The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 21, 2015, 05:11:51 PM
-
Fundamentally, the problem with part of FET is that their founder has no legitimate qualifications. He was not a MD, and he was not a PhD either, even though even if he WERE a MD, that would give him no grounds to argue on the shape of the Earth since MDs don't study that subject.
But since he lied on both his qualifications, what is to stop him from lying on every other thing he said? And, having read ENaG, it is pretty clear that either one, he did lie, or two, he was simply an idiot. His experiments were sloppy, the results unreliable in the extreme, and completely irrelevant in terms of proving the world's shape. So... where do you go from there? All you can do is go to proving the Earth round.
-
Please quote him lying about his qualifications. You state it like it is a fact, so it should be easy for you to post a quote.
Also, Dr. Robotham is not the founder of TFES. Please, learn somethings about a subject before you make yourself look misinformed or unintelligent. Thanks.
-
Please quote him lying about his qualifications. You state it like it is a fact, so it should be easy for you to post a quote.
Also, Dr. Robotham is not the founder of TFES. Please, learn somethings about a subject before you make yourself look misinformed or unintelligent. Thanks.
Well, I don't have to. He IS the founder of the modern concept of FET, let's be honest about that. And he claimed to be a PhD without ever displaying a degree to prove that, in a country that did not even grant that degree during his lifetime. Nor did he ever display an MD degree. Nor did he ever display evidence of matriculation or graduation from any university, be it Edinburgh or elsewhere. And TFES did not exist as an organisation per se until after him, in fact, but that is beside the point.
And, as I said in an earlier post in the other thread, if a newspaper article is sufficient to prove a medical degree, I'll be sure to have one written in the local paper, and then I expect you to come to me for medical help when next you need it.
-
Please quote him lying about his qualifications. You state it like it is a fact, so it should be easy for you to post a quote.
Also, Dr. Robotham is not the founder of TFES. Please, learn somethings about a subject before you make yourself look misinformed or unintelligent. Thanks.
Well, I don't have to. He IS the founder of the modern concept of FET, let's be honest about that. And he claimed to be a PhD without ever displaying a degree to prove that, in a country that did not even grant that degree during his lifetime. Nor did he ever display an MD degree. Nor did he ever display evidence of matriculation or graduation from any university, be it Edinburgh or elsewhere. And TFES did not exist as an organisation per se until after him, in fact, but that is beside the point.
And, as I said in an earlier post in the other thread, if a newspaper article is sufficient to prove a medical degree, I'll be sure to have one written in the local paper, and then I expect you to come to me for medical help when next you need it.
Please, present a) a quote in which he claimed to be a PhD and b) proof that he never presented his qualifications to anyone. You might also throw in some of the lies that you attribute to him instead of just saying that he is a liar, but I will be happy for a) and b) for now.
-
Please quote him lying about his qualifications. You state it like it is a fact, so it should be easy for you to post a quote.
Also, Dr. Robotham is not the founder of TFES. Please, learn somethings about a subject before you make yourself look misinformed or unintelligent. Thanks.
Well, I don't have to. He IS the founder of the modern concept of FET, let's be honest about that. And he claimed to be a PhD without ever displaying a degree to prove that, in a country that did not even grant that degree during his lifetime. Nor did he ever display an MD degree. Nor did he ever display evidence of matriculation or graduation from any university, be it Edinburgh or elsewhere. And TFES did not exist as an organisation per se until after him, in fact, but that is beside the point.
And, as I said in an earlier post in the other thread, if a newspaper article is sufficient to prove a medical degree, I'll be sure to have one written in the local paper, and then I expect you to come to me for medical help when next you need it.
Please, present a) a quote in which he claimed to be a PhD and b) proof that he never presented his qualifications to anyone. You might also throw in some of the lies that you attribute to him instead of just saying that he is a liar, but I will be happy for a) and b) for now.
I don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove a positive. His PhD was claimed in many places. His MD is on his gravestone, as is his PhD. He also claimed his MD in life quite regularly. So, he lied, at least to his wife, who presumably would not have put those things on his grave without his approval. And according to Garwood's book, he had reinvented himself after the mess at the commune as Samuel Birley, PhD. Interesting, that, since there was no degree granted in the UK of that nature until 1917.
-
So, in other words, you are making assumptions and using those assumptions as an attempt to discredit the good doctor's name. Nice to know that you are just making things up. Perhaps I should move this thread to CN now?
-
So, in other words, you are making assumptions and using those assumptions as an attempt to discredit the good doctor's name. Nice to know that you are just making things up. Perhaps I should move this thread to CN now?
So now we use the power of the administrator when he cannot back up an argument. The good doctor? Where did he get his degree? When did he graduate? When did he matriculate? What did he get his degree in? What kind of medicine did he practice?
-
I think it has become pretty clear Yaakov has no intention of actually providing any content of his own beyond empty words.
-
Yaakov, you are the one making the claim in your OP. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support that claim you made. If you cannot do so, then I agree this thread does not belong in the upper fora.
