Atlantis Online
November 24, 2020, 04:07:00 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: 'Europe's oldest city' found in Cadiz
http://mathaba.net/rss/?x=566660
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Worst theories & books on Atlantis


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Worst theories & books on Atlantis  (Read 1335 times)
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #105 on: March 13, 2008, 10:36:11 pm »

 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-06-2004 04:20 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aatlae,
I've been posting to this forum for nearly two years now. I used to be one of those people that fundamentally believed in Atlantis. I haven't dismissed their theories and beliefs in a sarcastic way. I have limited myself to answering their responses and pointing out the use of false logic and erroneous conclusions, etc., when I have encountered them. Sarcasm was used in response to sarcasm.

If arrogance is my worst failing, then I'll live with that.

By the way, LOVE your signature! There's nothing like a little free advertising, eh?  Wink

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #106 on: March 13, 2008, 10:36:35 pm »

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-06-2004 04:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick you used to accuse Maria and Georgeo of being long winded and rude. Go back and read your own ramblings. At lest Georgeos made sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #107 on: March 13, 2008, 10:37:12 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-06-2004 05:28 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
Rude, yes; I think we all got a taste of that. Long? I don't recall ever complaining about the length of her postings, although I do recall others complaining about it. Mostly, I recall others complaining about her bad English.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go back and read your own ramblings. At lest Georgeos made sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's wrong, Brig? Are you having difficulty following along?  Wink

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #108 on: March 13, 2008, 10:38:03 pm »

Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-06-2004 09:36 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
I thought I made it clear to you with your last posting actually, where your deficiencies lie in terms of the material, in which areas you needed to improve, and gave you most honest suggestions about how to do so. Still, you persist with this dull, faulty logic. This exercise is getting most tiresome, I feel something like a school teacher trying to explain Plato to a child. I've noticed, even if others are still discovering it, that the more you write, the less you say. Once again, If you really have spent two years at this forum, I can well imagine they were years that you spent frequently spouting your long-winded opinions, while barely paying any attention to what the others were saying at all.

Concerning your point about what was or was not the 'first' paragraph:

"Please take a little more time and read through my postings more carefully in the future, so that silly misunderstandings such as this can be avoided."

Had you not even brought such a silly topic up in the first place, perhaps there would have been no need for any misunderstanding, imagined or not. I see that you spent almost a quarter of your post to this one single point, so I'll save the readers here some time and simply take it that it's important to you. Another simple apology on your apart to me that you had committed yet another error would have sufficed but I see that this was something that the monstrous ego could not manage on this occasion.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to deal with this first point again save that I seem to be dealing with an especially slow or stubborn mind:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should unintentionally I have said anything be set right..."

Spoken "truly" and acceptably by him, just "retribution" if he "errs." I honestly don't know how a man of his time could have done a better job of making a point of this that he believes to portray the material as true. Perhaps the point was not made to your satisfaction, but I doubt that it would pass by many others. Hmm, perhaps you should investigate time travel, if only so that you could go back in time to offer your services as an editor to Plato, Erick.

quote:

"Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?"

Consult the first half of the Critias, dullard, and discover it for yourself, it should be plain to everyone but you.

my quote

Incidentally, the discussion of the day before you'll remember, was not simply about the gods but also, albeit briefly, of the war between Athens and Atlantis.

your quote:

"As I have already elaborated upon, the short discussion in Timaeus took place earlier the same day as the longer, more protracted discussion. Please consult the books."

I suggest that you consult the books. As usual, overgeneralizing to suit your purposes.

my quote:

"I think part of your problem with the interpretation is that you are working from a faulty copy."

You are. I've counted at least three inconsistencies from your version as opposed to the more accepted versions by Lee or Jowett. If you can't find passages, this pivotal to your understanding of the story, isn't it time you got a different copy? I'm merely trying to help you, Erick.

your quote:

"the accounts of that which is copied after the likeness of that Model, and is itself a likeness, will be analogous thereto and possess likelihood; for as Being is to Becoming, so is Truth to Belief...”

"So, Plato was able to justify using the word “true” in regards to Atlantis because the story was a likeness of Socrates’ model (the polity discussed the day before)

I'll let this quote speak for itself as only a man grasping at straws to begin with would make this type of comment. I cannot believe what a long-winded rationale this had to become for you to make something even vaguely resembling a "point."

