It is likely one of the most thorough religious apologetics in contemporary times. It merits a serious consideration and is certain to draw some rabid fire. A quick thumbing through blogs, blog comments, message boards, and chat rooms reveals an astonishing, if not unsettling, anger, and even hatred. After centuries of highly Christianized Western philosophy, upon the advent of Darwin/Wallace theory, sides quickly started forming. While ancient Greece tolerated few atheists, such outlook had only shaky grounds until 1859: a magnificently cogent theory of life’s origins and development required no ultimate mover. It seems the religious have since then taken up arms, both metaphorically and, in the case of World Trade Center and its imitators, literally. In turn, growing atheist movements reacted against such defensive measures. For reasons beyond this review’s scope, this upsurge in side-taking and regrouping, like so many buffalo facing predators, evidences a powerful human need for settling the issue, pace the few agnostics gazing on bewildered. A peek at the arguments reveals a mess.
One of the advantages of Hinman’s new work is that it attempts, among other goals, to order the mess somehow. While he is professedly theistic, the work exudes care and some respect for the various perspectives. Its sheer breadth and depth of scholarship and capacity in articulating it attests the generally due respect of the many sides, which often exhibit the rational and irrational in one commentator. The central theme, which ties the various sub-arguments together, is that ideologies outside of the sciences themselves are informing science-based, evidential arguments about divine existence. Many sides of the debate, including the monotheistic, are equally guilty. Hinman’s ideology-scorning approach, in the end, exerts notable force and a new voice in the controversy. His book has brought together many positions in the debate. Hinman’s most persistent targets are the contemporary theories maintaining that a divine’s existence can be decided solely by scientific theories. Most thinkers, except possibly extreme agnostics, seem to harbor ideologies. Perhaps ideologies have their place somewhere in the life of the mind. That caveat, and whatever place ideologies may hold, are not the point here. Rather, it is that too many researchers in this area either do not admit their own ideology or deny its importance to the discussion of divine existence. Hinman details how many a contribution to the discussion is steeped in ideology, without their authors’ acknowledging—or even seeing—it. Only by bringing these ideologies explicitly into the discussion can it gain significant traction to get the discussion out of the mud.
see the rest: https://philpapers.org/archive/MILJHG.pdf
Copyright: © 2022 by the author. License University of Victoria. This is an open access article distributed under the terms and 22 conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license 4.0 (CC BY-NC) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
... not merely that sciences are as biased as any belief ...
ReplyDelete- It seems we are a bit confused as to what science is. It is not a belief - it is a methodology. Perhaps you and this reviewer should have been talking about "scientism", or some such supposed ideology. Then discuss who actually adheres to this ideology. (He did say "violating good debate protocol by grouping thinkers too facilely.") I know that the process of science itself seeks to eliminate or minimize bias. That's the whole point of independent verification, peer review, etc.
Say the sciences are merely what works best. Then not only is Ptolemy’s earth-centered universe correct, working well for navigation, but so would be the Holocaust, which accomplished its perpetrators’ needs.
- Of course, a definition like that is a straw man. It is NOT how science is defined, but you do hear claims that science works (as an epistemological tool), and that is undoubtedly true. The earth-centered universe was adequate at one time, but not any longer. And that's the thing about science. It is always provisional, always subject to revision as new information becomes available. That's something that religion cannot claim. Belief in God is impervious to revision. Facts be damned.
The book could serve as one text in an undergraduate or graduate seminar in religion and science.
- Without knowing much about the content of the book, I hesitate to dismiss this statement too readily. But something tells me that this ebullient praise is a bit over the top.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDelete... not merely that sciences are as biased as any belief ...
- It seems we are a bit confused as to what science is. It is not a belief - it is a methodology.
wrong. There is no official club or membership requirement to be scientific. There are scientific methods but clearly people like you adopt a belief counter to belief In God and call it "science.."
Perhaps you and this reviewer should have been talking about "scientism", or some such supposed ideology. Then discuss who actually adheres to this ideology. (He did say "violating good debate protocol by grouping thinkers too facilely.") I know that the process of science itself seeks to eliminate or minimize bias. That's the whole point of independent verification, peer review, etc.
The point of the book is not to attack science the point is to attack people who think they are doing science when they use ideology that uses science. Science cuts down the possibility of bias therefore if I lace my ideology with science it wont be as biased.
That is an ideological conceit. One can wield science in the service of bias, you do it all the time. anyone who thinks belief in God is wrong because its not proven by science is doming this.
