Jeffrey Gibson

Which you said, even before I knew it was published, that you were eager and happy, and wanted, to send me. So why draw attention to the fact that you sent your book to me for free? It isn't because you want to insinuate that I am an ungrateful and undeserving SOB, is it?.

Hmm. As you know, you received on 11/30 this e-mail from me:

So should I take it that you are pretending now that you didn't receive it? Or, given the hint of impatience that seems to be lurking in your words, that you didn't say here that I could take all the time I wanted to review it

I wonder if you'd do me the kindness of showing here not only that posing and "endless series of questions" and making "demands for more info" is, as you imply, all I ever do when responding to your posts, but that any questions I have asked, and any "demands" for information I have made of you, have not been not legitimate or warranted.

Thanks!

To my knowledge, in the long history of our online exchanges and my responses to your posts here and elsewhere I have only noted your mispelling of Hoffmann's name once. So you are joking that this is my favourite criticism, right? Otherwise the only conclusion that we could come to in the light of this charge is that you have here misrepresented things in order to score some rhetorical points and poison the well.

So Merry Christmas to you, too!

Jeffrey

neilgodfrey

As much as I hate to ask a question or convey any hint of impatience, I wonder if you'd do us all the kindness of telling us all without equivocation if you really do intend to read the book and by when?

But hang on, Earl asked something akin to that question himself and you ignored it once already. Well, not quite ignored it, just equivocated.

Neil

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm not sure how you can take my e-mail to him as "equivocation".

And as I said, I'm hoping the get to the book after Christmas.

Was that not clear?

Now let me ask you a question. What criteria do you think Earl uses in judging whether a review of his work is a good review. Given what he says about Hoffmann, is this not "good=agrees with me".

Has he not already indicated here that he will dismiss as worthless any negative reviews his work receives, should there be any, because the people who write them are not capable of intellectual honesty and because their presumed theological apriorii commits them in advance to whatever it is they might have to say?

Jeffrey

Toto

Hoffmann did not review his work - he just wrote a brief dismissal in a footnote.

No, that's not what he indicated there.

2-J

Personally I would *love* to read, and I really do mean this, a review by Jeffrey Gibson of Earl Doherty's latest book.

Jeffrey Gibson

That doesn't answer my question about what criteria Earl uses in judging whether a review of his work is a good review.

Funny. I do not recall asking you for your opinion on this matter. Moreover, I have no idea why we should take this judgment seriously. Your opinion is pretty worthless when it comes to what Earl says since you are so demonstrably and widely known as biased in this matter.

In any case, whether or not Earl indicates in the post 6174195 what I say that message indicates, it is indisputable that he does indeed believe that that main, if not the the only, reason his critics say what they say about his work is that they are not only incapable of intellectual honesty, but because they work from theological apriorii that they will not renounce, and that these apriorii commit them in advance to rejecting what he has to say.

Jeffrey

neilgodfrey

No, not at all. Where did you say that, clearly, you intend to actually read the book? If I missed the unambiguous and unequivocal and most direct statement otherwise, please repeat it here (as a kindness, etc.)


Oh dear. And you were the one implying I make unsupported assumptions! On what basis do you charge that I "think" anything at all about what Earl thinks about reviews of his work?

You will have to explain your reference to Hoffmann more fully. I do not see at all how Earl's comments support your imputation. As a prominent Australian politician once said, "Please explain".

Um, he did say all that? Please do explain! -- with detailed reference to the original quotation to which you link!

I think you read waaay toooo much into some of Earl's remarks. Example: I recall your suggestion that he is implying you are an ungrateful SOB for remarking on his sending you a copy of his book for "free". I think most onlookers here would have taken that with a smirk knowing you are now left with one less excuse for not bothering to read his arguments -- no one cares one whit if you are an ungrateful SOB or otherwise.

So I do challenge you to actually support each one of your derogatory remarks and imputations about Earl with specific textual evidence. You know, the sort of stuff you demand of everyone else, here.

Neil

(P.S. -- still waiting for your response on the other thread re the responses of Schweitzer and Weaver to the mythicist "ilk".)

neilgodfrey

Wow. What a doozey! So someone who has read the work of X and is favourable to much of it must have a "pretty worthless" opinion of that work of X compared with someone who has never bothered to read the work of X yet is intestinally opposed to it!

Neil

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue is whether Toto is biased when it comes to Earl and gives breaks to him when he criticizes those who have raised questions over his claims that she will not give to those who are critical of his work. This is either true or not true irrespective of whether I have read Earl's work.

I'd be grateful, if it is possible for you to do so, for your keeping that in mind.

Jeffrey

neilgodfrey

No Jeffrey. That was not the issue or context at all in Post 49 where you made your comment.