Concerning Mr. Gill:

"Really? Just what material of Mr. Gill’s have you ever read and what about it caused to have such a low opinion of him?"

The material I have read of Mr. Gill's is in association with his opinion on Atlantis. Like your opinion, it is flawed. Mr. Gill is no more qualified to speak on Atlantis as, it appears, are you.

your quote:

"The simple fact of the matter is that you’ve probably never even heard of Christopher Gill; your low opinion of him probably comes from the mere fact that he has stated a position contrary to your own."

Again, the tactics of the boor make themself known. You have things confused, Erick, my low opinion of you happens to be evolving from the fact that you have a position contrary to my own, backed up by ill logic, faulty conclusions, sloppy research, and rude behavior. At the moment, I am unconcerned with Mr. Gill's opinion.

my quote:

There is certainly some truth in Timaeus being cosmological in nature…

Your next quote:

"Are you kidding me here? Sweet Moses, smell the roses! The Timaeus contains 64 sections (a full 318 paragraphs) dedicated to nothing but Timaeus’ cosmological treatises! Please, for goodness sakes, do us all a favor and pick up the book and read it!"

Be saracastic all you wish here, you petty little man. The fact remains of what I have said before: you have only a generic understanding of Plato at best, commentators like Gill have "told" you what to think of it, then you take only what you need to from it to support your crude research, then have the nerve to present it as "truth."

Anyone reading our little discourse here is invited to read the dialogues for themselves, and then see who speaks with truth.

Then again, I forget, you're working from the "Bury" dialogues...

your quote:

"Do you seriously consider a city with a Bronze Age description existing in a Neolithic time period to be a very “real” setting? "

This is the only interesting point I have seen you raise in the whole of your postings. As it happens, one of the reasons I entered this forum was to investigate something like this. I would not deem to investigate it with you, though, who's mind seemed to be closed to such possibilities even before you entered the forum. I see the words coming from you and yet I have heard them all before, there is very little original thinking in you, Erick. You're like a puppet, you open a standared college textbook and it tells you just what to say.

my quote about your response:

"Nothing to do with the "cosmological nature of Timaeus", of course, by the time anyone had finished reading your response, they would have conveniently forgotten that there was a quote in the first place."

Your response:

"Not if they are paying attention to what’s being said while they’re reading it."

Skirted the first time, skirted a second time just as clumsily. Yes, so far you've made your arguments so clearly, ignore what you can't explain, use long-winded, covulted verbiage to try and "attack" the others.

I feel like I am being flogged with a wet sock here. Most irritating, hardly harmful. Aren't there any more potent weapons at your command..?

In the interest of brevity, and so as not to bore the others reading this, I'll list your next replies in more quick succession:

"No, not at all."

About the Atlantean engineering works and my comment that you were reaching a bit to support your "conclusions":

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"Actually, Helios, what I said was “Your perception that ‘(my) interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in order to prove (my) point’ is exactly that – nothing but your perception.” You did not provide any evidence to support your contention that my interpretation was “reaching” in order to prove my point."

Why should I have had to? What evidence did you supply to support such an inane conclusion? I ask anyone to read the quote again. Only yourself, or a friend of yours would subscribe to such a disconnected hypothesis.

Then, of course, we have your silly little list:

"unbelievable, implausible, improbable, etc."

Don't condescend to speak to me in that manner, I suspect you thought you were being "clever." Actually, that speaks more of your stupidity, rudeness and lack of any social graces. Mere desperate "reaching" to make a point. If you have to resort to such mindless, impolite ways in order to prove your failed "points", I suggest that you should go back to your drawing board. I suppose that if Plato used the word "wonderful" as opposed to "incredible" we would then have a list now of all the many meanings of the word, "wonderful," correct..? I gave that passage of yours all the attention that it deserved, am astonished that we are still discussing it now, as I am even this debate we are having, as it is plain, with each new thing that you say, just how little knowledge you have of this material.

Concerning your boorish behavior, please don't tell me that you wish for me to now cut and paste all the many derisions, insults, and snide comments you have made during the course of this discussion, not merely to myself but to others. Any remarks I made in reply are simply responses to you in a like, and, I think more civil. The tone of these messages was created by you, I remind you.

