Home > Archive >Dumb Question
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Mon, Feb 19th, 2007 03:11:11 AM
Topic: Dumb Question

Perhaps the biggest problem RK has with steve price and the regular "contributors" to his website is their abysmal lack of knowledge and understanding for the subject they believe they are illuminating.

There's surely no shame in being ignorant about this subject as price and company prove over and over they are. However, to pose as knowledgeable one day and an ignoramus the next, as they also often do, is totally unacceptable.

For instance, in today's batch of posts to the rug romper room price shepards, a reader who often dispenses advice and answers to questions posed by others actually asked if this torba was a Tekke:

Glory be, man, if you are unable to recognize one of the most easiest identified types of Turkmen weaving how the heck could you possibly be brazen enough to believe you know anything about Oriental Rugs?

The “discussion” about this torba has yet to leave the launching pad, as no other turko-idiots have chirped in yet. But RK is sure, as soon they do, will their responses be judged as anything other than droll, dumb and boring?

Well, anyone who has spent even 30 minutes reading posts by price and company knows the answer to that one, now don’t we all?

Author: Peter Smith
email: PetSm@hotmail.com
Mon, Feb 19th, 2007 03:11:11 AM

RK Replies:

Ah, Mr. Smith is it? How's Texas treating ya?

Your "accusation" of bad faith is as bogus as your inability to differentiate between someone who asks a rhetorical question and someone who just plain doesn’t know the answer, rhetorical or not.

And are you really so eager to prove RK wrong that you, someone who just accused us of "twisting" the facts, twist and contort them even more?

Come on now, boy, wake up and smell the flowers.

It is beyond reason to believe Patrick Weiler, the author of the Tekke? post knew whether or not the torba was actually a Tekke. He didn’t and that is quite clear.

Here's another quote from his thread which, even a doubter like you must agree, supports that contention.

"Is the interior of these guls commonly found, or is it unusual? Is this a standard version of a 12 gul torba and what percentage of Tekke torbas are 12-gul instead of other formats?"

The guy doesn't know and that, Mr Smith, is the issue here -- not RK's "bad faith".

And, although you will most probably interpret that magpie filiberto's dumb as a rock reply to Weiler's question about the "interior" gul articulation:
"I don’t know but, for what is worth, plate 82 of Jourdan’s “Turkoman” looks very similar."
as anything but expressing his ignorance as well, in reality it shows him as equally as rug challenged and ignorant as Weiler is.

But, as usual, steev price's two-bit contribution takes the booby-prize:
"The guls are very uniform in terms of size, and the range of colors seems limited. Everything about it says Tekke to me, and although most early 20th century Tekke stuff is very "busy" (has lots of borders, for example), my best guess would be that this is when it was woven."
and demonstrates once again his propensity to dispense rug nonsense(no steev, you fool, this torba is not 20th century, it is at least as old as circa 1870/80) as if it was anything but.

So sorry, for you Mr Smith, but your feeble attempt to prove RK's “bad faith” failed miserably. Yes, almost as miserably as those three turko-idiot's ideas about a 12 gol Tekke torba.


Hi Jack. Another example of your usual bad faith. The title of that thread reads “TEKKE?” with a question mark, yes, but The Tekke attribution was never questioned. The author only asks if that is a “typical 12 gul Tekke”, “what percentage of Tekke torbas are 12-gul” and “is the interior of these guls commonly found, or is it unusual”. You the twist the facts as it suit you, as always. But, then, your views are as balanced as those of Fox News on the Iraq war…

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service