Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 25, 2024, 5:58 am
Thread Rating:
|
The truth according to Bart D. Ehrman
|
|
Sure you didn't have the conclusion at hand already?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 (November 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm)John V Wrote:(November 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm)Chas Wrote: Try re-reading the sentence. With understanding this time.Re-read it and reached same conclusion. You forgot the understanding. ![[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu224%2FUchiha_Kina%2FTags%2FSigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png)  Well, the sentence did contain an element of amphiboly, but the charitable reading would have been that he did not mean what you wrote, John. ![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)  (November 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm)apophenia Wrote: Well, the sentence did contain an element of amphiboly, but the charitable reading would have been that he did not mean what you wrote, John.OK, what did he mean? I admittedly am being a bit of a smart-ass, because I find go read it yourself, which seems to be the intent, to be pretty pointless on a discussion board.  (November 28, 2012 at 3:52 pm)John V Wrote:(November 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm)apophenia Wrote: Well, the sentence did contain an element of amphiboly, but the charitable reading would have been that he did not mean what you wrote, John.OK, what did he mean? I admittedly am being a bit of a smart-ass, because I find go read it yourself, which seems to be the intent, to be pretty pointless on a discussion board. So, you'd like him to read it for you, so that you both can discuss something that only one of you has read? I might have been less charitable in my response. (November 28, 2012 at 4:40 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So, you'd like him to read it for you, so that you both can discuss something that only one of you has read?Oh please, it's common to reference a book or article and summarize the argument, or just make the argument without reference. You're being ridiculous. (November 28, 2012 at 4:47 pm)John V Wrote:(November 28, 2012 at 4:40 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So, you'd like him to read it for you, so that you both can discuss something that only one of you has read?Oh please, it's common to reference a book or article and summarize the argument, or just make the argument without reference. You're being ridiculous. Am I? So it's reasonable for someone to make a thread critical of an author's work, having not read it, and ask someone else to summarize said author's arguments? When said author's bibiography consists of approximately two dozen lengthy, scholarly books? Yep, one of us is being unreasonable all right. (November 28, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Am I?Yes. You're defending a poor position when it would be simple to retract or restate. Quote:So it's reasonable for someone to make a thread critical of an author's work, having not read it,Yes, if the proper disclaimer is made, which it was. Quote:and ask someone else to summarize said author's arguments?Sure. It's a discussion forum, after all. Quote:When said author's bibiography consists of approximately two dozen lengthy, scholarly books?That gives you plenty of arguments to choose from. No one demanded that all his works be summarized. I would think you'd start with the one or two arguments which you find most compelling. (November 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm)John V Wrote:(November 28, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Am I?Yes. You're defending a poor position when it would be simple to retract or restate. I'll restate. If the OP cares to have a discussion on the merits (read: criticize) of Mr. Ehrman's work (which, by his own admission, he is not that familiar with), it is my position that he ought to go educate his fucking self rather than ask others to do his reading and summarizing for him. It is hardly reasonable to criticize written work one has not read, and is not familiar with, and it is particularly unreasonable to ask another to read and summarize it for one who is apparently disinterested enough to do so himself, and yet, somehow, has enough interest to criticize. In other words: one should do one's own fucking homework. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
