Jeffrey Gibson

I made no charge. I asked you a question. That you don't think is self evident and patently clear.

I take it you haven't read many of Earl's posts where he speaks of why it is that his critics reject what he's said, let alone those that in which he "explains" with why the guild (allegedly) doesn't (and won't) deal with the mythticist case. If you had, you'd see how much the one I referred to links up with, and can be read as an epitome of, his approach to critical reviews of his work.

That may be. But I have my doubts -- and, I think justly, good reason for thinking -- that I am not reading too much into them. As the record shows, there are very few posts from Earl to or about me that do not contain some kind of dig at me.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I was trying to get clarity that that was not what Earl was doing.

I thought you said you didn't think.

And how the fact that I received a gratis copy of Ear'ls book gives me an excuse for not reading it is beyond me. The real question is why Earl felt it necessary to make mention of the fact that the copy I received was a free one, especially since he volunteered to send me such a copy and had previously stated that he was both eager and glad to do so and didn't care how long I took to review it.

You'll first have to show that I actually made derogatory remarks rather than sought clarity.

And I'm still waiting for you to supply what I asked of you here.

Jeffrey

neilgodfrey

Hoo boy! Sorry Jeffrey, I'm not into your games. You'll have to find another to have your jollies with.

spin

What fascinates me is how diligently he has read Earl's ramblings.


spin

EarlDoherty

My reason for noting that your copy was free was simply to place you outside the category of those few here who had ordered a copy of the book (for the same reason I noted that Toto’s copy was free). I suppose I’m partly to blame over the years, but you certainly are jumping to conclusions about my nefarious intentions and meanings.

Yes, you only once noted I had misspelled Hoffmann’s name, but I was referring to your fairly common notation of other misquoting of names (such as Oskar Betz instead of Otto—or was it the other way round?) I do seem to have a frequent blind spot where less well known names are concerned.

Finally, I queried in general whether we would get a decent and knowledgeable review of my new book from you, not whether it would come before the end of the year, which I hardly would expect. Thus, however long it takes, there is certainly an easy way of demonstrating that in fact you do not only ask further questions and make further demands rather than actually grappling with mythicist arguments.

By the way, my apologies to Don for assuming he had had my book already. Although I wonder why he did not wait to see what I had to say new on various subjects like kata sarka before taking the trouble to rehash old stuff from either Carrier or himself.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

Why did you feel that was necessary. What purpose did such notation serve?

You did? Where?

In the light of your screed against "Solitary Man and myself as well as the fact that with few exceptions, you have never written anything here to or about me that does not contain some gratuitous "nefarious" remark about me, it's hardly leaping.

Yes, you only once noted I had misspelled Hoffmann’s name, but I was referring to your fairly common notation

Fairly common? How often exactly have I done it?

of other misquoting of names (such as Oskar Betz instead of Otto—or was it the other way round?)

Oh. That's what you were referring to! And I note you have changed your wording here from "favourite" to "fairly common" criticism. Interesting.

"Less well known" to whom? To you? In comparison to whom? Are you really saying that Hoffmann -- whom you yourself pointed out as one of the few scholars who knew your work and whom you took pains to excoriate -- was not known to you, let alone that he is realtively unknown among the members of the preofessional NT guild?


How can something I intend to do in the future be a demonstration on your part that I have done what you have claimed (but not anywhere documented) I have done -- and then reputedly over and over again, according to you --in the past?

How could this possibly demonstrate that the particular questions I have asked, and the particular (but as of yet undocumented) demands you claim I have made of you made of you in the past were illegitimate and unwarranted?

Do you have evidence for your the claim that you made here that posing an "endless series of questions" and making "demands for more info" is all I have ever done when responding to your posts, or don't you?

Are you going to show that the questions I have asked, and any "demands" for information I have made of you in our previous exchanges, have not been legitimate or warranted, or not?

That you have shifted the burden on me to prove in the future that I haven't done what you have claimed -- but have never documented despite repeated calls for you to do so -- that I have "typically" done" in the past indicates not only that you cannot do these things, but that you have fundamentally misrepresented what is typical about my responses to you.

So here's the deal. If you want a review from me, put up or shut up on this matter.

Jeffrey

P.S. Yes, I am aware that this post does questions. But each of them is entirely legitimate and absolutely warranted.

spin

The answer is contained in what you are questioning. Did you note "those few here who had ordered a copy". These are people who actively showed a willingness to consider Earl's materials. And, yes, the distinction is plain and reasonable.

The usual response here is RTFA. (If that's not clear, try here, fourth item.)

(And quite the tag-team odd-couple, that was.)

That's not an inapt adjective in this case, is it?

The following passage got a little confusing because you forgot to indicate that you were having a dialogue:
People make slips and typos on a frequent basis. You for instance have just made two typos in the one sentence without correcting them, while you are trying to excoriate Earl. That does tend to undercut the pedantry and its associated righteous anger, wouldn't you think?

Would you believe that that is basically the impression that you have made on this forum? Incessant niggling questions for what seem to be purely your own entertainment? (Do you consider that you've contributed substantively to the discussion? If so, I'd be interested in examples, for I've seen a lot of what you have written and haven't noticed any.)

It's normal to get a restraining order for the fear that an abusive husband remains a threat to the wife: the past points to a possible future. So it's not too far a stretch for someone to query the possibility that you could provide a decent and knowledgeable review given the perception you give on this forum about almost anything you post on, is it?

I must admit that's a novel approach to the art of reviewing. Isn't that a little bit like the book reviewer trying to, umm..., garner benefits from the writer of a book up for review?

As legitimate and absolutely warranted as those I put to you here.


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd like to hear what a judge would say to an applicant for a restraining order who says "I have no actual proof of my charge of abuse, only a perception of it."

Jeffrey

dog-on

Just hope he's not a Christian judge, I suppose..

Jeffrey Gibson

Or an MJ ideologue.

Jeffrey

dog-on

Hell, I thought that our whole case is built on perception...