For Denis.
For Denis.
Denis -
You have the dubious honor of having gotten my attention.
I'm flattered.
Sharp attention, and you've given yourself away.
We shall see.
I've perused quite a few of your posts, in trying to get a better understanding of your thoughts and how you operate.
I appreciate your desire to understand where I'm coming from. 99.9% of the time, nobody can be bothered to try, and consequently, I am frequently misrepresented - which is why I'm so often on the defensive.
With much of it, I am duly impressed. You do stress that virtually everything you write is your own, and in the minimal places where this is otherwise, you do cite sources. You are also, evidently, proud and confident of what you do. That is not said as a negative, by the way. You offer challenges. You use, often (and even well justified), sarcasm to belittle your opponents.
Thankyou. :up: I trust that you have also noticed the places in which I give credit where credit is due.
You're a debater, Evangelion.
It is what I have been trained for. It is what I do, and to a large extent, it is who I am.
And yes, it takes one to know one, and if you have flaws, which no doubt you do, as do we all, that I may recognize some of them is simply because - we share them. I too am a debater, occasionally condescending and all too often sarcastic.
Mea culpa. Errare humanum est.
But, Evangelion, you turned your guns on the wrong target
I think not.
If this is what you are determined to believe, there's not a lot I can do to change your mind. But I can at least defend my position, and hope that you will see where I'm coming from.
Indeed.
The first post in section 2 of this thread was by Theo. It was a 'sourced' (by Theo) quote from David Wallace.
I did not take issue with this post.
The second post is the 'brouhaha' - where Theo tells right off that this came from another discussion. She even left in the quotes from the other party in that discussion that she was addressing.
She did not cite her sources in the post which contained the material from Geisler. I took issue with this.
That's when you accused her not only of plagiarism, but of copy/pasting this from an article by Geisler, even claiming that this was probably the site she got it from.
Yes, that is what I did. And some of this was untrue, as I later acknowledged.
Theo replied, and honestly, that she did cherry pick this one reply from a long conversation at another site, apologized if she didn't make that clear (I think it was), and told you she had compiled this answer, back then, from a host of books, including from Geisler. That's all true.
You came back with:
Quote:
Well, I dunno, Theophilus... it all seems rather fishy to me. I'm not convinced that you've disproved my accusation.
Now friend, I always, ALWAYS, have a real problem with people being required to disprove accusations. Burden is on the wrong side.
At this point I was still in the process of hunting down the material she had used. I was not convinced because my investigation was not yet complete.
Again - from Theophilus:
Your plagiarism accusation is blatantly false. So is your accusation of where the material came from.
Plagiarism, Denis, is what we call "using material without referencing the souce." So I responded thus:
I'm not convinced that you've disproved my accusation, and in any case, since you didn't cite your sources, you've plagiarised by definition.
I was not convinced that she had disproved my accusation. What accusation? The accustion of plagiarism. The original source was still under dispute - and I later apologised for the error when I discovered that the source was not a Website, but Geisler's book.
Then Theo told you how she does this, from books, and with hard work and study, and does cite her sources.
True - and I know that she does, which is precisely why I had said (in my original post) that I was disappointed to find that she had not acknowledged her sources
on this occasion. If I had wanted to write her off completely, I would not have expressed disappointment. My disappointment was a direct result of Theophilus
acting out of character.
She did not deny that these things came from other places, but told you she gets them from various books. You chose not to believe her.
Correct. At this point, I was not convinced - especially since she had still not referenced her material.
Instead, you went on a search to find that, gosh, some of those passages could be found at other places.
Yes. And in light of the fact that I had not been given any references, this was the only way to prove my claim that she had used someone else's material without referencing it - which is what she had asked me to prove. Which I did.
Evangelion, I can do that with almost any quote! That the same thing is on the Net does not mean it was not found in a printed book, and for you to draw that connection as an immutable flow is absurd!
It is not true that I had "drawn that connection as an immutable flow." Indeed, I revised my position as soon as I was satisfied that I had made a mistake. "Immutable" means "unchanging." I changed;
ergo, I had not drawn a connection "as an immutable flow."
A; I got this from my studies, and found it in a book.
B: No, since it is on the Internet, you must have gotten it from there!
Absolute rubbish!
Here you overstep the mark. Remember that in my next post, I had written:
Incidentally, I have Geisler's Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics sitting right here on my desk next to me, and I can tell you right now that most of the article above is word-for-word identical with Geisler's entry on the Trinity. I have only spotted a couple of discrepancies so far - one of which is the reference to Kant in the third sentence, which you added yourself. (I guess you must have the Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics too, eh?) So if you didn't get it from www.ankerberg.com (or a similar Website), you must have copied it from Geisler's book. Either way, you obviously didn't cite your source in this case.
