Who even is this chump anyway? Another Neutered Zone reject that the TBBS staff sent over? Neither did we!
No. He is an atheist who runs a blog in which he purports to educate "new"atheists on the truth of the history of Christianity, the existence of a historical Jesus and so on. Based on his blog profile it's his main area of study over many years. On his blog recently he tore into a book called The Darkening Age by a teacher and journalist called Catherine Nixey. Tuckerfan started this thread about that book and suddenly this guy appears. I can only assume he went searching around Google for other discussions of Nixey's book with the purpose of turning up to those discussions and setting the record straight as he saw it. In Tuckerfan he obviously saw someone he could challenge. He's now proceeded to be a patronising douchebag to anyone not possessing of his knowledge on the subject and is intent on us knowing how smart and superior he is. In reality it seems he has paper thin skin and took great offence when I simply mused that historical commentators must, to some degree, pick and choose sources they feel inclined to agree with to support their views and to this he shit the bed and demanded a public apology () - for a post that wasn't even in response to one of his and when I hadn't actually challenged any of his opinions. For apparently telling me that I did not know enough about the subject to list exact examples of which sources he has picked to support his position (which I freely admitted was true) he has apparently "schooled" me. If you look on his blog this sort of patronising rudeness is a common trait in his post article comments. He has only posted in this thread and I can bet you when he thinks either the discussion is over or gets bored you'll never see him here again. The funniest thing to come from it all is RickyDicky brown nosing him just after a few posts, as I bet if this guy stuck around the Oirishman would end up loathing him even more than he does me.
I don't loathe you. I just think you're a self-obsessed drama queen. Sometimes that gets boring. Other times it's entertaining.
Well, you'd better hope this guy sticks around because I think you'll be in for some great entertainment!
Which reminds me, I need to search Google for positive discussions of "The Hangover", so I can tell everyone there they're "a bunch of homos". Because apparently, everyone including people with fancy degrees, and especially the US president, is a teenage boy from the 90s now.
Or, as I explained in Post #76 when that Tuckerfan person said it was somehow "weird" that I found this thread: "There is nothing remotely 'weird' about having a blog platform that tracks and lists traffic statistics and trends, hits and referring links on my site and occasionally visiting those links to see what people are saying about my work. Like most bloggers, I do these entirely normal and totally not-weird things." So we'll add your "searching around Google" stuff to the growing list of assumptions you have jumped to that are wrong. I didn't know that guy from Adam and saw nothing "in" him at all. I just saw an endorsement of a book that is crap and a claim about a "fun fact" that was wrong. Actually, I've been nothing more than mildly sarcastic and only to a couple of people who have been stupid enough to try to attack me first. Like you, with your failed "cherry picking scholars" attack that blew up in your face. Civil people have received polite replies. Drive-by arseholes have been largely ignored. Because that claim is actually wrong. They don't have to "pick and choose" at all. And I don't. You were wrong, which is why when you were challenged to support your claim with some substance we have got the resulting three pages of high pitched whining from you. Please give it a rest. It was for a post that -wrongly - accused me of hypocrisy for doing what I accused Nixey of doing. Them's fightin' words, so I challenged you to back them up. You failed. Repeatedly. And my rather-obviously tongue in cheek "demand" for an apology was deliberate - because I suspected it would produce a frenzy of precisely the kind of histrionic shrieking we see here. I was right. I'm playing you like a fiddle kiddo. You've finally said something that's actually correct. But even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day ...
Wow, John Castle has really outdone himself this time! Masterful dual. I take back everything I ever said about him being an incompetent, drug-addled failure. Wait, this is John Castle, right?
Wow look at you. “Playing you like a fiddle kiddie”. Really? All because I speculated to someone other than you that you might pick and choose who to support your own conclusions? That post wasn’t even addresss to you. Now it’s all tongue in cheek? Now you admit that you also have no intention of contributing to this community? You are clearly a very troubled individual. To write all these lengthy posts over nothing just to placate your own sense of self worth is utterly pathetic. To think your insults will have any impact on me, especially when you say you’re about to vanish, is laughable. You know, this Nixey that you despise so much. At least she has the balls to write a book. What is the great brain Timothy doing? Trolling around the internet attacking complete strangers? What a fucking hero. Dear oh dear. She may well know less than you, but I bet as a person she’s not half the arse you are.
What you said was this: "Mr. O'Neill who, ultimately seems to rely on historians that offer him his own personal confirmation bias, if his linked blog is anything to go by." So I said this was wrong, asked you to provide some basis for saying this is what "seems" to be the case and asked you what "bias" you were referring to. You failed to substantiate your insulting claim, never responded as to what I am supposedly "biased" toward and doubled down on your "cherry picking" slur: "it seems to me you have your view of what is right and correct and will choose which historians to cite to support that, also cherry-picking as you go." So I challenged you to back this claim up with some kind of substance. You failed completely. Repeatedly. Perhaps your grasp of how historical analysis is so feeble that you don't understand why this claim is a massive insult. If you really think that historical analysis merely consists of picking a position and then supporting it with cherry picked references to sources and scholars who support that view, then it could be you genuinely don't understand why your claims above are a gross smear. Since I'm charitable guy, I suppose it could be that you are truly that profoundly ignorant rather than a pathetic little jerk. It's rather hard to tell. It was about me. Was I supposed to write and ask your permission to respond? Er, no. I quite clearly said that request for an apology was obviously tongue in cheek. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Unless I see anything here about the actual topic rather than just you stirring up dust clouds of hysterical psycho drama to cover your total failure here, sure. Writing a book, since you asked. Now, does anyone here want to actually discuss some history?