Say the sciences are merely what works best. Then not only is Ptolemy’s earth-centered universe correct, working well for navigation, but so would be the Holocaust, which accomplished its perpetrators’ needs.
- Of course, a definition like that is a straw man. It is NOT how science is defined, but you do hear claims that science works (as an epistemological tool), and that is undoubtedly true.
You miss the point because the only point you understand is does one do science your way?
The earth-centered universe was adequate at one time, but not any longer. And that's the thing about science. It is always provisional, always subject to revision as new information becomes available. That's something that religion cannot claim. Belief in God is impervious to revision. Facts be damned.
The point, which you have completely missed, is that there's more science than just obtaining pragmatic goals.
The book could serve as one text in an undergraduate or graduate seminar in religion and science.
- Without knowing much about the content of the book, I hesitate to dismiss this statement too readily. But something tells me that this ebullient praise is a bit over the top.
10:59 AM
You have no concept of what a good book would belike since to you the only good book has to trash belief and laud empty knee jerk ideas of scence.
There is no official club or membership requirement to be scientific.
ReplyDelete- It requires scientific literacy. Many people don't have that. Many think they do. Many people pretend to.
people like you adopt a belief counter to belief In God and call it "science.."
- I told you - science is not a belief. It is a method of gaining knowledge. Why is that so hard to understand?
The point of the book is not to attack science the point is to attack people who think they are doing science when they use ideology that uses science.
- In reading the review, I assumed that the author read and understood your book. He is clearly referring to science ["sciences are biased", "sciences are merely what works best"]. But if he didn't get the point of your book, then what is the value of his review?
Science cuts down the possibility of bias therefore if I lace my ideology with science it wont be as biased.
- Science is not ideology. It's not what you believe - it's an approach to gaining knowledge. And a big part of that approach is verification. Not only verification of the results of the analysis, but of the methodology. I have criticized your methodology. But you don't have to listen to me. Submit your work for honest peer review.
One can wield science in the service of bias, you do it all the time.
- I don't wield science. If anything, what I wield is a knowledge of scientific practice. I have said that what you do is pseudo-science. And that is definitely in the service of your religious bias.
anyone who thinks belief in God is wrong because its not proven by science is doming this.
- I think belief in God is wrong because it lacks epistemic support. Nothing is proven. And you're the one who keeps bring up the notion of proof - over and over again.
You miss the point because the only point you understand is does one do science your way?
- What I think of it really doesn't matter. Certainly not to you. Peer review. Get a panel of real scientists to agree that your work is valid science.
The point, which you have completely missed, is that there's more science than just obtaining pragmatic goals.
- That is the mark of pseudo-science. It should not be aimed at the goal of justifying your belief. It should be aimed at the goal of learning the true nature of things, and that means going where the evidence leads. And not just the evidence that you choose to look at, but ALL the evidence. This is perhaps the biggest fault of your methodology.
You have no concept of what a good book would belike
- I have made a point not to criticize this book, because I haven't read it. I only know what the review says, and what you say. And there's plenty there to criticize.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteThere is no official club or membership requirement to be scientific.
- It requires scientific literacy. Many people don't have that. Many think they do. Many people pretend to.
You don't get to study history and philosophy of science in doctoral work without it.
people like you adopt a belief counter to belief In God and call it "science.."
- I told you - science is not a belief. It is a method of gaining knowledge. Why is that so hard to understand?
You make lip service to that idea. But my book shows there is an ideology that attaches itself to science and can give illusion of being scientific when regurgitating ideology.
The point of the book is not to attack science the point is to attack people who think they are doing science when they use ideology that uses science.
- In reading the review, I assumed that the author read and understood your book. He is clearly referring to science ["sciences are biased", "sciences are merely what works best"]. But if he didn't get the point of your book, then what is the value of his review?
He got the point it's not brain surgery.
Science cuts down the possibility of bias therefore if I lace my ideology with science it wont be as biased.
- Science is not ideology.
I did not say science is ideology i said you have an ideology
It's not what you believe - it's an approach to gaining knowledge. And a big part of that approach is verification. Not only verification of the results of the analysis, but of the methodology. I have criticized your methodology. But you don't have to listen to me. Submit your work for honest peer review.
You didn't read my first book either you are real bad about taking out of of context. you know zip bout my methodology
24 PM
One can wield science in the service of bias, you do it all the time.
ReplyDelete- I don't wield science. If anything, what I wield is a knowledge of scientific practice. I have said that what you do is pseudo-science. And that is definitely in the service of your religious bias.
