Well, it looks like me telling him when I think he';s wrong has scared old Pundy away again. If he happens to answer any of my questions in the "American Mathematics" thread that seems to have thrown him overboard, could someone post them here?
I guess I shouldn't have challenged his superiority and knowledge of history. I won't give all the gory details here, but anyone interested can check that thread out in his forum.
Basically he misquoted Franklin (like most people on the internet do). I asked him if it was a misquote or if he knew more about it than I do and he started dodging the issue with who cares who wrote it. When told "it must be you, since you mentioned it he hid behind the forced ignore again.
However, if anyone looks at my posting lately and thinks I really have been hammering Pundit 1) unwarrantedly, 2) and not anyone else, and/or 3) without also partaking in the other threads this site has to offer, please let me know.
The man admits to paranoia, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be right this time. :)
James has been at it yet again.. it seems to go in cycles with him. I don't know if they're menstrual, or tied to some kind of personal issue, but every couple of weeks he feels the need to start picking at my every word in some bizzare kind of deconstructionist alpha-male pissing-match.
Since he'd only gotten off the Forced ignore because he'd promised he'd control himself, and he clearly isn't capable of doing that (as I'd suspected), he's back on it.
And since he seemed so interested in it happening, he's also my pretty, pretty girl now.
RPGPundit
What's that? I can't see it. Care to come out from behind your curtain? :D
I see you've opted to finally play out your transgendered fantasies of me. Better watch out, your power trip is showing.
For a man that claims to have developed a wonderful self-policing internet utopia you seem to get awful upset at criticism and have stellarly failed to allow the group to police itself.
Considering that you're the ONLY fucking dude I've ever felt obliged to take sanctions against for stalking (though Its become borderline with Nox in regard to Jimbob; only since the latter hasn't asked me about it...), I would say that community policing is doing incredibly well. The fact that you're a hardcase that doesn't know when to let go and can't help but challenge the "alphamale" in some misguided manhood test or whatever the fuck you're doing, that's your issue.
And now you're a girl, the beta male's biggest fear.
RPGPundit
What's that? You're still hiding. If you want to tell someone something, it generally pays not to be whispering from around a corner.
Just please, somebody tell me he's not jacking off to thoughts of me as a little girl.
This is getting fucking boring. Pundit, perhaps trying to take criticism better would help. James, perhaps not dogging his footsteps everywhere would help you.
Too much "Pundit is wrong and a *insert expletive here*" and "no i speak the truth!" crap is moving from Pundits own sub-forum to other areas of the site. From my viewpoint i do think that some people are here largely to piss in Pundit's tea. On the other hand, perhaps he's reaping what he sows on his blog. Whatever, it's dull and repetitative. Maybe the Pundit's sub-forum should be the place for this kind of bitch-slapping?
That's where most of the recent stuff has occured. I'll point out that I'm not "dogging his steps" at least I don't think I am. I reply to pretty much everyone on this board, and I'm a hell of a lot ruder to people like Nox then I am of Pundit.
The problem as I see it with Pundit is that I don't just call him a fuckwad and move on. I actually tell him when and where he's wrong, and what his faults are. I point out when he says something that isn't true. Others who do the same thing don't get banned, blacklisted, hidden from, or whatever. Not because I'm evil, but because I piss him off the most (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=66138&postcount=26).
He says he wants a community policed site, but can't just ignore people that give him shit and let the community handle it because it lets the power slip out of his "but I really don't want it" hands.
That's just my take on things, but I think his behavior in similar situations in the past supports it.
Like i said, boring. Put your handbags away.
I admire Pundit's attempts to get discussions going in the main RPG forum. I think he works pretty hard to get things going here. He's let down by his need to rant, but hey, that's the persona he's chosen for himself. Some people take exception to it and endlessly take shots. He shoots back. Result is that decent threads are burried.
I like the potential of this place. I don't want it to be constant fights about the person who runs it...unless it's in his own forum. Fact is, i'm not entitled to anything here, but that's the way i'd prefer it.:)
I'd prefer it that way too. But there's always guys out there to get the top dog, either for ideological reasons, or just because they want to prove they're a big man.
RPGPundit
Huh? What?
Why not start your own thread rather than hiding in plain sight in mine? Unless you enjoy flaunting your power perhaps? :lol:
Yes, we get it. You're the great and powerful Oz, and you like men in dresses. Now move along, I'm trying to have a conversation with the people on this site that aren't afraid to be seen.
