29-03-2014, 11:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 29-03-2014, 11:57 AM by Mitchell Severson.)
I'm glad Greg Parker is posting here at DPF as I think his posts here and back at the EF have value. That's more than I can say for mine and those of 9/10 people at these types of forums. New research, new arguments and more posts are good things.
However, the responses to his posts are highlighting one of the reasons I rarely post here: it seems that you are considered less than a full member (or human being) if you disagree with either the wound alteration hypothesis or the Harvey and Lee hypothesis. To many observers, that would appear immature and counterproductive. There seemed to be pre-existing bad blood between Mr. Parker and the two most vocal supporters of Mr. Armstrong's book and I take that into consideration. But, I'm seeing pretty much the same reaction to him that I've seen to those of us that are not willing to sign on to the Lifton/Horne school of thought as well. If there are people that disagree with you, convince them. If someone cannot be convinced, just leave their posts unanswered.
And, if you really think it's more than a matter of disagreeing parties, that there is an ulterior motive, I'm sure the moderators can deal with that. Accusing someone like a Parker or Speer of something untoward, merely for doing their own research and their own thinking is a surefire way for the critical community to self-destruct.
I'm not interested in that happening.
However, the responses to his posts are highlighting one of the reasons I rarely post here: it seems that you are considered less than a full member (or human being) if you disagree with either the wound alteration hypothesis or the Harvey and Lee hypothesis. To many observers, that would appear immature and counterproductive. There seemed to be pre-existing bad blood between Mr. Parker and the two most vocal supporters of Mr. Armstrong's book and I take that into consideration. But, I'm seeing pretty much the same reaction to him that I've seen to those of us that are not willing to sign on to the Lifton/Horne school of thought as well. If there are people that disagree with you, convince them. If someone cannot be convinced, just leave their posts unanswered.
And, if you really think it's more than a matter of disagreeing parties, that there is an ulterior motive, I'm sure the moderators can deal with that. Accusing someone like a Parker or Speer of something untoward, merely for doing their own research and their own thinking is a surefire way for the critical community to self-destruct.
I'm not interested in that happening.