Iam not a scientist. I never claimed to be a scientist i never claimed to do science. What I do this a fusion of history and social criticism with theological perspective. Your understanding of science is limited but you don't know much else.
anyone who thinks belief in God is wrong because its not proven by science is doming this.
- I think belief in God is wrong because it lacks epistemic support. Nothing is proven. And you're the one who keeps bring up the notion of proof - over and over again.
That is laughable, antiquated, naïve and also wrong. b I have strong scientific support which you conveniently refuse to read, called my first book.
You miss the point because the only point you understand is does one do science your way?
- What I think of it really doesn't matter. Certainly not to you. Peer review. Get a panel of real scientists to agree that your work is valid science.
I did. why should scientists understand philosophy of science? We need philosophers of science. AAs I said that reviewer did graduate work at MIT and worked in the lab of a major player.
The point, which you have completely missed, is that there's more science than just obtaining pragmatic goals.
- That is the mark of pseudo-science. It should not be aimed at the goal of justifying your belief.
didn't say it should be
It should be aimed at the goal of learning the true nature of things, and that means going where the evidence leads. And not just the evidence that you choose to look at, but ALL the evidence. This is perhaps the biggest fault of your methodology.
the idea that science is the only valid form of inquiry is part of the scientism.
You have no concept of what a good book would belike
- I have made a point not to criticize this book, because I haven't read it. I only know what the review says, and what you say. And there's plenty there to criticize.
You don't really understand it because without reading the book you don't have a context to put it in;
6:
You don't get to study history and philosophy of science in doctoral work without it.
ReplyDelete- There's a difference between doing science and opining about it. You think science is biased. That's your opinion.
You make lip service to that idea. But my book shows there is an ideology that attaches itself to science and can give illusion of being scientific when regurgitating ideology.
- I told you that you should be discussing ideologies like scientism and distinguishing those ideologies from science. But apparently, you have not done that. Everybody has an ideology, and scientists have many different ideologies. Don't exclude yourself, either, and be aware that religious ideology often impedes the scientific process. Religious impostors like Michael Behe claim to be doing science, but what they really do is pseudo-science. And it sells books. Lots of religious people want to be told that science is on their side.
He got the point it's not brain surgery.
- I didn't think it was. But then if what he says accurately reflects what you wrote, then you really should try to do a better job of defining what science is and what it isn't, because obviously, that didn't come across to him.
I did not say science is ideology i said you have an ideology
- You said "... if I lace my ideology with science ...". The implication is pretty clear. You see science as a way of thinking rather than a way of doing.
You didn't read my first book either you are real bad about taking out of of context. you know zip bout my methodology
- You have been writing about it extensively for years, including plenty of articles with lengthy excerpts. You identified the studies and papers that served as your source material. You spelled out its arguments. You defended its major points. I know much more about your methodology than you might care to admit.
Iam not a scientist. I never claimed to be a scientist i never claimed to do science. What I do this a fusion of history and social criticism with theological perspective.
- You make scientific claims that are your own conclusions.
Your understanding of science is limited but you don't know much else.
- My own understanding is based on a lifetime of education (in real science - not just history) and professional practice. And I have lived and worked in the real world, where professional success depends on knowledge and competency. I haven't just whiled away my days lying in bed and writing about God without ever having to do anything useful.
That is laughable, antiquated, naïve and also wrong. b I have strong scientific support which you conveniently refuse to read, called my first book.
- As I said, I know more about your book than you care to admit. I know that you make scientific claims that are not justified.
why should scientists understand philosophy of science? We need philosophers of science.
- I have never claimed otherwise. And there are many philosophers of science that you've never heard of. What we don't need is charlatans trying to substitute religious beliefs for actual philosophy of science.
didn't say it should be
- It's just what you do. Step back and take a good, hard, honest look at yourself. What you will see is someone who is consumed with religion, and biased to the point that you can't see reality.
the idea that science is the only valid form of inquiry is part of the scientism.
- Not the point. The point is that you fail to do scientific inquiry in a scientifically valid manner. You can do all the non-scientific inquiry you want. But when you say you are using science, you better do it right, or you're just blowing smoke.
You don't really understand it because without reading the book you don't have a context to put it in;
- So are you trying to tell me that this book is any less biased that everything else I've heard you say for years now?
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteYou don't get to study history and philosophy of science in doctoral work without it.
- There's a difference between doing science and opining about it. You think science is biased. That's your opinion.
