Brian Hauglid has a meltdown

[_dartagnan]

Brent just posted and is about to decimate Will and Hauglid's position with his usual eloquence.

I almost feel sorry for those two.

[_Pokatator]

Why does it take two years to dust off the old microscope?

[_harmony]

" That's too bad. I can teach you nothing. So mite it be."

This comment I find extremely interesting.

Brian can teach Chris nothing? Does that mean that Brian is open to being taught by Chris? Why would Brian think Chris needs to be taught, but not the inverse?

Hubris? Arrogance? Again?

[_The Dude]

Sorry, I'm a biologist... I had to look it up.

Synonym for "irenic" = conciliatory.

??? How did Hauglid take this as insulting towards his scholarship? He must be extremely defensive.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Maybe they are both idiots?

No doubt.

How did Hauglid take this as insulting towards his scholarship? He must be extremely defensive.

I don't know why Hauglid read my post the way he did. I certainly intended to pay him a compliment rather than to offend. But in his defense, he's clearly not familiar with the venue or with me personally, and his past experiences with online discussion evidently all left a bad taste in his mouth. So maybe he merely saw in my posts what he expected to see. And, as a mark in his favor, he apologized. In my experience it's rare to get an apology from a FARMS apologist, despite their suggestive job title. So I'll take what I can get.

My best wishes to Brian in his continuing research on these important documents.

-Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

" That's too bad. I can teach you nothing. So mite it be."

This comment I find extremely interesting.

Brian can teach Chris nothing? Does that mean that Brian is open to being taught by Chris? Why would Brian think Chris needs to be taught, but not the inverse?

Hubris? Arrogance? Again?

While I was replying to Brian's post, he was editing it. The final redaction did not include the line about teaching me, and perhaps clarifies his intent:

I'm sure you know that the use of "irenic" as a general description of my last post (and what follows in your post) tells me you don't respect me, nor consider me to be a legitimate scholar. I'm sure that is because I'm LDS.

Therefore, you obviously don't think I can possibly shed any light on these mss. Ironically, this helps yours truly more than you'll ever know. But it's really too bad (for you). You're not as smart as you think you are. And you've disappointed me. So mite it be.

-Chris

[_Chap]

Hauglid posted:

I'm sure you know that the use of "irenic" as a general description of my last post (and what follows in your post) tells me you don't respect me, nor consider me to be a legitimate scholar. I'm sure that is because I'm LDS.

I have never, in quite a few decades of reading and writing academic prose, seen 'eirenic/irenic' used to mean anything but what is suggested by its derivation from the Greek word for 'peace' - i.e. 'concerned to promote peace or agreement, conciliatory'. It nearly always seems to be used as a compliment of sorts; at worst it is neutral. It functions as the opposite of 'polemic' (from Greek 'polemos', war) - which is more or less the way we usually post on this board.

I can't think of an eirenic way to characterise the understanding of language shown in Hauglid's reaction to CK's use of 'irenic'.

Leaving the language aside, we may note the passive-aggressive tactical move (which I have also seen used by Gee) of saying "The only reason you don't accept my conclusions is because I'm LDS". It's a defensive version of the old 'anti-Mormon' labelling tactic, and just about as devoid of intellectual value.

[_harmony]

While I was replying to Brian's post, he was editing it. The final redaction did not include the line about teaching me, and perhaps clarifies his intent:

I'm sure you know that the use of "irenic" as a general description of my last post (and what follows in your post) tells me you don't respect me, nor consider me to be a legitimate scholar. I'm sure that is because I'm LDS.

Therefore, you obviously don't think I can possibly shed any light on these mss. Ironically, this helps yours truly more than you'll ever know. But it's really too bad (for you). You're not as smart as you think you are. And you've disappointed me. So mite it be.

-Chris

Well, goodness, Chris, he thinks you're not as smart as you think you are? And he, of course, would be an expert on what you think of yourself? I wonder if Brian knows he's not as smart as he thinks he is? And why does it matter, in the context of the discussion, that you've disappointed him?

Why the use of "mite"?

Good grief.

[_Chap]

While I was replying to Brian's post, he was editing it. The final redaction did not include the line about teaching me, and perhaps clarifies his intent:

I'm sure you know that the use of "irenic" as a general description of my last post (and what follows in your post) tells me you don't respect me, nor consider me to be a legitimate scholar. I'm sure that is because I'm LDS.

Therefore, you obviously don't think I can possibly shed any light on these mss. Ironically, this helps yours truly more than you'll ever know. But it's really too bad (for you). You're not as smart as you think you are. And you've disappointed me. So mite it be.

-Chris

Well, goodness, Chris, he thinks you're not as smart as you think you are? And he, of course, would be an expert on what you think of yourself? I wonder if Brian knows he's not as smart as he thinks he is? And why does it matter, in the context of the discussion, that you've disappointed him?

Why the use of "mite"?

Good grief.

It's really "So mote it be".

See http://www.masonicworld.com/education/f ... _it_be.htm

Funny how LDS can never seem to get Masonic stuff right ...

[_TrashcanMan79]

(Irenic = "inferior scholarship" in your field of expertise? Really?)

I know. Who'd a thunk. I got that years ago by one of the most well respected scholars of Islam. He felt "irenic" scholarship in religious studies was too conciliatory and demonstrated an unwillingness to bring out the truth, warts and all. He has a point.

How or why he would have assumed Chris meant it this way still escapes me....