of your argument. The fact you can't implies you have even less intellectual capacity than that.

Sad about that, really sad.

Do you enjoy being ridiculed by your own hand?

Plus, beyond the rules you two are fixated on, like a 15 year old wants a driver's license, how about straining to post something noteworthy instead of this picayune crapola?


I think I see how it works now. If Price makes up the rules for T-u-r-k-o-t-e-k and censors what he doesn't like, it's antidemocratic and ever so evil. If JC makes up the rules for R-u-g-k-a-z-b-a-h and censors what he doesn't like, it's democratic and ever so virtuous.


Author: robert
Fri, Jun 2nd, 2006 12:23:28 PM

RK Replies:

Like ants at a picnic you and the poster below are nothing more than unwanted pests.

Who gives a freakin' flying fuck about this meaningless topic you both seem so interested in.

Only a simpleton would try to compare what price=clown does and what RK does.

We will coment no more on this and if you both persist you will pay the price, clowns.


JC, you wrote "Your failure to understand the difference between our not allowing the name of professor clown's piss-puddle of a website here on RugKazbah.com and our banning the IP addresses of certain individuals whose sole intent is to, well, act like you, is completely in line with any democratic principles. Go read the dictionary definition or any social studies book from the 6th grade." However, you have a link to the website in question on your LINKS page and post to the website often. Are you really a ****ER in disguise?

Author: ????
email: bullshit@rk.com
Thu, Jun 1st, 2006 08:20:40 AM

RK Replies:

To say you have the reasoning ability of an earthworm after a spring frost would be giving you far too much credit.

Your failure to understand the difference between our not allowing the name of professor clown's piss-puddle of a website here on RugKazbah.com and our banning the IP addresses of certain individuals whose sole intent is to, well, act like you, is completely in line with any democratic principles. Go read the dictionary definition or any social studies book from the 6th grade.

Though our credo is anything goes, there is a limit to the word anything here.

RugKazbah.com is far more open, free and uncensored than any arena, anywhere on this earth and we defy you or anyone else to prove the contrary.

Forget websites, or rugdom, go find one anywhere, in any size, shape or form that even compares to the freedoms we allow here, let alone one that is superior.

Anyone is permitted to post here, even professor clown and company, anonymously if they like, and to say anything they want -- except we do not allow the posting of any URL or the name of professor clown's BS website of rug ignorance. He’s earned that distinction in spades and continues to.

In fact, you and a number of other misinformed and disingenuous panty-waisted dingos have added fuel to that fire.

Why have we done this?

We have explained it ad nauseum and suggest you go re-read what we wrote before coming here looking for a shoulder to moan on.

Post whatever you want here but remember all democracies have rules and those that govern conduct here are unassailably free.

We'd tell you to think about it before opening your mealy mouth again but know what a waste that suggestion is your case, earthworm.


When did you poll your audience about censoring the word T-u-r-k-o-t-e-k from every post that had it, and blocking certain IP addresses from posting? What was the result of that democratic process? I guess I just missed it, but I don't remember seeing this.

Author: jc
Tue, May 30th, 2006 05:36:02 PM

Does he or doesn't he?

Once again RK has made steev price the butt of our contentions he is a dumb bastard. And, of course, he doesn’t know this yet but will as soon as this post becomes general knowledge.

Because professor clown will not allow unfettered access, not only for RK but for anyone, to the sandbox chat room he and his equally stupid cohort, filiberto the twit, guard like a mother hen does her eggs, we have had to assume pseudonyms to post there.

Our latest escapade, as Michael Borden, has made price look, as always, to be the autocratic moron.

It's so easy to gain his confidence, all one has to do is play to his swollen ego with a few well placed compliments and bingo he's as malleable as a warm piece of taffy.

To call price a dumb bastard is right on as, after several posts Michael Borden made questioning, oh so politely, price and his group's dumb as a rock opinions about the Tekke ensi hermann bought at the grogan acor sale, price summarily and for ridiculously false reasons chose to close discussion.

