Inverarity is not a Scottish village

So... I take it you won't be looking at the post in which I declare my conversion to pacifism?

From:

No, but I do wonder how long I could keep you going if I announced that I was converting to Catholicism. :P

From:

For about three seconds, unless of course you did it on a day other than April 1. Then it would be three minutes. Unless you had been born Catholic and then become a sceptic - and I see no sign of it in your writing or thinking - there is an instinctive set of assumptions and senses of balance that anyone who is or has been inside a group instinctively has (http://fpb.livejournal.com/138154.html), and that everyone who is not instinctively has not. That is why the former Orthodox seminarist Stalin instinctively understood Orthodox hierarchs, and why the convent school boy Fidel Castro can still get along with Catholics. I doubt you'd manage.

From:

But I wouldn't have to convince you I'm an ex-Catholic -- I'd only have to convince you I'm converting.

(I'd make a wager that I could do it, but I've already spoiled it -- plus I wouldn't really have the patience to keep it up for very long.)

From:

I;m tempted to ask you to try. You see, one does not become Catholic out of a general need, but out of a specific admiration of something basic about Catholicism. In many cases it is the shining rationalism of the likes of Thomas Aquinas (although you are allowed to be a Catholic and not like Aquinas; the current Pope, an outstanding thinker himself, does not); or it may be that the claims of the Church - one, apostolic, undivided - correspond to someone's idea of what a body emanating from God must be like (that was JH Newman's path, I think); you may become convinced by its historic claims (that was mine) or by a general sense of fitness to reality (GK Chesterton's), of suiting reality as a key suits a lock. But you have to believe that some fundamental feature of the Church is - not effective, not wise, not decent or even good - but RIGHT, correct, corresponding to reality; and that is something that nobody can fake.

(deleted comment)

From:

Considering the nonsense you talk about the sword of Constantine, I think we would have to start from the basics. As a matter of fact, I am an expert in Hindu and Vedic religion and I have been introduced to Buddhism by Richard F.Gombrich - look him up. As for Notre Dame, I believe it had 88 Catholics jailed for protesting against the despicable law degree given to President Obama. That may be one way of being Catholic, but it is the way that leads to Hell.

From:

It's funny. I live with someone with a Doctorate of Theology from Notre Dame (the American one) who has met the current Pope when he was a Cardinal. Like with you, we come at things from very different views based off very different views. But we respect each other and realize we cannot be experts on everything.

I attribute the rise of Christianity more to the sword of Constantine and Charlemgne and the Teutonic Knights rather than the rationalism of Aquinas. I believe the history books here are clearly on my side but I will concede that we read different history books.

We take each others point seriously and respond respectfully. This is something I've never seen you do, going about attacking the education and avoiding addressing the points of the person you are speaking to.

That, rather then anything else is the core of my lack of respect for you.

SO, HERE IS MY QUESTIONS.

You claim to have a religous studies background. So do you actually know anything about any religion other then Catholic Christianity with any sort of depth, whether it be
Confucianism, Buddhism, Shinto, Islam (a faith I have little respect for) any tribal faiths or mythologies past or present.
Have you cared to learn or can you have a conversation in terms of those faiths or a history outside your own (say pre columbian American, East Asian or Islamic).

My suspicion is no, but I hope you can prove me wrong. Please answer yes or no. I will respect your answer in either case.

From:

Here ARE my questions.

From:

P.P.S.: where did you read that I have any interest in your respect or even in your attention?

From:

You have answered my posts ones which were not related to you in any way so that got my attention. So it was your actions that I responded to. You showed interest in me or rather, in my opinions. Therefore you got my attention.

As for respect, I was never been under the impression that we've had much interest each others respect. But I don't believe you are interested in the respect of anyone, or even in politeness, rather than in a misplaced sense intellectual superiority. That, and seeing that you are religious, a strong dislike on how you choose to display your faith online. To sum it up, I saw an ill educated bully with delusions of grandeur.

And yes, I hate bullies.

I have though, felt we've occasionally talked past each other so I was hoping there was something more I did not see. I wanted to find something admirable in you.

You're right, you've never suggested you want my respect. I guess I was looking to find something to respect and possibly like, in you.

Peace,

Kerney

From:

"Ill educated" is my definition of someone who insists, in this day and age, on talking about "the sword of Constantine." All right, Mr.Education, since you (as I seem to read among the thickets of vanity and self-satisfaction) ask:
http://community.livejournal.com/fpb_de_fide/3855.html
http://community.livejournal.com/fpb_de_fide/4166.html
http://community.livejournal.com/fpb_de_fide/6240.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/141494.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/139171.html

Read, try and understand, and then let's see your arguments. If you have any.

From:

Please answer original question first along with one other.
Why should I when you are the sole judge and bluntly, we don't respect each others judgments?

It's a fair question, and asked politely.

From:

I will note one difference between us. Looking over your links, I tend to quote and cite primary sources, archeological data, and hard scientific studies much more often than I see you doing.

I think this is part of why I believe we talk past each other.