James, you made/scored points against the Pundit on that thread. You need not have dragged it on any further (although I admit, it is a fun thing to do). All this is really unnecessary.
Regards,
David R
So pundy puts james on a forced ignore list because james busts on him.
In turn I've asked for nme to be put on pundy's Il because I'm fucking sick of his busting on me.
I wonder if that'll happen.....
Quote from: James McMurrayThe problem as I see it with Pundit is that I don't just call him a fuckwad and move on.
Yes, it is a problem. It makes you a boring poster. Our job here is to entertain and inform one another. By ragging on every little posts of RPGPundit's, you're failing dismally in that aim.
I mean, you're not ragging on him
well. So he misquoted Franklin, who gives a shit? He quoted Franklin to say, "what this guy said, I believe, and that saying is relevant here." Whether it was a quote or misquote is irrelevant.
I mean, if I say, "It's good to roll dice and eat cheetos, as Gygax said," it doesn't really matter if Gygax said it or not. The point of discussion is whether it's good to roll to dice and eat cheetos. Whether it was me, you, Gygax or your Great Uncle Leo with the hairy earholes doesn't matter a damn. We're not discussing who said what, we're discussing whether what was said was good.
JimBob, Nisarg and James are travelling together in TheRPGSite Road Show, and have got their car stuck on the train tracks. James is driving. JimBob opens the car door, leans down and presses his hand to the track and feels a rumble.
JimBob: "Shit, there's a train coming!"
Nisarg: "Hey James, JimBob says there's a big train coming. We'd better get off the tracks. Rev the engine and go."
James: "No, JimBob didn't say that, he said,
shit, there's a train coming! That's completely different to what you said."
Nisarg: "Dude, whatever. Let's get off the tracks."
The train toots in the distance.
James: "I don't know why you always misquote these things. You really should be more accurate."
Nisarg: "Move the car, man! The fucking train is coming, I told you!"
toot! toot!"James: "Accuracy is important. Will you acknowledge that you misquoted JimBob? We can't move on until you do."
toot! rumblerumbleRUMBLERUMBLETOOOT!JimBob: "You guys are crazy. Move the fucking car, James!"
James: "It's important to quote properly, because -"
SLAM. The train takes up the car with the three.
It's important not to miss the fucking point, James. Time to wind your head in, contemplate for a while exactly what the fucking point is. I think we need a script to replace the "Submit Reply" button with, "Does this have anything to do with the fucking point?" Then there could be an "Are you sure?" pop-up, with the words, "Are you sure... you're not deliberately being a cocksmock?"
Don't be a cocksmock, James McMurray. Attack RPGPundit, sure - but stick to the point, and be relevant and interesting.
Quote from: RPGPunditConsidering that you're the ONLY fucking dude I've ever felt obliged to take sanctions against for stalking (though Its become borderline with Nox in regard to Jimbob; only since the latter hasn't asked me about it...)
It honestly never occurred to me. Dominus Nox popping up in threads to insult me only matters to me insofar as it might derail the thread. If everyone just ignores his crapping on the table and keeps chatting away, great! I only worry that it might turn an interesting discussion into a Nox vs Everyone flamefest.
In short, I don't mind being insulted, but I hate threadcrapping.
The thing he deserves to be bannzorzed for is threadcrapping, combined with vile racism. If he were an unbigoted guy who always posted interesting things on-topic, and at the same time took every opportunity to insult me, I would think him a fine and useful member of our little community. :D
QuoteI mean, you're not ragging on him well. So he misquoted Franklin, who gives a shit? He quoted Franklin to say, "what this guy said, I believe, and that saying is relevant here." Whether it was a quote or misquote is irrelevant.
That would be true, if his quote and the actual words meant the same thing. But when you quote somebody as agreeing with you, especially someone as respected as Franklin, you should probably make sure he actually agrees with you. Especially if you're proud of being a history scholar.
Sure, anyone else I probably would have just said "dude, this is what he really said" but it was a person with a Master's Degree in history, so I asked for a source, assuming that he knew more about the subject than I did. At that point he went off on a rant about how name dropping doesn't matter, despite having just done it.
QuoteI mean, if I say, "It's good to roll dice and eat cheetos, as Gygax said," it doesn't really matter if Gygax said it or not.