-
I don't have to prove a negative. If someone is going to claim they are a doctor, they have to prove it with more than a newspaper article. No one has ever proven to me that he ever attended university, let alone graduated with a degree, other than that article, which DOES NOT count as proof.
-
But of course, you can use the power of the Administrator to not defend yourself, since you are clearly unable to do so. You can't even show us a basic degree. Why not?
-
But of course, you can use the power of the Administrator to not defend yourself, since you are clearly unable to do so. You can't even show us a basic degree. Why not?
There is nothing to defend. You have made baseless claims up to this point and have refused to provide any evidence. No one in this thread, other than you, has made any claims that require evidence. If you are struggling to follow the logic of that, let me know, and I will be happy to guide you through it step-by-step.
-
I have claimed that I have found no matriculation or graduation records at Edinburgh. And that is true. And that an article in the newspaper and a gravestone is not proof of possession of degrees. I have claimed that he never could have gotten a PhD, since he never left Britain, and Britain never gave PhDs during his lifetime. I don't have to prove negatives. You have to prove positives. It is that simple.
-
I'm pretty sure it was a felony to represent yourself as a doctor if you were in fact not one. SBR was very much in the public spotlight with his movement. The idea that he got away with pretending to be a doctor and running a medical practice for over 35 years is laughable.
-
Yaakov, first of all, how do you know he never left Britain? Making assumptions again, are you?
-
Actually, no, it was not a felony to be informally an "MD" in England at the time. Many people were called "MD" simply because they practiced informally. It was considered a "Gentleman's Profession" that one could "learn by doing". Modern concepts of medical school were only just then being developed. In fact, many doctors didn't even charge fees, but took unobtrusive "donations" for their services. I recommend any good history book of the medical profession. Evidently you need some education.
No, JROA, I am not. There are no emigration records of him leaving. And he was very much a public figure. He was the leader of a commune, and then he was parading around the country bilking people of their money trying to get them to believe the world was flat. There was no time for him to have ever been able to get a PhD in America, which wasn't offered until the 1860's, and there is no evidence he spoke German to get one there, which was the only other country that offered one at the time.
-
I'm going to help you out Yaakov:
-Where did you look for his university qualifications and/or record of his claimed degrees?
-Where did you look for his emigration records?
Depending on the quality of your sources, answering those questions could go a long way to supporting your position.
-
I'm going to help you out Yaakov:
-Where did you look for his university qualifications and/or record of his claimed degrees?
-Where did you look for his emigration records?
Depending on the quality of your sources, answering those questions could go a long way to supporting your position.
A. The University of Edinburgh matriculation records and graduation records, via e-mail communications with their registrar.
B. Review of applications to the British Government for emigration permission for one Samuel Birley, and Samuel Birley Rowbotham, and Samuel Rowbotham, during the years he was NOT parading the country or writing books. I was not certain of when he was on the commune, so I backdated it a bit as well. This was done through the Government of the UK via e-mail.
The Government actually required payment of small fees, but it was worth it.
-
And no, I am NOT going through a year's worth of e-mails to find them all. I'm not even sure which of four accounts they are in.
-
For the present, I must sign off. I shall see you all later. I look forward to seeing your proofs when you can provide them. If you can contradict the University of Edinburgh or Her Majesty's Government, I look forward to conceding the argument. Ciao for now.
-
Maybe Parsifal and Pizaaplanet can put this matter to rest once and for all by stopping by the University of Edinburgh to check Rowbotham's academic credentials during their upcoming road trip this coming fall.
-
Now, that would be interesting, since I doubt they'd find any more than I did.
-
Now, that would be interesting, since I doubt they'd find any more than I did.
Except that you didn't actually find anything, nor did you attempt to.
-
Yes, in fact, I did. But, believe what you wish. That is your issue. In fact, its been done twice now. Someone else here did it as well, as I do recall.
-
Yes, in fact, I did. But, believe what you wish. That is your issue. In fact, its been done twice now. Someone else here did it as well, as I do recall.
Belief is irrelevant in this particular matter. I do not have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that you did the research you claim to have done.
-
No, I don't. In order to do that, I would have to go back a year to find e-mails in one of four of my e-mail accounts, emails that I may not even have kept. I don't give a shit if you don't believe me. The fact is that your beloved hero was a liar and a thief, who bilked simple people of their money and convinced them of something that wasn't true.
If you want to prove me wrong, you show me something more than a newspaper article. Until you do that, let's face it. He was a fraud.
-
Now, that would be interesting, since I doubt they'd find any more than I did.
Except that you didn't actually find anything, nor did you attempt to.
He did find something: nothing. I.e.nothing. He found that there were no records.
-
Now, that would be interesting, since I doubt they'd find any more than I did.
Except that you didn't actually find anything, nor did you attempt to.
He did find something: nothing. I.e.nothing. He found that there were no records.
BINGO.
-
He made a claim that he did this research, yet he cannot produce anything to prove that. I am calling BS, sorry.
-
Now, that would be interesting, since I doubt they'd find any more than I did.
