Dear Hugh,
I do believe I qualify as a reasonable person, and I’m rationally justified on the basis of my criteria. How foolish, how ignorant you are to make mocking despicable little comments against me, your epistemic superior, who’s an actual philosopher and has studied the philosophy of miracles, and researched it for decades. You’ve got to pay attention to your epistemic superiors, Hugh, because now you just look like an ignorant fool in daring to question me, your intellectual and epistemic superior, who’s thought way harder than you have about these criteria. I should be congratulated for my brilliance in thinking about these things hard. I deserve respect for that; not to be mocked by some skeptic who’s never given it a second thought in his life.
In civil law courts, the standard of what a ‘reasonable person’ might be supposed to think is based on what a hypothetical person ought to know, not what they actually know. The fact that the majority of people are dumb or ignorant is irrelevant. That means they’re unreasonable. They should know this stuff. Who cares if a large proportion of the people interested in the Shroud find it fake on biblical grounds? I don’t care what a bunch of ordinary people do. None of these people are reasonable. They’re ignorant fools when it comes to these specific arguments, because I’ve absolutely proven, from biblical scholars, that only a fool would think that biblical arguments disprove the Shroud. Only a fool…
Skeptics like you guys are such big hypocrites. You don’t engage in critical thinking; you’re not smart; you don’t think about things…
… and you’re a supposed Roman Catholic! Are you making fun of Catholics and the Popes for being so dumb as to believe in miracles? Do you deny the Gospels? Do you think Jesus was a fool? You sound like a fake Christian if you’re mocking people who believe in miracles..
Who agrees with me? You yourself! So you’re a liar, a scheming, lying snake, that’s you! You’re a corrupt, crooked, deceitful, disgusting, lying sack of garbage. What a lying fool you are! How stupid are you! You strawman piece of garbage. Why don’t you turn on your listening ears, turn your brain on and listen to what I actually say? Don’t dare strawman me and call me bizarre. It’s disgusting. It’s satanically Satan induced supernaturally skeptical stupidity syndrome. I think it’s despicable. You lie and twist the truth, and manipulatively destroy the faith of Christians, and that’s what you devote your life to.
The journal Nature is a fraud. It is a crappy peer-reviewed journal. It’s not a good journal. … They’ll publish anything if it supports what they want to hear. … Biased as heck… Applied Optics… Biased as heck…
Yours sincerely,
A Reasonable Person.
=============================
Dear Reasonable Person,
In a comment on James Fodor’s posting of the debate I discussed in my last post, I wrote that “I think the authenticist position is really dead in the water now the miraculists have taken over the helm, and Dale’s exposition shows why.” I was referring to Dale Glover’s exposition of the topic rather than his language, which during the debate was not intemperate, but scarcely was the ink dry on the page, or whatever metaphor applies to a podcast, when Glover took to the microphone to redefine his definition of a reasonable person, to explain that he was misunderstood because he hadn’t had time to express himself clearly, to misquote and misapply things I and others have said during interviews, and above all to resort to the abusive language above. If this man speaks for the authenticist cause; and if others who endorse or proselytise it don’t distance themselves from his presentations, then any hope they have of generating any support from any ‘scholarly community,’ should be abandoned. Regardless of the quality of the arguments, this language is that of the playground thug, and anybody who trails along with it is guilty by association. Don’t make excuses for it. Don’t justify. Don’t blame it on a temper tantrum, demonic possession or righteous anger. If you don’t condemn it, you endorse it. Endorse it, and you kill any hope of being taken seriously, and the authenticist cause, perilously close already, is lost forever amongst the pseudoscience of the flat earth, the faked moon landings, alien abduction and young-earth creation.
So what is a reasonable person? A hypothetical legal fiction, we’re told, which has a legal definition, which isn’t strictly true. He is fictional not because he doesn’t exist at all, but because he is a kind of composite of what all individual people might agree on, having a reasonable understanding of the case. [The first time it was used was to determine whether a farmer was negligent (it is almost always restricted to cases of negligence) in building a highly inflammable haystack near to some highly inflammable cottages. The defence was that he wasn’t very bright, but the prosecution held that the standard to hold him to was not that of his personal intelligence, but that of “a man of ordinary prudence,” who would have known that haystacks often catch fire spontaneously. As it happened, several men of ordinary prudence had told the farmer of the danger, and he had dug an airshaft into his haystack to mitigate the risk, but had also been heard to say that he would “chance it,” suggesting that he guessed it might not be sufficient.]
