Standard Egyptology, A Sequel

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

No.  This is not true entirely.  The distinction here is very important, but very subtle.  As I said, apologetics can include scientific things as information that it draws upon, but not the other way around.  Therefore, there is only one direction where one can inform the other.

You are right that when Royal Skousen as an example engaged in textual criticism, divorced from religious concerns, as an example, he was doing something scientific.  Because he divorced himself from all outside concerns when he was focused on that.

Its the same distinction that Intelligent Design Science is nothing of the sort.  It is Evangelical, young earth creationism in sciency clothing.  It violates the cardinal rule of science.  No matter how you slice it, when you pollute science with outside concerns, what you have is no longer science, but a pollution.  Therefore, if you claim it is science, you engage in pseudoscience.  With the appropriate disclaimers you can engage in whatever kind of "sciency" research you want that is not pure science, so long as you don't call it science, and you don't claim it is something that it is not.

For example, James E. Faulconer, a professor of philosophy at BYU wrote:

Then in the end note for this statement, Professor Faulconer writes:

So, this “impoverished” region of life is abstracted away from the rest of life, in order to focus in on what is important for that pursuit.  It is impoverished in the sense that it whittles things down to the bare minimum using reductionism.  It is non-theistic, instead of being either theistic or atheistic.  And in this sense, it is not an enemy to religion at all, but a parallel pursuit that discovers truth in a different way with a different set of rules, and has limitations on what it can discover based on how much its rules allow for, and in what scope those rules apply. 

Donald R. Prothero, a paleontologist, wrote the following, essentially putting for the same concept:

So, just as intelligent design young earth creationism is not a valid scientific pursuit, neither is apologetics, when they are called "science."  The information only flows one way, from science to apologetics.  You cannot mix God and science and call it science.  When you mix God and science, or any religious concern, it has become something else.  Something else valid yes, but not science.  Unfortunately, those that oppose apologists (who are atheists) only deal in the secular and in science.  This is the realm that we cannot meet them when we do apologetics.  Because to them, it is an invalid pursuit, or at least one that they do not acknowledge.  But to us, in our realm who are believers, it is a valid pursuit.  But we can't expect our adversaries to agree with us.  They just say, "its not science and its not scientific."  Unfortunately for us, they are right, and our realm of apologetics cannot invade in that realm.  But for us, it is valid, because we accept it.  They do not.  But we are wrong if we think it is somehow "scientific."  Its not, and cannot be by definition.

You make some good points in here but only with an incomplete understanding of what science is, I think.  So your comments beg the question, I think, of what science is, exactly.

I consider science to be anything learned by utilizing the scientific method of discovery, and I use the word CHEERS to remind me of what the scientific method of discovery involves:

C - Choose an idea and/or problem to research.
H - Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.
E - Experiment to test hypotheses.
E - Examine results of the experiment(s).
R - Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.
S - Share what has been learned.

CHEERS !

So I can see how I can use the scientific method of discovery to find out things about God or things that I can learn from God and my own observations in the process, even if you choose to not call it science.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

You have the ability to play fair if you want, Robert.  You have not.  You can have charity as a fellow Latter-day saint if you want, or you can continue to play whatever game this is that you think you need to try to invalidate everything I have to say at all costs.  You will pay for that in the end.  God as my witness.  Because to the degree that you have opposed me, if you have engaged in being part of the Great and Abominable where you have opposed me, if my errand was from God as part of my life mission, not as part of some calling as if I have some commission from the Church or something, but to the degree that the Lord had something for me to accomplish, and you stood in the way, and you refused to lend your support, you will pay for that, and there will be a reckoning.

O.K., Ed.  I am prepared to accept my fate for being wrong on all this, if indeed I am wrong.  The main problem is that you are setting yourself up as the final arbiter of that judgment, and uncharitably slamming anyone who says that your comments are out of line or in error.  Like some others, you are unwilling to agree to disagree -- while citing appropriate sources and considering more than one POV.

What I would like to know is who is this "establishment" you keep talking about?  As in "the establishment do not share your opinion of me.  They are the ones that gave me this badge.  They are the ones that deliberately exclude me."  And what is this "badge"?  Is it a badge of courage or something like a Scarlett Letter?  Why are you letting others define you?  You claim all these critical opinions are wrong anyhow.  So why do you take them seriously?  Does it really matter?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, EdGoble said:

I am absolutely not complaining about this board in general, as I have generally been treated fairly by the mods on this board.  I intend to figure out how to better abide by the rules of this board so I don't get shut down in the future.

