Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 01-20-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

Roger "I saw your original post, and felt that perhaps there was some reason in complaining that we didn't take Acharya seriously enough to critique her work, naive though this was."

Ah fair enough. Though I didn't start this thread - it was split off from ...

That's not accurate but, I can't see wasting my own time with folks who irrationally and rigidly adhere to their biases against an authors works they have never actually studied and therefore, know very little about. So, my response was short, I'll admit but, if you want details you can read the books like anybody else would do who's actually interested in the subject. ...

I don't care what you say about Acharya's works as you know nothing about it and conceding the fact that her work actually is just as good if not better than many scholars out there on the subject would be an admission against your own interests, which demonstrates more of your own rigid biases.

At any rate, I'm sorry you wasted your time with a blog critique that was unnecessary. Maybe you could review her latest book titled, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection instead?

I see you're really uptight over a short blog ...

I suppose those who cannot address criticisms of an article must take refuge in ad hominems.

But note the consistent note: "buy this book!" "buy this book!" "buy this book!" in every post, almost in every line. Also note the old publisher's scam, "We're broadcasting the conclusions of our book as hard as we can. No-one is allowed to disagree unless they buy our book".

Since the poster was uninterested in discussing Acharya's online stuff, this looks like a shill.

I'm going to place this creep on ignore.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yellum Notnef · 01-20-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I suppose those who cannot address criticisms of an article must take refuge in ad hominems.

What ad homonems? Dave was very polite with you and even apologized that you felt you wasted your precious time (and I thought Christians had life everlasting?) And then you called him a shill and a creep.

Ad Homonems? I'll show you Ad Homonems if you'd like, but I don't see the ones you're crying about from Dave.

Roger Pearse · 01-20-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I suppose those who cannot address criticisms of an article must take refuge in ad hominems.

What ad homonems?

Usually spelt 'ad hominem' -- "against the man" posting, not against the argument made. The classic example is "you only say there is no evidence for X because you are a dirty Jew".

Quote:

That's not accurate but, I can't see wasting my own time with folks who irrationally and rigidly adhere to their biases against an authors works they have never actually studied and therefore, know very little about.

Ad hom.

Quote:

...if you want details you can read the books like anybody else would do who's actually interested in the subject. ...

Ad hom.

Quote:

I don't care what you say about Acharya's works as you know nothing about it and conceding the fact that her work actually is just as good if not better than many scholars out there on the subject would be an admission against your own interests, which demonstrates more of your own rigid biases.

Ad hom.

Quote:

I see you're really uptight over a short blog ...

Ad hom.

In every case he played the man, not the ball. I hope that helps.

Yellum Notnef · 01-20-2009, 10:23 AM

Yeah, I'm aware what it means. And it wasn't I but rather the spell check that decided to spell it like that. I didn't even notice it until now. Curious.

But whatever the case, I don't see Dave's comments to be anything near insulting enough to earn the smear of "creep".
But you and I have a very different view of reality.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-20-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

Yeah, I'm aware what it means. And it wasn't I but rather the spell check that decided to spell it like that. I didn't even notice it until now. Curious.

But whatever the case, I don't see Dave's comments to be anything near insulting enough to earn the smear of "creep".

I thought the issue was not what "smear" Dave earned (or deserves), but whether or not Dave employed ad hominems instead of arguments in his response to Roger's posts.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack · 01-20-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Usually spelt 'ad hominem' -- "against the man" posting, not against the argument made. The classic example is "you only say there is no evidence for X because you are a dirty Jew".

JW:
A better one is:

You are just another Christian lying for Jesus.

All the best.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2009, 10:23 AM	#4
Yellum Notnef Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Gone Posts: 4,676	Yeah, I'm aware what it means. And it wasn't I but rather the spell check that decided to spell it like that. I didn't even notice it until now. Curious. But whatever the case, I don't see Dave's comments to be anything near insulting enough to earn the smear of "creep". But you and I have a very different view of reality.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.