Except that you didn't actually find anything, nor did you attempt to.
He did find something: nothing. I.e.nothing. He found that there were no records.
It would be pretty simple to post where he looked and how he looked, so that we could also do the same and verify he actually checked. Instead all we have is him saying he checked it, which may or may not be entirely made up.
-
It would be pretty simple to post where he looked and how he looked, so that we could also do the same and verify he actually checked. Instead all we have is him saying he checked it, which may or may not be entirely made up.
I'm going to help you out Yaakov:
-Where did you look for his university qualifications and/or record of his claimed degrees?
-Where did you look for his emigration records?
Depending on the quality of your sources, answering those questions could go a long way to supporting your position.
A. The University of Edinburgh matriculation records and graduation records, via e-mail communications with their registrar.
B. Review of applications to the British Government for emigration permission for one Samuel Birley, and Samuel Birley Rowbotham, and Samuel Rowbotham, during the years he was NOT parading the country or writing books. I was not certain of when he was on the commune, so I backdated it a bit as well. This was done through the Government of the UK via e-mail.
The Government actually required payment of small fees, but it was worth it.
-
That isn't where or how. That's a vague statement that could easily be manufactured. I could say I've been to Mars and checked to see if alien life was there. You would apparently have to believe me since you're so willing to just take people's word for it.
He said he used email. Where is it? What address was used? Who did he correspond with? He hasn't given any real details.
-
That isn't where or how. That's a vague statement that could easily be manufactured. I could say I've been to Mars and checked to see if alien life was there. You would apparently have to believe me since you're so willing to just take people's word for it.
He said he used email. Where is it? What address was used? Who did he correspond with? He hasn't given any real details.
You asked where he looked, the answer was: U of E graduation records and matriculation records via the office of the registrar for the first case; and review of the emigration requests for a relevant time period (that needs a bit more clarification) via the UK government. You also asked how, and in both cases, the answer is email.
Of course the statements could be manufactured, but then so could something more complex, so what? The whole point of you asking was so that someone could follow the same avenue of investigation.
I also never said I believe him.
-
You asked where he looked, the answer was: U of E graduation records and matriculation records via the office of the registrar for the first case; and review of the emigration requests for a relevant time period (that needs a bit more clarification) via the UK government. You also asked how, and in both cases, the answer is email.
Of course the statements could be manufactured, but then so could something more complex, so what? The whole point of you asking was so that someone could follow the same avenue of investigation.
I also never said I believe him.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on what qualifies as 'where and how'. Regardless, Yaakov's evidence is lacking. I could simply state the polar opposite: "I checked with them via email a year ago and they said it was there" and leave it at that. The debate would now be at a standstill because we both have the same amount of evidence.
-
You asked where he looked, the answer was: U of E graduation records and matriculation records via the office of the registrar for the first case; and review of the emigration requests for a relevant time period (that needs a bit more clarification) via the UK government. You also asked how, and in both cases, the answer is email.
Of course the statements could be manufactured, but then so could something more complex, so what? The whole point of you asking was so that someone could follow the same avenue of investigation.
I also never said I believe him.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on what qualifies as 'where and how'. Regardless, Yaakov's evidence is lacking. I could simply state the polar opposite: "I checked with them via email a year ago and they said it was there" and leave it at that. The debate would now be at a standstill because we both have the same amount of evidence.
Yeah, and it is weird that Yaakov can go through all of that, but then does not want to use the search function on his email. I still think a visit to U of E is in order for the FES Scotland trip. It would be good to either get a repro of Rowbotham's graduation records, or know for sure that he never did graduate.
-
Yeah, and it is weird that Yaakov can go through all of that, but then does not want to use the search function on his email. I still think a visit to U of E is in order for the FES Scotland trip. It would be good to either get a repro of Rowbotham's graduation records, or know for sure that he never did graduate.
That's a good idea, actually. Edinburgh might be on their roadmap.
-
just have a minute. The e-mail of the registrar is a matter of public record. I don't recall what it is. The emigration offices can also be found. I have done a partial review of my e-mail accounts, and have not found those e-mails. As I indicated, I don't know which of four accounts they were in, or for that matter, if I even kept them. I have reasons for keeping four accounts, and for not holding e-mail beyond six months, and this was over a year ago.
Ultimately, whether you believe me or not is beside the point. You are free to check yourselves. I am certain you will find the same data (or rather, the lack of it) that I did. So, fire ahead. Go for it. I look forward to hearing your results.
-
just have a minute. The e-mail of the registrar is a matter of public record. I don't recall what it is. The emigration offices can also be found. I have done a partial review of my e-mail accounts, and have not found those e-mails. As I indicated, I don't know which of four accounts they were in, or for that matter, if I even kept them. I have reasons for keeping four accounts, and for not holding e-mail beyond six months, and this was over a year ago.
Ultimately, whether you believe me or not is beside the point. You are free to check yourselves. I am certain you will find the same data (or rather, the lack of it) that I did. So, fire ahead. Go for it. I look forward to hearing your results.