I don't intend to name names anymore.  And I don't think you want me to mention the specific other organization that has actively censored me and worked against me in a secret-combination-ish way, which happened in the 2008-2011 time frame when I was a part of that organization.  I'll just leave that alone and not name names anymore.  But it is that organization that I refer to, but I didn't want to get into that.

I totally get not naming names and think it is wise in a forum where those in charge of that organization would likely not see your posts.  And it is great that you feel this board's moderators have treated you fairly.  It is nice to have a place to speak.

But what then is the purpose of your post if the organization you had problems with is not identified or likely to ever see it since people won't be able to pass on the post since they won't know who it is directed at?  I am still confused.

If I chastised a neighbour without naming them at a family reunion the neighbour did not attend, it might make me feel good to vent, but it wouldn't change their behaviour at all.  Your post is written from the way I read it that you want behavioural change.  I may be reading it wrong, of course.  Iow, I am confused about the purpose of your post given you have posted it here.  Are you posting here on principle because you aren't allowed to post it elsewhere or is there another reason?

edit:  so many typos today

Edited July 10, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

......................................................

So, just as intelligent design young earth creationism is not a valid scientific pursuit, neither is apologetics, when they are called "science."  The information only flows one way, from science to apologetics.  You cannot mix God and science and call it science.  When you mix God and science, or any religious concern, it has become something else.  Something else valid yes, but not science.  Unfortunately, those that oppose apologists (who are atheists) only deal in the secular and in science.  This is the realm that we cannot meet them when we do apologetics.  Because to them, it is an invalid pursuit, or at least one that they do not acknowledge.  But to us, in our realm who are believers, it is a valid pursuit.  But we can't expect our adversaries to agree with us.  They just say, "its not science and its not scientific."  Unfortunately for us, they are right, and our realm of apologetics cannot invade in that realm.  But for us, it is valid, because we accept it.  They do not.  But we are wrong if we think it is somehow "scientific."  Its not, and cannot be by definition.

That is utter nonsense, Ed.  Any so-called "apologist " can fully utilize science, but science has rules, and he must play by those rules.  No special pleading.  Science is both about methods as well as about research results (on both the micro and macro level).  Scientists theorize, and often do so via equations which sum up and codify what is known of natural law.  They come up with laws, such as  the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Modern technology uses scientific laws to create devices which can in turn be used to measure and further refine scientific observations.  A self-corrective process.  Science is in no sense an enemy of religion.  It is in a different category of thought.  But religious claims can be tested by the scientific method, whether they be claims about history, creation, the nature of life, or claims internal to holy books, such as the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Book of Abraham.

[EdGoble]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I totally get not naming names and think it is wise in a forum where those in charge of that organization would likely not see your posts.  And it is great that you feel this board's moderators have treated you fairly.  It is nice to have a place to speak.

But what then is the purpose of your post if the organization you had problems with is not identified or likely to ever see it since people won't be able to pass on the post since they won't know who it is directed at?  I am still confused.

If I chastised a neighbour without naming them at a family reunion the neighbour did not attend, it might make me feel good to vent, but it wouldn't change their behaviour at all.  Your post is written from the way I read it that you want behavioural change.  I may be reading it wrong, of course.  Iow, I am confused about the purpose of your post given you have posted it here.  Are you posting here on principle because you aren't allowed to post it elsewhere or is there another reason?

edit:  so many typos today

There will be no change in behavior.  I have to live with this.

[EdGoble]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

O.K., Ed.  I am prepared to accept my fate for being wrong on all this, if indeed I am wrong.  The main problem is that you are setting yourself up as the final arbiter of that judgment, and uncharitably slamming anyone who says that your comments are out of line or in error.  Like some others, you are unwilling to agree to disagree -- while citing appropriate sources and considering more than one POV.

What I would like to know is who is this "establishment" you keep talking about?  As in "the establishment do not share your opinion of me.  They are the ones that gave me this badge.  They are the ones that deliberately exclude me."  And what is this "badge"?  Is it a badge of courage or something like a Scarlett Letter?  Why are you letting others define you?  You claim all these critical opinions are wrong anyhow.  So why do you take them seriously?  Does it really matter?

Final arbiter.  Not really.  And this is not so much about you "agreeing" or even that you think I am in error.  This is indeed about fairness that you keep bringing up that you say life is supposed to not be full of.  Well, that is a matter of your choice, whether you personally choose to be fair.  Because you have not adequately examined my points of view to know what it is that you think you are against.  You don't understand what you claim to be against.  That is a matter of fairness, to adequately represent the facts about that which you claim to be against, even if you are against it.  Therefore I don't care that you are against it if you are.  But you don't know what you are against.  Otherwise, you would be fair about it.  This is about people unfairly poisoning the well about things that they do not even understand, or try to understand.

You want me to name names.  ...
EDIT......

I named them, and then decided to change it.  Sorry no.  I won't.  Even though you in your rhetoric would make it seem that this is a paranoid conspiracy theory..

The fact that I have stood up and had courage to make myself heard in spite of you all.  Yes.

No, others don't define me, but they have defined what others think of me.  And I have no control over that.  But if the deck is stacked against me, and people continue to poison the well against me with factual lies, then they have done this and I have no control.  I just am the receiver of that.

Of course it doesn't matter to you.  You are accepted.  You are welcomed.  You are not persona non grata.  You don't have a set of people actively acting against you behind the scenes to destroy what you are trying to accomplish.  Of course it doesn't matter to you.  You are not the person in question that it would matter to, and you don't care about me or my interests, and you have no compassion for me, or what I do, or what I am trying to accomplish anyway.

Edited July 11, 2018 by EdGoble

[EdGoble]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is utter nonsense, Ed.  Any so-called "apologist " can fully utilize science, but science has rules, and he must play by those rules.  No special pleading.  Science is both about methods as well as about research results (on both the micro and macro level).  Scientists theorize, and often do so via equations which sum up and codify what is known of natural law.  They come up with laws, such as  the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Modern technology uses scientific laws to create devices which can in turn be used to measure and further refine scientific observations.  A self-corrective process.  Science is in no sense an enemy of religion.  It is in a different category of thought.  But religious claims can be tested by the scientific method, whether they be claims about history, creation, the nature of life, or claims internal to holy books, such as the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Book of Abraham.

You clearly do not have a handle on anything that I said.  You didn't even read what I wrote.  Again.  You are just spouting off.  You once again only THINK that you disagree with what I said.  If you really read carefully enough what I wrote and its supporting quotes, you wouldn't disagree with it.

No kidding.  Any so called apologist can fully utilize science, but science has its rules, and he must play by its rules.  Therefore, when anyone that is a scientist does science, he must play by its rules.   Therefore, as I said, they are scientists WHEN they do science. If you read AT ALL what I just wrote, you would realize that you just basically restated what I said.  But then you deliberately respond as if there was something wrong and that you are responding with a rebuttal.  When in truth, all you did was restate what I said as if it wasn't what I said.  Really Robert?

Of course religious claims can be scientifically tested.  But religion cannot be mixed with science and be called science.

Edited July 11, 2018 by EdGoble

[EdGoble]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

You make some good points in here but only with an incomplete understanding of what science is, I think.  So your comments beg the question, I think, of what science is, exactly.

I consider science to be anything learned by utilizing the scientific method of discovery, and I use the word CHEERS to remind me of what the scientific method of discovery involves:

C - Choose an idea and/or problem to research.
H - Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.
E - Experiment to test hypotheses.
E - Examine results of the experiment(s).
R - Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.
S - Share what has been learned.

CHEERS !

So I can see how I can use the scientific method of discovery to find out things about God or things that I can learn from God and my own observations in the process, even if you choose to not call it science.

No, actually my post was only about the importance of the philosophical separation between science and other realms.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

No, actually my post was only about the importance of the philosophical separation between science and other realms.

Which post of your posts are you talking about now?  I see very little if any importance in keeping any separation between the scientific method of discovery and whatever anyone wants to learn about.

[EdGoble]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Which post of your posts are you talking about now?  I see very little if any importance in keeping any separation between the scientific method of discovery and whatever anyone wants to learn about.

It's ok.  My participation on this thread is over now, and this is now another thing that has no continued value or productivity.  I said what I wanted to say.  You are welcome to study my words out carefully if you are interested in knowing my point of view.

