Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Given Earl Doherty's agreement with my judgment of this thread, I expect that this thread will be locked and moved to Elsewhere, and I will delay further contributions until later or never.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

GakuseiDon was on self ban, last I knew, which means he is not a current member, so maybe this thread can live on.

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Well, GDon is up to his old tricks. He has finally published a review of my Jesus: Neither God Nor Man on Amazon, under the moniker of "Don Gakusei". Instead of presenting his own analysis, he gleefully channels Richard Carrier's recent dubious opinion that JNGNM is "90% speculation."...

Since when does a reviewer of a Hollywood film, for example, write a review in which he quotes only other reviewers’ opinions of it, particularly negative opinions—and especially off-the-cuff remarks? What newspaper hosting such a reviewer would ever let such a travesty be published, and how long would the latter remain in his job?

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

If you are capable of reading English, you will see that this thread is meant as a personal attack against GDon, for his disreputable tactic in posting as his Amazon review of my book the opinion of someone else, which is hardly a legitimate way to review a book. Are you incapable of understanding that? (So far you haven't even addressed it.)

The fact that that opinion was negative is an even blacker mark against him, because it shows that his purpose was simply to exercise his longstanding vendetta against me. If Don had referred to that comment by Carrier in a DB thread about the book, it might have been another matter. But for him to think that he can pass off doing that on an Amazon review which is supposed to present his own opinion based on a reading of my book himself, is moral turpitude and reveals his true character. And I will continue to level personal criticism of him on that basis, here and elsewhere, as has Neil Godfrey.

I am in no way embarrassed by any of my posts. It is Don who should be embarrassed, but we long know that he is incapable of that. As, apparently, are you. And what do you mean by this:

Which "author" are you referring to? Whether it's me or Don, your observation is nonsensical, and I don't know where you derive it. Don in his review did not address the claims of either me or himself. He quoted someone else's opinion, which not even he put forward in his own website review of the book. He simply seized on Carrier's comment and decided to run with it because it was detrimental to me, regardless of whether he might have agreed with it. (He also conveyed the impression that his "this is not scholarship" comment was or would have been the opinion of Carrier as well, which is not the case.) That's despicable, and once again reveals his true colors.

And what does Acharya have to do with it? Now it is you--alluding to Don's own obsession with pygmies--who is seizing on an irrelevant even if undoubtedly unfounded viewpoint in Acharya's first edition of her first book and used it (as Don has fixatedly tried to use it over the years) to discredit everything else she wrote then and since. That's also an invalid process and also despicable. And because I refused to address that secondary aspect of her first book as irrelevant to the central case being made in it, you think to taint me by association. The two of you (along with a few others) are neither legitimate scholars or honest reviewers, and only the rules of this board prevent me from directing more colorful language in your direction.

Earl Doherty

Originally Posted by Ted

No one likes a negative review, but it comes with the territory.

Don's review was light on specifics, but I think that was intentional: He appears to have wanted to give his overall opinion, along with giving it (perhaps) added legitimacy by quoting a scholar. Don stated that he agreed with Carrier's assessment that your work is not scholarly and is highly speculative, so he wasn't just dragging out another person's opinion. But Don did provide a link to his own analysis, a review longer than what Amazon.com would allow, and which by implication contains specific objections and examples supposedly supporting his overall negative opinion. It is an 800+ page book, so his approach actually makes good sense.

Don also provided readers with a sense of some of the content of the book, and who might benefit from it (in his opinion), and he recommended an upcoming work he thinks may be better even though it may support your primary conclusion.

All of these things are what people do when they review books on Amazon.com. I don't see anything way out of line here. It may not be the most helpful review since it lacked specifics (that reduces the power of its influence), but it appears that he was telling it the way he sees it, and not just the way Carrier sees it.

Originally Posted by Abe

Mr. Doherty, the way I see it, GakuseiDon has done more to help you than anyone else. You are an ideological author, not a credentialed scholar, but GakuseiDon has treated you as though you are a credentialed scholar, and he has read and reviewed two of your books more analytically and comprehensively than absolutely anyone else.