When you found someone who you found was better acquainted with the material, who was able to prove you wrong repeatedly on several key points, you became defensive,responded, in turn, as a child might, with your bad behavior. As I said before, perhaps you are used to behaving in this forum, but I shudder to think of you in an academic setting (should that situation even occur).

Regarding the theory of "plausible deniability" as you put it, and an "escape clause," again, I suggest you bring this theory up to your professors as a possible motive for the Greeks in their culture.

Your next quotes:

"Helios, you can’t make the statement that “you can refute my research at its core” and then when invited to do so, simply disincline to look at it. Again, either “put up or shut up.”

I believe I am seeing some of your "research" now and giving you my opinion on it. You're such a vain, foolish man (vain with little reason, I might add) that I doubt that you would take criticism, the truth, if it was staring you in the face. You seem more interested in being "right" then in discovering the "truth." A most poor presentation of a man.

My next quote:

"I would suggest that you get other copies of the dialogues as it is also plain that that, not to mention your lack of understanding on several key points on the copies you do have, is a great part of the problem.

your next quote:

" I assume you are trying to blame my copy of the text again here, but who can tell since you didn’t finish a single thought."

I take it when you say that I didn't "finish a single thought" that I didn't drone on in incomprehensible paragraphs, complete with dictionary explanations, saracasm and long-winded opinions intending to confuse others by saying that Plato meant "this" or Plato meant "that." Opinions, that's all you have ever given to support your theories. And yours seem to be getting ever more shrill, the last resort of a desperate man, a man, struggling now, even to convince himself he is correct.

Your quoting of my prior comments of you needs to be repeated, if only so that you can listen to them again and perhaps gain a better comprehension of them this time:

“I suppose anyone who disagrees with you would be the subject to this same boorish treatment.”

“Your own lack of understanding of Plato amounts to that of a Neandertal trying to grope with astronomy.”

“When you can't prove a point to your satisfaction, you seem to get frustrated like a child and resort to insults: the natural first reaction of a lazy mind.” (Note: I would love to see you try to provide evidence of this!)
Of this, I suggest you see your reactions to any of your responses to each of my points in your last three posts.

“I can just see you, Erick, little arms flailing away, ever so desperate to make your points.”

“If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.”

“Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults.”

“Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.”

I stand behind each of these original points, for it is plain that they still apply. You, sir, are a poor scientist, a crude debator, and, by all appearances, a most sloppy researcher. I still trust I have shown, again, even to you now, that your work is quite sloppy, it's conclusions, most suspect and premature, the work of poorly educated opinions. Again, I suggest a return to the original material for it is plain that you have little or no grasp ot it. This time, try to find the essential truth of it, rather than only delving into it to take what you need to from it. I can't help you if you won't help yourself.

As for the quote you leave as your signature:

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

I would venture, that, by all appearances and from your poor performance here, you are fast in danger of falling into that latter category. Please become more acquainted with the material by the time we speak again.

Warmest greetings,
Helios


[This message has been edited by Helios (edited 07-06-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2008, 10:39:19 pm »

Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 07-07-2004 04:52 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
you wrote
"your quote:
"Do you seriously consider a city with a Bronze Age description existing in a Neolithic time period to be a very real setting? "

This is the only interesting point I have seen you raise in the whole of your postings. As it happens, one of the reasons I entered this forum was to investigate something like this. "

I have run across something that might prove interesting in this regard, .

"The widespread use of metals was a feature of this era of the early industrial and trading cities. You have already found a bronze culture in Turkestan dating before 9000 B.C., and the Andites early learned to work in iron, gold, and copper, as well. But conditions were very different away from the more advanced centers of civilization. There were no distinct periods, such as the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages; all three existed at the same time in different localities."
http://mercy.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper81.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper81.html&line=81#mfs



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003 
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #110 on: March 13, 2008, 10:39:40 pm »

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-07-2004 06:40 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if I proposed that Erick has indeed found Atlantis? In the mind of Plato.
Looking at all these post, I can only say that Ericks reseach seems to be several orders of magnitude higher than the usual search for the location of said city.