An English Law website gives some ‘Characteristics of a Reasonable Person’: “The reasonable person possesses certain key attributes:
– Ordinary intelligence and prudence, not exceptional skill or foresight,
– Awareness of common risks and hazards that would be apparent to any reasonable observer,
– Ability to weigh competing interests and make proportionate decisions,
– Conduct consistent with accepted community standards and practices,
– No special physical or mental characteristics unless relevant to the specific context.”
By these criteria Glover is way over-qualified to class as an ordinary reasonable person. In going on and on about his years of research and epistemic superiority, he loses track of ordinary reasonable people, with only an “ordinary degree of reason, prudence, care, foresight, or intelligence,” who read the Gospel of John and conclude that it doesn’t match the Shroud, who have studied the radiocarbon dates and find a medieval provenance convincing, or who think that the anatomy of the image shows that it could not have ‘transferred’ from a body. According to Glover, they’re not just wrong, they’re “ignorant fools,” because he has studied the question for years and “absolutely proven, from biblical scholars, that only a fool would think that biblical arguments disprove the Shroud;” because “six peer-reviewed journals” have proved the the radiocarbon dating was “utterly fraudulent”; and because whether the Shroud image is anatomically credible is “irrelevant.”
As it happens, I don’t think the bible can be used either to authenticate the Shroud or refute it, and have said so. I think the specific words used by the evangelists can be interpreted in different ways and I think the reasons the evangelists used those words is not understood. I have said words to that effect in my blog and in podcasts. What I have never said is: “No, these are not good arguments. These are dumb, irrational, unreasonable objections.” Misquoting me like that is not merely précis; it adds a layer of contempt for my fellow man that I have never felt nor ever said.
But then it turns out, possibly because Glover realises that his ‘reasonable person’ argument doesn’t hold water, that he didn’t mean that sort of ‘reasonable person’ after all. His reasonable person is a “reasonable real seeker”; someone who must be sincerely open minded, actively seeking the religious truth of the artefact, and prepared to submit to that religious truth once he’s discovered it. However, it soon becomes apparent that the only religious truth acceptable to Glover is Christianity, and that anyone coming to a different view cannot be said to be a ‘reasonable person.’ By definition no non-Christian view can be considered reasonable, so any views that any Atheists, Moslems or Jews might have are considered irrelevant. Considering that some of these people have both studied the Shroud in some depth, and acknowledge that the Shroud is authentic, if not miraculous, I think it is a pity to dismiss them all as unreasonable, or worse, as ‘ignorant fools.’
On Saturday, Real Seekers hosts a discussion on this debate with its moderator, Tavo San Abri, and Teddi Pappas, another determined authenticist. What does she think of the language of her host? Will she support it or condemn it, or ignore it altogether, which is much the same thing. Qui tacet consentire videtur, as every lawyer knows.
Yours sincerely,
a corrupt, crooked, deceitful, disgusting, lying sack of garbage.
================
Does this man speak for you?
Does this man speak for the Shroud?
Does this man speak for Christ?
Hi James,
Thank you for your recommendation.
Best wishes,
Hugh
You people remind me of a group of third graders! A book may shed light of the condition, “Unoffendable”, by Brand Hanson.
You’re drifting again, Teddi, and seem to have misunderstood everything that could be misunderstood. I really don’t mind what you, Dale or Tavo discuss or the conclusions you come to. If I agree with you I’ll say so and if I don’t I’ll say why. As you have seen from my post and all my subsequent comments, the substance of the arguments is not what concerns me here. What I won’t accept is the kind of language Dale used in his solo podcast (he tends to be more controlled in company), and nor will I accept any justification for it, in spite of (or perhaps because of) having the cognitive function of a flea!