From:

You did not quote any such thing to me, and the context does not suggest that you are thinking on the matter with any depth. Does a blog entry, trying to condense wide reading in a way that will be understandable to the average educated reader, demand or need umpteen fricking footnotes? Who is the intellectual bully and snob here, to demand such things? If you want them, then go and read the damned HoB and see if you can even understand half the sources, let alone challenge my use of them. Anyway, if you had tried with less prejudice and arrogance, you would have found evidence of direct reading of the Life of Marinus, the Landnamabok and a couple of Icelandic sagas, not to mention a shelf-ful of books by modern historians (or did you think I invented all those references to Prussia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, etc etc.? Wouldn't put it past you.)

From:

You want a way to assess my scholarly credentials. I offer you one that does not entail your reading myHistory of Britain 407-597 (http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/fabio/contents.htm) or chasing down my more obscure publications. You refuse to read them, and that incidentally are relevant to a lot of things you said. That does not suggest either an open mind or a willingness to expend any effort.

From:

Okay, I'm trying to stay out of this (though you two really should take this to one of your own respective blogs), but I feel compelled to point out,

fpb, that the point is valid: the fact that you've written a lot of articles, and even a book, is not very meaningful when you don't cite your sources, nor is there any evidence of peer review. (I looked at your History of Britain and I could not find a bibliography, and even your footnotes mostly refer simply to source materials whose lines you quote -- almost none of your arguments have any supporting citations.)

This is not meant to disparage your education, but seriously: you cannot call yourself a "scholar" just because you've read books and posted essays on the Internet. Actual scholarship requires citing your sources and being peer reviewed. Do you understand why it makes people skeptical when you try to play the "I am a scholar: respect my learnings!" card?

From:

My books, in the plural, are thick with footnotes and references, not to mention closing bibliographies compiled by myself by hand without the help of editors or software. You must not claim to judge my scholarship when you give such solid evidence of never having read a fucking page.

EDITED IN: I notice for the first time that Robert Vermaat, who has the exclusive rights for my HoB online, does not seem to have published the bibliography I supplied him with. Nonetheless, each chapter is thick with footnotes quoting authorities, editions and place and time of publication, and you do not give any evidence of having done any serious reading if you retail the opposite as fact.

From:

And will you ever understand why I don't take any of your objections seriously when you never seem to respect even the actual work I have put in three years of HoB writing? Christ, do I treat your own writing work like that? No: to the contrary, I have often expressed admiration slightly tinged with jealousy. But when you don't bloody make the effort to read the damned footnotes when they are there for you to read, then I have to say that you keep speaking exactly like a close-minded, hostile, rude opponent - and one whose views of me, whatever else I may respect, I never will. Either do the damn work or shut up.

From:

Fabio,

I am honestly, sincerely not trying to fight with or insult you here, nor were my previous comments meant to do so. I ask that you take a breath and read what I am saying here before you assume (as you often accuse me of doing) ill intent in my words. I don't see how anything I posted in this thread was hostile, close-minded, or rude.

First, you just admitted that you're furious because I didn't read a bibliography that isn't there. If the fellow in charge of publishing your book didn't include it, then you should be furious at him.

I do not disrespect the work you put into History of Britain. On the contrary, I respect enormously the time it must have taken to research and write it. It's clearly a subject you are passionate and knowledgeable about (and you'll notice I have not criticized the substance of what you wrote in it). I've even suggested to you more than once that you should pursue a self-publishing angle if you can't get an academic publisher to handle it. There are ways you could get it seen by more people than will currently find it on an obscure web site.

That said, the mere fact that someone spends a lot of time writing something is not reason in itself to give it credence; surely you know that.

No, I did not read History of Britain. I only skimmed a bit of it. I'm sorry -- that's not my area of interest, so I'm not going to read multiple self-published volumes on a subject I'm only vaguely interested in.

I did, however, observe that in the little I skimmed, whenever you made an assertion that appeared to be your own analysis (as opposed to a statement of documented fact) there is little to back up your opinion; you expect the reader to take your word for it. A representative sample I just picked at random:

Patrick, the great saint of Ulster, was a less likely subject, and it has been suggested that the book was part of a complex diplomatic manoeuvre to draw the still schismatic North into the Roman Catholic church by acknowledging the primacy of Armagh, the see of St.Patrick's successors and the North's greatest bishopric, in exchange for Armagh's adhesion to Rome. Anyway, Muirchu was an outsider rather than a member of the Armagh succession with its Patrician claims, and may have suffered less from the lust to glorify Patrick at all costs.

Those boldfaced portions are parts that on Wikipedia would get "[citation needed]" tags. I'm not saying your suppositions are right or wrong; I have no idea. I'm saying that even while reading scholarship on a subject I'm not familiar with, when I see claims made, I want to know if the author has reason to make them or if he's pulling them out of his ass; without citations or being an authority on the subject myself, I have no way of knowing which. This is something that would be pounded into your head if you went to grad school and did this for your thesis.