By now, I was prepared to accept that she had indeed used a book - specifically, the
Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. My point, therefore - "either way, you obviously didn't cite your source in this case" - still stands.
You have apologized for claiming this was a copy/paste, and that is good.
There was no alternative but to apologise, since I had clearly been proved wrong on this account.
You also accused Theo of taking most of this all from a single article, with an insinuation:
Quote:
This article may be found at
www.ankerberg.com, which is probably where you got it from in the first place.
This was in reference to the Geisler material
only - not to the other material, which had come from another source. The accusation was later proven to be false, and I retracted it, with an apology.
Evangelion, Theo did take this, as she said, from another thread at another site, that she posted. That's obvious since she is replying to things not said in this discussion.
I accept all of this (as I did before), but my point still stands.
That she did not cite her sources is either oversight, or what you try so damnably hard to make of it - intentional deceit and a character flaw.
I never accused her of intentional deceit, and I never accused her of a character flaw. I merely accused her of sloppy research methods - and sloppy research methods always make a person look bad, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt. That is why I have to be so careful around here - because the moment I put a foot wrong, I have half a dozen Trinitarians baying for my blood. So I have learned to be meticulous in my own debates, and rigorous when it comes to the examination of others.
I told you about how Theo does this stuff. You and she are not the same. You use your own words, are apparently proud of that, and it works for you. Theo looks things up, is not either as confident or proud of her own words, but is and always has been an earnest student and one willing to make effort to get answers for others, especially those who ask.
I have not denied this - I have merely observed that she did not cite her source. Which was true. There is another issue involved, but you go on to discuss this later, so I shall wait to address it.
I pointed out that in the post just before the one in question, she did cite the source. In a 'getting to know who you are dealing with', try these, from another site. Whether they are entire articles, or just comments, or definitions, Theo regularly cites. These are a mix, of MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, Novak, Mother Theresa, Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary, Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, etc:
*snip*
Referring to "another site" (which she did not do until I made my accusation) is not the same as providing references in a post which draws heavily on original material. It is precisely this that I take issue with.
Here's 'hindsight', Evangelion, usually my personal 'best sight'. If asked if she got this from other sources, and what they were, Theo would have not only replied honestly, but would have eagerly recommended the books. She always does.
I do not dispute this. My contention is that she did not do it in the first place, and that she
should have done, especially since that is what she
usually does.
What happened, though, is that she was immediately charged with something untoward and unwholesome, and this was insisted upon, by you, as being the case.
I did not accuse her of anything "untoward and unwholesome" - I merely accused her of plagiarising a source, which - even if we take the most general definition as our working model - she clearly had.
Further, you insisted this could not be oversight or anything else
No, I never insisted anything of the sort. And it was only
later that I discussed the general trend of Trinitarian plagiarism as it relates to my personal experience.
but absolutely contrary to your disclaimer that you were not attacking her character, you very much were doing so, and for a polemical reason.
Alas, this was not my intention, nor was it ever stated or implied in any of my posts. I attacked
sloppy research methods, not
character.
You've proved that, and that your purpose was the ad hominem attack to score points and discredit another by that.
This is simply not true.
You wrote:
Quote:
"Differently"? Different to what? You are accusing me of viewing her in a different light, which is not true. I am not imputing motives, nor have I made any attack on her character. I am not accusing her of being a certain type of person - I am merely pointing out that she did not acknowledge a source, despite having lifted a slab of material from it, word for word.
and...
Quote:
I am not stretching hard, and you're playing the sympathy card when you claim that I am trying to discredit her. I am not doing anything of the kind.
Really? REALLY????Try this:
Quote:
Basically, Theophilus is merely resorting to the standard Trinitarian tactic of copy/pasting the work of others without acknowledging the original source. I see this time and time again on Trinitarian Websites - particularly on discussion boards.
Let's review that last paragraph:
Basically, Theophilus is merely resorting to the standard Trinitarian tactic of copy/pasting the work of others without acknowledging the original source. I see this time and time again on Trinitarian Websites - particularly on discussion boards.
Where's the character attack, Denis? This has everything to do with sloppy research methods, and
nothing to do with character. And FYI, this is indeed my experience with Trinitarians on the Net.
Check and mate on a text book standard ad hominem attack.
Accusing someone of sloppy research is a "text book standard
ad hominem attack", is it? Even when it is true? This is too much, Denis.
That's why this couldn't be innocent oversight, or anything other than a 'character flaw', because you determined to lump her with a class of deficient persons - by definition: Trinitiarians.
'Standard Trinitarian tactic!' Sounds a lot like 'Usual Irish behavior' or 'customary Jewish greed".'
