jgibson000

If I have enged in vitriol, I apologize.

But do others perceive that my posts contain not only vitriol but the amount of of it that is noted above?

And is the silence that has met what I have written in my posts really to be explained as it is here?

I'd be grateful to hear from those who have been silent to know if this really is the case.

Jeffrey

Julian

I agree with Toto.

Jeffrey, you clearly have skills and knowledge yet you seem to be using them mostly on the attack. Most of your posts here have been directed in the form of an attack on some poster or other.

Instead of attacking the less scholarly posts around here, you could share your knowledge and help raise the level of quality. Be a force for constructive, calm and incisive criticism and education rather than the rather harsh, non-contributing posts that we have mostly seen so far.

This board is getting better all the time and people like you could really help. I would certainly appreciate that. I have no problem with your opinions (acually, I welcome them) but they tend to get lost in your presentations, overshadowed as they are by the offensive language.

Julian

TedM

Absolutely. And you are definitely to be congratulated for your innovative ideas, Earl. I enjoy reading your posts.

take care,

ted

Toto

That is what you said, and if you think it is demonstrable that "Jesus Mythers" (who, in particular? Robert Price? Wells? Doherty? Acharya S? Do you distinguish among them?) have distorted and misrepresented and misread sources, you should stick to the plain evidence.

You said: "And as long as we are characterizing things, let me not only note how in what you write here (as well as frequently in other recent postings) you have provide us with another in a continuing, unscholarly, (but, as it appears, typical of Jesus Mythers) series of examples of circumstantial ad hominem."

and I have noted that as a possible rule violation.

I think that Earl originally wrote this to refer to the moderator's actions, not you.

Which will drag this thread off topic.

There is some logical fallacy here, but I'm not going to search for the Latin. Many people who have subsequently been proven correct have complained about their ideas not being taken seriously by the establishment. So have some nutcases. Please drop this comparison.

I will leave the rest for others.

jgibson000

Just to clarify something:

You should know that by "cooking", I mean selectively quoting a source one is relying on and/or giving the impression, while posing as having been complete in one's presentation of the evidence, that there is no other data on the subject that one is making claims about than what one presents, when one knows -- and the source(s) that one uses show -- othewise.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

Maybe I'm missing the point of the objection but I see nothing wrong with what Jeffrey characterizes as "selective quoting" as long as it is made clear that only portions of a given scholar's stated views are being used and that the scholar's actual conclusion is not the same. I don't know how else a new idea can obtain any semblance of legitimacy except by showing scholarly support for the individual parts of one's argument. You just have to make the limitations of the support clear.

If I am offering a unique interpretation of something an author wrote, it seems entirely legitimate to me to put forth scholars who agree with the wording I'm using or those who agree with some aspects of my understanding. How else can one support one's thesis except by showing that portions of it have some basis in scholarship? I always assume this is what any author is doing when presenting a unique view. Given that it is presented as a unique view, I also don't see the need to keep repeating that nobody else offers it.

If you found a scholar who agreed with you completely, all you are doing is repeating what that scholar already said.

Toto

Cooking: defined

Unless you pretend to be Humpty Dumpty and have paid extra for that term, you have outrightly accused people here of dishonesty (not that your revised definition is much better.)

jgibson000

.

For the meaning of "selective quotation" and why it is fallacious, go here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm

Abd look at selective attention, quoting out of context, and suppressed evidence.

For examples of what it is and why it's pernicious, see:

http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/prg.html


Jeffrey

Loren Rosson III

I don't post too much on IIDB, but feel compelled to note I was astounded after reading the the above remark. As far as I can tell, there has been no vitriol in Jeffrey's posts. He's been debating forcefully, as do many in this forum. Given the level of pugnacity I've seen many times in IIDB discussions, this charge is peculiar to say the least.

krosero

I have to second this. But more later.