Solo

I suppose that would be one charge that he might not be able to defend against, now. BTW, I never agreed with everything Price said. I respected what Robert said as long as Robert agreed with what he said or accounted for the difference.


'Objectivity' is not what I am talking about here. It's something called 'integrity'.


Jiri

Dave31

What an ugly load of misogynistic garbage about someone you obviously know nothing about. Why don't YOU crawl back under the rock you came from? Isn't Acharya a member here? Aren't personal attacks forbidden against members?

What of hers have you actually read - what is your agenda? You are obviously a Christian hater. Here we have a scholar demonstrating that her work is quite worthy, and that ad hom trash is the best you can come up? What a disgrace.

<edit for consistency> More sexist trash from the hateful potty mouth. Price is definitely her FRIEND - ever heard of one of those? So maybe he's just being tongue in cheek because of hateful nasty people like you.

I seem to remember a thread here a year or more ago trashing Acharya & accusing Price of being paid because he had removed that STUPID review of Christ Conspiracy (years ago) & wrote the FOREWORD to her book Who Was Jesus? (or via: amazon.co.uk) So, Price made a comment here responding to that nonsensical accusation.

Who are his "new buddies?" What "archives?" Are these some overreaching omnipotent conspirators? Maybe Icke's reptilians? Are you paranoid?

Folks, it really is time to let that old review of Christ Conspiracy by Dr. Price go for good. He clearly no longer supports it. I know some here have pure hatred for Acharya S & would love to bludgeon her to death with that review forever but, it's time to grow up - let it go.

Dr. Price is better than ever & is being as sincere and honest. Maybe it's time you check yourself, Solo? You haven't even read Christ in Egypt have you, Solo?
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

Solo's comments just scream of jealousy, misogyny, and hatred for Acharya S - which David Mills points out:

Solo

Thanks, NR. I withdraw my comment that Price himself is responsible for the pullout of his essay. I was wrong.

Unfortunately it changes little on what I said beyond that. One is largely known by the friends he or she keeps.

Jiri

No Robots

No, you weren't wrong. He did indeed pull the review from his own website. He did not, however, pull it from the internet archive.

Solo

Since my comments were censored - probably rightly so given that Acharya is a member, something that I did not register - I cannot respond to this except by saying that someone important to FRDB described her Zeitgeist production as "sh*t" (That's "shit" for the exegets here).

Long live free-thinking !


Why is it important what I read of her, if I have an agenda ? It's like coming to an anti-communist and asking what of Marx and Lenin they read makes them so unreasonable.

But to answer your question: I did read Christ Conspiracy while in Europe in 2002.


I must be if someone who publishes a book called "Christ Conspiracy" you consider a friend of Christians.

Yeah, ...I admit it I was trashing her ehm, ehm, whatever it is....:huh:

Here is what R.M.Price had to say on the worthiness of the productions of the person you mistakenly believe to be a scholar in 2000:


Not sure what the 'consistency standards' are for ad hominem attacks, in which does the reader does not see what was being removed but allows wholesale a-h counterattacks on the writer for what he wrote. I grew up in a communist world where this was standard fare.

I am not disputing the appropriateness of the decision to remove some of my comments. But since since some of Dave31 denunciations of me were allowed to stand, let me say this:

The metaphors I used although having sexual allusions were not meant to injure a person with a healthy sense of self and a realistic view of human sexuality. They presumed a mature readership - in the larger sense of the word.

That's the intellectually scary part to me. In 2000 Robert spoke of 'coarsely manufactured reprint editions by obscure publishers' on which Acharya evidently relies. In 2009 he starts his essay in this wise:
Nuff said.

Why is it nonsensical ? Price was once a minister; it is quite possible he left to serve a different master. Why should we be forbidden to admit that as a possibility ?
Why would he bring it up if it was something beneath contempt ?

Ah, you have a remarkable insight into the mind of conspirators, Dave31 !

Thank you, I could not have thought of a better way myself to advertize the importance of reading it again in light of Price's newly found wisdom.

The troubling aspect of this is that Dr. Price may be a man of serial sincerities.

I have read a few pages from the google book Toto posted.
And, no I don't think I would want to go reading the whole thing. Thank you very much for the offer though: I am titillated by the thought that you would take a purchase order even from crawly things such as I.

Jiri

Toto

I don't think that Zeitgeist was her production. She produced a defense of the first part, which involved redefining a lot of terms. (Check the last Zeitgeist thread.)


You might have missed a little nuance there. Robert Price is actually an admirer of eccentrics and freethinkers and obscure publishers (I'm not sure about Theosophists.) His first review of Acharya S was flippant, but not totally negative.

The consistency is just to remove the same material from your quote. If you think you were unfairly defamed, you can report the post.

Er, OK.

Now you've stopped making sense. Price was once a Christian apologist associated with Campus Crusade for Christ, but he saw the light. Now he is a writer and teacher at a small college in North Carolina, which gives him a lot of independence to say what he thinks.

Be careful when you entertain theoretical possibilities that could constitute slander.

Rick Sumner

I should think it equally important to be sure one knows what constitutes slander before offering admonitions.

Toto

Libel or slander, or any sort of defamation.

Rick Sumner

That was the first mistake. The second is that his comments about Price aren't really libelous either.

Toto

I think that any implication that a scholar has taken a position for meretricious reasons is libelous.