Well, I'm sorry if this is the kind of idea that springs immediately to your mind. My observation was simple - that I have seen this kind of tactic (call it sloppy research, if you will) many times before, and I have noted that this is a standard mode of procedure for Trinitarian apologists. All of this is perfectly true. Your personal interpretation of it is another matter entirely.
How many weeks have you been posting at Walter Martin, Evangelion? Have you noticed the anti-Trinitarians there copy/pasting entire unsourced tracts, repeatedly, and being brought up short on it by several folks?
As an example:
http://www.waltermartin.org/dcforum/DCForumID4/145.html
Yes, I have seen it done many a time - and not just by Trinitarians, either. But the context was Trinitarianism, and it was a Trinitarian to whom I was speaking. There was nothing in my post which implied that Trinitarians are the
only ones who do this, so please stop suggesting that this is what I had meant.
But you weren't done yet with the polemical:
Quote:
Trinitarians are in the habit of copy/pasting lists of proof texts that they have never actually studied themselves, entire paragraphs from articles and essays which they never wrote, and arguments which they frequently do not understand. Very rarely will a plagiarist go back and study the original material in order to validate its claims. This demonstrates the extent to which Trinitarians are prepared to accept what they are told, without questioning (a) the source, (b) the material, or (c) the logic involved.
Insofar as I have solid evidence to prove that this is often the case with other Trinitarians, there's no way that it can be misconstrued as a personal character attack on your wife. Indeed, the paragraphy above could be applied to Catholics as well. Or JWs. Or other denominations in which the "hierarchy factor" plays an important role. General comments are not the same as specific attacks - and this was clearly a general comment.
I freely acknowledge that this part...
Indeed, Trinitarian apologetics is largely reliant on the unquestioning submission of people who do not study their Bibles in any depth whatsoever.
...was my personal opinion. But if you want to see some evidence for it, just let me know. I've got plenty.
Evangelion, I have never, in all my years of this, seen such a blatant and intentioned ad hominem attack, carried off with such determined fervor.
If I had wanted to accuse Theophilus of being a blind follower of dogma, I would have done so. My only mistake was to write my post in a way that made it possible for people to
interpret the final paragraph as a direct reference to Theophilus.
That is why rather than ask if Theo had culled these from somewhere, it had to be plagiarsim, and nothing but.
"Culling" without referencing is plagiarism by definition. It says nothing about the moral character of the plagiarist in question. Plagiarism is an
act, not a state of mind or a moral conviction. If Theophilus uses material without acknowledging the source, she is plagiarising. The same definition applies to anyone who does it - not just to your wife. There is nothing personal about this entire issue - at least, not from my side.
That's why when she said she got these out of books, by her study, you had to try to reject that, because it did not fit your prejudiced broad brush of those gullible and lazy Trinitarians!
No, I rejected it
at the time, because I was not yet wholly convinced. But guess what? I
corrected my position when I discovered that I had been wrong.
That's why you have persisted, because it is precisely your intent to discredit by presumed character flaw.
False. If I
wanted to attack her character, why was I so quick to be corrected - and so quick to apologise?
The bottom line remains - I said that she had used a source without referencing it. She asked me to prove this. I did.
You again:
Quote:
It is not an ad hominem, it is simply accurate. I have made no judgement of her character, nor have I imputed motives.
You haven't?
Quote:
Basically, Theophilus is merely resorting to the standard Trinitarian tactic of copy/pasting the work of others without acknowledging the original source.
That's an attack on character, and a lumping together of people by 'class'.
No, that's an
observation - an observation which (by this time) I had proved to be correct. You probably take issue with the words "resorting" and "standard Trinitarian tactic", which (in your mind) imply a direct attempt to deceive. This was not what I had meant, and it should be obvious from the fact that I had
originally said to her:
Oh come on, Theophilus - I expected better from you.
And yes, I
did expect better from her. Why? Because I know that she can do better. This is not consistent with your accusation that my only intent was to pull her down.
Quote:
Trinitarians are in the habit of copy/pasting lists of proof texts that they have never actually studied themselves, entire paragraphs from articles and essays which they never wrote, and arguments which they frequently do not understand.
Ditto!
This was an "if the cap fits, wear it" comment. It was not directly aimed at Theophilus.
Quote:
Very rarely will a plagiarist go back and study the original material in order to validate its claims. This demonstrates the extent to which Trinitarians are prepared to accept what they are told, without questioning (a) the source, (b) the material, or (c) the logic involved. Indeed, Trinitarian apologetics is largely reliant on the unquestioning submission of people who do not study their Bibles in any depth whatsoever.
And I suppose that is not an indication of flawed character?
