RK is sure when we write a title like "Internet Idiot" most of our readers know we are referring to steev price.
Here is the latest installment from the internet idiot concerning the LACMA/dodds debacle. We are posting this only because it, once again, presents a perfect example showing the lack of intelligence or understanding most of the people involved in rugdom are able to ante up when they talk or even think about rugs:
"There are others who have appointed themselves to be the Internet Rug Police, one of whom is currently insisting that a rug that was represented as probably dating to around 1700 is really at least 100 years younger. He has accused the seller of fraud, and unless he can prove the unprovable(sic) - that he is right - he is at substantial risk if the seller decides to pursue the matter in court. In the USA, if you accuse somebody of criminal behavior, especially if that accusation impairs his pursuit of his livelihood, you'd better be able to prove it unless you're willing to bet that the guy you accused will just ignore you."
RK is surely not the internet police but were we price=clown and his band of rug idiots would have been banished from rugdom long ago!
The sever lack of intellect professor price=clown operates on is apparent whenever he opens his mouth - it is truly pathetic he cannot even get the facts straight.
The LACMA/dodds rug was originally presented as being 16th century. It was then revised and is now still called circa 1600.
RK has categorically stated (and supported our claim with extremely viable commentary) it is at best late 18th or circa 1800 and, actually, nothing more than a late period reproduction.
Seems the internet idiot, steev price, now is says it was represented as "around 1700" which is not factual.
No-one, besides professor clown, has yet to make such a revision and why steev did is just another imponderable that slipped from his flabby mind into print.
As for the idiot professor implying RK's statements about dodds errors show criminal behaviour, we can only state if dodds or anyone else feels so inclined we are prepared to defend our right to comment on such matters in the way we have in the past and as we will continue to do so in the future.
The moron professor and his group of rug-know-littles typify the serious problems inherent in rugdom. Their inability to see truth, even when it is carefully spelled out for them, is, believe it or not, even worse than their inability to figure it out for themselves.