Why not? As should be apparent, because I have repeated it several times now, it’s not because I find it personally offensive and grotesque (although I do so find it); it’s because it reduces the entire authenticity/medieval debate to the level of street-gangs slugging out their differences under a flyover. I will not “face it, debate is a blood sport.” Debate should be for reasoned arguments reasonably discussed, and I’m sorry that you have thrown away that option in your comment above. There are some serious students of the Shroud, including me, who would like to open a dialogue with the Pope and the Shroud custodians in Turin with a view to obtaining a better characterisation of its image, a better analysis of its ‘bloodstains,’ and a more conclusive measure of its radiocarbon content. Some of us think such a survey will better demonstrate authenticity and others that it will better demonstrate a medieval provenance. But the Shroud is a seriously treasured artefact, and those who protect it are serious minded scholars. It is my opinion – perhaps not yours, but each to their own – that the chances of such a survey being permitted are shredded by the kind of intemperance that I object to here.
Incidentally, I don’t think Dale has ever posted a comment on this website, so I couldn’t have banned him. I don’t think I can ban anybody. My options are only to “unapprove” a specific comment, or “trash” it, or call it “spam,” and I don’t recall ever doing that. If he’d like to comment, he is as welcome as anybody else.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Such language as Dale and friends use signals an inability to articulate. When someone reaches for “ignorant fool,” “lying sack of garbage,” or “satanically induced,” it’s usually because the actual argument has run out of steam. Name-calling isn’t a rhetorical flourish laid on top of a case — it’s what fills the space where the case should be. A person confident in his reasoning defends the reasoning; a person who has run out of reasoning defends himself, and defending himself, under pressure of failure, is where the ugliness comes from.
Hi, Hugh,
Can you please tell me who appointed or hired you as the “language police?” This whole effort of yours is just so shockingly transparent. You’re, apparently, quite worried about what Tavo, Dale and I are going to say about James Fodor’s arguments that you’re trying to help him out by trying to get me to bail out of the discussion or, better yet, for Dale and I to get into some argument over this so that we’ll not have the show (as planned) for this Saturday. I guess you think that James’ performance on that debate was so poor that you’re needing to extend a helping hand to protect him? That’s sure what this looks like–and, quite frankly, it’s rather insulting to James–who doesn’t need this ploy of yours to help him–as it makes him look weak (and that’s really not fair to James.) Your effort seems well-intentioned (towards James) in terms of trying to help him. But, instead, what it is revealing is you unspoken–but rather obvious–disappointment regarding his arguments. You know me well-enough by now to where you can probably predict what I’m going to say (and you’re not happy about it.)
As I mentioned before, we have the “Clean Hands doctrine” and your hands are not clean in this regard–as you have been known to attack people–sometimes rather intensely. (Do I need to remind you of the things that you’ve, also, said about Jeremiah Johnston and others?) But, again, this is really all smoke and mirrors–this is, really, about your trying to disrupt the scheduled show.
Additionally, you were attacking Dale from your website, and you’ve banned him from being able to respond on your website. So, this does add to the frustration of things.
As an aside, I take note that you and Dale were friends for many years up until about 1.5-2 years ago–precisely the time that he started getting back into doing Shroud debates–as opposed to just being a friendly moderator. Once he got back to doing debates, you started heavily criticizing him (many times quite harshly), and the friendship between the two of you has now come to this.
And, no, Hugh, language does not damage arguments. Arguments stand on their own merit when rational people examine them. For the people who have the attention span and cognitive function of a flea, well, those people might get put off by certain language, but they are, also, the type of people who will probably not change their position no matter what the evidence is against it.
Another thing from courtrooms, the jury is the finder of fact, because the jury is watching and listening to each witness as they testify. This is critical and distinguishes what happens when (at the appellate level) appellate judges just examine a cold transcript. With a cold transcript of the trial proceedings, one misses the important inflections in a person’s voice, the tone and just the overall delivery of the information. The same sentence can be stated in different ways so as to mean different things. I can say, “You had a really great debate with James!” And, depending upon HOW I say it, what I say can come across as a sincere compliment, or I could be dripping with sarcasm as I say that so as to imply that the debate was horrible.
When people read the information that you patched together as a letter from Dale (when this was NOT the situation in that these are not all one streaming quote from Dale, but quotes patched together, and these were all spoken off-the-cuff (as opposed to where someone takes more time when writing and deciding whether or not to send something), this is HIGHLY MISLEADING. And, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting! Dan and Frank Placido are making lots of hay of these comments being (supposedly–from what they read from your posting) WRITTEN and SENT TO YOU–but, this is NOT TRUE. But, my point is that when one just reads what you wrote–without hearing how, throughout the show , Dale was talking (and we all know that Dale can get rather “punchy” at times and, often, there’s a bit of humor and showmanship that is part of it) one can come away with a different opinion.
Did, however, Dale make some aggressive statements towards you? Yes, indeed, he did. And, he gave reasons for it. Have you made aggressive statements towards Dale? Yes, you have. So, the question is, why are you dragging me into your dispute with Dale? Is it that you can’t handle yourself against Dale’s comments. Well, I don’t think that’s the case at all. And, what remains obvious, then, is that it’s all about trying to throw a wrench into this upcoming discussion about James Fodor’s arguments against the Shroud’s authenticity. So, your machinations are just so painfully obvious here.
Where is your apology to Dale and everyone for this? We have yet to see it. And, since you love Latin so much, try this one on for size: “Uni culpa set, ini open sublease debet” (“Where the fault is, there should the amends be.”)
If I can listen to arguments by people who are, simultaneously, committing blasphemy against God, then I think that smart people can manage to wade through Dale’s periodic, inflammatory comments towards you and the other YouTube commenters on James’ website) without a problem–if they are interested in knowing what he said.
And, let’s be candid, the things that you, Dale, Dan Porter and I discuss are usually only followed by quite the niche audience (full of eggheads.)
And, let’s face it, debate is a blood sport. Just because you tend to deliver your punches in a different style doesn’t mean that you’ve not delivered punches–and many of those have been aimed at Dale (and others.) So, again, I don’t find that you have “clean hands” in this, and I’m calling this whole thing out as a clever ruse regarding the upcoming review show which is just a few days away. Again, we’re flattered, but I doubt that James is (by your thinking that he’s in desperate need of shielding by you from our upcoming comments.) James is a smart guy–just like you are, Hugh–he didn’t need for you to (unintentionally) embarrass him like this.
Best regards,
Teddi
No Teddi.
My whole point was to distinguish the arguments from the language, and the language won’t do. It damages the arguments. To defend it as ‘colourful’ and “the honey-badger” is unacceptable, and I won’t accept it, and to try to make it acceptable because other people use similar language simply casts you into the same mire. Is the law familiar with the “Tu Quoque” argument?
You keep slipping away from this. It may be possible to present a case for the authenticism and even the miraculousness of the Shroud on philosophical grounds, but using language like that, why bother? People who already agree will shy away from such vulgarity, and people who don’t will reject it without further consideration. Supporting the philosophy is fine, but supporting the language will lose – has already lost – whatever proselytising force the argument ever had.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, again, Hugh,
You mention that the entire address is to you. No it isn’t. Even as I was listening at 2x speed while I was preparing dinner, I still managed to catch when Dale was EXPRESSLY stating that some of the responses that he was making were towards the YouTube COMMENTERS. (If my notes are accurate, that was around the 1:20:14 mark.) At one point, Dale even mentions how you tend to respond to things more with your typical British wit–in contrast to how some of the attacks go down in the comment section on James Fodor’s YouTube channel.
We all have seen, over and over and over again how absolutely UNHINGED atheists and Flat-Earthers get in the comment section against those taking sensible positions? I’ve seen this many times, and it’s futile to deny it, because the proof is in the pudding. (And, speaking of flat-earth stuff, remember your vicious attacks against me–that would’ve been shortly after New Year’s day in 2021 if I recall correctly– when I was debating against a flat-earther–and, just go against me, you joined in with the kooks in the comment section with all their vitriol against me?
People just need to go and look in the comment section to see how the godless create a tsunami of vicious comments. It’s takes being rabid to the next level.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
Well, as is often the case, curiosity got the better of me. So, while I was cooking dinner, I listened to the review show in question at 2x speed in order to hear it all out. I’m very happy that you urged me to listen to it as I found that–by far–it was a really great show with lots of great, smart commentary and rebuttals by Dale.
In a show that went on for about 1 hour and 46 minutes, it was mostly around 1.5 hours that Dale started getting noticeably angry as he was rebutting a lot of B.S. attacks from both you and rude, aggressive commenters on James Fodor’s channel. Dale gets into the details of them in the show–I’m not going to take the time to quote them all. But, when one is constantly under attack, it can bring out the honey-badger in a person–provided that one has the chops to be a honey-badger.
Some of the ad hominems that Dale was issuing were quite colorful, but, Hugh, you’re not exactly a stranger to making rather colorful and vicious attacks against others–you just use a different style than Dale. But, that doesn’t really make it any different in any real sort of way. And, Dale was quite incited because of lies that were being said–again, people should just listen to the show. So, it is what it is.
I’m neither his mother nor Big Sister. Also, Dale noticed that he was getting quite angry towards the end of the show, and he then decided that it was time for him to just stop with that.
But, despite some of the name-calling, there was a tremendous amount of really great information in this show, and it’s worth everyone’s taking a listen to it.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
You have a DUTY (moral and legal) to clear up whether or not Dale has written such a letter to you–as what you posted has, quite clearly, implied.
Dan and Frank have, already exhibited their thoughts that this was a real, WRITTEN LETTER to you. You have, tacitly, admitted that what you have written as a “letter” from Dale is not. But, we now have Dan Porter posting this garbage claim about this being a written letter on Dan’s blog.
And, Dale deserves to be defended on this–especially since he has been blocked from responding on your website and Dan’s.
You are, very, very clearly, attempting to manipulate me (as well as Dale) with regard to this upcoming review show concerning Dale and James Fodor’s debate. I’m not taking the bait.
In Law, we have what is called the “Clean Hands Doctrine.” This doctrine states that when a is seeking a legal remedy or award from the Court, they must, first, not be guilty of any wrongdoing, bad faith or unfair conduct related to the subject matter in the lawsuit.
You’re trying to guilt/coerce/shame me into defending you against what Dale has said about you–and you are very obviously doing this in order to start trouble between Dale and me so as to derail the planned review show for this Saturday. Regardless of your ploy, I don’t find that you are coming to this situation with “clean hands.”
When, in my estimation, you have done good things in the past, I have given you proper credit for that. And, when you have done what I think are bad things in the past, I have criticized you for that. Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of ad hominem attacks (although, sometimes they are legitimately warranted as a True statement that is important to be expressed.) But, I’m also not a fan of deceptive attacks, either (or being manipulated for a clever strategy to attempt to wreak havoc on my efforts.)
So, your first order of business really needs to be to explicitly state whether Dale has written you a letter with the above information in it–as presented–or not. If it’s a patchwork of quotes that you’ve data-mined in order to turn it into a screed, then that needs to be made clear, also. Otherwise, you’re being extremely deceptive.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
Listen to the podcast. The entire thing is a direct address to me. Every insult, obscenity and self-assertion is a direct quote. The more you defend it, the more you side with it. And if you think that’s a good way of “defending the Truth of Christianity and the Truth about the Shroud of Turin,” then atheists the world over will be cheering you to the skies.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
You’re attempting to “straw-man” me by attacking me for things that I never said. The right thing to do is to stick to what I’ve stated and not tilt at imaginary things that you think I’ve stated.
But, what about your making this seem like a letter to you when (from what Dale confirmed to me) you’ve patched up a bunch of snippets of things that Dale said and turned it into the screed that you have presented as a written letter from him.
Are you claiming that Dale wrote you this” letter?” If so, please show us it. If not, you have a duty to be clear about these things as Dan Porter, Frank Placido clearly think so (through the content of their comments here) and, others, likely think so, also–and, undoubtedly, this was by design.
Additionally, this is silliness to think that my comment has anything to do with adding “nails” in the Authenticists coffin. What does this have to do with whether the Shroud of Turin is legitimate or not? You’re engaging in nonsensical arguments, Hugh–and, by design for the purposes of deception.
And, let’s be clear about something: any research, work, etc. that I present is only legitimately assessed when it is based upon the merit of the work, itself–and not what I, personally, do or don’t do. There will always be those people who are persuaded by cleverly delivered fallacious arguments. Those people are, typically, invincibly ignorant. So, I’m not really trying to reach those people, because they can’t be reached.
And, I don’t have time to listen to that podcast–I had heard just a little bit of it several days ago, but that’s it. I’ve got more important things to do right now.
I’m not Dale’s mother and I’m not his keeper. Dale’s his own man. You two are grown men. Since you take umbrage at his remarks, you can respond to them without the need to drag me into the fray in the hopes that I’ll be your human shield.
But, again, it’s clear that this is all a ploy to derail Saturday’s show–so, once again, we’re flattered.
Best regards,
Teddi
Teddi, I just posted over at Shroud Story. The letter looks familiar, like comments I used to receive leading me to ban realseekersministries . . . (Danny Boy, I know you unjustly banned me from your site–he recently wrote) . . . you get the idea.
Hi Teddi,
Listen to the podcast. Every insult, obscenity and self-assertion is a direct quote. Your comment, I’m afraid, is just another nail in the authenticist coffin. If you think that any argument at all, however intrinsically sensible, can be defended, let alone substantiated, using language like that, then you sink to the same level as its originator, and all your investigations, researches and discoveries will count for nothing in the court of scholarly acceptance. By siding with such language, you help to drag the case for authenticity ever further into the mire, from which it will take more than the earnest entreaties of better spoken advocates to redeem. And if you think that’s a good way of “defending the Truth of Christianity,” then atheists the world over will be cheering you to the skies.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Dan,
I just noticed that you, also, seem to think that this letter is genuine–it’s not. And, I do note your insidious attempt to malign Dale when you mention that you’re not attempting to “diagnose” the man (based on a fake letter that he never wrote) and which implies that he’s in need of a diagnosis.
If being fed up and angry and spouting off constitutes the need for a “diagnosis” then I suspect that most of us would qualify for one. People express themselves in different ways based upon their personality types–we all know this.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
We’re so flattered that you’re this concerned about the upcoming review show regarding Dale and James Fodor’s Shroud debate that you have devised this clever ploy in an effort to derail it–and trying to drag me into the situation so that I’ll pull out of participating in it.
Dale is Dale, and Teddi is Teddi. We are not spokespersons for each other, and just because we are both Christians and both Authenticists doesn’t mean that we are each responsible for what the other person says or does. As people, we don’t have the responsibility to criticize what everyone says that we don’t agree with–especially when there is neither an implicit nor explicit duty to say something. With regard to my opinions concerning you, people (including yourself) should just pay attention to what I, personally, say about you or what I explicitly endorse.
Do you think that all of the Christians (especially the Catholic Christians) need to come out of the woodwork to condemn you for the things you said during that “Great Resurrection Debate” that you did–where the things that you were saying regarding Jesus and whether he was truly resurrected or not were, basically, indistinguishable from what atheists say? Dale was (as I kept telling him) very naive in thinking that you were going to do Christians proud with that debate. I warned him (REPEATEDLY) prior to the debate that I was very confident that you were going to “throw” the debate–and you did! I was, unfortunately, 100% correct. I truly would have preferred to have been wrong about that.
Now, with regard to this supposed letter. I have confirmed with Dale that Dale has NOT written such a letter to you. So, this “letter” is fake. Moreover, you had to know that some people were going to think that it was really written to you (as is exhibited by, already, a comment in the comment section, here.)
While I have not listened to very much of the solo-show that I suspect that these various comments were plucked from, I have confirmed with Dale that what you present in this fake letter is a patchwork of comments that are put together in this quilt. And, I’m not sure if any of your comments have been embellished, or if they are, supposedly, direct quotes.
Regardless, I speak for myself, and Dale (typically) speaks for himself. Yet, I understand that he has been banned by you from being able to post comments here. As such, on Dale’s behalf, I am correcting the record concerning the deceptive nature of this post as a letter to you that was written precisely as you have posted.
Dale is a Christian and an Authenticist who has devoted himself to defending the Truth of Christianity and the Truth about the Shroud of Turin, however he doesn’t represent me or anyone else, and he’s not attempting to do so. He represents himself, and people can either take what he has to say or leave it.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hugh, thank you for handling this with more grace than most of us could have managed. Reading his letter, what struck me wasn’t the anger itself but its shape — it’s the kind of fury that usually comes from a lack of confidence. People rarely explode like that over a position they hold with quiet confidence. That kind of vehemence tends to show up when a belief someone has built a large part of their identity around starts to feel less solid than they can afford to admit, even to themselves.I don’t say that to diagnose the man, only to note the pattern. A genuinely settled conviction doesn’t usually need to call its critics “epistemic inferiors” or “satanically induced.” That’s the language of someone defending a position he’s afraid to look at too closely. Take care, — Dan
Hi Hugh,
To answer your question, no, he does not.
Take care
Patrick
It may have been cathartic for this extremely unreasonable person to write that ad hominem attack down, but to send it is proof that he needs treatment. Saying that, the alliteration was quite good in parts.