I'll have to disagree with you on that. If you drop someone's name to try and lend some credibility to your claim, you should be sure you're not full of shit, even accidentally.
QuoteWe're not discussing who said what, we're discussing whether what was said was good.
Had he taken the time to actually look the quote up, he'd have seen that I was in fact saying that what he said was
not good, at least not in the eyes of the historical figure whose weight he was throwing around. You're back and forth is mildly amusing, but immaterial, as it doesn't mirror the situation.
QuoteIf he were an unbigoted guy who always posted interesting things on-topic, and at the same time took every opportunity to insult me, I would think him a fine and useful member of our little community
So then if he were me? ;)
...and another thing, Pundit. I've always found the concept IL pretty lame. If you don't want to respond to someone...just don't. If James is going to derail the thread, either folks will find his points worth addressing or they won't. Or folks will start telling him, to shut the fuck up. Messy I know, but on the whole, James is not really a disruptive member of the community. So he's got a hard on for you. Big deal.
I mean either ban him - really dumb thing to do, considering he does contribute productively to the board - or you can just ignore him. I mean I doubt we will see any bannings any time soon. A certain poster here has set the bar pretty high...
Regards,
David R
He can't IL me. You see, despite saying he wants a site that's policed by the community, he won't IL me because it means he's no longer in the driver's seat as far as policing me is concerned. He's good at saying he doesn't want power, but very bad at actually giving it up.
He's even told me I was "intentionally trying to destabilze the forum." Can you really expect him to take his finger off the button when there's such insidious evil floating around, striving constantly to destroy his empire. :D
Besides, he's been daydreaming about me as a prety girl ever since the last time he flared up over my "persecution" (or is it called stalking this time around?). He finally found himself in a position where he felt justified in bringing that dream one step closer to reality. :lol:
Quote from: James McMurrayThat would be true, if his quote and the actual words meant the same thing. But when you quote somebody as agreeing with you, especially someone as respected as Franklin, you should probably make sure he actually agrees with you. Especially if you're proud of being a history scholar.
So this isn't about the substance of the argument, it's about whether or not he can make an argument from authority; "this famous guy said it, so it must be true!"
If you wish to engage in a logical debate, then the proper response to an argument from authority is not to challenge whether that authority actually said what's been quoted, but to challenge what was actually said. "I believe X, and this famous guy did, too!" Contend with X, because if you talk about the famous guy, then you're buying into the logical fallacy of argument from authority, that the guy's fame makes what he said more true than if he weren't famous.
The truth of things said are unrelated to who said them. That's why we call the "argument from authority" a "logical fallacy." That's fancy-talk for "bullshit."
Deal with people's
real argument, not the frilly bits they put around them to make them look pretty. If you deal with the frilly bits, if you take the logical fallacies as being actually true, well you may as well just give in and concede defeat. You're then saying that you can't argue with what they're actually saying, just how they're saying it. You're saying that you're too stupid to be able to challenge what they're actually saying. I don't believe you're that stupid, McMurray. You're just getting caught up in the frilly bits people put on their arguments to make them pretty.
Quote from: James McMurraySure, anyone else I probably would have just said "dude, this is what he really said" but it was a person with a Master's Degree in history, so I asked for a source, assuming that he knew more about the subject than I did.
So, what we have here is that you were doing the personal attack logical fallacy. You
knew that Pundit was talking bollocks when he misquoted Franklin, you were just hoping to catch him out in public to make him look bad. You were hoing to take him down a notch. "See, this guy says he has a master's in history, and look, he can't even quote people properly! Are you gonna listen to this guy?" But of course, his having a degree or not, his quoting correctly or not, have exactly fuck-all to do with the truth of what he says. You were adding your own frilly bits to make your own weak argument look pretty.
Quote from: James McMurrayAt that point he went off on a rant about how name dropping doesn't matter, despite having just done it.
That was your chance, then, to point out his logical fallacy of argument from authority. You could say, "So what Franklin said or didn't say doesn't matter. Right, then - what
you said was right/wrong because -" You had your chance to make actual logical points in that debate and discussion, and pissed it away on more logical fallacies of your own, more personal attacks.
Quote from: James McMurrayI'll have to disagree with you on that. If you drop someone's name to try and lend some credibility to your claim, you should be sure you're not full of shit, even accidentally.
Irrelevant. As I said, it's a logical fallacy, to argue that because some famous guy said something, it must be true. You should have pointed that out, then contended with the actual substance of the argument, if any. You were distracted by the frilly bits.