After he did that we, rather Michael Borden, sent him the following email:


Most of the logic Steve has expressed in his last post to the Tekke Engsi thread is far from absolute, his unilateral decision to close a discussion likewise based on more of the same and in reply I must express my dismay to this turn of events.

Because someone like Cassin, who no matter what people's opinions are about him has proven his expertise, at the least by the collection he has amassed, has taken a position that is radical, this is no reason to discount it or consider it poppycock.

Let's all face facts here, there is little to nothing positively known about any Turkmen rug made prior to the mid to late 19th century. So the entire written body of literature about these early weavings is, basically, supposition.

I will allow some suppositions are better than others but once more this is far from absolute logic.

To get to the essence of the several matters now raised here, please, let me list them:

1. The Engsi, the prime subject of this thread, is definitely different than others of its type and from what I have heard from others, and read about it, the quality of the wool, the design aberrations and its condition all point to it having been made and, yes, not used like other Tekke Engsi.

Whether it is a workshop product or had any other non-traditional origination, it is clear it is unusual.

2. Because the discussion turned "hostile" in the past, and I still do not see anything I would characterize as hostile re-reading the thread, doesn't mean it will in the future.

This is more circular logic.

3. Bcause Cassin posted here under an assumed name doesn't negate what he wrote, nor does it by the very fact of his having done that, necessarily need to cause disruption or hostility.

If his views, many of which I clearly share, were different from those held by others, this once, more doesn't negate them, unless someone provides evidence to the contrary, nor should it be any cause for concern or "hostility".

4. The point I raised in my last post concerning the lack of any evidence presented here to counter his position, other than what someone on the other side claims are feeling, is surely, again, no reason to take the high road and deem Cassin to be on the low one.

5. In any proper and civilized forum there has to be room for opposing views and if this caveat is not respected, it diminishes and destroys all sense of fairness and civility.

To prevent opposition to one's, or one's groups, ideas is abhorrent to any society that claims to be democratic.

There are others that can be listed and if this post is removed then surely Steve and the other owners of ****.com desperately need to re-examine their stated principles and do that without further ado.

If the only permitted words are those that sing agreement with Steve and those other individuals then, gentlemen, you have fallen down about as far as you could possibly go.

Michael Borden"

We have labeled, notice we say labeled not liabled, price a dumb bastard for many reason but the two most obvious ones are:

1. for his dumb opinions about oriental rugs

2. for his bastardly mouthing democratic talk and walking such a dictatorial walk.

Let's remember his website’s credo is: A place “…where rug enthusiasts can connect” . But, in reality, those connections are only allowed to connect after professor clown has decided whether or not they should.

In our world, someone like price deserves, like the protagonist in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter”, to be tattooed to warn others of his proclivities.

However, in his case, the entire word, dumb bastard instead of just the letter A needs to be burned into his forehead.

At every turn of the screw price proves why we can’t stand him and want to rid rugdom and the internet of this fat piece of crap called steve price.

Author: Harry Krishna
Sun, May 21st, 2006 09:49:46 AM

RK Replies:

We have posted our reply to the questions raised below in Part II of this thread.


Defamation, libel or slander require that the statements made about somebody are not true. I know you know this, because I learned it from you.

I tried to learn the truth about James Mellaart so I could see whether Price defamed him or just spoke the truth about him. What I read is that he was an archeologist who made a very important find (Catal Hoyuk) while he was still young (by 1965), and wrote a couple of good books based on it. He then got banned from coming to Turkey for theft of important cultural works. Some years later, he wrote more about Catal Hoyuk. A lot of it was inconsistent with his earlier reports, and is regarded by some professional archeologists as fraudulent. You mention that you sponsored some of his work. Since you were not even an adult when he did the work that made him famous, this must have involved the things he did later.

If all of that is true, then Price didn't defame or libel him, he told the truth. You must have a different story, because you say that Mellaart only made some mistakes. Serious mistakes, but not fraud.

Please educate your readers by telling us the real story of Mellaart, and of your involvement with his work.

