Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Markk]

LOL...Sounds like something DCP would say. Like I said get off the porch and deal with the reality of the subject and not the process.

Roughly 10% of that sounds slightly DCPish. Your inability to tell the difference shows you are behaving like an idiot. Start using your brain; then you might not feel the need to tell anyone to "get off the porch."

Kish,

You can end this by actually showing how Nibley was not successful? My assertion is that basically he had a good run... that he was a very popular to his target audience, he supported his family and sent then through school, his children as far as I know are successful, I assume he was tenured and drew a decent salary and retirement...?

So far the only close to objective evidence I have seen while he was not successful is that he drove a old car and lived in a modest home?

[_Markk]

edit

[_Markk]

Interesting, I ask you for support for the assertions you are making, and your answer is:

1. Google his name.

Here I will do it for you ,the first of many book reviews

Paula Bothwell rated it liked it
Hugh Nibley is a genius. I am not a genius. It took me forever to read this book, not because it was boring, but because half of the time I was not even familiar with what he was writing about. I think it is a good reference book to have.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5399 ... _of_Mormon
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/399199.Hugh_Nibley
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3992 ... on=service
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3992 ... on=service

With little effort Lemmie you can spend hours finding support to my assertion that he was very popular to his audience (rock star).

You can find equal criticize which is a testament in its self that he was successful...when critics read your work consistently...it says a lot.

Show me now equally... how he was not successful.


_

[_Blixa]

Kish,

You can end this by actually showing how Nibley was not successful? My assertion is that basically he had a good run... that he was a very popular to his target audience, he supported his family and sent then through school, his children as far as I know are successful, I assume he was tenured and drew a decent salary and retirement...?

So far the only close to objective evidence I have seen while he was not successful is that he drove a old car and lived in a modest home?

Well, for one thing BYU does not have tenure. It is not exactly the same as a secular university. Nibley like any other professor at BYU was not protected by tenure.

This is only one example of how you are talking about things you really don't know about. Several people here with actual academic and scholarly careers and expertise have tried to explain to you how Nibley's work can be evaluated. And you only keep responding with the same assertions.

Good grief.

[_Blixa]

Interesting, I ask you for support for the assertions you are making, and your answer is:

1. Google his name.

Here I will do it for you ,the first of many book reviews

Paula Bothwell rated it liked it
Hugh Nibley is a genius. I am not a genius. It took me forever to read this book, not because it was boring, but because half of the time I was not even familiar with what he was writing about. I think it is a good reference book to have.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5399 ... _of_Mormon
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/399199.Hugh_Nibley
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3992 ... on=service
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3992 ... on=service

With little effort Lemmie you can spend hours finding support to my assertion that he was very popular to his audience (rock star).

You can find equal criticize which is a testament in its self that he was successful...when critics read your work consistently...it says a lot.

Show me now equally... how he was not successful.


_

This is not an example of being a successful scholar, Markk.

I don't know what else to tell you.

Also this bit of "common sense" is not true either: "You can find equal criticize which is a testament in its self that he was successful...when critics read your work consistently...it says a lot. "

Being the target of criticism does not "say a lot" about the worth or value of a person's work. And if by "critics" you mean contemporary scholars of antiquity, well no. They aren't commenting on Nibley at all. His work is only under discussion in the tiny world of people interested in Mormonism.

[_Markk]

This is not an example of being a successful scholar, Markk.

I don't know what else to tell you.

Also this bit of "common sense" is not true either: "You can find equal criticize which is a testament in its self that he was successful...when critics read your work consistently...it says a lot. "

Being the target of criticism does not "say a lot" about the worth or value of a person's work. And if by "critics" you mean contemporary scholars of antiquity, well no. They aren't commenting on Nibley at all. His work is only under discussion in the tiny world of people interested in Mormonism.

I have show objectively that he was successful to his audience, in fact very successful...all you have offered is subjective conjecture.

Being the target of criticism does not "say a lot" about the worth or value of a person's work. And if by "critics" you mean contemporary scholars of antiquity, well no. They aren't commenting on Nibley at all. His work is only under discussion in the tiny world of people interested in Mormonism.

What it shows is that your work is getting out...it is printed, believed, criticized, quoted, etc. It is a evidence of the success. I agree it is not a bench mark of the work, in regards to accuracy and truth...but it is in regards to his work on a personal level and too his audience.

His work is only under discussion in the tiny world of people interested in Mormonism.

Which was his audience and which whom a was very successful and made a respectful living in doing what he apparently loved.

I'll ask you the same question I asked others, where and what is the line in being a successful scholar? What is the opposite of being successful Blix? failure? In your mind was Nibley a failure? Or maybe you are saying that he did not meet his potential of what you believe he should or could, have been?

[_Markk]

Kish,

You can end this by actually showing how Nibley was not successful? My assertion is that basically he had a good run... that he was a very popular to his target audience, he supported his family and sent then through school, his children as far as I know are successful, I assume he was tenured and drew a decent salary and retirement...?

So far the only close to objective evidence I have seen while he was not successful is that he drove a old car and lived in a modest home?

Well, for one thing BYU does not have tenure. It is not exactly the same as a secular university. Nibley like any other professor at BYU was not protected by tenure.

This is only one example of how you are talking about things you really don't know about. Several people here with actual academic and scholarly careers and expertise have tried to explain to you how Nibley's work can be evaluated. And you only keep responding with the same assertions.

Good grief.

LOL, if he was not successful, how did he keep his job? I stand corrected on his having tenure.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish,

You can end this by actually showing how Nibley was not successful? My assertion is that basically he had a good run... that he was a very popular to his target audience, he supported his family and sent then through school, his children as far as I know are successful, I assume he was tenured and drew a decent salary and retirement...?

So far the only close to objective evidence I have seen while he was not successful is that he drove a old car and lived in a modest home?

Well, we can keep tweaking the definition of successful (moving the goalposts) until practically anyone's performance is deemed successful. Draws breath? Check. Has pulse? Good.

You asked people who are in the same profession Nibley practiced. You got your answer. No, we do not deem him a successful academic. But, of course, you are free to continue to be as thick-skulled and obtuse as you like.

[_Markk]

Well, we can keep tweaking the definition of successful (moving the goalposts) until practically anyone's performance is deemed successful. Draws breath? Check. Has pulse? Good.

You asked people who are in the same profession Nibley practiced. You got your answer. No, we do not deem him a successful academic. But, of course, you are free to continue to be as thick-skulled and obtuse as you like.

LOL...that was about 98% DCPish? "Draws breath? Check. Has pulse? Good. " Gotta love it:)

What I asked is for folks to show me how he was not successful...objectively?

He was a patriot. He was a professor at BYU for how many years? How many books did he write, and how many are still available? He was a favorite on the LDS "speaking circuit." And he carries a legacy today.

How is that a failure Kish?

What is the benchmark for success in being a scholar?

[_Bret Ripley]

Bret,

I am not arguing Mormonism being a small community. So what...that is like saying BY or other prominent LDS folks are less than successful because Mormonism is a small community. Is Brokovoy a failure, or Vogel, what about uncle Dale? I guess what you are saying there is no success in any investment into Mormonism.

What is your benchmark of success...money, fame, power...a legacy? Was Vincent van Gogh successful? He could have been a house painter and actually made a living painting?

Where is the line in scholarship when someone is successful and when they are not?

If you can put away the adhom's and answer the real question I would appreciate it.

I believe Nibley was a hack, but very successful, he made a pretty good living doing so and was very well respected by his target audience.

Prove me wrong?

How about a nice game of chess?