Quote from: JimBobOzIf he [Dominus Nox] were an unbigoted guy who always posted interesting things on-topic, and at the same time took every opportunity to insult me, I would think him a fine and useful member of our little community.
Quote from: James McMurraySo then if he were me? ;)
You don't appear to be at all bigoted, or you haven't shown it, which comes to the same thing in practical terms. However, you do not always post interesting things, mainly because they are not always on-topic. You're distracted from the actual point by your little war against RPGPundit. You're less interested in discussing things than in attacking RPGPundit.
QuoteIf you wish to engage in a logical debate, then the proper response to an argument from authority is not to challenge whether that authority actually said what's been quoted, but to challenge what was actually said.
I wasn't looking for a logical debate, I'll leave that for the philosophers who've popped up lately. I was merely calling bullshit.
QuoteSo, what we have here is that you were doing the personal attack logical fallacy.
Again, not looking for a logical debate. And how is "he has a master's degree, so I thought he might know more than me" a personal attack?
QuoteYou knew that Pundit was talking bollocks when he misquoted Franklin, you were just hoping to catch him out in public to make him look bad.
You're of course free to assign motives as you see fit, but that doesn't make them right. I was pretty sure he was wrong, but rather than flat out call him on it, I tried to defer to his greater education on the subject. Guess that's the last time I'll do that. It's way more trouble than it's worth. :)
QuoteThat was your chance, then, to point out his logical fallacy of argument from authority.
Again, welll.. nevermind. If you don't know what I was going to say by now, it doesn't really matter. :)
QuoteIrrelevant. As I said, it's a logical fallacy,
It'sa logical fallacy, but it gets used a lot because it works. I can dig in for another logic debate like on the atheism thread* and watch everyone's (mine included) eyes glaze over, or I can ask for a source and call bullshit when it doesn't arrive.
QuoteYou don't appear to be at all bigoted, or you haven't shown it, which comes to the same thing in practical terms. However, you do not always post interesting things, mainly because they are not always on-topic. You're distracted from the actual point by your little war against RPGPundit. You're less interested in discussing things than in attacking RPGPundit.
Winkies man! Watch for the winkies! ;)
* A thread in which I agreed completely with Pundit and said so, something your typical stalker doesn't do. But Pundit's view of posting histories are clouded by what he's seen that day. It's far from the first time we've agreed, or that I've answered his questions as helpfully as possible.
See, there's no hardon for Pundit, there's a hardon for fonts of bullshit. He and Nox fit that bill, and both of them get the repercussions of it in the responses to their posts (and not just from me). At least Nox handles it well, admitting that he's wrong and bulling forward anyway. Or giving back as much as he gets instead of lashing out in a power trip frenzy of combined retreat and assault.
Quote from: James McMurrayI wasn't looking for a logical debate [...] I was merely calling bullshit.
So you don't want to express yourself in a clear and logical fashion, or to actually have a point.
That explains a lot of your posts, and also explains why RPGPundit compares you to Dominus Nox; just madly ranting with aggression and no real point.
No thanks for your contributions. At least Nox makes us laugh sometimes.
Quote from: James McMurrayHe can't IL me. You see, despite saying he wants a site that's policed by the community, he won't IL me because it means he's no longer in the driver's seat as far as policing me is concerned. He's good at saying he doesn't want power, but very bad at actually giving it up.
Congrats you just proved Pundit correct. You are simply in a Alpha Male wankfest type arguement. Simply pushing buttons trying to get him to ban you or put you on ignore just so you can feel... special.
Quote from: JimBobOzSo you don't want to express yourself in a clear and logical fashion, or to actually have a point.
My point was that Franklin didn't say what Pundit thought he'd said. It was pretty clear.
QuoteCongrats you just proved Pundit correct. You are simply in a Alpha Male wankfest type arguement. Simply pushing buttons trying to get him to ban you or put you on ignore just so you can feel... special.
How does saying Pundit won't IL me equate to me wanting to be banned?
well, I'm glad a few of you here get it; that the constant thread derailment is the real issue here, and for no good reason other than a pissing contest.
I mean fuck, the Franklin thing is a perfect example. If his deal had somehow been relevant, if what I'd quoted was actually the OPPOSITE of what Franklin said, or James had something to add that would have changed the nature of the debate, but no, the whole thing was an excuse to force me to either waste my time responding to his absurd statements or try to ignore him and having him derail the thread further by making irrelevant attacks on my academic credentials.