Author: jc
Sat, May 20th, 2006 10:55:01 AM

It should be fairly obvious to anyone with the intelligence to open a can of pepsi steev price and RK don't like each other.

But where and how did this enmity begin?

Simply put when, years go, price objected to RK's introducing some reality on his website, i.e. critique of steev's ludicrous opinions and ideas about rugs, he prevented us from posting there. That was, in fact, the reason we started RugKazbah.com.

We do not suffer fools well and price’s actions and his attempts to denigrate us were paid back in spades by our pointing our what a clown and fool he is.

That in a nut shell is the story

Over the years price has continued to falsely defame us but he has never provided anything substantial to support his claims other than pointing out ridiculously unimportant things like punctuation errors or singling out, and removing from context, things we have said -- like the camel issue or others.

Because he actually knows next to nothing about historic rugs, or even the airport-art ones he ‘collects’, he has been, and still is, unable to mount anything other than such silly criticisms, spew innuendo or generally act like he's the arbiter of anything other than when to raise that poor little boy he adopted allowance.

He is an abject failure next to anyone who has accomplished anything extraordinary in their lives and compared to his peers his star is as dim as a piece of coal.

What other tenured professor has enough time on his hands to play on the internet like professor clown does?

Every educator we know is so busy they can't even think of doing anything but their work, especially at this end of the school year time.

To call price a loser and a nobody would be 100 percent correct.

We could go on citing his failures but what are his accomplishments, after all everyone has failures in their resume.

So far, and we have done some investigating about price, we have found not one accomplishment that could be called exceptional or even noteworthy.

We have dared price or anyone else to post them here or even on his sandbox chat room website.

We have done this a number of times in the past and we do so again now.

But none have appeared and we are pretty sure none of any note will appear in the future.

He irritates us to no end, has trampled our longstanding efforts to raise appreciation for historic oriental rugs, denigrated unjustly what we have done and littered the internet with his personal opinions about us.

His libelous claims about James Mellaart and our work with him are another embarrassing example of price’s stupidity, vindictiveness and stupendous imbecility.

Because the world of rug collectors is even more apathetic than America’s voting populous we know of no other art area an idiot like price, or a charlatan like dodds, could possibly continue to operate without censure or removal.

RK knows how pathetic rugdom is and, regardless of the fact we have no visible support, we also know many people in private agree with our position on price, dodds and a host of others we have staked claim.

We believe this will continue and we are not afraid to walk alone.

Nor are we afraid to put price in a box.

But we live in a “civilized” world and only for that reason are creeps and miscreants like dodds and price able to continue on their merry way.

Lord knows price’s verbalizing he be glad to get into a street-fight with us is as much bluster as the rest of his sorrowful and pathetic act.

Author: Steve Price
email: sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
Fri, May 19th, 2006 09:35:44 AM

RK Replies:

Price you are a sick man.

I look forward to seeing you in a hospital. Maybe then you will not be near a computer and we, and the world at large, will be spared your bullshit.

And, perhaps, you will enjoy your psychiatric holiday so much you will decide to stay on.


Hi Jack

You wrote, "[i]First you claimed to have 100 emails now, in the typical pedantic modus operandi a feeble mind like your utilizes, you state about 100.[/i] The facts are, what I claimed in my e-mail of November of 2005, reproduced in full in this thread, was "I guess I have about 100 e-mails from you..." You should at least make an effort to get the facts straight before you start using them to discredit others. That reminds me, I missed the apology you posted for posting that lie about Turkmen not having camels, part of your effort to discredit the Sotheby's folks. Can you give me (and the few remaining people who think you are honest and fairminded) the URL?

More than three years ago, I sent you a private e-mail referring to Mellaart as your whore archeologist (he did, after all, sacrifice his integrity for the shekels you gave him, remember?). You posted it on the web, not me. Now you accuse [i]me[/i] of publicly maligning him? If you love him (and the notion of you experiencing positive emotions toward anyone sounds as ridiculous as your claim to be willing to defend someone without benefit to yourself), why didn't you help him resist temptation instead of corrupting him for your personal gain? Yeah, he made a serious mistake. It was thinking that he could consort with a pig like you and not come out with your stink all over him.

