|
Post by fortigurn on May 3, 2012 6:54:09 GMT
I've twice left comments on Tom Verenna's views on the Ehrman/Carrier discussion, and twice seen them waiting in the moderation queue, and twice seen them disappear completely within a day or two. It would appear Tom is not happy about the idea of people criticizing his views.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 3, 2012 7:05:52 GMT
I've twice left comments on Tom Verenna's views on the Ehrman/Carrier discussion, and twice seen them waiting in the moderation queue, and twice seen them disappear completely within a day or two. It would appear Tom is not happy about the idea of people criticizing his views. Then it looks like Rook is still a fan of the good old RRS comment policy. Have you thought of mentioning it on Exploring Our Matrix to let the other antiultracrepidarians know?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 3, 2012 7:09:28 GMT
Then it looks like Rook is still a fan of the good old RRS comment policy. Have you thought of mentioning it on Exploring Our Matrix to let the other antiultracrepidarians know? I'll post the comments on my blog and then link to them on EoM.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 3, 2012 7:51:34 GMT
For someone who claims to be a former atheist and mythicist (but now a deist, agnostic about the historical Jesus), Verenna's support of Carrier is oddly enthusiastic.
Does anyone know why he spent some time calling himself 'Rook Hawkins'? What was that all about?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 3, 2012 8:33:18 GMT
For someone who claims to be a former atheist and mythicist (but now a deist, agnostic about the historical Jesus), Verenna's support of Carrier is oddly enthusiastic. Does anyone know why he spent some time calling himself 'Rook Hawkins'? What was that all about? I have no idea, but he has an enthusiastic fan club.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 3, 2012 8:38:28 GMT
Crikey, that's brutal.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 3, 2012 14:03:55 GMT
Tom Verenna has explained why he deleted my posts on his blog.
I pointed out in reply that I have been corresponding with Carrier for a few days now, with my criticisms of his claims, and I also pointed out that since Tom's blog posts contained his observations on the debate, and since my comments were aimed at his observations, his blog seemed to be the logical place for them. However, I can't see rational discussion advancing on his blog, especially if that's how he 'moderates', so I'll place them elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on May 3, 2012 20:57:22 GMT
Tom Verenna has explained why he deleted my posts on his blog. I pointed out in reply that I have been corresponding with Carrier for a few days now, with my criticisms of his claims, and I also pointed out that since Tom's blog posts contained his observations on the debate, and since my comments were aimed at his observations, his blog seemed to be the logical place for them. However, I can't see rational discussion advancing on his blog, especially if that's how he 'moderates', so I'll place them elsewhere. It looks like "Rook Hawkins" hasn't changed too much since his time with the "Rational Response Squad" oafs. My first foray onto their forum was cut short even before "Rook" responded to my posts. I picked up some errors and weak arguments in a previous post of his and ran with them and a few of the lesser RRS denizens actually took up the debate in a civil and reasonable manner. We got to the point where at least two stated that what I was saying sounded pretty solid and that my arguments were the best they had seen for the existence of a historical Jesus. This could not be allowed, of course. A "Super Senior Chief Moderator" (the RRS guys all have ridiculous titles) swooped and summarily banned me for my "attitude". When questioned via e-mail as to what this meant, it emerged that my "attitude" manifested itself in questioning the credibility of "Rook". Some time later I came back to the RRS treehouse club in another guise (I think you can still find posts there by a certain "Ebionite") and this time tangled with "Rook" directly. This time I was very careful to be scrupulously polite - to the point where butter would not have melted in my mouth. "Rook" was insisting that Dennis MacDonald had "proven" that gMark is nothing more than an exercise in Homeric literary aemulatio, as indicated by a string of supposed parallels between it and the Illiad and Odyssey. He got very frustrated when I kept showing him that there is a huge gap between "proven" and "convinced me and Richard Carrier and no-one else much at all" or that just because "Rook" happened to like this theory didn't mean that he could trumpet it as hard fact. He got very snotty about this, since he was used to the RRS morons fawning at his feet, but he couldn't ban me simply for challenging him. So he asked me to show why MacDonald's theory was wrong and got even more snotty when I was able to note several flaws and cite Classicists (not Christians or "apologists") who thought the whole theory was crap. In the same exchange he got into a dreadful muddle over supposed parallels between Greco-Roman myths about humans getting impregnated by randy gods and the virgin birth stories, especially that in gLuke. I pointed out that these could hardly be regarded as parallels since in the myths the girls in question had sex whereas the whole point of the gLuke story is that Mary did not (thus "virgin"). At first he tried to pretend he didn't say they were parallels and then got even more snotty when I showed him he did. Then he said they were parallel because the phrase "the power of the Most High will overshadow you" clearly implied sex. Or something. Again, he was used to being able to make a claim like that and not be challenged, since all his claims are made with this weird faux-authority that he copies from real scholars the way a talking cockatoo copies their owner saying "Who's a pretty boy?" He then got even more snotty when I had the temerity to actually analyse his claim, started to unpack the meaning of " kai dunamis upsistou episkiasei soi" (Luke 1:34), show him its cognates in the Septuagint, prove that they had nothing whatsoever to do with sex and show that they had everything to do with Yahweh investing someone with special status. By this stage the poor little twit was looking for an escape hatch. His posts had already began to demonstrate the convoluted, garbled, pseudo scholarly gibberish he affects when he's trying to sound like he has a clue. But as our exchange went on this became so dense his sentences read like they were trying to strangle themselves. It was like trying to read a dim ten year old who was attempting an impersonation of ... well, of Richard Carrier. He tried to wrap up the whole exchange by telling me that now I was "just arguing for arguing's sake". I pretended to be slightly hurt and majorly puzzled by this, noting that all I was doing was responding to his points in detail with reference to the evidence and asking what was wrong with this. Eventually he announced that he "didn't have time" to continue a discussion that was "going nowhere" and flounced out of the thread. My audience back on the RichardDawkins.net forum, where "Rook" was generally regarded as a pompous idiot, howled with laughter. I'm interested to learn that "Rook Hawkins" aka Tom Verenna (who now dubs himself, rather grandly, "Thomas S. Verenna", aping his new mentor Thomas L. Thompson) has abandoned militant atheism for deism. Really? If so, I'm guessing Thompson is a deist. Verenna also dumped evangelical mythicism for "Jesus agnosticism" a while back. Guess what Thompson's position is. Poor Verenna reminds me of someone who was described as "bearing the impression of the last strong personality he was in the company of". For a long time it was Carrier he aped, not terribly successfully (since Carrier is actually smart whereas poor Tom is a about as sharp as a brick). Now it's Thompson, who seems flattered that someone actually pays him some fawning attention and so is letting the high school boy ride on his coat-tails. Why McGrath keeps treating this fatuous twerp with respect is a mystery. I'd suggest Fortigern post his comments at "Exploring Our Matrix" with clear notes that Verenna censored them. Verenna is a text book case of an "internet expert" - fatuous blog, self-published book, whacky theories and all.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 3, 2012 23:12:06 GMT
By this stage the poor little twit was looking for an escape hatch. His posts had already began to demonstrate the convoluted, garbled, pseudo scholarly gibberish he affects when he's trying to sound like he has a clue. But as our exchange went on this became so dense his sentences read like they were trying to strangle themselves. It was like trying to read a dim ten year old who was attempting an impersonation of ... well, of Richard Carrier. He tried to wrap up the whole exchange by telling me that now I was "just arguing for arguing's sake". I pretended to be slightly hurt and majorly puzzled by this, noting that all I was doing was responding to his points in detail with reference to the evidence and asking what was wrong with this. Eventually he announced that he "didn't have time" to continue a discussion that was "going nowhere" and flounced out of the thread. I've often found that comment box exchanges with some folks are the chemical-free equivalent to psychotropic drugs. After a few exchanges the room begins spinning, you lose track of time, and you start retracing your steps to find your way out of the rabbit hole into which you obviously fell. I recently had an exchange with someone on Youtube who sometimes frequented the Acharya S forums and pointed out the drivel he was promoting as established fact was rejected by every important scholar in the field. He then asked me to cite the "academic census" and I asked if he was speaking of an "academic consensus" which refers to the commonly accepted position of scholars on a particular subject. As the converstion wore on, it became obvious he was under the impression that there was this thing called an "academic census" where all the scholars voted "Jesus seminar" style and determined what the historical facts were. When I pointed out he had confused the word "census" with "consensus" and what he was arguing was poppycock, he became indignant and insisted this is how things are done and that I must not know what I am taking about since I didn't know it. At that point I realized he was crazy and that if I contiunued it might be contagious and so made the wise decision that I didn't need to have the last word. My blood pressure was the better for it.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 3, 2012 23:56:10 GMT
Tim, thanks for that enlightening and amusingly put description. I'll do as you suggest. Meanwhile, within the Vridar reality distortion field, one of Neil's friends is apparently doing textual criticism with Wescott and Hort in one hand, and the KJV in the other. The methodology? Select random Greek words in Luke 1:1-3 and do a search for them in the rest of the New Testament. Apparently this is 'textual criticism'. It's how you 'analyze the text deliberately and carefully (akribōs)', and supports the conclusion 'strong verbal affinities exist among the Lukan Prologue, the text of Acts, and various parts of the epistles, including the so-called “undisputed” letters of Paul.'. Naturally all my comments have been moderated, and no criticism is being permitted.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 4, 2012 2:21:20 GMT
Tim, thanks for that enlightening and amusingly put description. I'll do as you suggest. Meanwhile, within the Vridar reality distortion field, one of Neil's friends is apparently doing textual criticism with Wescott and Hort in one hand, and the KJV in the other. ... The methodology? Select random Greek words in Luke 1:1-3 and do a search for them in the rest of the New Testament. Apparently this is 'textual criticism'. It's how you 'analyze the text deliberately and carefully (akribōs)', and supports the conclusion 'strong verbal affinities exist among the Lukan Prologue, the text of Acts, and various parts of the epistles, including the so-called “undisputed” letters of Paul.'. Naturally all my comments have been moderated, and no criticism is being permitted. I took a look at the post and noticed he gave the Greek from Westcott and Hort for various verses and then he gave the "English translation" as the KJV. Am I the only one who sees this as more than a little odd?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 4, 2012 3:04:10 GMT
Am I the only one who sees this as more than a little odd? The entire article is a little odd. Meanwhile, Tom Verenna has been goaded into posting my comments, and has even issued a response.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on May 4, 2012 3:13:09 GMT
I would not be surprised to learn that a significant portion of mythers are truly mentally unstable (for example, Asperger's). It’s always a creepy realization for me when I begin to suspect that the person on the other end of the computer is mentally ill.
As for Carrier, I would not go as far to say he is mentally ill. But for someone who did a PhD, his immature, nasty attacks on Ehrman are hard to explain. It's like he has a social blindspot.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 4, 2012 3:35:34 GMT
As for Carrier, I would not go as far to say he is mentally ill. But for someone who did a PhD, his immature, nasty attacks on Ehrman are hard to explain. It's like he has a social blindspot. Carrier isn't mentally ill, he reserves that accusation for others (Hoffman is apparently 'insane' according to Carrier). Carrier is also well educated and intelligent. However, he has no social skills and prefers to indulge in rhetoric and insults more than scholarly analysis.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on May 4, 2012 11:27:59 GMT
As for Carrier, I would not go as far to say he is mentally ill. But for someone who did a PhD, his immature, nasty attacks on Ehrman are hard to explain. It's like he has a social blindspot. Carrier isn't mentally ill, he reserves that accusation for others (Hoffman is apparently 'insane' according to Carrier). Carrier is also well educated and intelligent. However, he has no social skills and prefers to indulge in rhetoric and insults more than scholarly analysis. You would think someone as intelligent as he is would be intelligent enough to recognize this was his opportunity to shine. A mainstream scholar had elevated him and many other eyes, apart from his usual fans, would be watching. This was his chance to show everyone he does deserve a place in academia. Yet he failed miserably. Instead of adopting the approach he used to write his PhD, he adopted the approach of an internet bully. What a glorious flame out.
|
|