And I suppose you can see that I did not direct it at your wife? By this stage, Denis, I was clearly generalising. If I had wished to attack Theophilus, I would have done so in no uncertain terms.
In six years on the Net, I have become quite a researcher of quotes, Evangelion. There has been and is an industry of miscontextualized, distorted, corrupted and entirely bogus 'Catholic' quotes. I've searched them out, painstakingly. Had a lovely discussion with a monk at a monastery with a printing house, about a book credited to them as publisher. He was amused, as I wasn't the first inquiry. The book was credited with having been published years before that monastery started publishing, and then too, they only published sheet music, mostly chant! I've found as many as four different quotes attributed to a single issue of a Catholic periodical, that never once mentioned the topic of any of the quotes (God bless the UMich archives!). These supposed quotes are all over the Net, and are, well, copy/pasted without question. They are used by all manner of folks, including anti-Trinitarians, but also by all types of Christians and anti-Christians and atheists. In short, Evangelion, I have never felt that I could reasonably make the claim, even after dozens of these incidents, that 'non-Catholics' or 'anti-Catholics' do such and such, are gullible, don't check, etc. Some do. Most, the overwhelmingly 'most' do not. But if I were to do as you do here, I would do exactly that. I would paint all opposition with the broad brush ad hominem as you do.
I had said "Trinitarians are in the habit of...", not "All Trinitarians do this." I had identified a trend. I had not written everyone off in a single breath. Do you recognise the distinction?
The fact that you jumped on Theo over this, and then linked it to being an ATTRIBUTE of her belief in the Trinity gives you away completely.
No, I did not do this at all.
She did this and it is wrong.
Why did she do this?
She's a Trinitarian and they do that kind of thing.
You can substitute anything you like for Trinitarian, and it basically reads the same: Negro, Jew, Catholic, Christadelphian.
You were indeed trying to establish character flaw directly linked to her profession of faith, and should be ashamed.
This is untrue, and I have already explained why.
If that were not the case, her being a Trinitarian would have zero to do with it
The fact that she is a Trinitarian has everything to do with the original debate, which arose from her defence of Trinitarianism. The fact that Trinitarians
in general use sloppy research methods, is another thing entirely. The fact that Theophilus used sloppy research methods (and I am happy to accept that this was a mere accident) leaves her open to a justifiable accusation of plagiarism.
but that was not the case: you made it central, to make a polemical point about Trinitarians in general.
No, I merely observed that she had used sloppy research methods, and that sloppy research methods are common among Trinitarians. The fact that I had
originally observed that Theophilus does
not usually do this, should be more than enough to demonstrate that I was not lumping her together with other Trinitarians I have met. You can choose to reject my explanation if you wish - that is your prerogative. But if that is the case, I shall require you to tell me why you think I said (at the beginning), "Oh come on, Theophilus - I expected better from you." Does this sound like someone who has already decided that Theophilus is just a blind copy/paster? Not in my book it doesn't.
It's also why you resisted her honest 'I got it from books' she studied. It didn't fit the image you wanted to portray of such believers.
None of this is true. The
very moment that I realised her claim "I got it from books" was true, I apologised. This does not change the fact that she used a source without referencing it - which was, let us remember, my original accusation. If I had wanted to impugn her motives, I would
still not have accepted her "I got it from books" defence. But since I had Geisler's book open on my desk by that stage, it was obvious that this was the souce in question.
Now, just one more point before I wrap up. Theophilus has made certain comments about the meaning and significance of the Hebrew word
echad. These comments are, for the most part, incorrect - a fact which can be proved by several minutes with a copy of Brown-Driver-Briggs.
When I see people writing stuff like this...
"One" in Hebrew: Yachead is the O.T. word used for absolute unity; a mathematical or numerical one. It is used about twelve times in the O.T., but never to describe the unity of God (Gen. 22:2; Zech. 12:10).
Echad however speaks of a compound or collective unity. In marriage "the two shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24); a crowd can gather together "as one" (Ezek. 3:1); or be of one mind or heart: "All the rest of Israel were of one heart to make David king" (1 Chron. 12:38). This is the compound plural ALWAYS used of God when He is called "one" Lord.
...I know I am looking at the work of someone who has not studied the word
echad in any detail whatsoever.
That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Trinitarians are in the habit of accepting material at face value without attempting to validate its claims. You and I both know that Theophilus is capable of much better, which is why I was disappointed to see her using methods which I have come to associate with the poor methodology of standard Trinitarian exegetes. She will do herself no favours by posting material that is demonstrably false.
In conclusion -
I apologise for having offended both you and your wife. It was never my intention. I thank you for your tone, I thank you for your compliments, and I thank you for your time.
:up:
