Home > Archive >Turko-toadieS
Author:jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Tue, Jul 3rd, 2007 10:28:28 AM
Topic: Turko-toadieS

The abysmal proof of Virginia Commonwealth University professor steve price's inability to understand even the most basic facets of what constitutes a 16th century Turkish rug can be shown in the following comment the turko-idiot of rugdom just published:

"My understanding is that the C14 dating of the LACMA rug was based on wool from pile that was original.

The fact that they say that they intend to do C14 analysis on restored parts implies this to be the case.

If that's so, the rug is a documented example of a mid-16th century (plus or minus 100 years) Turkish rug.

For the most part, it should be useful in contributing criteria for recognizing Turkish rugs of that period.

The design and colors were probably reproduced pretty faithfully in the restoration (that's nearly always the case), and the pile and foundation in the parts that are original are mid-16th century work.

It may be typical of the period, it may not be. But I don't see how any database of mid-16th century Turkish rugs can fail to include it.

Regards Steve Price"

It's nothing short of idiocy for price to write "If that's so, the rug is a documented example of a mid-16th century (plus or minus 100 years) Turkish rug."

As dumb as price's statement is on the surface, the fact he is a PhD scientist makes it even worse; proving price's credentials as a scientist need to be carefully addressed.

One or two C14 analyses of a rug that has been subject to unknown contaminations surely does not provide any proof it is actually as old as the C14 implies. Nor does a 95.4% probability for the dating make it anything other than, basically, an opinion.

Plus price the rug clown then finishes with this dim-witted conclusion:

"It may be typical of the period, it may not be. But I don't see how any database of mid-16th century Turkish rugs can fail to include it."

Firstly, price wouldn't know if dodds's dud "bellini" was or was not typical of the period if his accomplishment devoid professional life depended on it.

What this shows, and one does not need to be an Einstein to figure this out, is rugdom's silence on dodds's caper allows price, and those of his ilk, to believe the hype and nonsense dodds, or a C14 date, might make seem real.

That false sense of reality flies in the face of what a far more positive and real art historical comparison of dodds's "bellini" with real pre-1800 examples of the type demonstrates.

Sadly, it requires some intellectual capacity to see this while all an idiot like price needs to do is read what he wants into dodds's lies or what a far from positive C14 analysis might imply.

It would be funny but this is too serious a matter to laugh about; that is for anyone who knows the difference between airport-art and genuinely historic textile art.

Author: jc
email:
Tue, Jul 3rd, 2007 10:28:28 AM

We have changed the title of this thread from Turko-toadie to Turko-toadies to reflect the fact Virginia Commonwealth University professor steev price is not the only turko-toadie in the bunch - he has much company.

For instance there's marvin aka one line amstey; jerry aka dont'cha know who i am silverman; gene aka mr macho rug moron and his brother jack aka color-blind williams; and, of course, jr aka know-nothing howe.

These chattering magpies have a combined rug knowledge barely able to be called level one but often laying much lower on the scale - if that's even possible.

Turko-toadies all, because they believe the nonsense, pabulum, and outright BS rugdom holds dear - like dennis dodds is anything but a carpet-bagging cheat and the "bellini" rug he sold is anything but the late genre period reproduction we have stated.

Many know none of price's toadie sandbox rug crew has even the slightest ability to comprehend the most basic tenet of historic rug identification but what is far worse is their believing the contrary. Hardy ha ha to that non sequitur...

Author: jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Tue, Jun 5th, 2007 10:56:34 AM

Here's the first of today's idiotic statements from Virginia Commonwealth University professor steev price:

"Incidentally, one criticism that's been leveled at the C14 analysis is that it gives probabilities for the dates being within certain ranges, not absolute results. This is a general problem, not peculiar to C14 dating.

Every scientific "truth" is really a statistical probability. Often, the probability is so high that it isn't calculated or stated, but it is a finite probability nevertheless. For most purposes, 95% probability is the accepted scientific standard of "truth". It is impossible to understand science, its power, and its limitations without understanding that fact."

"Every scientific "truth" is really a statistical probability" and "95% probability is the accepted scientific standard of "truth"? Phuleeze, steev you rug and now science-dunce, such statements would be laughable were they not uttered from the droopy lips of a PhD professor.

There is little doubt price is an idiot who twists reality to support his boners and dumb-bell opinions, as he has done here to vainly try to validate his belief in C14 dating of old oriental rugs is viable.

Truth is 100% steev and without truth in science there would be no science, clown.

You have already proven you know nothing about old oriental rugs and now you are proving you know nothing about science.

In fact, you are proving you know “nothing about nothing” - do you need help finding two socks of the same color to wear each morning?

Get off the net, price, you are a laughingstock and embarrassment to all concerned -- mostly yourself.

Author: jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Mon, Jun 4th, 2007 11:00:58 PM

Virginia Commonwealth University professor steev price's latest boners:

"My default position in assessing the reliability of data obtained by professionals is that they are aware of the well known pitfalls in their methodology, and know how to avoid them (avoiding the contamination problem is easy once you know it is a problem)."

RK, unlike big-mouthed price, has spent hours talking to "scientists" who are/have tested samples of old oriental carpets.

To a man, all of them have expressed concern about contamination. Also, true, to a man they all then stated they were on top of the problem but it is apparently clear it is a major issue.

In any event it is not "easy once you know it..", a dumb statement by price that questions his abilities, regardless the PhD.

He then continues

"If someone can produce evidence that the analytical lab has a history of fraud or is incompetent, I'll change my view."Trust us on this one, turko-dunces, there should be and are others, like, duhhhh, the methodology is not suited for dating old carpets.

The book by rageth often referred to when ruggies discuss C14 presents only the plus side of the issue.

There is another; and contamination thru use, the preparations of material (wool/cotton/silk) for dyeing, the dyeing itself and then the mordant processes, for instance, are just part of the picture.

The "scientist" who collaborated with rageth was well paid and rageth supported himself off the commissions he made from selling Bonani "science" to small group of “benefactor” believers.

We have spoken to Jull, who is said to have done the LACMA "Bellini" testing and Bonnani, rageth’s man, and RK places Jull above him by long yards

Expertise is surely an important quotient in C14 work, including and especially the "de-contamination" procedures, but everyone will agree historic carpets present enormous difficulties and, in the end, calibration, the margin of error +/- and the resulting "probability" of less than 100% will always make results nothing more than, in the final analysis "opinion".

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service