I never said that the scientific method could not be used outside science in other realms.  I just mean that pure science as practiced by scientists is pure research in that domain that cannot be mixed with religion.

Edited July 11, 2018 by EdGoble

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

It's ok.  My participation on this thread is over now, and this is now another thing that has no continued value or productivity.  I said what I wanted to say.  You are welcome to study my words out carefully if you are interested in knowing my point of view.

I never said that the scientific method could not be used outside science in other realms.  I just mean that pure science as practiced by scientists is pure research in that domain that cannot be mixed with religion.

Oh, I think I know what you meant now.  And I think that was a good point.  It can be good to avoid subjective preferences and beliefs while in search of the objective reality so that your subjective views don't get in the way.  I do that in religion, too, when trying to keep my mind open to all of the possibilities that I may not even be aware of.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

You clearly do not have a handle on anything that I said.  You didn't even read what I wrote.  Again.  You are just spouting off.  You once again only THINK that you disagree with what I said.  If you really read carefully enough what I wrote and its supporting quotes, you wouldn't disagree with it.

No kidding.  Any so called apologist can fully utilize science, but science has its rules, and he must play by its rules.  Therefore, when anyone that is a scientist does science, he must play by its rules.   Therefore, as I said, they are scientists WHEN they do science. If you read AT ALL what I just wrote, you would realize that you just basically restated what I said.  But then you deliberately respond as if there was something wrong and that you are responding with a rebuttal.  When in truth, all you did was restate what I said as if it wasn't what I said.  Really Robert?

Of course religious claims can be scientifically tested.  But religion cannot be mixed with science and be called science.

False.  I quoted your own statements for you, and then explained the correct relationship of science and religion.  You are unreflective and seem to have learned nothing.  Here again are your false statements:

Quote

intelligent design young earth creationism is not a valid scientific pursuit, neither is apologetics, when they are called "science. 
information only flows one way, from science to apologetics.  You cannot mix God and science and call it science.
This is the realm that we cannot meet them when we do apologetics
we can't expect our adversaries to agree with us.  They just say, "its not science and its not scientific."  Unfortunately for us, they are right, and our realm of apologetics cannot invade in that realm. 
we are wrong if we think it is somehow "scientific."  Its not, and cannot be by definition.

 

[RevTestament]

On 7/10/2018 at 9:58 AM, EdGoble said:

On a previous thread I stated something, but here I will edit it down and add to it so as to not point fingers, since I get shut down every time I lrightfully call people out by name for their questionable statements:

Then another poster replied

Not at all.  LDS scholars are not scientists when they engage in apologetics.  They are only scientists when they do science.

I went on to say:

Then, a certain poster went on to say:

And my response is, no, I'm the one that is continually censored when I get shut down for calling people out for their hypocrisy and their pot calling the kettle black, when they are not engaging in science, but they are engaging in a religious effort with religious underpinnings that are not science.

The point of the original OP in the original thread was, I get sick of high and mighty people in the LDS Academia that are not engaging in science, but engage in a Pseudo-scientific scientism in their Apologetics, as if they are the only ones that can engage in research, to the exclusion of all other apologetic research.  They are apologists when they engage in apologetics.  I for one make disclaimers that my Apologetics is not science.  They act as if their apologetics is scientific, and therefore, their apologetics is pseudoscientific, because not only are they trying to put me down by claiming that only they are scientific, but they in fact are claiming that their apologetics is science, which it is not.  I at least claim that my apologetics is not scientific.  But I can quote Egyptologists like anybody else.  And I get sick of the people that think they own the world in the Apologetics Establishment.  You people do not own the world, and you are not scientists when you engage in apologetics, just like a prophet is not a prophet when he does not speak by the Holy Ghost.

I am the one whose points of view are only represented on my own sites, not on regular apologetic sites.  I am the one that was censored when I tried to get my information up on other sites, or begging certain organizations to have my view represented.  Sorry.  There is only one person here that has been on the receiving end of censorship by the apologetic BigScholar world.  Don't try to lecture me about censorship.

