Res Ipsa wrote:For the record: WD made a number of posts in the other thread attacking climate science. His excuse for wanting a do over in this thread was that in the heat of argument he trolls or plays the fool. He’s now refused the opportunity to identify which, if any, of his posts in the other thread constituted trolling or playing the fool. Keep that in mind when he tries to offer excuses for his previous posts on the subject.
For the record: RI seems to be a pathological liar, as demonstrated by this comment. I tried. He cannot muster enough good will to even be honest about what I've said in this short thread. I did not say any of the things that he is right here claiming I said. All he can do is continuously construct straw men that he then takes great sadistic pleasure in triumphantly knocking down.
I genuinely do not understand the thought processes that play into this sort of pathology. It's really weird. He really is like a Mormon apologist. Clutching his Nephite pearls. Some sort of deep seated insecurity drives his need to believe. But at the same time, he senses something is amiss. Lacking the character to confront this, he secures himself away in a safe space. That then leads to a neurotic need to always be right.
In that context of the Mormon analogy, what he's doing here is two things.
1) He wants to control the environment. He wants to debate things like Word Print Analysis and Hebraisms. Faith promoting pseudo intellectual rubbish that is daunting and seemingly advanced to the layperson, which they find persuasive and bias confirming, and is at the same time tedious and laborious for "deniers" to respond to. Because RI and the other apologists know I'm not an expert on Hebrew poetry. Who the “F” is? Even the "experts" aren't experts. That's not a rigorous, highly competitive field. And even if I am, it's such a mind numbing discussion, goes over most people's heads, and can be debated endlessly due to its subjective nature and my inability to prove a negative. By even engaging the discussion I actually legitimize this nonsense. It then becomes a contest of personalities. Hey look, a Yale PhD Egyptologist just went toe to toe with the denier. The whole thing is reduced to soundbites and the emotion accompanying rhetorical jabs.
2) Personal attacks. Ad hominem. Debate the person, not the subject. It's all bout me. He will do anything but discuss the subject. Whenever he can't debate the subject, he starts to debate me. Which also includes using epithets like "denier." Like the apologist's use of terms such as "critic" or "anti" or "doubter." These are subtle attempts to dehumanize or delegitimize his opposition. And which shows he is not taking the discussion seriously and never was.