When can I expect your visit to Virginia to administer that thrashing? I'd like to invite the local kids over to watch it. It's been more than 50 years since I got into a street fight, so I'm kind of rusty. But I think I've still got enough to handle you. Oh, I should also tell you. The "poor little boy" that I adopted has offered to fix you up with a swirly on my behalf, either before or after you and I have had it out. I told him that I'd let him do it, but only if he promises to clean the toilet out after he's finished with you.

Author: Harry Krishna
Fri, May 19th, 2006 08:13:52 AM

RK Replies:

You are correct, price wrote about 100 both times, RK was wrong.

But, harry, you are equally as stupid as price in focusing on two completely unimportant issues while the central ones, like the voluminous amount of info we have disseminated here on RugKazbah.com and on WeavingArtMuseum.com, are ignored.

Go read and try to question our expertise, or ask that fat fuck price to try. You can't, and he can't, know why?

Because both of you are ignorants and know about as much about historic rugs, our field, as you do about personal courage.

So his and your picayune approach of throwing tiny spitballs at RK signals:
1. you and he, or whomever, have no answers or replies to the important ones and, instead, focus on meaningless trivia
2. you, like price, have a feeble mind and are incapable of doing anything other than being a nuisance and pest

At least price has the courage to ostensibly only post under his own name.

While you, pussy-face, are a lowlife coward and a pathetic lout.

Doesn't it seem queer no one, who comes here to post on RugKazbah in support of price=clown, has the balls to do it in their own name?

This speak volumes about, not only you people, but the clown as well.


I can't find anyplace where Price says he had 100 e-mail from you in November 2002. The message reproduced in this thread says "about 100". Is this a careless mistake that you made, or what? What about the "Turkmen had no camels" argument? Did you carelessly forget to reply to that, too?

Author: Bully
Thu, May 18th, 2006 05:48:45 PM

RK Replies:

Bully for you, too



Author: Steve Price
email: sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
Thu, May 18th, 2006 01:19:07 PM

RK Replies: clown

First you claimed to have 100 emails now, in the typical pedantic modus operandi a feeble mind like your utilizes, you state about 100.

Your intellect and abilities to debate are as impotent as the rug knowledge you believe you have.

Stating I waited three years to bring up the email issue is but another example, we could cite more but why bother.

You are a fucking failure, price -- plain and simple. And, right, I know how to speak the King's English but I also know street talk.

I am from the street and lived there for years, clown, and fucking A you are lucky I gave that up long ago, otherwise you'd be history, you fat fuck.

What you wrote about Mellaart is another example of your vindictiveness and stupidity.

I love Jimmy and his wife Arlette. They are great people and Jimmy is more of a man than you could, even in your wildest self-delusions, ever conceive.

You are not worth his turds, price, and the next time I see you I just might make you regret the comment you wrote about him.

I could care less what you say about me but when you attack someone I love -- watch out.

You have now crossed the line, price, and as I write this, if you were in front of me, I would lose it and walk over you like you did to Mellaart.

So steve, here it is -- if you dare to enrage me ever again, or comment unjustly about Mellaart, I will take that trip to VA and make you regret you ever heard the name Jack Cassin.

I can ban you from posting here but I will not -- I can stop your email address from being able to send me email, but I will not.

But I am putting you on notice and if you want to tempt your fate -- just try.

You are a dumb ass motherfucker, who never fucked a mother...so I am telling you now, finally to get lost -- understand?


Hi Jack

Can you explain why I would have said to you, in private e-mails in 2002, that I had about 100 e-mails from you if it wasn't true? You would surely have known whether it was. Why wait more than 3 years to bring it up nddeny it?

No matter, let's talk about Turkmen and camels. Today you say,

And don’t bring up the camel story, as our comment was only meant to say certain groups of Turkmen at certain times did NOT have camels. Remember, clown, it was made solely in response to your blanket statement that was nothing but just another of your brainless exaggerations.