I was hoping to find more about Egyptology in this thread Ed, but just found additional argument. Just for the record, I did find your ideas interesting although I have not found anything yet to make me really believe your ideas. They were still thought provoking and may have some truth to them. You never did respond to my last post that I recall. You are posting here to introduce your ideas I thought, but you don't seem open to any feedback. I hope you do not take offense, but you seem overly sensitive to scholarly or scientific criticism. If you post here, you should expect criticism. This place provides a good opportunity to test your hypotheses against some good minds, and even gain suggestions. Hopefully, you can accept criticism here with a more friendly mindset, and realize that not everyone is going to agree with your ideas. But, I will grant you - they are original. We are not out to get you just because we don't agree.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

...............................

You want me to name names.  ...
EDIT......

I named them, and then decided to change it.  Sorry no.  I won't.  Even though you in your rhetoric would make it seem that this is a paranoid conspiracy theory..

I didn't ask you to name names.  You might just as well have suggested a professorial conspiracy at LDS Universities, perhaps in CES, or other areas.  Perhaps a conspiracy of LDS Egyptologists, or Hebraists, or ancient Near Eastern scholars.  Perhaps it is a conspiratorial group in the Church Office Bldg, or at Deseret Book.  You used the word "establishment," but haven't fleshed that out at all, and I doubt that there is such a cohesive group which opposes you.  Certainly there is nothing cohesive about the various bloggers on this board.  Aren't you really speaking about a phantom group?  Fully imaginary.

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

The fact that I have stood up and had courage to make myself heard in spite of you all.  Yes.

No, others don't define me, but they have defined what others think of me.  And I have no control over that.  But if the deck is stacked against me, and people continue to poison the well against me with factual lies, then they have done this and I have no control.  I just am the receiver of that.

Of course it doesn't matter to you.  You are accepted.  You are welcomed.  You are not persona non grata.  You don't have a set of people actively acting against you behind the scenes to destroy what you are trying to accomplish.  Of course it doesn't matter to you.  You are not the person in question that it would matter to, and you don't care about me or my interests, and you have no compassion for me, or what I do, or what I am trying to accomplish anyway.

Aside from the false description of me, doesn't it get old claiming  that there is a set of people behind the scenes actively working against you?  Enough with the paranoia, Ed.  Your time would be better spent discussing something substantive.

[EdGoble]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I didn't ask you to name names.  You might just as well have suggested a professorial conspiracy at LDS Universities, perhaps in CES, or other areas.  Perhaps a conspiracy of LDS Egyptologists, or Hebraists, or ancient Near Eastern scholars.  Perhaps it is a conspiratorial group in the Church Office Bldg, or at Deseret Book.  You used the word "establishment," but haven't fleshed that out at all, and I doubt that there is such a cohesive group which opposes you.  Certainly there is nothing cohesive about the various bloggers on this board.  Aren't you really speaking about a phantom group?  Fully imaginary.

Aside from the false description of me, doesn't it get old claiming  that there is a set of people behind the scenes actively working against you?  Enough with the paranoia, Ed.  Your time would be better spent discussing something substantive.

I see that you persist.   Well, I owe you nothing.

Edited July 11, 2018 by EdGoble

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Final arbiter.  Not really.  And this is not so much about you "agreeing" or even that you think I am in error.  This is indeed about fairness that you keep bringing up that you say life is supposed to not be full of.  Well, that is a matter of your choice, whether you personally choose to be fair.  Because you have not adequately examined my points of view to know what it is that you think you are against.  You don't understand what you claim to be against.  That is a matter of fairness, to adequately represent the facts about that which you claim to be against, even if you are against it.  Therefore I don't care that you are against it if you are.  But you don't know what you are against.  Otherwise, you would be fair about it.  This is about people unfairly poisoning the well about things that they do not even understand, or try to understand.

You want me to name names.  ...
EDIT......

I named them, and then decided to change it.  Sorry no.  I won't.  Even though you in your rhetoric would make it seem that this is a paranoid conspiracy theory..

The fact that I have stood up and had courage to make myself heard in spite of you all.  Yes.

No, others don't define me, but they have defined what others think of me.  And I have no control over that.  But if the deck is stacked against me, and people continue to poison the well against me with factual lies, then they have done this and I have no control.  I just am the receiver of that.

Of course it doesn't matter to you.  You are accepted.  You are welcomed.  You are not persona non grata.  You don't have a set of people actively acting against you behind the scenes to destroy what you are trying to accomplish.  Of course it doesn't matter to you.  You are not the person in question that it would matter to, and you don't care about me or my interests, and you have no compassion for me, or what I do, or what I am trying to accomplish anyway.

