Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 02-26-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanya

I must confess, however, that I do not share your opinion, here. I do not think it reasonable to reference, in an article summarizing the contributions of Arthur Drews, an obtuse, verbose, opinionated treatise, which deliberately ignores Drews, such as that written by Earl Doherty.

Let's change the characters, so you understand my point: Let's say, for example, that I write an article bemoaning the shoddy writing of Bart Ehrman's latest tome, and in that article I ignore the criticisms levied at Dr. Ehrman, by Richard Carrier, because I doubt Dr. Carrier's competence with application of Bayes' theorem to biblical studies. Ignoring for the moment, whether or not my criticism of Carrier is justified, don't you agree with me, that deliberate omission of Carrier's sentiments on the issue of Ehrman's recent book, would represent shoddy scholarship on my part, were I seeking to present my own assessment of Ehrman's publication?

The point here, is that Earl cannot claim a scholarly accomplishment on the one hand, as you have argued, Iskander, and then, on the other, explain that he "never got around" to reading Drews. Earl's explanation is clumsy, at best, or dishonest at worst, in my opinion.

Unbelievable!

Ignoring a contemporary scholar's viewpoint on a subject one is writing about is hardly the same as not reading every single mythicist tome written a century earlier. Especially when I deliberately wanted to avoid simply channeling previous mythicists. And since when was Drews the God of the Mythicists and required reading?

Then to be accused of some kind of deviousness!

As for your analogy, why should I be expected to consult the criticisms of Richard Carrier in writing my own review of Ehrman's book? Does every reviewer of any book feel that he must familiarize himself with the opinions of every other reviewer before he writes his own? Would it not be natural that he would want to avoid being influenced by those other reviewers?

What the hell is the matter with you people? You're like noxious little children playing in a sandbox. Why am I wasting my time in this asylum?

Earl Doherty

jakejonesiv · 02-26-2013, 03:23 PM

Dear Earl,

Tanya has a point.

You are presenting yourself as an Expert, as "the leading exponent of mythicism" http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...8&postcount=10

That means you have a responsibility to do research. Anyone of your intellegence would never "simply channel" an earlier mythicist's work, so that makes no sense. And yes, A.Drews was prominent and controversial enough in the field of mythicism to be required reading for anyone who gives themself the title The Leading Exponent of Mythicism. And you said you did not read Drews deliberately, so we can't let you off the hook with the excuse of poor research skills.

By deliberately not reading Arthur Drews and other previous mythicists, how did you know what to present as your own original work? Did you assume that every point you thought up had never been thought before? (OK, I'll grant you that on Hebrews 8:4).

Jake

If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants.
Isaac Newton

Toto · 02-26-2013, 03:30 PM

Drews is not an original source. I think Earl has explained why he didn't start off by reading Drews - he wanted to work from modern scholars.

Let's not obsess over this point.

EarlDoherty · 02-26-2013, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Drews is not an original source. I think Earl has explained why he didn't start off by reading Drews - he wanted to work from modern scholars.

Let's not obsess over this point.

They're obsessing over it because it's all they've got. Ad hominem accusations are the bankrupt debater's counter-arguments.

Spin is right. This whole business has become pointless and a joke. This is scholarly discussion? This is honest debate?

I think I will take an extended sabbatical from FRDB. And it will be your loss, hardly mine.

Earl Doherty

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-27-2013, 06:16 AM

<edit>

Roo Bookaroo · 02-27-2013, 08:45 AM

<edit>

Iskander · 02-27-2013, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roo Bookaroo

<edit>

I have in front of me a copy of JNGNM and in the preface Mr. Earl Doherty says that his formal education consists of a B.A. and that his books were the result of his own private study.

I find your malignant hysterics despicable.

Toto · 02-27-2013, 12:42 PM

This is getting crazy. Doherty is from a generation where personal details were kept private. The result seems to be open season for Roo's fantasy.

spin · 02-27-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roo Bookaroo

<edit>

This poster is a complete waste of space. He isn't doing BC&H in any sense. He is carrying out a protracted attack on a person who supplies his real name on internet without the courtesy of supplying a name of his own so one can respond in kind. The attack is purely ad hominem and should lead to intervention from the moderators.

stephan huller · 02-27-2013, 02:45 PM

I second that. This is obsessive hate mongering.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2013, 03:23 PM	#542
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Dear Earl, Tanya has a point. You are presenting yourself as an Expert, as "the leading exponent of mythicism" http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...8&postcount=10 That means you have a responsibility to do research. Anyone of your intellegence would never "simply channel" an earlier mythicist's work, so that makes no sense. And yes, A.Drews was prominent and controversial enough in the field of mythicism to be required reading for anyone who gives themself the title The Leading Exponent of Mythicism. And you said you did not read Drews deliberately, so we can't let you off the hook with the excuse of poor research skills. By deliberately not reading Arthur Drews and other previous mythicists, how did you know what to present as your own original work? Did you assume that every point you thought up had never been thought before? (OK, I'll grant you that on Hebrews 8:4). Jake If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. Isaac Newton

02-26-2013, 03:30 PM	#543
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Drews is not an original source. I think Earl has explained why he didn't start off by reading Drews - he wanted to work from modern scholars. Let's not obsess over this point.

02-27-2013, 06:16 AM	#545
Bingo the Clown-O Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 310	<edit>

02-27-2013, 08:45 AM	#546
Roo Bookaroo Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: East Coast Posts: 34	<edit>

02-27-2013, 12:42 PM	#548
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This is getting crazy. Doherty is from a generation where personal details were kept private. The result seems to be open season for Roo's fantasy.

02-27-2013, 02:45 PM	#550
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I second that. This is obsessive hate mongering.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.