And here he is with yet another dick measuring essay! Lot of words for someone who never intends to post here again. I’m afraid I’m not wasting my time reading any more of your attempts at the last word. Whatever credibility you hoped for has been flushed down the toilet with your excessive egomania. If you want people to discuss your topic of research, especially people you would regard as laymen, maybe you should stop and think about your approach.
One more time - I give back what I get. Civil and level headed people here have received perfectly polite responses from me. You did initially as well. So if you don't want sarcastic people to kick your blundering arse from here to breakfast time, perhaps you shouldn't post baseless smears about them in the first place. There's a little lesson in manners for you Politeness Man. Now, unless anyone actually does want to talk history, I think we're done here.
I would counter by saying that it never was that place. I think WF users have fit into three basic categories since its inception. "Sigh. It's just so painful being the smartest person in each and every situation in life. You're wrong because you just don't understand this issue as well as I do." Some people can make that routine funny, but most can't. The average person that's just along for the ride. People who may know a lot and can speak at length about certain topics, but know that they don't know everything. The crayon eaters who quickly show their true colors, but usually just fall back and claim that they were trolling rather than admitting that they were embarrassed about being wrong on a topic.
Bolding mine. We had a bigger poster pool so the crayon eaters who weren't as disruptive as Polrslam slid under the radar much longer. Overall, I'd say if anything this place has gotten more mellow from the time where over half the active RR threads were about rep wars and board politics.
I don't know enough about the subject matter to tell whether @TimONeill is full of shit; he might well be. But in terms of how to conduct historical research, he has several of the usually smarter posters on this board pwned to such a degree it's almost too painful to join in. Which is why I'll only repeat what is to me the most important point: Yes, knowing stuff actually matters. If the question is, 'Is this historical event represented accurately?', then a person who knows a lot about that time and place and a person who does not are not on equal footing. Accusing the informed person of arrogance about that difference is immaterial to that difference, even if they do happen to be arrogant about it.
No. I have no desire to pick a fight or possibly humiliate any WF'er, past or present. I'm just making an observation. I'd much rather comment on public figures than other members.
Unless you are well informed on the subject matter you are not in a position to make that determination. You are at the same potential disadvantage as anyone else, namely the one this guy asks to abuse - and I have certainly not been “owned”. By claiming that I have it shows you haven’t read the posts. I never challenged this guy on his views of Nixey or the content of his historical knowledge. I made a brief comment on the approach he and others might take on drawing conclusions about historical fact and he proceeded to have a multi post meltdown.
No, that is completely false, because as you go right on to point out yourself And in that evaluation of an approach to history and historiography, you are wrong and he is right and I do know enough to see that.
He is presenting a lot of information but the argumentation is with an author who is not here to argue. So it seems he just came to badmouth someone and say he is,right because he has done some research no one here is familiar enough to refute beyond reputation of sources. He does portray knowledge of his subject matter, but is he knowledgeable of a unproven history. So the argument has evolved into personal motives which is really the extent of what would go on unless,someone wants to do the same amount of research. Yay he has a blog, but blogs can be wordy but contain a lot of false info and radical fringe ideas even if well presented. All in all confronting an author that is not here on facts only they would be,able to back is really an opinion piece and given obvious motivations of trolling for blog hits I have no reason other than my well defined tldr status to go out and learn a whole bunch of trivia I barely use,to defend an author who may be incorrect. I think chup has the egotistical dock waving covered, but dude is keeping up,on this subject. One trick pony boy would need to post a bit on other subjects to show he is able to hold his own outside this topic.
He has presented a rational argument and information. That cannot be denied. As for the correctness of his research and info I am not sure anyone here could refute his disagreement with the author without some research. He may be right and he may be mistaken, but he has presented his idea at length. His motives seem to be as you have stated and he seems to admit he is here to spout about his blog and research and not participate elsewhere which makes him boring as flashy, but more purposeful.
Oh shit, you mean after twenty years of taking the piss out of myself for my self acknowledged pomposity you’ve suddenly hit on something?
Did a Jesus with magical superpowers exist? Given there's no evidence outside of The Bible, I'd have to say no. Did a real guy with a vaguely similar name get nailed to a stick like the magical Jesus? Probably, they nailed a bunch of guys. Do I care? Nope. Not really. Oh, I'd LOOOVE "mythcism", to be true, and it turns out every square inch of the bullshit is pulled out of someone's ass. But I'll happily settle for that just the magic bits are fake. And it's all I need.
The problem I find is the intellectual dishonesty that comes from needing to prove the existence of Jesus to add validity to the bible which is factually inaccurate. It causes a lot of religious people to create historical theories based on fringe data which conflicts with most other data. You see the same thing in conspiracy theories, ufo sightings, and Elvis and Bigfoot myths. Of course the other side has become disgustingly stupid. Atheists are normally as desperate as any Christian historian with their argumentation and need to disprove an entity they say does not exist. The douche who came here to advertise his blog is why I bail on most real discussions with atheists. It is like getting into a super geek discussion on kirk vs pickard or the meaning of evangelion.
Just about your point about Google it is the way to say internet search. Claiming you used your blog's notifications to find this obscure place is semantics and probably wrong as many smaller searches use Google for their results. Unless they are partnered with Bing or some other search engine that is not using Google you probably did use Google. But you might know that if you didn't focus all that mental effort on Jesus trivia.
