matthewthomas

Then why mention Cambridge or English universities at all? Why? Since there is no other obvious context or reason for your comment about English universities other than your comment on upper class rich twits immediately before, I think most reasonable people would be justified in assuming you had some connection between the two. As far as I can see there is absolutely no reason at all to mention Cambridge, let alone in the way you did.

I suggest that it is not my reading that is at fault, but your writing. Or your logic.

Matthew

Nazaroo

Why not? Why not expose universities as playpens for rich do-nothing bums? Why not acknowledge them as hotbeds for hedonistic, anarchistic subversion for the shear pleasure of being perverse and getting even with daddy?

Why not admit that only rich kids have the time and resources to be real Aholes.

But you are right: why single out English universities? They were only the paradigm, the template for the massive corruption in the West that was to follow. Bush was a 'Bonesman'. If that doesn't give you a clue as to why he started a massive war for the fun of it, what will?

Universities are whorehouses: both figuratively and literally:

American Political Leaders really Gay Cultists <--- Figuratively


American Universities are large-scale whorehouses NSFW! <-- Literally

(posted for research and factual purposes only)

matthewthomas

So, in fact, it had absolutely nothing to do with textual criticism at all? So, in fact, it was utterly pointless and irrelevant?

Perhaps because it isn't true for the vast majority of students or fellows. Sure, students like to have a good time as well as work. It's called being young. Incidentally, have you ever been to an English university, even to visit?

Ye Gads man. Are you at all serious?

More fine examples of your idea of scholarship. A little earlier in this thread, Dr Gibson mentioned something about 'a sure sign of a crank'. Perhaps he was being generous.

Matthew

Nazaroo

Now its a game of 'Simon says' , only its "Gibson says". Oh there's an authority of impeccable reputation around here. Just look at all the brilliant scholarly posts and contributions to analysis he's made.

Go back to playing your school games of 'Simon says', designed by academics to control students.

"We don't NEED NO 'EDUCATION'.."
"We don't need no thought control."
"No dark sarcasm in the classroom."
"Teacher, leave those kids alone."
"Hey! Teacher! Leave that kid alone!"

http://www.darkstarz.com/sounds/MP3/...nTheWall_1.mp3
http://www.killerbeelabs.com/files/M..._Wall_Pt_2.wma

Sauron

Bumping this.

darstec

If someone is the first to observe something then that person is the authority. Whom should he quote? You may not know it, but some who post here have as deep a background as any authority you have faith it.

Since you often claim to be one of those authorities (or at least wish the readers of this forum to think you one) perhaps you will give a detailed explanation of where Nazaroo is wrong, instead of your usual handwaving.

Sauron

It's never that simple. Currently we have a black transvestite self-proclaimed Jehovah's Witness messiah running around the forum who is the "first to observe" many alleged events. Being first to observe something doesn't mean as much as you think.

Nazaroo's claim does not stand in the wilderness by itself; it is a claim that rests on the research of others. So the first question is to decide whether or not Nazaroo has seen what he claims he has seen.

Second, his observation needs to be backed up by experts in the field.

For all of this, we're going to need him to provide his data set, and answer hard questions.

darstec

Can you give more examples from the same text exactly as this one? There seems to be a obvious difference between this one and other examples.

jgibson000

You mean like the fellow who was the first to "observe" the "face" on Mars and claimed that it was evidence of a Martian civilization? Should he actually be considered an authority on the subject or just someone who was making a claim that needed to be backed up with evidence?

And in proving his case, should he not at least try to explain why, if it is so, that nobody else has seen what he sees, and/or be eager to show that others before him have done so, if they have?

FWIW, I have never claimed to be an authority on ancient MSS or scribal practices.

Leaving aside the question of where I have ever "handwaved anything" let alone that it is typical of me to do so, let me note that your request strikes me as being as strange as it is unreasonable.

How can I provide an explanation of any kind to something that has never been given?? Nowhere yet has "Nazaroo" made anything like a case (i.e., produced evidence and argument) that shows that his claims about the significance of the dots he points to is true or has merit. All he's done up to now is assert that his claim is true. How can I say what I think is wrong with his case, if such I wished to do, before he actually presents it.

Do you think that he has? If so, perhaps you can show me where this appears.

JG

Ben C Smith

Do you mean that it seems to be squeezed in more? Or what?

Ben.