No I don't think science is biased. I think biased people do science. get it right.
You make lip service to that idea. But my book shows there is an ideology that attaches itself to science and can give illusion of being scientific when regurgitating ideology.
- I told you that you should be discussing ideologies like scientism and distinguishing those ideologies from science. But apparently, you have not done that.
and you base t6hat on not reading the book, You don't know what I do.
Everybody has an ideology, and scientists have many different ideologies. Don't exclude yourself, either, and be aware that religious ideology often impedes the scientific process. Religious impostors like Michael Behe claim to be doing science, but what they really do is pseudo-science. And it sells books. Lots of religious people want to be told that science is on their side.
I am not a creationist I don't support Behe, I do say we all have deology even me. Try reading the book.
He got the point it's not brain surgery.
- I didn't think it was. But then if what he says accurately reflects what you wrote, then you really should try to do a better job of defining what science is and what it isn't, because obviously, that didn't come across to him.
I did not say science is ideology I said you have an ideology. It is clear you looking for problems. I don't respect people who attack books they haven't read.
- You said "... if I lace my ideology with science ...". The implication is pretty clear. You see science as a way of thinking rather than a way of doing.
New atheists set that up by using science as a alternative to religion, as though it's a counter faith. That issue is just semantic. Obviously science is both thinking and doing and you can express that in a number of ways but you can't do what you have you can't think.
You didn't read my first book either you are real bad about taking out of of context. you know zip bout my methodology
ReplyDelete- You have been writing about it extensively for years, including plenty of articles with lengthy excerpts. You identified the studies and papers that served as your source material. You spelled out its arguments. You defended its major points. I know much more about your methodology than you might care to admit.
I accept that the blog gives a general clue as to the direction of my thought but much more goes into the book. The book is focusses. I can't focs the blog like tat, It's open to different topics.
I am not a scientist. I never claimed to be a scientist i never claimed to do science. What I do this a fusion of history and social criticism with theological perspective.
- You make scientific claims that are your own conclusions.
that is not the save as calling to be scientist. In modern post industrial society all well read thinking people have some inklking of scientific issues, Conversely you should be conversant liberal arts and theology.
Your understanding of science is limited but you don't know much else.
- My own understanding is based on a lifetime of education (in real science - not just history) and professional practice. And I have lived and worked in the real world, where professional success depends on knowledge and competency. I haven't just whiled away my days lying in bed and writing about God without ever having to do anything useful.
yES i DECIDED TO GIVE UP WALKIMG SO i CAN LAY AROUND AND THINK ABOUT gOD. you actually make personal insult agamid cripples and people who are damaged so you feel ltk the big man. You know you are a failure and you not doing anything useful. Helping people lose their souls. We see your true colors don't come back. That kind of bigotry is a great inducement for your cause.
Joe, this isn't about disabilities. I am not making any insults toward people with disabilities, and I'm sorry you see it that way. Plenty of physically disabled people do productive and useful work. But you keep making comments about how much you know and how little I know. I was pointing out that I do real, productive work, and I have been successful. Furthermore, the breadth of my knowledge is not limited to science alone. I have studied history, business, education, philosophy, and other areas that fall under the heading of "liberal arts". I am a retired career military officer. I was raised as a Catholic. I have pursued more in-depth knowledge in both religion and philosophy. I am not just some science geek who knows nothing outside the realm of science.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the breadth of your experience? The only thing you ever talk about is God, and stupid everyone is who doesn't share your beliefs. What gives you the right to constantly belittle me? Or to belittle scientists that you call "new atheists", any of whom is far more knowledgeable and intelligent than the stupid little caricatures that you create about them? You want to have real debate? You can start by dropping the I'm-better-than-you attitude.
Joe, this isn't about disabilities. I am not making any insults toward people with disabilities, and I'm sorry you see it that way.
ReplyDeleteYou are a liar. You said: "I haven't just whiled away my days lying in bed and writing about God without ever having to do anything useful." It's pretty obviously a dig at me. You actually asserted that I am in bed because I'm lazy. You assert that I do nothing productive as though writing books about God is unproductive. Of course, you don't believe in God so it must be unproductive. only you set the standard for what's what.
Plenty of physically disabled people do productive and useful work.
thanks, I'll start learning to knit pot holders right away.
But you keep making comments about how much you know and how little I know.
Obviously you do the same thing. You are always asserting I don't know science or whatever. You started it. You began attaching the studies in TOG without knowing anything about them and asserting you know so much more than I do. You want to speak with authority and you can't grant even a tiny bit of authority to others,
I was pointing out that I do real, productive work, and I have been successful. Furthermore, the breadth of my knowledge is not limited to science alone. I have studied history, business, education, philosophy, and other areas that fall under the heading of "liberal arts". I am a retired career military officer. I was raised as a Catholic. I have pursued more in-depth knowledge in both religion and philosophy. I am not just some science geek who knows nothing outside the realm of science.
You are desperate to prove your worth. It's obvious neither of us has lived up to the potential we think we should have. Neither of us has the credentials to match our knowledge. WE want to speak with authority with the credentials but you can't grant that to anyone but yourself. You can only feel good about yourself from putting down others. But I would never attack your physical state. You are like Trump mocking the reporter.
What is the breadth of your experience? The only thing you ever talk about is God, and stupid everyone is who doesn't share your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAll you can see is the red flag. talking to God to you is like waving a red flag to a bull. Anyone who bothers to notice can see I m bursting with knowing from philosphy, history, social science literature and the arts.
What gives you the right to constantly belittle me?
cause you did it to me first
Or to belittle scientists that you call "new atheists",
That is so telling! you are not into scientism you just think all atheists are scientists.
any of whom is far more knowledgeable and intelligent than the stupid little caricatures that you create about them? You want to have real debate? You can start by dropping the I'm-better-than-you attitude.
bighted little hypocrite, the great man has been overlooked,
btw where do you come off assuming O've never been in the real world and I've never had a real job? You hve no right to assume that.
IM Skeptical, you said: "Joe, this isn't about disabilities. I am not making any insults toward people with disabilities, and I'm sorry you see it that way."
ReplyDeleteYou're sorry he sees it that way. Yeah. But you're not sorry for what you said. Here's what you said, to a man with a disability that keeps him bedridden: "I haven't just whiled away my days lying in bed and writing about God without ever having to do anything useful." There's a term for that. It's called "kicking down." And frankly, it's despicable. It's not just Joe who sees it. I can see it. Anyone who reads it can see it.
You two can snipe at each other all you want, and I usually stay out of it, but this is different. Whether or not you think you just kicked down, as an abled person at a disabled person, that's what you did. The evidence is right in front of your eyes, and you owe Joe a real apology, not a non-apology like "I'm sorry you see it that way."
Furthermore, whether you value what Joe has spent the last few years doing or not, the fact remains that he has devoted countless hours to a book that is a significant contribution to the ongoing debate on this topic. It appears to be only your ideology, which values only scientific investigation and has no value for other branches of human endeavor, that would thus disparage his work without even reading it. Don't give me that about only addressing the review above. Your remark to Joe about lying in bed not doing anything useful wasn't about the review. It was about his book.
Don't read it if you don't want to. But kindly refrain from shitting all over it-- and him. Frankly, I think he should block you.
It's pretty obviously a dig at me. You actually asserted that I am in bed because I'm lazy.
ReplyDelete- Yes, it's a dig at you. But that's the only part of it that you got correct. I would never asset that you're lazy. You obviously do a lot of writing, and I don't know anyone else that has as many blogs as you do. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider what would motivate me to make that remark. Just try looking past your seething hatred and think about it.
1. You disparaged my knowledge. You don't give me credit for knowing much of anything. But in all my discussions with you, it has happened time and time again that you get things wrong, and when I try to correct you or explain it to you, you invariably star hurling ad hominem insults at me. And that's something I generally don't do. I talk about what's wrong with your arguments. It turns out that I know quite a few things that you don't, and you are unwilling to listen. You are unwilling to believe that I might actually know something about philosophy, for example.
2. I've never heard you talk about things in the arena of professional experience. Working with real-world problems and situations gives you a kind of knowledge that you don't get in a strictly academic environment. But as far as I can tell, you are oblivious to all that. You always talk about what you learned about in some class you took. You never temper that knowledge with the experience of the realities of the world.
3. Furthermore, your academic experience is limited, too. Particularly in the area of philosophy, I note that there are certain philosophers that you have been exposed to, and many others that you seem to know nothing at all about. I was quite stunned recently when I told you about religious philosophers I have read, including some of the most prominent ones alive today, and you didn't know who they were. But don't get me wrong here. It's not a sin to be unfamiliar with them. But it is a sin to castigate me for knowing nothing about religion and philosophy, when it's clear to me that I know a lot about them that you don't.
So back to the remark I made. I have no idea what your physical condition is. I have never heard you say that you are bed-ridden, or anything like that. I have heard you say that you are dyslexic, and I certainly don't disparage or ridicule that in any way, do I? I was NOT talking about any kind of disability. I was talking about someone who appears to have very limited experience and knowledge of the world. Someone who nevertheless has no problem telling me that I'm stupid and that I know nothing. That's what I hear from you all the time. I have to admit that after that a thousand times, it provokes a bit of anger. What kind of person has such limited knowledge of the non-academic world? Someone who doesn't have professional experience. Someone who mostly stays at home. That's what I was reacting to.
Thanks Kristen, well said. in his come back he shits to the tact that whet he did is justified because I've been mean to him. Not recognizing his genius warrants smocking my infirmity. To wit:
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty obviously a dig at me. You actually asserted that I am in bed because I'm lazy.
- Yes, it's a dig at you. But that's the only part of it that you got correct. I would never asset that you're lazy. You obviously do a lot of writing, and I don't know anyone else that has as many blogs as you do. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider what would motivate me to make that remark. Just try looking past your seething hatred and think about it.
I am justified in smocking your disability because you refused to see m7y greatness.
1. You disparaged my knowledge. You don't give me credit for knowing much of anything.
You told me my academic journal was not a real journal it was not peer reviewed You aid I didn't go to graduate school I did npt focus history of science but had only one class. You continually assert that I don't knw anything about science. you area hypocrite and an idiot
But in all my discussions with you, it has happened time and time again that you get things wrong,
O I am so sorry! I thought everyone get's things wrong what I've herd. Of course what you really mean is I disagree with your misconceptions that's what you call being wrong.
...
2. I've never heard you talk about things in the arena of professional experience. Working with real-world problems and situations gives you a kind of knowledge that you don't get in a strictly academic environment.
Obviously you don't listen. but Im requited to do that that doesn't justify what you did
...
3. Furthermore, your academic experience is limited, too. Particularly in the area of philosophy, I note that there are certain philosophers that you have been exposed to, and many others that you seem to know nothing at all about.
ReplyDeleteyour understanding of philosphy sux. You are well read in some areas but by no means all.. Everyone has gaps in their knowledge. No philosopher has read call philosophers. still does nit justify what you did.
I was quite stunned recently when I told you about religious philosophers I have read, including some of the most prominent ones alive today, and you didn't know who they were. But don't get me wrong here. It's not a sin to be unfamiliar with them. But it is a sin to castigate me for knowing nothing about religion and philosophy, when it's clear to me that I know a lot about them that you don't.
I was seminary 30 years ago. Obviously my areas of research limit my exposure I doubt your reading is deep.
So back to the remark I made. I have no idea what your physical condition is. I have never heard you say that you are bed-ridden, or anything like that.
why did you say it? if you did not kniw I am bed fast then why ever would you talk about lying in bed?
I have heard you say that you are dyslexic, and I certainly don't disparage or ridicule that in any way, do I? I was NOT talking about any kind of disability. I was talking about someone who appears to have very limited experience and knowledge of the world.
I don't buy that you lying phony. you must have been asleep over the trump years where I deal with poetical issues every day. You don't read/ remember? You constantly miss stuff I say because you only read the firt line. It's not your place to correct what I think about.
Someone who nevertheless has no problem telling me that I'm stupid and that I know nothing. That's what I hear from you all the time. I have to admit that after that a thousand times, it provokes a bit of anger. What kind of person has such limited knowledge of the non-academic world? Someone who doesn't have professional experience. Someone who mostly stays at home. That's what I was reacting to.
8:51 PM
You should not have started it. You have not apologized for what you said you have taken every dishonest tact to cover it over.
goodbye asshole
he thinks it's a low blow to suggest that he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. But he's completely in line suggesting that I am wasting my time doing nothing productive. Let alone the disability so even if I assume he really didn't know he still was totally out of line making such a comment.
ReplyDeleteHe never talks abut real daily problems. he just asserts that he's important and his job is high up and he's the big cheese ect. I've given him many more chances than any other troll on this blog.
Joe, I agree, he should have apologized. Instead he said, in essence, "All that matters are my intentions, so I shouldn't be held accountable for my harmful words." That attitude won't fly. The fact is that harm was done, and intentions can be taken into account, but they don't take away the need to address the harm.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOle' Sleepy Joe has gone senile...
ReplyDeleteHey Joe, congratulations on the new book!
ReplyDeletethanks weekend
ReplyDelete