RPGPundit
Who's Franklin?
Quote from: StumpydaveWho's Franklin?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Television_franklin_screenshot.jpg/285px-Television_franklin_screenshot.jpg.png)
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but can someone please explain in what way the
meaning (note emphasis) of these two sentences is different?
QuoteAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
QuoteThey that sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither
James, I am Pundit's friend but I will not hesitate to admit that sometimes he needs his nose tweaked. From where I sit you are way beyond that. Somehow you have managed to both bore the crap out of me with this AND creep me the hell out. I'd give you a shiny star for managing that seemingly impossible combination, but my friends will tell you that nearly half the internet creeps me out, so it may not be as big a feat as I imagine. Either way, I wish I could put you on my IL, but as an admin I'm not supposed to have an IL list.
Pundit, this "pretty, pretty girl" stuff is both misogynistic and petty. Please reconsider your action.
Given that "pack hierarchy" has now been clearly established, and James has received the appropriate psychological emasculation to drive his "beta male complex" up the wall, I suppose it doesn't matter if I change it back now or not.
RPGPundit
Well it matters to me. I worry about how female members in particular view your use of "pretty girl" as a slur. This joint already has a bit of the smell of the boys locker room about it, let's not dig ourselves in further in that regard.
Quote from: jrientsWell it matters to me. I worry about how female members in particular view your use of "pretty girl" as a slur. This joint already has a bit of the smell of the boys locker room about it, let's not dig ourselves in further in that regard.
I think that any sufficiently intelligent female member of the forum would understand that my choice of insult to James has to do with James' own obvious beta-male complex, the fact that he's clearly trying to attack me in some utterly misguided effort to "prove his manhood" or something; and that in turn for someone with this complex being made someone else's "bitch" is about the worst thing that could happen to them; and that it has nothing to do with inherent misogyny.
I mean hell, I like REAL "pretty girls". :p
RPGPundit
Quote from: jrientsWell it matters to me. I worry about how female members in particular view your use of "pretty girl" as a slur. This joint already has a bit of the smell of the boys locker room about it, let's not dig ourselves in further in that regard.
I very much concur. An argument can be made for the functional advantages of a forced ignore over a banning but this is purely abuse of administrative power to effect revenge...and done in a manner that is petty and unproductive.
Bill
Quote from: StumpydaveWho's Franklin?
Ben Franklin
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm probably going to regret asking this, but can someone please explain in what way the meaning (note emphasis) of these two sentences is different?
Nothing, but neither of those is what he said. The popular misquotes add "and lose both" to it, making a much more dire pronouncement than it was intended to be. You can see a scan of the actual book here (http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605).
Re the pissing contest superiority BS: I think my behavior (http://www.rpol.net/) at (http://forums.dumpshock.com/) other (http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18) boards (http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/) disproves (http://www.classicmarvel.com/phorum/list.php?3) that (http://highlandertcg.proboards81.com/index.cgi). You'll find no evidence of me duking it out with mods for leader of the pack status, nor evidence of me lording it over peons at those boards where I am a mod.
Pundit and I disagree on most things, but when I agree I tell him. Nox and I disagree on most things but when we agree I tell him. JimBobOz disagree on a lot of things, but when we agree I tell him. The difference is that Pundit and Nox take the stance of "fuck anyone that doesn't agree with me" and JimBob says "let's eat Cheetos and have fun." Those that act like caricatures have no room to complain when treated like one. Those that act respectfully to their peers command it in return.
sounds like someone has taken "Rules on Making Oneself Disagreeable" to heart...
Who? I certainly disagree with people, but generally not with the fervor, zealotry, and ascerbicism as Pundit. I suppose you could mean both of us, but I've never seen those rules so couldn't say.
Got a link? Sounds like interesting and amusing reading.
Quote from: James McMurrayYou can see a scan of the actual book here (http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605).
If we're really being snarky, that article doesn't contain a scan of the book, but (as the author admits) a version that as been digitially modified for typographical reasons
But seriously, I just can't figure out a rational reason for you posting what you did in the way you did it. Even a pedant like myself would have have only posted the correct version with a link and (maybe if I was feeling really pissy) as slightly sarky comment. Why did you set that trap?
