Bart Dale said: Typical dishonest. By failing to include the fact that the article acknowledge that Roman scissors were harder and sharper, and reporting only the fact that the Chinese scissor design was less prone to cracking, you gave the deliberately dishonest impression. Don't lie, and saying you were just trying to report the facts, by not reporting all the facts, you were being dishonest. Click to expand...

This raises questions of the validity of the entire research, since it wasn't an apples to apples comparison. The 2 and 3 piece scissors would have been made of lower quality but cheaper metal, since they couldn't be made of a single piece. The ability to use lower quality and hence cheaper metal would have offset the cost having separate pieces. Click to expand...

A more accurate comparison would have been to compare the metallurgy of a one piece Roman scissor with a Chinese scissor. The very nature of the study was bound to give biased results. Click to expand...

It took you a week, despite multiple post by you on the subject, and multiple request by me, to provide the sources. In that week's time, here is the only thing you posted, just a picture that nowhere states that it is in fact a Han dynasty picture. It was as easy to find the information you would have posted it long before. Click to expand...

The word for a known liar, that accused me of being someone else from a completely different site, and couldn't even apologize for it, isn't worth very much. Click to expand...

No statement of where the picture came from. nothing but insults, but typical of you. Click to expand...

So it's a wikpedia picture by Tom Oates. Please use the same standard you apply to me as you do to yourself.



I was honest enough to tell you where I got my picture from, which is more than I can say for you. Click to expand...

You just provided a picture, with no indication of where it came from, or even a direct statement it was a Han dynasty scissor. Click to expand...

The article about harder/sharper Roman scissors is a source provided by YOU, not me. You were the one who found it, even though previously you were implying Han dynasty scissors couldn't exist because you couldn't find any source about Han scissors.? Just because I didn't use some source you wanted me to use does not make me a liar.Only when it suited you did you manage to find it merely three hours after I made this thread, so you got no call to be calling me dishonest.Besides, my own source said that the Han scissor in question was found to have high carbon content, whereas the Roman blade were far from perfect. Unless there is a Vicker's Hardiness comparison I don't see anything's definite. Whereas the source you provided also speculated that the difference in Han/Roman design was due to the better quality of the Han metal. You left that part out, yet where did I call you a liar?Also, if you didn't notice, I didn't start this thread saying Roman scissors was inferior, I said they used a different way to solve the same problem. The superior/inferior competition was something YOU started, I tried to refrain from it even though my source (and even your source) seem to imply that the authors preferred Han scissors as having the better design. I only got sucked into your competition because you are arguing in favor of something that your own source implied otherwise. Your own source said "", which you left out. So if I left out some source saying Roman scissors were supposedly sharper, in a thread that is focusing on addressing durability, not sharpness, then how does that make me "dishonest"?Really? By that logic matchlock muskets and flintlock muskets aren't an apples to apples comparison either. Why can't they compare the disadvantages in design? If they are the same then they wouldn't have advantages and disadvantages.Why is comparing multiple piece Roman scissors to one piece Chinese scissors biased? Romans had multiple piece scissors, did they not? Chinese had one piece scissors, did they not?I made it very clear from the beginning that all you had to do was promise to refrain from treating the source with racism as was typical of your debating tactics whenever you get backed into a corner. You didn't make that promise for a week (and you still haven't), so for a week I didn't provide the source. You could have gotten it much sooner if you simply made that promise. Such a promise doesn't cost people anything because most people don't plan on being racist in the first place. Instead of making such a promise, you just raged at me for not providing the source, and threatened about how I don't have the evidence, even though each time I explained to you that all you needed to do was promise to not be racist. So you got no call to complain.How and where did I lie? Show the exact post and where I said anything contradictory to it. You have a tendency to call people liars yet these accusations tend to simply be stuffing words into other people's mouths. After the millionth time when your accusation of dishonesty is proven false, you should have learned by now that maybe next time you accuse me of dishonesty, it's just another one of those things in which you either misread or demand unreasonable standards.So I suppose the list of scissors I made that shows where they are unearthed, you decide to ignore all of them and instead focus on that one picture that I made as an offhand comment. That's incredibly picky of you.On, so I suppose all the OTHER descriptions I showed, with mention about where I got the picture from and where each scissor was unearthed.... you missed AAALLLL of that and decide to focus on one picture that was shown as an offhand comment?And I didn't accuse you of dishonesty. I accused you of having ridiculously low standards. My accusation has to do with standards of evidence, not honesty, so I don't know why you are bring honesty into it. That first picture I provided you was because you said that you couldn't find a picture of a Han dynasty scissor. So I gave you a picture. We weren't debating during that time. How is that an insult? How does that make me a liar?The picture (which I showed as an offenhand comment) shows a sign beside the scissor saying it is a Han dynasty scissor.The first picture I showed you, as an OFFHAND COMMENT:Read the stupid sign, it says "Scissors of the Han Dynasty". Even if the sign isn't there, how the hell is that supposed to make me a liar? It's just a picture shown as an offhand comment, I don't know why you are making this so personal. Can you be just a tad bit more reasonable? The scissors I showed that weren't offhand comments, I provided with more detail as shown in this thread. Yet you choose to focus on this one particular picture.So in summary in another thread:Bart: I haven't seen any pictures of a Han dynasty scissorHack: Here is a picture of Han dynasty scissorBart: You didn't provide where the scissor was unearthed and which period it was dated to!Hack: Can you ask nicely and promise you won't treat my source as a liar just because some unrelated source which shares a nationality with it is inaccurate? (in short don't be racist)Bart: I'm askingHack: You didn't promise not to be racistBart: You don't have the evidence do you! I knew it!Hack: You didn't promise not to be racistBart: You said all I had to do was ask! You added that promise requirement later so I don't have to do itHack: No, both requirements were described in the same paragraph, read backBart: You have been given plenty of time to provide the source, why haven't you?Hack: OK, I'm making another thread with the source provided (ie This thread)Bart: It took you so long to provide the source, what's wrong with you?Hack: Because you didn't promise not to be racist, sigh