ApostateAbe

Mr. Doherty, in one aspect, what you have written is encouraging. When I made a complaint to the administrators, I received only a rejection in return, and I had no idea, before you revealed it just now, then any staff members had taken my complaint seriously. I thought that the politics of the board were completely aligned in your favor and against me. So, thank you for that.

Now, here is the problem with your schoolyard bullying--you have the quick and easy ability to fully inform me of the relevant issues, whether or not you think I am too ignorant of them, and I have the willingness to learn, though of course I come short of rewarding you financially for your insulting promotion of prima facie bullshit. Like all modern authors, you have the full text of your book saved digitally on your computer. And you, in particular, have self-published your book, so there are no copyright issues if you were to invest 20 seconds into copying large relevant chunks of your book into a posting on the forum for me to read. I may spend an hour on the activity of reading your material, but you would spend less than a minute.

If you are not in it for the money, then I see absolutely no reason why that can't happen. This forum is intended in large part for the critical review of ideas. I do not expect any other forum members to buy anything from me, nor do I expect them to buy the books that I regularly recommend. If I have an argument that I want anyone else to review or criticize accurately, then I present the argument on the forum.

bacht

If you think that a book about Jesus mythicism sells in large numbers then you aren't paying attention. Is this kind of theory taught in public schools? Is this kind of theory discussed in the mainstream media?

No. What we get are stale arguments for the orthodox Christian story, or complete disinterest. Meanwhile the Dan Browns of the world cash in on pseudo-history and superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

ApostateAbe

No disagreement. Earl Doherty's topic is a marketing dud for any publisher. Bart Ehrman has the same problem. He is going the way of the ebook.

blastula

AA, what you regularly present is prima facie bullshit as has been proven time and time again and even at times admitted by you. It's been proven you are misinformed on the subjects you argue yet for some reason you keep presenting your "arguments" as though you are informed enough to competently argue anything about them. The only good purpose of your threads is that the debunking of your arguments provides useful information. Otherwise, they are simply farcical.

EarlDoherty

You can't see a very telling contradiction here, Abe? You have a willingness to learn...(from my) insulting promotion of prima facie bullshit?

It's not just a simple matter of posting sections of my book. It's choosing and integrating such things into your lengthy and hopeless presentation of ideas which show a complete ignorance in so much of what you are spouting, and making that integration presentable on a forum like this for you and others to understand. That takes work, work a lot of which I shouldn't be required to do if you were someone who realized that coming here to pontificate against a growing popular theory should, at a minimum, require you to have already familiarized yourself in more than superficial fashion (or even less) with that theory and its arguments. But you are not such a someone. You think you already know everything, and why should I or anyone else have to devote our time to dealing with that kind of pompous fantasy?

Earl Doherty

Toto

Let's cool things down a bit, okay?

ApostateAbe

That opinion is cool by me, blastula. I take it as a given reality that a lot of what I am saying comes off to a lot of members as hogwash, and I won't ask anyone to pay me anything in order to receive more of it.

blastula

It's not just by other members. You yourself admit it at times. And I didn't say anything about you asking for pay.

ApostateAbe

You seem to have a significant interest in striking down what I am saying, and I figure the best way to do that is to go directly to the substance of what I am saying, not complain about my ignorance. Are your arguments so complex that it would take just too much work? Is the raw text of your book not enough to get a proper handle on your arguments? I am not asking you to integrate your book material into any of my ideas. If you have an argument, then put it on the table. Like I said, when I want anyone to review and accurately criticize my arguments, then I present the arguments on the forum. I take it to be the fundamental way this forum works.

ApostateAbe

Absolutely, we are on the same page.