Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

NPL,
> It is rather interesting--illustrated by the attached mail--that some people
> on the list seem constantly to play the trick: Your are going after me
> rather than after what I said, thereby sidestepping the issue that you have
> to answer an attack on your opinions at all. Some take any negative reply to
> be ad hominem. To a--excuse me--ultra conservative, any attack on one's
> position seems to be the same as to attack the person in question ad
> hominem. You are attacking this person's religion since the
> ultra-conservative knows the truth in advance. Therefore anyy attack on an
> opinion expressed by such a person must be 'ad hominem'. 

Let's get real here, shall we?  Nobody but you has brought in 
anything resembling "ultra-conservative" viewpoints.  Peter's point, 
and mine as well, is that Ian needs to read the material he is 
fussing about before doing any more fussing.  Rather than do that, 
he lumps Rohl, about whom he actually knows virtually nothing, 
with Velikovsky.  What is the purpose of this?  Perhaps you can 
explain it; but it seems to me that it's nothing more than simple 
guilt by association.  Do you consider this good scholarship?  
Why?  And why is it only acceptable for one side of the discussion 
to engage in it?  The fact is, lumping Rohl with Velikovsky without 
even doing Rohl the courtesy of reading him is simple ad hominem, 
backed up with guilt by association.  He is doing his best to try 
and discount a viewpoint by dragging in a name that really has 
nothing to do with anything.  He has done this several times, and 
each time someone has nailed him on it.  Yet, it's all he has 
because he really doesn't know what he's talking about.  He 
doesn't know what he's talking about because he hasn't read it.  
This has nothing to do with ultra-conservatism, and I think you 
know it.  It has everything to do with having a clue what you're 
talking about before you rail against someone, and it has 
everything to do with dragging a name out of left field in order to try 
and discount something you haven't even read.  Now I see you 
doing the same thing, except that instead of Velikovsky, it's "ultra-
conservative."  The method is the same, the truth is that the topic 
has been dragged in from the sidelines but has nothing to do with 
the matter at hand, and still neither of you has read the book.  This 
kind of approach is not within the realm of what I would call 
scholarship, no matter how many ways one tries to define it in 
one's own favor.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                                   Psalm 86:11