So, you create a new thread making wild, baseless claims. Then, you insist that you personally validated the claims you made but cannot provide evidence to prove that. Finally, you attempt to shift the burden to everyone else by saying "check for yourselves, I don't care if you believe me." Sorry, but you have failed here. Following your own logic in the OP:
But since he lied on both his qualifications, what is to stop him from lying on every other thing he said?
Does this mean it is safe to assume you lie about everything else you claim?
-
So, you create a new thread making wild, baseless claims.
If you don't believe him, then why don't you just check out this thread from the other site for the 24 pages of academic credential search drama?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.0#.VTf4DtLBzGc
-
So, you create a new thread making wild, baseless claims.
If you don't believe him, then why don't you just check out this thread from the other site for the 24 pages of academic credential search drama?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.0#.VTf4DtLBzGc
I read the first page and it's much of the same I'm seeing in this thread. Was there something you wanted to point to, or an original thought you wanted to add?
-
So, you create a new thread making wild, baseless claims.
If you don't believe him, then why don't you just check out this thread from the other site for the 24 pages of academic credential search drama?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.0#.VTf4DtLBzGc
I read the first page and it's much of the same I'm seeing in this thread. Was there something you wanted to point to, or an original thought you wanted to add?
Do you mean other than to point out the fact than that you're obviously too lazy to read the other 22 pages to watch the research unfold?
-
So, you create a new thread making wild, baseless claims.
If you don't believe him, then why don't you just check out this thread from the other site for the 24 pages of academic credential search drama?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.0#.VTf4DtLBzGc
I read the first page and it's much of the same I'm seeing in this thread. Was there something you wanted to point to, or an original thought you wanted to add?
Do you mean other than to point out the fact than that you're obviously too lazy to read the other 22 pages to watch the research unfold?
So no point to make, then. Gotcha.
-
Actually, no, it was not a felony to be informally an "MD" in England at the time. Many people were called "MD" simply because they practiced informally. It was considered a "Gentleman's Profession" that one could "learn by doing". Modern concepts of medical school were only just then being developed. In fact, many doctors didn't even charge fees, but took unobtrusive "donations" for their services. I recommend any good history book of the medical profession. Evidently you need some education.
No, JROA, I am not. There are no emigration records of him leaving. And he was very much a public figure. He was the leader of a commune, and then he was parading around the country bilking people of their money trying to get them to believe the world was flat. There was no time for him to have ever been able to get a PhD in America, which wasn't offered until the 1860's, and there is no evidence he spoke German to get one there, which was the only other country that offered one at the time.
Really? You think that the practice of medicine was informal in the late 1800's? Anyone could perform surgeries, deliver babies, prescribe powerful drugs, perform lobotomies, and start hacking and slashing away into whomever they pleased? Medicine has been regulated by governments since the first day people looked around and thought of something to regulate. Even the Ancient Greeks regulated their doctors.
You are claiming that Rowbotham got away with claiming himself a doctor for all of his career, despite being constantly in the public light. That is simply ridiculous.
-
Though I do not doubt his pose as a medical doctor, as a , they teach you stuff you need to know as a doctor. Not the required information to make a good theory on the shape of the earth. In fact, medical experiments are not taught too much, are they? Maybe on a rat. Pig, possibly. Yet he was qualified to make experiments?
-
Actually, no, it was not a felony to be informally an "MD" in England at the time. Many people were called "MD" simply because they practiced informally. It was considered a "Gentleman's Profession" that one could "learn by doing". Modern concepts of medical school were only just then being developed. In fact, many doctors didn't even charge fees, but took unobtrusive "donations" for their services. I recommend any good history book of the medical profession. Evidently you need some education.
No, JROA, I am not. There are no emigration records of him leaving. And he was very much a public figure. He was the leader of a commune, and then he was parading around the country bilking people of their money trying to get them to believe the world was flat. There was no time for him to have ever been able to get a PhD in America, which wasn't offered until the 1860's, and there is no evidence he spoke German to get one there, which was the only other country that offered one at the time.
Really? You think that the practice of medicine was informal in the late 1800's? Anyone could perform surgeries, deliver babies, prescribe powerful drugs, perform lobotomies, and start hacking and slashing away into whomever they pleased? Medicine has been regulated by governments since the first day people looked around and thought of something to regulate. Even the Ancient Greeks regulated their doctors.
You are claiming that Rowbotham got away with claiming himself a doctor for all of his career, despite being constantly in the public light. That is simply ridiculous.
Surgery was SOMEWHAT regulated. In the 1800s, lobotomies didn't exist. Delivery of babies was performed by women called midwives who were the most experienced at their job. He was only listed as an MD, not a surgeon. And prescribing drugs wasn't really regulated, no. That's why so much "snake oil" was sold back in the day, hence the word.
-
His MD is on his gravestone, as is his PhD.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2824/11711129633_085e5811b0_b.jpg)
The medical act became law in 1858 enabling a fine of up to 20 pounds to be levied for claiming to be qualified to practice medicine (under the terms of the act)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/21-22/90/section/XL/enacted
-
Enacted, yes. But not well enforced for decades.