But in June of 2005, in your attempt to make the folks at Sotheby's look as dumb as you are, your review of their spring sale (specifically, a Salor weaving) has the following:

,We find it amusing and ignorant on the rug department’s part to call it a “camel trapping” in the catalog, as the Turkmen had no camels

That is a statement of absolute certainty, it wasn't made in response to me or to anyone else. Like so much of what you write with certainty, it's an out and out lie. There's nothing behind it except your hope that it will fool others into sharing your disrespect for those who see you as the poseur that you are.

Author: Steve Price
email: sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
Thu, May 18th, 2006 11:36:32 AM

RK Replies: clown

The more you struggle the more you prove us correct.

Instead of admitting you lied about the 100 emails, or any of the other stupid and dopey remarks you make, your belief you are Teflon-coated is, once again, a ludicrous charade.

You have never once, proven RK has made a statement that is untrue, though you sit on your hobbyhorse of BS like you were Napoleon.

And don’t bring up the camel story, as our comment was only meant to say certain groups of Turkmen at certain times did NOT have camels. Remember, clown, it was made solely in response to your blanket statement that was nothing but just another of your brainless exaggerations.

More to the point, you are nothing but a horse's ass and everyone in rugdom, many of your colleagues in your University, and god knows who else knows this is a fact.

There may be legions of rug fools who don’t like me but, even they, recognize my work with historic rugs, my collection and my knowledge. Can you say even a whisper of that applies to you?

You do have a group of toadies -- like cevat, howe, siverman, amstey, etc -- who seem to think otherwise. Or are they just so desperate for the same recognition you are that they hold their noses every time you walk into the room just to have the fleeting feeling they get by seeing their names in virtual print.

You stink, steev and that's a fact.

So struggle away, enjoy the freedom RK grants you to post what you like but remember you are too afraid to offer us the same privilege and too ignorant about rugs to ever discuss them with us.

We have better things to do than continually prove our point. We have made it is spades and you are, once again, covered in the brown stuff.

Anytime you care to try and compete with us we will, as we said, welcome the opportunity to squash you like a the pesky fly on the wall you truly are.

We know every time we mention your name we play into your wannabe glorification game but eventually we figured even a fool and clown like you tires of being on the short end of the stick.

But now we are coming to the conclusion we are wrong about that and are starting to believe you are driven by a disturbed and very neurotic desire to prove what a fool you are. If that is the case, we should feel sorry for you as you are genuinely and pathetically disturbed.


Hi Jack

The message from me that you posted is one that I sent you in November 2002. But before Thaj gets too dewy eyed and sad, I think it might be instructive to see put in context. Here is one that I sent to you just 2 hours before sending that one:

From: Steve Price
To: dudeisntme
Subject: re: jerkoteque.not

hi moron,

I guess I have about 100 e-mails from you, and they all say pretty much the same thing: You love and admire yourself, you loathe and despise anyone who doesn't.

I mention this only to let you know that your message is understood, and that if you have a life awaiting your attention, you can get on with it now.

I feel kind of bad about never having told you what I think about you and WAMRI, but I'll get to it when I can find some time.


Here is your response to that message:

From: dudeisntme
To: Steve Price
RE: jerkoteque.not


you midget-brained simpleton
1. you dont like me...what the fuck do i care
2, you havent gotten around to tell me what you think of WAMRI..who the fuck cares what you think about WAMRI or for that matter anything else

150plus unique users a day come into the WAMRI website, this traffic has been consistent for almost five years...your piddley little piss-pot of a website..turdoltek.com is nothing but a waste of electricity and proof of what a pos you are

and as stated before any time tyou want to try to compare what you think you know about antique oriental rugs with what i know...i am waiting and willing to shut your flat-fucking mouth forever

so go disappear into morass of shit that comprises your cranial cavity and quit barfing up proof of it in public

The message from me that you posted was in response to this, which (as anyone who reads this cesspool of a site) will recognize as being, well, Cassinesque.

What astonishes me about this recent episode is your gleeful cackling, as though think you've made someone other than yourself look like an asshole.

Steve Price

Author: Thaj Rackery
Thu, May 18th, 2006 09:16:49 AM

Hey thaj, you dope, listen up:

Your abilities to comprehend even the simplest equation is exceeded only by your stupidity in trying.

Go find peewee and circle jerk with him, we have far better outlets for our juice than spilling them in your direction.

Your buddy price is a lying sack of shit, his claiming to have 100 emails from us, way back in 200 when he wrote that or even today 4 years later, is but another exaggerated figment of his pea-brain.

Any email we sent in his direction was returned with one from him and we have a retained a number of them.

The one we chose, and many of those, express the same ignorant spiffle but the reason we chose it, and not any of the others, is because of his outrageous assertions about James Mellaart, who is the "whore archaeologist" price defamed.

To claim something as lame and totally off the mark as that deserves a public drubbing and worse.

Mellaart made some serious, yes very serious, errors of judgment but his accomplishments, even before he was 25, eclipse anything price and his cohorts will do in their entire lives.

There is little doubt Mellaart's discoveries of Hacilar and Catal Huyuk are the greatest archaeological events of the second half of the 20th century and the voluminous number of books and articles he has authored have proven beyond any doubt he is the man.

One of those -- "The Neolithic of the Near East", published by Thames and Hudson -- is, after more than 35 years, still used as a primer worldwide in most Near Eastern archaeology 101 classes. It is the best, most recognized survey extant.

Your ignorance, and price's, is monumental and your ridiculous sputterings, like we have publicly posted price's email to prove we are a victim, shows your limited ability to understanding anything other than a sound bite directed at your posterior.

We dare you to identify yourself and since you have neither the courage nor conviction to present yourself without anonymity we'd welcome demonstrating to you how we treat a low-life POS like you anytime you so choose.

So, anonymouse, squeek up and face the music RK plays but, should your fear of exposure prevent you from answering our call, realize we will eventually expose you and when we do we are sure you will not enjoy the fat ladies song.


So, more than 3 years ago, after getting about a hundred e-mails from you, he sent that nasty message.

Now I can see the truth: YOU are the victim of HIS aggression.

It doesn't show in the public places.

You were right to send him the e-mail that you did, and your wit must have him sobbing in his pillow.

I hope so, he deserves it. I don't like him anymore.

I haven't been this disappointed in anyone since Peewee Herman got caught jerking off in a theatre.

Author: jc
Thu, May 18th, 2006 08:28:09 AM

The fact price posted the email we sent him yesterday was due to three main reasons:
1. he is too stupid to realize by doing so he affirms what we say about him
2. he doesn’t know what else to do
3. weak minds often play the victim card to gain sympathy

To many readers viewing this email might make us seem to be an ogre or bully, after all we used some pretty strong metaphors and in no way were “civil”.

But that is a rather myopic conclusion since we have exchanged emails with price for a number of years and by taking this one out of that context it is impossible to form any reasonable opinion.

Granted we have often upped the ante but price has responded by going the distance and more in his replies.

It is no surprise to any of our readership, who have been following our complaints about him, that we care as little about him, both personally and professionally(sic), as we would a dirt sandwich.

We see him, his cohorts, his rug sandbox chat room, his dumb as a box of rocks ideas about rugs and his insistence he is doing a “service” as a nuisance and permanent pimple on the face of anyone who is trying to raise appreciation for historic oriental rugs and related weavings.

There is no doubt he and other facets of rugdom we have pilloried are serious obstacles standing in the way of ever realizing that goal.

But back to price’s posting of the email we sent him yesterday.

To put what we wrote, the in your face style and tenor we used, into perspective we decided to post an email price sent us some time ago.

We have a number of others that demonstrate price’s willingness to provoke us and his equally abrasive, gutter-style, approach to affect that end.

Let us just say his claiming to have 100 emails from us is as full of crap and exaggerated as most of what emanates from his droopy lips.