I wanted to know if he had other sources. People (like Ben Franklin) have things they say frequently. Those things change over time as they get reworded or opinions change. It's quite possible that at a different time than the one I know about Franklin added the "and lose it" bit. It's hard to learn from people with more knowledge than you if you don't ask questions, and I know for a fact that Pundit is much more knowledgable than I am when it comes to history.
It wasn't a trap, it was a question posed to an educated man about his area of expertise. I did think he was probably just misquoting, but figured I'd defer to his degree and find out for sure.
Cobblers
You knew he'd got the quote wrong because you had that link to the guy who'd traced it back to the source
You also knew that it's a quote that even normally knowledgable sources get wrong (as that article shows)
IIRC Pundit's field is the history of religion, not the Revolutionary War. Maybe, just maybe, he'd know a bit more about Franklin as I believe that they are/were both Travelling Men
I'm afraid that this looks a lot like mod-baiting to me and you've got off lightly. If the Nutkins had still been in charge you'd have had all your posts stuck through the Swedish Chef filter, but they'd still appear normal to you
My understanding is that his knowledge base is in history, not religion. I could be wrong, but I believe he mentioned it early on in the atheism thread. I'd go look, but can't.
I had a link to a source. As I said, it's possible that Franklin said seperate similar things on multiple occassions. Also as I said to someone else earlier in the thread, you're free to assign motives how you want, but that doesn't make them true.
Quote from: James McMurrayWho? I certainly disagree with people, but generally not with the fervor, zealotry, and ascerbicism as Pundit. I suppose you could mean both of us, but I've never seen those rules so couldn't say.
Got a link? Sounds like interesting and amusing reading.
Actually, i mean it in jest, but it might apply to the both of you. ;)
Certainly didn't mean to offend, but it struck me as relevant. (and don't make me go dig up the other article regarding flatulence, hah!)
Here's the link: http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/yale?vol=4&page=073a (http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/yale?vol=4&page=073a)
(hit "I agree to the terms..." twice to get to the article.)
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIIRC Pundit's field is the history of religion, not the Revolutionary War. Maybe, just maybe, he'd know a bit more about Franklin as I believe that they are/were both Travelling Men
My specialty is religious history; my pre-graduate work was in History focusing on Tudor England, my post-graduate work was (in History) on Early Christianity, and later on (in Religious Studies), mysticism.
And yes, Franklin was one of the Masonic signers of the constitution. But there's a TON of famous masons, and while (as a historian in general) I might be slightly more educated about any given historical period than a typical person, it won't make me an expert on every aspect of history everywhere. I'm no more likely to know obscure historical references about the Revolutionary American period than a historian specializing in the Revolution is likely to know about obscure details of Roman Imperial history.
RPGPundit
What's that Pundy? At least have the courtesy to stay out of topics made by those you're hiding from.
Quote from: kregmosierHere's the link: http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/yale?vol=4&page=073a (http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/yale?vol=4&page=073a)
Well, I don't do number one. You'd be hard pressed to find very many accounts of my games, eductaion, knowledge, etc. here or anywhere else. I've found the quickest way to bore me is to ramble on about something you did, and try not to do that to others.
For number two, I do tend to be one of the types that quotes various sentences and respond to them. Don't know if that counts or not. I don't tend to attack grammar though, even though when I see someone use "loose" instead of "lose" I want to slap their teachers straight back to grade school.
Three I definitely don't do. I've even openly agreed with Pundit and Nox on occassion.
Four I have no control over. :)
I do dig this last sentence:
QuoteHe can please only where he is, you whereever you are not.
:)
Quote from: RPGPunditmy post-graduate work was (in History) on Early Christianity
Got any good book recommendations? Scholarly works are fine.
Quote from: droogGot any good book recommendations? Scholarly works are fine.
Book recommendations on what specific topic? Its a huge field of study.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditBook recommendations on what specific topic? Its a huge field of study.
The early Middle Ages in Europe and the Near East is my major interest. If that's still too broad, the process of syncretism as Christianity spread.
Quote from: droogThe early Middle Ages in Europe and the Near East is my major interest. If that's still too broad, the process of syncretism as Christianity spread.
This is, again, a bit beyond my own historical period of interest (when I say "Early Christianity" I mean the origins of christianity, from the 1st-4th century A.D.), but one book I might recommend would be "The Holy Greyhound", by Jeanclaude Schmitt.
RPGPundit
Thank you. I'll look out for it.