Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 12-04-2008, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

We have already discovered in this thread, however, that you have no idea what is "good procedure", as you are making all this up.

Using the royal plural, Roger, makes your poor judgment seem even less sound.

Well, you're welcome to prove this assertion; or, indeed, any of your assertions.

I note that you don't trouble to deny that you're making all this up.

Don't do this, hey?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin · 12-04-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Is not this a child who has read no book bleating for being caught out?

The reason for the debates over the last few decades regarding minimalism and the writing of a history of Israel is one of sources. Unverifiable sources don't make make source status. It leads to the question "can we write a history of Israel?", as a line of thought published by N.P. Lemche, and the question reflects a disaffection due to the lack of sources.

This is merely a further set of vague assertions, irrelevant to the question put to you. I take it, then, that you cannot answer the question.

The problem is, Roger, you won't get off your A and even look into the matter of how to write history, so whatever I say will be obscure to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If you are indeed the product of one book, would you care to share with us what that book is? That might be useful to discuss.

As you persist in your crystal-ball gazing, why don't you answer your own question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Reductionism.

I'm sorry that you didn't either answer the question, or else admit that you made up the statement in question. Please don't do this.

This is just more reductionism. You're incorrigible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Whatever our religious position, we need to refrain from asserting with utter certainty stuff that we only hope is true, as it can only deceive others. Is that your wish? In this forum, anyway, your claims will be challenged.

That's par for the course, Roger.

spin

Roger Pearse · 12-04-2008, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger pearse

Perhaps you would demonstrate why my description of this as obscurantism was wrong, using reasoned argument?

Instead we find an argument by vague authority: noted and rejected. I don't know that you have any information on what "modern historians" believe. Anonymous posters online claiming the backing of scholars tend to be children who have read one book.

(Dodges snipped)

This is merely a further set of vague assertions, irrelevant to the question put to you. I take it, then, that you cannot answer the question.

The problem is, Roger, you won't get off your A and even look into the matter of how to write history, so whatever I say will be obscure to you.

You're welcome to demonstrate that I don't know how to write history and that I don't understand you; but how that would justify your assertions, and your failure to answer my query, I don't see. Do explain.

Quote:

If you are indeed the product of one book, would you care to share with us what that book is? That might be useful to discuss.

As you persist in your crystal-ball gazing, why don't you answer your own question.

No answer...

Quote:

I'm sorry that you didn't either answer the question, or else admit that you made up the statement in question. Please don't do this.

This is just more reductionism. You're incorrigible.

Further troll noted. Is there a moderator around?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Whatever our religious position, we need to refrain from asserting with utter certainty stuff that we only hope is true, as it can only deceive others. Is that your wish? In this forum, anyway, your claims will be challenged.

That's par for the course, Roger.

So where are your answers?

Allow me to refresh your memory on what you asserted, and what you were asked.

First:

Quote:

You: You don't know when the texts were written. You know next to nothing about their origins. Therefore you have nothing to do history with.

Me: Similar arguments at all the other ancient literary texts would dispose of nearly all that we know about antiquity, however. This argument thus amounts to obscurantism.

You: What you are blithely calling obscurantism, is what modern historians are calling <snip>

Me: Perhaps you would demonstrate why my description of this as obscurantism was wrong, using reasoned argument?

You: <trolling>

Second:

Quote:

Me: Anonymous posters online claiming the backing of scholars tend to be children who have read one book.

You: <evasions>

Me: I take it, then, that you cannot answer the question. If you are indeed the product of one book, would you care to share with us what that book is? That might be useful to discuss.

Third:

Quote:

You: The problem is, Roger, you won't get off your A and even look into the matter of how to write history, so whatever I say will be obscure to you.

Me: You're welcome to demonstrate that I don't know how to write history and that I don't understand you.

If you can't reply to any of this, in view of the quantity of insults you're sprinkling around here I think it's moderator time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin · 12-04-2008, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The problem is, Roger, you won't get off your A and even look into the matter of how to write history, so whatever I say will be obscure to you.

You're welcome to demonstrate that I don't know how to write history and that I don't understand you; but how that would justify your assertions, and your failure to answer my query, I don't see. Do explain.

You're condemned from your own mouth. You don't appreciate the necessity for primary materials. If you don't have materials from the era you are severely hampered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

No answer...

You might have been correct to say, "not an answer". Here you're just raving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Further troll noted. Is there a moderator around?

No troll. Just analysis. It's against the forum rules to make accusations about trolling. "Is there a moderator around?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

So where are your answers?

To clarify... par for the course: "In this forum, anyway, your claims will be challenged."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Allow me to refresh your memory on what you asserted, and what you were asked.

First:

Second:

Third:

Quote:

You: The problem is, Roger, you won't get off your A and even look into the matter of how to write history, so whatever I say will be obscure to you.

Me: You're welcome to demonstrate that I don't know how to write history and that I don't understand you.

If you can't reply to any of this, in view of the quantity of insults you're sprinkling around here I think it's moderator time.

You snipped the answers and left your accusations. That was useful.

spin

Ben C Smith · 12-04-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Not simply because in a lapse we didn't follow it. Doh!

You're waffling Ben C.

....

I do not think you understood my post, spin. Except for the unnecessary personal remarks and interjections, I did not disagree with anything you actually wrote.

Ben.

spin · 12-04-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Not simply because in a lapse we didn't follow it. Doh!

You're waffling Ben C.

....

I do not think you understood my post, spin.

That's a not too infrequent occurrence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Except for the unnecessary personal remarks and interjections, I did not disagree with anything you actually wrote.

I usually do better with the unnecessary personal remarks and interjections.

spin

Roger Pearse · 12-04-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

You're welcome to demonstrate that I don't know how to write history and that I don't understand you; but how that would justify your assertions, and your failure to answer my query, I don't see. Do explain.

You're condemned from your own mouth. You don't appreciate the necessity for primary materials. If you don't have materials from the era you are severely hampered.

This seems to be yet more claims, rather than an answer, as ever.

You say that "You don't appreciate the necessity for primary materials." Do prove this. Indeed in view of your own attacks on the primary literary sources, this would appear to be your view. Why do you attribute it to me?

And... offer evidence, not just cheap claims and insults.

Quote:

No answer...

You might have been correct to say, "not an answer". Here you're just raving.

Again, perhaps you would like to prove your (rude) claim?

Quote:

Me: If you are indeed the product of one book, would you care to share with us what that book is? That might be useful to discuss.

You: As you persist in your crystal-ball gazing, why don't you answer your own question.

Me: No answer...

You: No troll. Just analysis.

Where?

Quote:

It's against the forum rules to make accusations about trolling.

Is it? Where?

Quote:

Me: I'm sorry that you didn't either answer the question, or else admit that you made up the statement in question. Please don't do this.

You: This is just more reductionism. You're incorrigible.

Me: Further troll noted.

You: To clarify... par for the course:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

First:

You: You don't know when the texts were written. You know next to nothing about their origins. Therefore you have nothing to do history with.

Me: Similar arguments at all the other ancient literary texts would dispose of nearly all that we know about antiquity, however. This argument thus amounts to obscurantism.

You: What you are blithely calling obscurantism, is what modern historians are calling <snip>

Me: Perhaps you would demonstrate why my description of this as obscurantism was wrong, using reasoned argument?

You: <trolling>

Second:

Me: Anonymous posters online claiming the backing of scholars tend to be children who have read one book.

You: <evasions>

Me: I take it, then, that you cannot answer the question. If you are indeed the product of one book, would you care to share with us what that book is? That might be useful to discuss.

Third:

You: The problem is, Roger, you won't get off your A and even look into the matter of how to write history, so whatever I say will be obscure to you.

Me: You're welcome to demonstrate that I don't know how to write history and that I don't understand you.

If you can't reply to any of this, in view of the quantity of insults you're sprinkling around here I think it's moderator time.

You snipped the answers and left your accusations. That was useful.

No answer, then? Hmm.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

bacht · 12-04-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Some ancient writing is more reliable than other ancient writing. Much of ancient writing is philosophy or business records or other writings that is likely to be reliable unless there was some political or religious motivation to change it. However, I do not think any writing related to religious beliefs is likely to be reliable at all.

It would be hypocrisy to treat Christian religious writing any different than Pagan religious writing or Hindu religious writing. Why should we treat the myths of the Christians or Jews any different than the myths of the Aborigines of Australia?

We can not use religious writings as history because the religious writers were extremely biased by their superstitious religious faith to write whatever they wished were true to support their religious beliefs.

This makes sense to me. Do historians and bible scholars agree with this rating of religious vs non-religious writings?

spin · 12-04-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're condemned from your own mouth. You don't appreciate the necessity for primary materials. If you don't have materials from the era you are severely hampered.

This seems to be yet more claims, rather than an answer, as ever.

You say that "You don't appreciate the necessity for primary materials." Do prove this. Indeed in view of your own attacks on the primary literary sources, this would appear to be your view. Why do you attribute it to me?

And... offer evidence, not just cheap claims and insults.

Your desire to reduce all ancient narrative texts to a par with the gospels, when you have shown no means of demonstrating their primary source status, nor a way to place them into a clear historical context indicates that "[y]ou don't appreciate the necessity for primary materials."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Again, perhaps you would like to prove your (rude) claim?

You don't need proof of anything, Roger: you believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Where?

This follows this sort of stuff:

RP: If you are indeed the product of one book, would you care to share with us what that book is? That might be useful to discuss.

spin: As you persist in your crystal-ball gazing, why don't you answer your own question.

RP: No answer...

spin: No troll. Just analysis.

The analysis is in the noting of your clairvoyance regarding my views being the "product of one book". With such perception, you don't need an answer to your questions: you can already answer them yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is it? Where?

This is another one of those you should know. Try here, search for troll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You snipped the answers and left your accusations. That was useful.

No answer, then? Hmm.

You have a way of showing no interest in wanting answers.

spin

Toto · 12-04-2008, 08:47 AM

If you want to alert a moderator, please use the report post function.

Accusations of trolling are against the rules. But Roger's use of the word makes no sense in context.

The moderators will have to consult on this mess.

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

12-04-2008, 08:47 AM	#590
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you want to alert a moderator, please use the report post function. Accusations of trolling are against the rules. But Roger's use of the word makes no sense in context. The moderators will have to consult on this mess.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.