-
He was only listed as an MD, not a surgeon.
Have you got a reference for Rowbotham being listed as a MD?
-
He hasn't got any references for anything. He likes to play a game of fetch. He throws out an accusation, and you have to run off to the internet chasing a source for everything little thing he can think of. However if you throw the stick, he just looks at you blankly. It is incredibly unrewarding and in the end, instead of your favourite pet, he becomes like that fish you never remember to feed. I can't wait for the day I find him bloated and belly up so we can flush him away and stop feeling guilty about it.
-
My, Thork, aren't we irritable. I suggest a nap, & perhaps even a bottle & blanket. You STILL can't prove that positive. I don't need to, & can't prove, a negative. You have to prove a positive. It's that simple.
-
No, we provided a bunch of sources. You provided nothing to the contrary. On the balance of evidence, we have some, you have conjecture and objections.
-
My, Thork, aren't we irritable. I suggest a nap, & perhaps even a bottle & blanket. You STILL can't prove that positive. I don't need to, & can't prove, a negative. You have to prove a positive. It's that simple.
This is untrue. First off, you can't foist the burden of proof on someone, so if you make a claim that you are incapable of proving, you must concede the point.
Second, you said you have evidence for your position but are not motivated enough to find it. So then, your thin argument is your own fault and not the failing of anyone else posting in this thread.
-
You have provided no legitimate sources. A newspaper article does not qualify. If it does, I'll have one written, & then I expect you all to support me by being my new clients.
-
No, we provided a bunch of sources. You provided nothing to the contrary. On the balance of evidence, we have some, you have conjecture and objections.
-
I am not required or able to prove a negative.
-
If someone is going to go against over 2000 yrs of wisdom & claim the ridiculous notion that the earth is flat, he'd better be able to prove his qualifications for doing that.
-
If someone is going to go against over 2000 yrs of wisdom & claim the ridiculous notion that the earth is flat, he'd better be able to prove his qualifications for doing that.
You brought it up, no one owes anything to you. To be clear, I want you to be right; I really wish you would get off your ass and find those emails.
The other issue is that whether or not Rowbotham was an academic fraud or not has no bearing on the accuracy or veracity of ENaG.
-
Furthermore, I expect the following: any atheist FEer who expects me to prove that Rowbotham ISN'T a doctor had better prove to the me that G-d DOESN'T exist. After all, if we are proving negatives... All I was able to find is "no records exist". That actually doesn't prove one thing or other. And that, in line with what Rama Set says, is a point. Even if he was a doctor, which we know he is not, that in no way indicates that he was qualified to write ENaG, which, as anyone knows who has read the stupid thing, is full of bullshit from beginning to end.
-
had better prove to the me that G-d DOESN'T exist.
That one is easy. He doesn't
-
He was only listed as an MD, not a surgeon.
Have you got a reference for Rowbotham being listed as a MD?
-
had better prove to the me that G-d DOESN'T exist.
That one is easy. He doesn't
I expect proof.
He was only listed as an MD, not a surgeon.
Have you got a reference for Rowbotham being listed as a MD?
Now you are saying he wasn't?
-
I am not required or able to prove a negative.
You are if you made that claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative
-
I am not required or able to prove a negative.
You are if you made that claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative
Then I expect the atheists here, who assert that no G-d exists, to prove that claim.
-
I am not required or able to prove a negative.
You are if you made that claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative
Then I expect the atheists here, who assert that no G-d exists, to prove that claim.
That would be profoundly off-topic for this thread. Have taken 20 minutes to search your emails yet?
-
I am not required or able to prove a negative.
You are if you made that claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative
Then I expect the atheists here, who assert that no G-d exists, to prove that claim.
That would be profoundly off-topic for this thread. Have taken 20 minutes to search your emails yet?
I don't mean in this thread. One of the other threads is fine. 20 minutes through a year's worth of e-mails in 4 different accounts? Are you high? I suspect I probably didn't even keep said e-mails, (at least I haven't found them in a preliminary search) as they were irrelevant to my purpose after proving my point in previous threads. Incidentally, I am still waiting for more than a newspaper article to prove this huckster was an MD. I am preparing to get a friend to write a letter for the newspaper about me being a doctor, and then I want you all to start taking my medical advice, and to pay me top dollar for it.
That should ease my financial problems considerably, I would think.
-
I am not required or able to prove a negative.
You are if you made that claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative
Then I expect the atheists here, who assert that no G-d exists, to prove that claim.
That would be profoundly off-topic for this thread. Have taken 20 minutes to search your emails yet?
I don't mean in this thread. One of the other threads is fine.
Find me a thread where I claimed God did not exist and I will be happy to oblige.
20 minutes through a year's worth of e-mails in 4 different accounts? Are you high?
No, I just know how to use a search function.
I suspect I probably didn't even keep said e-mails, (at least I haven't found them in a preliminary search) as they were irrelevant to my purpose after proving my point in previous threads.
So you are just expecting people to take your word for it?
Incidentally, I am still waiting for more than a newspaper article to prove this huckster was an MD. I am preparing to get a friend to write a letter for the newspaper about me being a doctor, and then I want you all to start taking my medical advice, and to pay me top dollar for it.
That should ease my financial problems considerably, I would think.
I think there is a patent application that lists him as an MD. Maybe Thork or Jroa knows?
-
Incidentally, I am still waiting for more than a newspaper article to prove this huckster was an MD. I am preparing to get a friend to write a letter for the newspaper about me being a doctor, and then I want you all to start taking my medical advice, and to pay me top dollar for it.
That should ease my financial problems considerably, I would think.
I think there is a patent application that lists him as an MD. Maybe Thork or Jroa knows?
Well, the GMC does maintain a database of registered medical practitioners going back to about 1859 or so. I would that that would be about as authoritative as it gets.
http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/LRMP.asp
-
Whether he is listed there or not, which I doubt, does not indicate that he held a degree. It indicates he called himself a doctor. And people believed him to the point that no one questioned it enough to get him arrested. It can occasionally be done today. Just recently, there was a woman in CA who passed herself off as an attorney for 10 yrs. Made partner in a firm, & had never been to law school! If she could do it it 2005-2015 w/ all the background checks we do, just think what that sheister could get away with!
-
Whether he is listed there or not, which I doubt, does not indicate that he held a degree. It indicates he called himself a doctor. And people believed him to the point that no one questioned it enough to get him arrested. It can occasionally be done today. Just recently, there was a woman in CA who passed herself off as an attorney for 10 yrs. Made partner in a firm, & had never been to law school! If she could do it it 2005-2015 w/ all the background checks we do, just think what that sheister could get away with!
Do you have a reference he said he was an MD or he was listed as an MD? You made the claim.
-
Well, the GMC does maintain a database of registered medical practitioners going back to about 1859 or so. I would that that would be about as authoritative as it gets.
http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/LRMP.asp
Looks like they have a copy in the National Library of Wales. If this isn't settled by then, I might pay them a visit the next time I'm in Aberystwyth... which will probably be in a few months.
-
By all means look, PIZAA, although it still won't settle much.
-
By all means look, PIZAA, although it still won't settle much.
Of course it will. If he's on the register of medical practitioners, we will know that he was one. You might still choose to deny it, but we'll just know not to take you seriously.
-
Whether he is listed there or not, which I doubt, does not indicate that he held a degree. It indicates he called himself a doctor. And people believed him to the point that no one questioned it enough to get him arrested. It can occasionally be done today. Just recently, there was a woman in CA who passed herself off as an attorney for 10 yrs. Made partner in a firm, & had never been to law school! If she could do it it 2005-2015 w/ all the background checks we do, just think what that sheister could get away with!
Do you have a reference he said he was an MD or he was listed as an MD? You made the claim.
When a man permits a newspaper article to be written about him, or patents in his name, that include calling him an MD, that makes him essentially calling himself such. That should answer your question. For that matter, if its on his tombstone, one can assume he called himself that in life. His wife would certainly have been the one to authorise said tombstone, as his nearest living relative. So, there you are.
-
By all means look, PIZAA, although it still won't settle much.
Of course it will. If he's on the register of medical practitioners, we will know that he was one. You might still choose to deny it, but we'll just know not to take you seriously.
It won't help at all. It will just prove that he called himself a doctor and was reputed as such, as MANY people were in the USA and the UK in those days, without actually having degrees. It happened a lot.
-
I recommend any good history book on the history of the medical profession in English speaking countries. I can't think of any good titles at the moment, but there are several that would tell you this just as I am.
-
And we still haven't resolved his supposed PhD, for that matter.
-
We can't wait for you to find your email.
-
We can't wait for you to find your email.
Oh, no. I encourage you to look. I am just saying it doesn't prove he has a degree. In fact, stop at Edinburgh. What I did by e-mail, and probably dumped, you can easily do, and more effectively do, in person. Please, by all means. The fact that you are going to come up with no records at Edinburgh is fine with me. And the fact that being called a Doctor in the 1800s is no evidence of holding a degree is fine with me too. By all means visit Wales. Seems like a good idea to me. The fact that the guy is still a schmuck and a liar won't change. I've already told you what the historical conditions were for being called a doctor were in England at the time. Go back through the thread and look, as I am not minded to repeat myself.
-
The fact that the guy is still a schmuck and a liar won't change.
Right, so no matter what evidence might hypothetically be out there, you are not willing to consider it, because what you think is objective fact.
If that's your stance, then I think we should stop entertaining your cries and focus on the subject at hand without your further participation.
-
Like I said. Feel free. I am particularly interested to hear what comes up @ Edinburgh. Now I'm still waiting for proof that G-d doesn't exist. Since I've been asked to prove a negative, I expect every atheist here to do likewise.
-
Like I said. Feel free. I am particularly interested to hear what comes up @ Edinburgh. Now I'm still waiting for proof that G-d doesn't exist. Since I've been asked to prove a negative, I expect every atheist here to do likewise.
What you were really asked to prove is that you have done the research you claimed to have done.
-
Like I said. Feel free. I am particularly interested to hear what comes up @ Edinburgh. Now I'm still waiting for proof that G-d doesn't exist. Since I've been asked to prove a negative, I expect every atheist here to do likewise.
If you want to debate whether or not one can prove a negative, I started a thread on that. Proving a negative is simple and noncontroversial.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=979.0
-
It will just prove that he called himself a doctor
Have you got any references whatsoever that he called himself a doctor or was listed as an MD????
-
It will just prove that he called himself a doctor
Have you got any references whatsoever that he called himself a doctor or was listed as an MD????
I've been over that. He was listed as one in the patent office. During his lifetime. Which makes him a liar.
Like I said. Feel free. I am particularly interested to hear what comes up @ Edinburgh. Now I'm still waiting for proof that G-d doesn't exist. Since I've been asked to prove a negative, I expect every atheist here to do likewise.
If you want to debate whether or not one can prove a negative, I started a thread on that. Proving a negative is simple and noncontroversial.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=979.0
Then I assume that you are prepared to to prove to me that G-d does not exist?
Like I said. Feel free. I am particularly interested to hear what comes up @ Edinburgh. Now I'm still waiting for proof that G-d doesn't exist. Since I've been asked to prove a negative, I expect every atheist here to do likewise.
What you were really asked to prove is that you have done the research you claimed to have done.
Why am I expected to keep files from a year or more ago. Does anybody else?
-
It will just prove that he called himself a doctor
Have you got any references whatsoever that he called himself a doctor or was listed as an MD????
I've been over that. He was listed as one in the patent office. During his lifetime. Which makes him a liar.
Do you have any references at all for this additional claim and the other claims I asked you about earlier???
-
Like I said. Feel free. I am particularly interested to hear what comes up @ Edinburgh. Now I'm still waiting for proof that G-d doesn't exist.
Please refrain from off-topic posting. If you'd like to discuss the subject of (dis)proving unfalsifiable hypotheses, the place to do that would be PR&S.
-
It will just prove that he called himself a doctor
Have you got any references whatsoever that he called himself a doctor or was listed as an MD????
I've been over that. He was listed as one in the patent office. During his lifetime. Which makes him a liar.
Do you have any references at all for this additional claim and the other claims I asked you about earlier???
"Following a scandal at the commune, where Parallax [Samuel Birley Rowbotham] and others had been unfairly accused of sponsoring 'the traffic in human flesh' and participating in free love, he reinvented himself as an itinerant socialist lecturer and then as 'Dr. Birley Ph.D.", practising in Manchester, Sheffield and other northern towns. When it came to medical research, Parallax's major interest was in investigating ways to make mankind immortal,..." Garwood, Christine. Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea
"In 1861 Rowbotham was married for a second time to the 16-year old daughter of his laundress and settled in London, producing 14 children, of whom 4 survived. He was also alleged to be using the name "Dr. Samuel Birley", living in a beautiful 12-roomed house selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable.[4] De Morgan refers to him as S. Goulden.[1] He patented a number of inventions including a 'life-preserving cylindrical railway carriage'. Wikipedia Entry for Samuel Rowbotham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham
Trying to cure every disease imaginable? Allowing "MD" to be put on your tombstone? Sounds like a huckster to me.
-
So you're saying that him putting "MD" on his tombstone is evidence of him not being an MD?
That's some solid logic there, Yaakov. I'm on board.
-
It will just prove that he called himself a doctor
Have you got any references whatsoever that he called himself a doctor or was listed as an MD????
I've been over that. He was listed as one in the patent office. During his lifetime. Which makes him a liar.
Do you have any references at all for this additional claim and the other claims I asked you about earlier???
"Following a scandal at the commune, where Parallax [Samuel Birley Rowbotham] and others had been unfairly accused of sponsoring 'the traffic in human flesh' and participating in free love, he reinvented himself as an itinerant socialist lecturer and then as 'Dr. Birley Ph.D.", practising in Manchester, Sheffield and other northern towns. When it came to medical research, Parallax's major interest was in investigating ways to make mankind immortal,..." Garwood, Christine. Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea
"In 1861 Rowbotham was married for a second time to the 16-year old daughter of his laundress and settled in London, producing 14 children, of whom 4 survived. He was also alleged to be using the name "Dr. Samuel Birley", living in a beautiful 12-roomed house selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable.[4] De Morgan refers to him as S. Goulden.[1] He patented a number of inventions including a 'life-preserving cylindrical railway carriage'. Wikipedia Entry for Samuel Rowbotham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham
Trying to cure every disease imaginable? Allowing "MD" to be put on your tombstone? Sounds like a huckster to me.
I was hoping you might be able to produce something of substance rather than what amounts to hearsay.
-
It will just prove that he called himself a doctor
Have you got any references whatsoever that he called himself a doctor or was listed as an MD????
I've been over that. He was listed as one in the patent office. During his lifetime. Which makes him a liar.
Do you have any references at all for this additional claim and the other claims I asked you about earlier???
"Following a scandal at the commune, where Parallax [Samuel Birley Rowbotham] and others had been unfairly accused of sponsoring 'the traffic in human flesh' and participating in free love, he reinvented himself as an itinerant socialist lecturer and then as 'Dr. Birley Ph.D.", practising in Manchester, Sheffield and other northern towns. When it came to medical research, Parallax's major interest was in investigating ways to make mankind immortal,..." Garwood, Christine. Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea
"In 1861 Rowbotham was married for a second time to the 16-year old daughter of his laundress and settled in London, producing 14 children, of whom 4 survived. He was also alleged to be using the name "Dr. Samuel Birley", living in a beautiful 12-roomed house selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable.[4] De Morgan refers to him as S. Goulden.[1] He patented a number of inventions including a 'life-preserving cylindrical railway carriage'. Wikipedia Entry for Samuel Rowbotham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham
Trying to cure every disease imaginable? Allowing "MD" to be put on your tombstone? Sounds like a huckster to me.
I was hoping you might be able to produce something of substance rather than what amounts to hearsay.
Most people of reason would qualify the above to be something of substance. The fact that you do not is indicative of the fact that you seem to have a personal problem.
So you're saying that him putting "MD" on his tombstone is evidence of him not being an MD?
That's some solid logic there, Yaakov. I'm on board.
No. What I said is that, when you combine that with the fact that there is no record of him actually having a medical degree, it indicates that he is a liar. And given that he was reported to be "selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable", that further indicates that he was a fraud, liar, and huckster of the first order. AKA, as we would say in my favourite bar, an all around sack of shit.
-
No. What I said is that, when you combine that with the fact that there is no record of him actually having a medical degree, it indicates that he is a liar.
But you said evidence of him having a medical qualification would "change nothing". Make up your mind, please.
And given that he was reported to be "selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable", that further indicates that he was a fraud, liar, and huckster of the first order.
Sorry, allow me to respond to that with a quote of your own regarding things which "have been reported". I'll have to twist it a bit, but I trust you'll see my point:
A newspaper article does not qualify. If it does, I'll have one written, & then I expect you all to support me by being my new clients.
A book does not qualify, because everyone can write one. If it does, I'll have one written, etc. etc.
-
Most people of reason would qualify the above to be something of substance. The fact that you do not is indicative of the fact that you seem to have a personal problem.
I was not the person who seems to have invented the fact Rowbotham was 'listed as a MD'
Was there ever a list in your mind when you said that?
-
No. What I said is that, when you combine that with the fact that there is no record of him actually having a medical degree, it indicates that he is a liar.
But you said evidence of him having a medical qualification would "change nothing". Make up your mind, please.
And given that he was reported to be "selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable", that further indicates that he was a fraud, liar, and huckster of the first order.
Sorry, allow me to respond to that with a quote of your own regarding things which "have been reported". I'll have to twist it a bit, but I trust you'll see my point:
A newspaper article does not qualify. If it does, I'll have one written, & then I expect you all to support me by being my new clients.
A book does not qualify, because everyone can write one. If it does, I'll have one written, etc. etc.
Except that books are generally well researched. Newspaper articles can be written by ANYONE. I am amazed by how actually slow you are being. If you were being any slower, you'd be moving backward, Dude!
-
Except that books are generally well researched.
I'm certain the Harry Potter books were very well researched, as was the Koran.
Newspaper articles can be written by ANYONE.
That is also true about books. But hey, I'll take you up on that one.
Hey, Yaakov, according to Joshua Planetstein's recent book, Rowbotham was an MD. It even says so in the title.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/joshua-planetstein/the-earth-is-flat-and-rowbotham-was-an-md/hardcover/product-22161717.html
I mean, it's in the book, so that means it was well-researched, and is therefore true.
I am amazed by how actually slow you are being. If you were being any slower, you'd be moving backward, Dude!
No, no, no, Yaakov. You're doing the thing where you're resorting to personal insults in the upper fora. Don't do the thing.
-
No, no, no, Yaakov. You're doing the thing where you're resorting to personal insults in the upper fora. Don't do the thing.
It wasn't intended to be an insult. More a personal observation, but point well taken.
-
I am amazed by how actually slow you are being. If you were being any slower, you'd be moving backward, Dude!
He isn't being slow, he's being difficult.
-
I am amazed by how actually slow you are being. If you were being any slower, you'd be moving backward, Dude!
He isn't being slow, he's being difficult.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
-
I am amazed by how actually slow you are being. If you were being any slower, you'd be moving backward, Dude!
He isn't being slow, he's being difficult.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Most firefighters find that water tends to be far more effective.
-
Most firefighters find that water tends to be far more effective.
I think you'll find that's very situational. Also, could you do me a favour and take a glance at your avatar?
-
Also, could you do me a favour and take a glance at your avatar?
I know, I know. The animated version is so much better. :(