Do you see what I am trying to say here? It is not "

fpb is an ignoramus and doesn't know what he's talking about." It's "

fpb makes assertions of fact and then flips out when people don't automatically defer to his claimed authority on the subject."

I posted all of the above as calmly and reasonably as I could, taking it on faith that you'd make an effort to read this without just blowing up at me. Please don't disappoint me.

Re: On scholarship and research

From:

fpb.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-04-02 09:22 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: On scholarship and research

From:

fpb.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-04-02 09:26 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: On scholarship and research

From:

inverarity.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-04-02 09:36 pm (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

Re: On scholarship and research

From:

inverarity.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-04-02 10:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: On scholarship and research

From:

fpb.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-04-02 10:46 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: On scholarship and research

From:

fpb.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-04-02 10:38 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/fabio/book1.1.htm
Here. This is a link to the first chapter. Go there for five minutes and look at the footnotes. ONLY at the footnotes.

From: (Anonymous)

I did not read the foot-notes. I read the text.

You start well. (paraphrase) "In my view, the common opinion about GILDAS' prophetic writings is wrong." An academic work needs a list of proven facts with citations and reasonable guesses and a grand theory that arranges those facts into a pretty pattern and a fudge-factor to explain any facts that don't fit. It is ESSENTIAL to discriminate, between facts and guesses. "In my view" is on page one, you forgot to discriminate in the chapter on Muirchiu versus the Patriarch of Armagh.

Para 2)"De excidio et conquestu", you propose that the "conquestu" was added on later after the Saxons did indeed conquer Britain. WTF??? Para #1 calls him "prophetic". St. Gildas ranted against the corruption of the British kings and called down the wrath of God upon them in the form of Barbarian Invaders.

Is St. Gildas a prophet or not? Make up your mind.

I read Excidio because I love Excalibur and Arthur and Mabinogi. That is a book that needs footnotes.
St. Gildas expected his audience to know the kings he was denouncing. That is, I tried to read it. Even with the foot-notes, I couldn't get the point. Gildas is in a bad mood. Is That It?

So, you've got an radical new theory that St. Gildas has a point. I read page one and got exhausted. Excidio just goes on and on. Your essay about Excidio just goes on and on. This is NOT a criticism of your scholarship, it is a crticism of your writing style.

I have read a million books about Arthur, but I got bored when they re-hash the same old stuff. You hook me with the radical new improved theory that St. Gildas has a point but then you drop the theme just like all the interesting themes in HP.

For the record, I am a graduate in Greek and Hebrew with a minor in Celtic languages.

Re: Rhemus de excidio

From:

fpb.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-04-03 12:06 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: Rhemus de excidio

From:

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-04-05 01:52 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

And let me tell you one thing by way of valediction: there is nothing polite about what you did here. You interfered in a short and - I hope - cool exchange between me and the blog host, bluntly challenged both my education and my knowledge of my own Church, and implied that sharing the bed of someone who had once been to Notre Dame gave you a right to do so. Well, I have news for you: neither education nor understanding are sexually transmitted conditions. And now I have had enough and call an end to this crap before

inverarity does so.

From:

I asked you a polite question in interest of understanding. I used the example of my friend who has an M. Div. and who I am not sleeping with. Yet again, you make assumptions that are not warranted on something (my sex life) which I am very happy to say you have no intimate knowledge.

I mentioned her because she has a similar educational background as you. Unlike with you, we can have an intelligent arguement without her or I hurling insults.

As for my right, anyone has the right to question the knowledge, motives and attitude of another. To imply otherwise is unreasonable.

I asked politely about your education and if it covered certain subjects. How you see that being impolite honestly makes no sense. I asked you a question, because you have brushed aside and ignored questions when I responded and brought the conversation into areas which, based off what I've seen here and previously on Fiction Ally, you've shown ignorance of. Note, this not complete ignorance but it is ignorance of areas like religion which you claim expertise in. Based off what I've seen you define religion as Catholicism and perhaps a little from the other branches Christianity.

You responded to my question with a question, which I politely answered even though part of my answer covered why I dislike you.

Then asked you again, politely, to answer my question and added one other. Again, no answer.

You here and otherwise have behaved in a manner more like that of a spoiled child who isn't getting his way rather than someone whose opinion is worth listening to and being respected.

For that you owe me and everyone on this blog an appology. But then again, that is my opinion. It's up to Inverarity whether they wish to demand one from you or I.

I will at least avoid interacting with you, perhaps the only thing we both can agree on.

BtW-- I have put your book on my 'to read' list. I'm very interested in what you have to say (I doubt anything) about how the how the Dendrochronology of the period indicates a cooling climate or how plague (probably the same one that was the plague of Justinian and spread through trade w/Byzantine Spain/N Africa) MAY have been a key factor in reducing British numbers from the 540's onward, thus reversing the outcome of Mons Badonicus around half century earlier and causing immigration of some survivors to what became Brittany.

If it says nothing of this or anything like it, I will have my opinion confirmed; that you ignore entire relevant sources of information out of ignorance or arrogance and rather than learning or having the Christian humility to admit your ignorance, you just hurl insults.

From: