Quote:
Originally Posted by ardeegee
Yes, that is what I thought with the first post defending him-- then I looked at the other few posts and the correlation didn't look too obvious. But then with the second pro-freakazoid post at the same time as the three other probable sockpuppets, it made me wonder even more. And given that GUH is now showing as "suspended", it looks like mods found firm evidence of that. (Ooops, I see "suspended" is now "banned.")
|
I've never heard the term sockpuppet. Is that a general Internetism like "troll" or is it mobileread-specific?
I am glad the thread wasn't closed. I actually had just started reading that
other thread, which was pretty interesting until disaster struck. Glad the same fate didn't occur here!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
In your original reply, you spoke of the idea that certain books had a later date than scholars from earlier ages assigned to them and the idea that some books were not penned by the author whose name is affixed to them as "conspiracy-theory oriented stuff.
|
Thanks for your clarification. I won't add any more either, except a clarification of my own.
I had only intended to refer to Dan Brown's
demonstrably false ideas that dismissed the Christian doctrine wholly as a Catholic deception. And to me it became "conspiracy theory" when I saw those ideas being assimilated into popular culture as though they were truth, even though they were not just false, but easily proven as such with even the most cursory of research.
Scholarship like that of Ehrman, Metzger, Oxford Dictionaries, etc., are certainly not in such a category. (The Jesus Seminar... well... that's... um... ugh!)
-Pie