From: "Steve Price"
To: "dudeisntme"
Subject: RE: WAMRI (We Are Morons and Raving Idiots)

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:23:12 -0400

Hi doodeyisme (you shithead),

Here's a short quiz: There are about 4 million websites. Who reads the ones that they think are useless? (Psychopaths, that's who.)

And which psycho is nuts enough to read every word in those?

Did you get it right, numbnuts, or should I have started with something easier?

In your monkeybrain, everything is whatever you say it is - commentary isn't commentary, criticism isn't criticism, nothing is anything unless you say so.

Here's some news: nobody else lives in the fantasy world inside your skull or cares what goes on in it. Will you ever figure that out?

Not much danger of it happening, lunajack, is there?

Look up "psychiatric trainwreck" in your Little Golden Dictionary.

Your picture is there.

I have about a hundred e-mail messages from you in my Idiot_Correspondents folder.

Christ, don't you have anything to say except how much you love yourself and hate everyone else?

Who do you think cares, birdlegs?


You say 99.9% of the people in the rug world know nothing, talk too much and believe the crap they spit out as fact, and they really disgust you?

Here's a bulletin, moron: you disgust 99.9% of the people in the rug world.

Because you know nothing, you talk too much, and you believe the crap you spit out as fact.

You're nothing but a two-lira hustler trying to screw the unilluminati with bullshit versions of history that you paid a whore archeologist to write.

Who do you think is fooled by your scholarshit, turdbrain?

If "Website for Assholes and Morons with Raging Insanity" is a museum or a research institute, **** is the Library of Congress.

And what luck!

We have you - a goddam pissant - as our most attentive reader and wannabe participant.

WAMRI gets 150 different people visiting it every day?

They must never tire of reading the same 5 essays.

Sure, I believe that.

Watching you get gangscrewed on Cloudband was a riot, jackofnosense.

Go back to your fantasy world, you're irrelevant in the real one.


Author: Steve Price
email: sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
Wed, May 17th, 2006 02:00:00 PM

RK Replies: Thanks, clown

You saved me, or my web guy, the few minutes it would have taken to insert the line breaks.

But we just noticed you could not even do that right and we had to correct the place where you erred. Can't you do anything right, even a simple task like that?

Enjoy your ignorance and incompetence


Hi Jack

I think you do your readers a disservice by not sharing with them the e-mail you sent to me a little while ago. I'll help out by posting it here:

Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:43 PM
To: Steve Price
Subject: dumb bastard

clown: again you have shit all over your face guess you like it, huh?

anytime you want to try and silence me, by any manner you should choose, i am willing to let you

i sincerely look forward to crushing you like a fly on my wall when and if you mount enough courage, or is it stupidity, to try - by any legal means or otherwise --to make the attempt
so from robert allen, dr. m.c. pierce, senor pizzioala and the other guises i have assumed and used to ridicule and expose you for the lout and ignoramus you are, we all say go fuck yourself

the rug world, and the world in general, would be better off if you were gone and let me be the first to wish you, in advance, good riddance

i feel terribly sorry for the poor little boy you adopted and for the woman who you share that cold bed with -- living with a fat pompous fuck like you is surely a fate no one deserves

so let me close by saying I look forward with pleasure to someday travelling to VA or whereever you end up and pissing on your grave -- frankly that is one trip I would not, and will not, miss for all the tea in china

Author: jc
Wed, May 17th, 2006 01:53:51 PM

We have just received an email from a reader who wrote the following:

"Dear JC

Your buddy Steve Price just acknowledged the posts by Robert Allen and Dr. M.C. Pierce were written by you and stated there would be no further comments about that fact.

I got a good belly laugh in imagining how stupid price must feel and I am sure you will also...."

We are not surprised price would do that as he knows someone might continue to discuss the points we raised.

Also it is obvious many of his readers know what a dumb bastard he is and look in there only to read and laugh at his latest foible.

We take pleasure in causing price to regret his ongoing participation in clownland and hope one day soon he will throw in the towel.

Lord knows his time to do that is way overdue.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service