03-12-2011, 06:33 PM
That's your word, Charles, not mine. It may fit. You would know. Someone with your dispositions is not going to bother to read Phil Nelson's book or listen to his interviews with me because his (your) mind is already made up. I can see it and I am sure everyone else here can see it. So stop indulging in straw men and other fallacies and admit that you have no business engaging in this exchange because you not only have not read Phil's book but Madeleine's, Billy Sol's, or Barr McClellen's as well. You have admitted as much already. That you are trying to bluster and bully your way around the block is not impressing me or anyone else, I imagine. The idea that you have "boxed me in" is incredible beyond belief and shows the extreme degree of unreality about your role in this exchange. I am sorry, Charles, but I am quite certain I am not the only one who is appalled by your performance in this case.
Charles Drago Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Charles,
I know where you are coming from, given our past exchanges, but what in the world do you mean by "arguments from authority" as you use it here?
The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.
You know I HAVE read the books that you take glee in acknowledging you have NOT read. Which means that the evidence I have available to assess the situation is far more extensive than yours. In that sense, yes, I have greater epistemic authority than do you, where I find it embarrassing that you go on and on about all this WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THEIR BOOKS.
History repeats itself.
Backed into a corner, you now call me a liar.
Of course you're wrong. And you know it.
So it goes, so it goes.