|
Author
|
Topic: Thread Reopen Requests
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 180 of 305 (194001)
03-24-2005 9:26 AM
|
|
|
Thread is: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 This has been closed to spare Arachnophilia's blushes. He has strongly argued that this story is "obviously" part of a much larger pattern, and that any alternative view is opportunistic homophobia. But he has persistently failed to present any such body of work which supports his claim. I do not see that people should be protected from being asked to back up their claims.
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
quote:
1. his claim is the current academic attitude. you are the one challenging the norm; you must provide evidence.
Erm, as I have pointed out, his claim is OPPOSED by the well established academic norm that these are heroic socities. Therefore *I* have asked *HIM* to show HIS sources, which he has not done. In fact, virtually my entire participation in the htread has been aimed at pointing out that this claim is contrary to the established position, and asking him to demonstrate support for his unusual position. Please re-open the thread so that he CAN do so. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-11-2005 05:03 AM
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 185 of 305 (198232)
04-11-2005 6:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 183 by Admin
04-10-2005 8:29 PM
|
|
quote:
Suggest you propose a new thread that will give the topic a fresh start that will hopefully lead to a more productive outcome.
A topic called "arachnophilia was wrong and heres why" seems unnecessarily specific.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 183 by Admin, posted 04-10-2005 8:29 PM | | Admin has not replied |
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Erm, as I have pointed out, his claim is OPPOSED by the well established academic norm that these are heroic socities. Therefore *I* have asked *HIM* to show HIS sources, which he has not done. In fact, virtually my entire participation in the htread has been aimed at pointing out that this claim is contrary to the established position, and asking him to demonstrate support for his unusual position. Please re-open the thread so that he CAN do so.
Bump. Please re-open the thread.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 196 by Phat, posted 04-12-2005 7:53 AM | | contracycle has replied |
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 198 of 305 (198943)
04-13-2005 11:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by Phat
04-12-2005 7:53 AM
|
|
Re: Review
quote:
Hi, Contra. I reviewed the history of your discussion with Arach. Methinks it pointless to debate him on this particular issue as it is a faith issue. I DO see your position in regards to how the national hospitality was unfairly judged by what you perceive as a religious minority whom perpetuates myth.
Its not a faith issue according to Brenna. She can offer the evidence for the previaling academic position in lieu of Arach, if she likes, I don't care. Please re-open the thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by Phat, posted 04-12-2005 7:53 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
Re: leave this one closed, please.
quote:
it's not a faith issue at all. it's not only the prevailing and educated academic opinion, but has been for nearly 2000 years.
Evidence please. Please show it is the prevailing academic opinion.
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
Re: leave this one closed, please.
quote:
evidence has been shown in the thread in question, repeatedly. this is not a debate thread.
No such evidence was ever shown, and such "evidence" as you did show was debunked. I agree this is not a debating thread, that is why I have asked for the thread to be reopened. Please re-open the thread.
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
Re: Contracycle, Arachnophilia, Razd
quote:
i plan to use these at every opportunity available. * this of course after posting page upon page of evidence from several different angles to defend the academic standard opinion, while he posted nothing substantial except two reports about the wrong subject set in the wrong age of history, to argue his indefensible point contrary to even the archaic scholarly work. it's neccessary to fully understand the irony here.
Please do. Look, I fully acknowledge yourt OPINION. But I am not obliged to accept your OPINION as fact if it is not supported. And you
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
Re: Contracycle, Arachnophilia, Razd
Please do. Look, I fully acknowledge yourt OPINION. But I am not obliged to accept your OPINION as fact if it is not supported. And you
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 249 of 305 (202916)
04-27-2005 5:37 AM
|
|
|
Please do. Look, I fully acknowledge yourt OPINION. But I am not obliged to accept your OPINION as fact if it is not supported. And you
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 250 of 305 (202919)
04-27-2005 5:57 AM
|
|
|
Trying again. I acnkowledge your opinion, as an opinion. I am not obliged to consider it definitive or persuaded if it is not supported. And your aupport must be sufficiently compelling to persuade, not just something valguely like it. You failed to support your point despite my repeated requests. Such material as you produced as inadequate and I explained why. NBow you are just crying for the Admins to asssert you were corrrect. Why not just behave like an adult and support your argument?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 251 by AdminJar, posted 04-27-2005 11:11 AM | | contracycle has replied |
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 252 of 305 (203586)
04-29-2005 7:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 251 by AdminJar
04-27-2005 11:11 AM
|
|
Re: Drop it, NOW
quote:
This is not a debating or discussion thread.
I know, thats why I have asked you to repone the original. Please reopen the thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 251 by AdminJar, posted 04-27-2005 11:11 AM | | AdminJar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 253 by AdminJar, posted 04-29-2005 10:36 AM | | contracycle has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2