Tobin wrote:I think his claims are at best derivative or trivial and at worst blatantly false. For someone that is supposedly an expert in this area, I do not believe this is the kind of thing they would present.vessr wrote:1. Ludwigm “is completely unable to back up his claims.” Can you concede that he is not COMPLETELY unable to back up his claims?. Will you concede he has backed up at least some of his claims?Despite numerous posts by him, he was never forthcoming with the information I came across in a matter of minutes. I would think any analysis by an expert would have contained all the information in their opening post (or at least subsequent posts). Instead what we see are more bizarre and irrelevant assertions.vessr wrote:2. He did not know how “the translations were derived.” Will you concede that Ludwigm is ABLE (knows how) “the translations were derived”? Or are you holding out that he doesn’t know how?I don't believe he has any degrees in or any substantial understanding (outside of what a search of the internet might yield) of hebrew, latin or greek. I believe he really has no qualifications in this area at all.vessr wrote:3. He was “unaware of the underlying hebrew and what it meant as well.” Do you agree that Ludwigm has enough understanding about Hebrew to know what underlies it; or will you stick to the assertion that he is “unaware”? Do you concede that he is capable of knowing what the underlying Hebrew meant?As I said, as far as I'm aware he has no credentials in this area. And I do not believe Quasimodo has made such a claim.vessr wrote:4. [O]ne has to wonder about the credentials of such a noted authority that would make” the claims he has made.
Do you dismiss Ludwigm’s credentials as being enough to discuss your argument intelligently? Do you hold Quasimodo to the same standard of lacking credentials to back up Ludgwigm?I believe his reaction is very telling in this matter.vessr wrote:5. He “is fully aware of how bad this looks for him and that is exactly why he resorted to name calling in the end.” Are you convinced this discussion has made him look bad? Do you truly believe that he called you names because he was fully aware of how bad it looks for him?
I appreciate your specific responses,Tobin. I’d like to go down the rabbit hole with you a few more steps, if I may. It helps me sort things out.
You have called Ludwigm’s claims either "derivative" or "trivial" or "blatantly false". You acknowledge (apparently) that he may be an expert in this area (at least, you call him one who supposedly is an expert in this area); but you think he failed in his efforts. So:
Which of Ludgwigm’s claims do you suspect might be "derivative"?
Which of his claims would you call "trivial"?
Which specific claims do you suspect may be “blantantly false"?
Which of his claims were "bizarre"?
You alleged that Ludgwig was not "forthcoming." In what way was he not forthcoming?
You say that you came across information in a matter of minutes. Which of your claims are derivative?
Back to Ludwigm: Which of his assertions are “bizarre”?
Which of his claims are “irrelevant” (which I believe is a step above "trivial," which we've already covered above?
You claim that Ludwigm has no “substantial understanding (outside of what a search of the internet might yield) of hebrew, latin or greek. I believe he really has no qualifications in this area at all." So:
What are your qualifications regarding Hebrew, Latin, or Greek?
If Ludwigm has any “credentials” in this area of subject matter you are covering, would it help if he provided them to you?
You said you believe Ludwigm’s “reaction is very telling” regarding how bad this looks for him and that he called you names because he knew how bad it looked.
What specific evidence do you have of this? I.e., what is "very telling"? What makes him look especially "bad"?
Thanks, Tobin, for continuing to address my questions with specifics.