[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the analogy, it involves people making claims that are not popularly accepted and using quotes from non-respected authorities.

Have you read the Wikipedia for Spencer or Bolton?
They are not widely respected.
Are their articles written by liberal spambots?

Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either.

Your Spencer remarks seem to say that it is unfair to impeach his ability as an expert and still to say that he is respected. I disagree with the first part and the canon of theology and world religious studies disagrees with you on the second.

You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.

My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.

If you get hurt by being called on the bigotry thing, then I pity you. Not interested in hurting you but it must be painful to meet the dictionary definition and yet be averse to the label.

These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.

So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?

[quote=surveyor]analogous?

Comparing Jerry Fallwell/CO2 vs. Robert Spencer/your “experts”? Hardly analogous. Spencer, despite your opinion, is respected in many circles as an expert on islamic and middle eastern history. He can speak with some authority on the subject.

In any case, I did bring the data. The data is in the book that Spencer wrote. History is readily observable and it is its own evidence. The Jews and the Christians have written about their own sufferings under the islamic caliphates and it is those writings that Spencer references. That is specific refutation of what your so-called historian “experts” write about. It’s really not that hard to understand. And yes, I do have the book readily at hand. I dislike google searches myself because some stuff are written out of context. I like to quote the books I do have on hand as opposed to just googling. And certainly I don’t want to quote a book unless I’ve read it already (damn library doesn’t have Andrew Bostom’s book yet).

And here’s the thing – you are claiming to question the expertise of my experts, but your criticisms of reputation or respect is not related to actual expertise. There’s no way you can call Spencer or Bolton incompetent. Maybe if you did, that would be a valid criticism. That’s not what you were going for however.

Like I said, nice try. When you debate, you answer an argument. You said something, I answered here’s an expert who refutes that, and your response was, well my expert is not respected. Wrong. You just lost the point. If you had responded, well here’s so-and-so and he wrote that Spencer was wrong or so-and-so who says that the my point is correct, then you would have been able to push the argument to a draw. Unfortunately, that’s not what you did. We could have disagreed respectfully and that would have ended that.

Instead you go into name-calling and ad hominems. =tsk= Anyways, sticks and stones.

“Ha-HA!” – Phil Ken Sebben[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the analogy, it involves people making claims that are not popularly accepted and using quotes from non-respected authorities.

Have you read the Wikipedia for Spencer or Bolton?
They are not widely respected.
Are their articles written by liberal spambots?

Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either.

Your Spencer remarks seem to say that it is unfair to impeach his ability as an expert and still to say that he is respected. I disagree with the first part and the canon of theology and world religious studies disagrees with you on the second.

You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.

My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.

If you get hurt by being called on the bigotry thing, then I pity you. Not interested in hurting you but it must be painful to meet the dictionary definition and yet be averse to the label.

These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.

So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?

[quote=surveyor]analogous?

Comparing Jerry Fallwell/CO2 vs. Robert Spencer/your “experts”? Hardly analogous. Spencer, despite your opinion, is respected in many circles as an expert on islamic and middle eastern history. He can speak with some authority on the subject.

In any case, I did bring the data. The data is in the book that Spencer wrote. History is readily observable and it is its own evidence. The Jews and the Christians have written about their own sufferings under the islamic caliphates and it is those writings that Spencer references. That is specific refutation of what your so-called historian “experts” write about. It’s really not that hard to understand. And yes, I do have the book readily at hand. I dislike google searches myself because some stuff are written out of context. I like to quote the books I do have on hand as opposed to just googling. And certainly I don’t want to quote a book unless I’ve read it already (damn library doesn’t have Andrew Bostom’s book yet).

And here’s the thing – you are claiming to question the expertise of my experts, but your criticisms of reputation or respect is not related to actual expertise. There’s no way you can call Spencer or Bolton incompetent. Maybe if you did, that would be a valid criticism. That’s not what you were going for however.

Like I said, nice try. When you debate, you answer an argument. You said something, I answered here’s an expert who refutes that, and your response was, well my expert is not respected. Wrong. You just lost the point. If you had responded, well here’s so-and-so and he wrote that Spencer was wrong or so-and-so who says that the my point is correct, then you would have been able to push the argument to a draw. Unfortunately, that’s not what you did. We could have disagreed respectfully and that would have ended that.

Instead you go into name-calling and ad hominems. =tsk= Anyways, sticks and stones.

“Ha-HA!” – Phil Ken Sebben[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

I am sorry were you making a point Casca?

It was hare to tell with all the silly quotes.

I thought you would not parlay because you were afraid of Gandalf….er….he was unreasonable.

If you are that afraid don’t post.

Bored now.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

I am sorry were you making a point Casca?

It was hare to tell with all the silly quotes.

I thought you would not parlay because you were afraid of Gandalf….er….he was unreasonable.

If you are that afraid don’t post.

Bored now.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

I am sorry were you making a point Casca?

It was hare to tell with all the silly quotes.

I thought you would not parlay because you were afraid of Gandalf….er….he was unreasonable.

If you are that afraid don’t post.

Bored now.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

I am sorry were you making a point Casca?

It was hare to tell with all the silly quotes.

I thought you would not parlay because you were afraid of Gandalf….er….he was unreasonable.

If you are that afraid don’t post.

Bored now.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

I am sorry were you making a point Casca?

It was hare to tell with all the silly quotes.

I thought you would not parlay because you were afraid of Gandalf….er….he was unreasonable.

If you are that afraid don’t post.

Bored now.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[urbanrealtor]

Here is the section with my lovely description of the redc auction I attended with a client.

The foreclosure auction is different from the developer auctions (eg: unpublished reserves).

But still read and get an idea of what sucks and what can go sideways.

http://piggington.com/what_do_you_think_the_winning_bid_will_be

[urbanrealtor]

Here is the section with my lovely description of the redc auction I attended with a client.

The foreclosure auction is different from the developer auctions (eg: unpublished reserves).

But still read and get an idea of what sucks and what can go sideways.

http://piggington.com/what_do_you_think_the_winning_bid_will_be

[urbanrealtor]

Here is the section with my lovely description of the redc auction I attended with a client.

The foreclosure auction is different from the developer auctions (eg: unpublished reserves).

But still read and get an idea of what sucks and what can go sideways.

http://piggington.com/what_do_you_think_the_winning_bid_will_be

[Author]

Posts