Here's why Andries is irritating
Re: Hi, Andries -- Neville B	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: Jim ® 02/21/2005, 21:54:38 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

1.  He is a slave to NRM scholarship.  Everything he says or thinks has to be funnelled through this scholar or that.  As I said to him, he continually trots out these scholars' observations regardless of how trite, stale or one-sided they are as if they somehow frame the debate.  He simply places them on a very undeserved pedestal.  Further, he's avoided the pith and substance of any of the strong criticisms any of us have made of these guys.  If he's forced by either his own research or argument to concede weakness or even deception on their part, he minimizes it.  2.  He has a very hard time accepting anything we say as if, despite his protests otherwise, he's bought into the cult apologist myth about untrustworthy "apostates".  How many times have any of us explained ad nauseum that Rawat most definitely taught that he was the only one?  Yet today Andries reads that one Boston Globe interview and says that it turns out we were right after all.  Wow, that's a relief.  If Andries wants to play the part of the concerned outsider / fact-checker, no problem.  I've always welcomed that kind of attention.  I just wish he'd be a little faster on the uptake, if you know what I mean.  3.  He tends to minimize the force of our claims and he does so under some general and unassailably vague notion that he's above our "black and white" thinking.  Thus he sits there in judgement of us, reluctant to really hash things out, but with a decidedly superior air as if he's viewing things more fairly.  Like I say, I not only don't mind that sort of challenge I even kind of enjoy it at times but only if the person's really open, flexibile and sharp.  Andries doesn't present that way.  It's a long, slow haul with him and, seeing as he's constantly getting it wrong somehow, the dialogue gets irritating.  Besides that, I'm sure he means well.  But this constant Herr Doctor Professor This and Herr Doctor Professor That is just plain tiresome.  And I really don't know why Andries bothers.  Do you? Modified by Jim at Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 21:55:34

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

You call it irritating; I call it useful --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 06:03:46 ) ( 1745 bytes ) +4 Re: You call it irritating; I call it useful --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 07:44:09 ) ( 6204 bytes ) +2 Well if you put it that way --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:05:05 ) ( 433 bytes ) Re: Very little of what you write about me is true --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:30:34 ) ( 1389 bytes ) +1 Re: Very little of what you write about me is true (amended) --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 09:26:07 ) ( 2252 bytes ) +1 Re: (OT) Cynthia and others, could you please sign the petition? --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 10:15:11 ) ( 159 bytes ) +2 You've got it Andries. --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 11:25:29 ) ( 523 bytes ) Done! (no text) --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 12:06:13 ) ( 0 bytes ) You call it useful; I call it useless --- Jonathan ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:39:37 ) ( 1206 bytes ) +1 Re:Untrue and unfair --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:41:58 ) ( 188 bytes ) +1 Schnabelism. Are You A Schnabelist? lol --- Jonathan ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:50:15 ) ( 380 bytes ) What the hell is this "black and white thinking"? --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 11:45:02 ) ( 4458 bytes ) +1 Re: What the hell is this "black and white thinking"? - A visual a... --- cq ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 12:48:59 ) ( 365 bytes ) file img shades of grey or fuzzy thinking? --- lesley ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:17:45 ) ( 1286 bytes ) +2 Black and white or just too lazy for complexity? --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:32:23 ) ( 266 bytes ) +2 Again, what is the "B&W thinking" we should be avoiding?! --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:50:57 ) ( 435 bytes ) +1 What a difference two inverted commas make --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:38:22 ) ( 820 bytes ) +3 why not? --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:47:25 ) ( 73 bytes ) Re: What a difference two inverted commas make --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:54:07 ) ( 1430 bytes ) +1 Hang on a minute, Cynthia --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 18:29:31 ) ( 933 bytes ) +1 Re: Hang on a minute, Cynthia (edited with correction) --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 20:02:26 ) ( 4967 bytes ) +3 Thank You Cynthia! --- Hilltop ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 23:12:37 ) ( 1103 bytes ) +1 Re: The reason is that I am in the middle of a propaganda war --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:07:42 ) ( 1202 bytes ) +1 Re: The reason is that I am in the middle of a propaganda war (OT) (Edited) --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:38:42 ) ( 6258 bytes ) A couple of points, Cynthia --- Neville B ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 04:05:52 ) ( 780 bytes ) +2 Re: Andries' agenda, see my post to Hilltop (NT) --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:28:10 ) ( 0 bytes ) link Re: A couple of points, Cynthia --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:56:38 ) ( 75 bytes ) Excellent Reply, Cynthia! ANDRIES, PLEASE READ IT! (nt) --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:59:35 ) ( 13 bytes ) +2 Re: (OT) I NEVER wrote or suggested that I have a PhD + forum guidelines --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:30:24 ) ( 456 bytes ) Jonathan...(OT) --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 07:31:57 ) ( 304 bytes ) +1 Cynthia...(OT) --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 09:05:54 ) ( 82 bytes ) Here's what happened re Geaves --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:55:04 ) ( 2281 bytes ) are you equating black and white with simplistic thinking? --- lesley ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 14:28:27 ) ( 590 bytes ) +1 Re: are you equating black and white with simplistic thinking? --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:07:43 ) ( 360 bytes ) +2 Come on, Andries is full of s**t! This post here proves it! --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:25:40 ) ( 1313 bytes ) +2 Re: Come on, Andries is full of s**t! This post here proves it! --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:32:42 ) ( 743 bytes ) +4 No, you're wrong, clueless and evasive to boot --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:38:50 ) ( 996 bytes ) +1 Re: No, you're wrong, clueless and evasive to boot --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:26:46 ) ( 384 bytes ) Responding to your additonal text now --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:30:27 ) ( 1529 bytes ) +1 "So enough with the insults already". --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:38:52 ) ( 22 bytes ) I agree with you about half --- Joe ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:47:22 ) ( 2100 bytes ) Your Tautologies are Incorrect --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 17:05:43 ) ( 1381 bytes ) You might disagree with Andries, but why insult him? --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:36:31 ) ( 111 bytes ) +1 Good question. I've been wondering the same (no text) --- Neville B ( Sun, Feb 27, 2005, 03:59:10 ) ( 0 bytes ) "right to exercise freedom of religion" --- Bunny ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 17:19:30 ) ( 1036 bytes ) you mean one judgement fits all circumstances? --- cq ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 03:14:37 ) ( 487 bytes ) +1 You're not getting it, Chris --- Jim ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 10:48:35 ) ( 151 bytes ) +2 Thank you Jim --- lesley ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 14:15:48 ) ( 450 bytes ) +1 you didn't answer the question. --- cq ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 13:14:40 ) ( 680 bytes ) +1 I did not answer because --- lesley ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 15:43:47 ) ( 2683 bytes ) +1 Thanks for trying to explain, Lesley --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:33:17 ) ( 544 bytes ) Getting what, Jim? Your attempt to obfuscate speaks volumes --- cq ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 13:32:03 ) ( 619 bytes ) +1 Oh yeah, Chris, you got me good! Great eye there, fella! LOL! --- Jim ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 14:21:49 ) ( 403 bytes ) +1 I'm confused? So give us that practical example then! (no text) --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 07:51:11 ) ( 0 bytes )