Wow!  So much of this reminds me of what I think a lot of people on this board this about me and what I have said while I have posted here!  I am SOOOOOOOO misunderstood. And a lot of people who post here do not like me.  And yet I keep coming back to post here.

Oh well.  I've kinda gotten used to it now, and I think maybe this is the way that things have to be here.   Can you imagine if everybody liked me, though?  That would be fantastic!  I often dream of being liked as much as the Nehor, and Calm, and Robert F. Smith.

Ah, but I dream very big dream, sometimes.  Time to come back to reality now.

 

[EdGoble]

51 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I was hoping to find more about Egyptology in this thread Ed, but just found additional argument. Just for the record, I did find your ideas interesting although I have not found anything yet to make me really believe your ideas. They were still thought provoking and may have some truth to them. You never did respond to my last post that I recall. You are posting here to introduce your ideas I thought, but you don't seem open to any feedback. I hope you do not take offense, but you seem overly sensitive to scholarly or scientific criticism. If you post here, you should expect criticism. This place provides a good opportunity to test your hypotheses against some good minds, and even gain suggestions. Hopefully, you can accept criticism here with a more friendly mindset, and realize that not everyone is going to agree with your ideas. But, I will grant you - they are original. We are not out to get you just because we don't agree.

Those at the heart of both FAIRMormon and Mormon Interpreter that ARE combined against me are not always the same people as those that post on this board.  So sorry, you are not personally acquainted with the history I have with these people.  Of course you would not be able to relate with the circumstances where people WERE actually combined against me.  You were not a part of those controversies.  You did not live through them on the receiving end.  I did.  Same with you, Mr. Smith.  You are not my Brother in Jesus Christ. Mr. Smith, and you are not acquainted with what I suffered.  And I leave you to have to answer to him for what you have done.

This place does not provide any good opportunity for anything except more of the same.  More vacuous criticisms that aren't worth anything.

Farewell, that is, if I can discipline myself to stay away from here as I should.

Edited July 11, 2018 by EdGoble

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

None of you gave me any kind of substantial feedback.  Sorry.  Criticisms of "Ed Goble doesn't know what he's talking about.  He can make no coherent argument" a la Mr. Robert Smith is not substantial feedback.  None of you have challenged even the most basic assertions in a meaningful way.

Those at the heart of both FAIRMormon and Mormon Interpreter that ARE combined against me are not always the same people as those that post on this board.  So sorry, you are not personally acquainted with the history I have with these people.  Of course you would not be able to relate.

This place does not provide any good opportunity for anything except more of the same.

I suggest that you start over, again, without getting defensive, personally,  when people here do not immediately accept your ideas.  When people don't agree they sometimes will throw in a personal jab and it's best to just ignore that personal jab while responding to the substance of their objection, or just letting it be if you don't see much of a chance at convincing them of your assertions. Very few people here or anywhere else will instantaneously jump on your bandwagon when you make an assertion, even when your assertion is backed up by what appears to you to be clear evidence in your favor.  It usually takes at least a little time for people to absorb an idea that is new to them and seems to go against what they already believe.  So  you have to be patient while maintaining confidence in what you know when you know  you know what is true.  After all, you probably don't just instantaneously accept what  other people tell you, either, and it probably took you a while for you to learn what you know now.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Ahab

[EdGoble]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I suggest that you start over, again, without getting defensive, personally,  when people here do not immediately accept your ideas.  When people don't agree they sometimes will throw in a personal jab and it's best to just ignore that personal jab while responding to the substance of their objection, or just letting it be if you don't see much of a chance at convincing them of your assertions. Very few people here or anywhere else will instantaneously jump on your bandwagon when you make an assertion, even when our assertion is backed up by what appears to  you to be clear evidence in your favor.  It usually takes at least a little time for people to absorb an idea that is new to them and seems to go against what they already believe.  So  you have to be patient while maintaining confidence in what you know when you know  you know what is true.  After all, you probably don't just instantaneously accept what  other people tell you, either, and it probably took you a while for you to learn what you know now.

I'm sorry, but its too late for any of that.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, EdGoble said:

I'm sorry, but its too late for any of that.

Goodbye, then.  Arevaderche!  Have fun elsewhere wherever you go!