As someone who frequently disagrees with you on most of your hot button issues (except the Packers. FUCK the Packers.) I’d like to say I agree with the bit I’ve bolded wholeheartedly.
Very classy, sir.
You’re both weirdos is what you are.
Da dopest!
The thing is, even on that topic, you often overstate the facts or the extent of your expertise. Earlier in this thread, CitizenPained pointed out one such example, and I remember encountering several more over the years. Therein lies the problem. You’re more knowledgeable than most, but because you frequently overstate matters, ignore nuances or ambiguities, and won’t graciously 'fess up to even simple errors, people are learning not to trust you in these matters.
Here’s an example from last year. You repeatedly insisted that we should trust your interpretation of a passage from Job, based on your ability to read Greek. Yet others who could also read Greek (both Bible scholars and some fellow dopers) disagreed with your interpretation, which suggests that one should not be quick to trust your word implicitly. Heck, I and others pointed out that even your reading of the passage in English was incorrect on multiple accounts, so why should we trust what you said about the Greek?
I’m not saying this to drudge up old arguments, Diogenes. I’m saying this to explain why people are learning to distrust what you say. You provide enough knowledge to sound credible, but you’re careless with regard to details and you frequently overstate matters – even to the point of taking extreme, iconoclastic viewpoints and insisting that they are they only possible interpretations. In other words, you present a confusing mix of truth and error – kind of like having dozens of land mines buried with a rich, luscious pasture. People can be tempted to stroll gleefully through the entire pasture, but people who are aware of the dangers would be reluctant to do so.
Well played! But I’m the little known DVD extra of the extended scene where the kid slightly opens one eye after the robot leaves, revealing that I’ve still got my eye on you.
It was Jonah, not Job and I didn’t tell anyybody to trust anything. The passage was Henrew, not Greek. I posted Young’s Literal Translation, the actual Greek text of the LXX and my own translation of the LXX. People can read the thread for themselves if they want, but I think you were making some pretty abstruse objections to a plain reading of text.
[Moderating]
Diogenes, this is posting by proxy, which is a violation of the board’s terms of service. In the future, please let people post their own accusations, or, if they’re reluctant to do so for whatever reason, let them stay quiet.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Good on ya.
You’re right that the passage was from Jonah, and in my haste, I misspoke. (See? I can admit to error.)
However, you most certainly did insist that you had translated the passage correctly, and that it unambiguously supported your specific interpretation. How is that anything but a claim that we should trust you?
Correct, which is why I did not say that the passage was in Hebrew. Rather, I said that you offered your interpretation based on your knowledge of Greek. At no point did I claim that the original was in Greek.
Oh, please. Anyone who reads the text can see that you repeatedly misconstrued the text in English, despite your protestations of being exactly correct. They can also see that others who can ALSO read Greek construed the passage differently from the way you did. Heck, even when you did finally acknowledge one of those English errors, you refused to do so graciously, insisting that it was the “same fucking difference.” Again, this is clear for anybody to see.
Diogenes, you are illustrating the very same behavior for which people have been taking you to task. You are overstating the extent of your expertise, misrepresenting facts, and refusing to admit any significant error.
Dio, you expressed concern at the fact that certain folks are learning not to trust your word regarding Biblical matters. I’m trying to show you some of the reasons WHY people are learning to be distrustful of your claims. You should learn from this… that is, if you truly mean it when you say that you’ll reconsider your ways.
I’m the old robot that shuffles in and gives that eye a squirt with the oil can. There. Eyes are closed, kid’s down for the count. All set. We can shut this thread down, now.
Agreed.
Finally.
Anyone up for a game of Three Colander Monte?
Bless you, Diogenes. I’m glad to hear it.
I don’t bless him- I love his arrogance, and aspire to it, some days…
Dio- DO aspire to improve yourself, by your own measure…
I agree with some of the posters that their measure is valid…
That does NOT mean that anything we say is valid by your measure!
Please, Stay Dio, but always live for improvement!
(this comment should not be construed to contraindicate those who have posted on teh sux of any previous DtC comment)
I’d like to see some citations in my arguments with Dio. That’d be great.
I really do feel like I’ve read this post before.
It’s hit or miss with him. Sometimes he will provide copious cites which demonstrate that he’s done some reading on the matter. His cites won’t necessarily present the breadth of interpretations or scholarly opinions on a matter, and he doesn’t always present their content accurately. However, they do show that he understands the importance of such citations.
At other times, he makes broad claims without any citations whatsoever. Therein lies the rub. He sounds credible because, once he gets going, he can discuss certain topics at length. As I said though, these discussions tend to be a mix of scholarly work, overstated claims, and outright error. When people note his lengthier discussions though, some of which are quite detailed indeed, they don’t necessarily realize that they can be mixed bags.
I have the oddest sensation that I’m in an evangelical church and somebody just got talked into walking down the aisle. The joyful tears… the swell of the organ…
Hey, now. This is a family thread.