With the Critias and Timaeus, it seems that Plato has deliberately created a very ingenious puzzle for people to find themselves. Not Atlantis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #111 on: March 13, 2008, 10:40:12 pm »

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 07-07-2004 08:05 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre, just a personal observation here, maybe your friendship with Erick is making you want to to defend him a little more than you should..? I don't see any witch-hunt going on here, just an honest disagreement, and Erick himself said about the forum:
"It’s a place where you can go and discuss your research and/or theories, express your opinions, etc, with other people who will sometimes agree and, yes, sometimes even disagree. Why? Do you feel that every person here should agree on everything?"

By the way, I hope you guys all realize the irony that this is all being discussed under the topic title:

"Worst Theories/books on Atlantis."

Gee, thanks for sticking to the topic people! Or is Erick's theory really all that bad..?

------------------
"What a revoltin' development this is."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #112 on: March 13, 2008, 10:40:48 pm »

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-07-2004 01:27 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most certainly Psycho, whatever you say.  Smiley
Oh Erick, perhaps a good title could be:

"Tales of Children".

From a bad translation:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #113 on: March 13, 2008, 10:41:32 pm »

 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 05:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho,
I think that the title of the thread is perfect for Helios' theory that Plato wishes us all to accept the story as the God's honest truth. My theory is not getting discussed, so I am not offended by the title of the thread.

It is certainly possible that Andre's friendship with me might be unduly influencing his opinion, thereby causing him to defend me a little more vigorously than he should...but is it probable that he would allow such to do so? Also, you must remember, Andre is also a science-minded individual and he has read my article and therefore seen all of the evidence.

While it is true that the forum is a place where people can disagree, there also comes a point when a person must bow to another person's argument in the face of overwhelming evidence and an inability to overcome their opposition's arguments. Helios refuses to do so, and yet, he also refuses to provide any substantive arguments and/or evidence to support his position. Helios could have long ago just said "I cannot prove it right now, but I respectfully disagree with you on those issues. He could have taken any number of routes other than the path he has chosen. He has made the accusations, suppositions, and contentions, and now he must defend them.

The results of my research are "unpopular" here in this forum; I can understand that; but that does not give Helios, or any other individual to resort to name-calling, attacks of a personal nature, and unsubstantiated claims or statements. Helios is just as answerable as the rest of us for his/her actions. Quite frankly, I am surprised (and a little saddened) that a Moderator has not yet warned Helios about his/her behavior and reminded him/her of the Forum's rules. If the Moderators and Administrator are not more attentive to that sort of thing in the future, they will find that yet another valued member of this Forum will have been lost to them, and that I will have gone the way of Andre, NileQueen, DaffyDuck, and Georgeos. Once gone, I will disavow any association with this Forum and its members.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #114 on: March 13, 2008, 10:42:41 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 05:23 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
Constructive argumentation (i.e., debate) can be a fun and useful tool when approached in a responsible manner and with the suitable demeanor. Your demeanor, however, has been neither responsible nor suitable.

To date, you have referred to me as:

1. a boor; boorish
2. a dullard
3. a puppet
4. a most poor presentation of a man
5. petty
6. little
7. sarcastic
8. snide
9. condescending
10. a most rude man
11. a poor scientist
12. a crude debater
13. a most sloppy researcher
14. poorly educated
15. derisive
16. long-winded
17. vain (with little reason to be so)
18. foolish
19. mindless
20. impolite
21. desperate
22. shrill
23. defensive
24. childlike
25. flawed
26. disingenuous
27. someone who exhibits bad behavior
28. someone with an especially slow or stubborn mind
29. someone with a monstrous ego
30. someone who over-generalizes
31. someone who grasps at straws
32. someone who lacks social graces
33. someone who “reaches” to make his points
34. someone who is only interested in being right
35. someone who drones on in incomprehensible paragraphs
36. someone who is intending to confuse others
37. someone who only gives opinions to support his theories
38. someone who is struggling to convince himself he is correct
39. someone that responds as a child might
40. someone with a lazy mind
41. someone who is fast in danger of being categorized as an “inquisitive idiot”
42. someone whom you can imagine ranting red-faced, like Howard Dean
43. someone who uses ill-timed humor to cover up their inadequacies
44. someone who is like a lazy policeman, eager for his donuts, accepting what is most apparent rather than dig for evidence
45. someone who is skilled at confusing others, like a politician
46. someone with an agenda
47. someone who takes what he needs to support his viewpoints and discards the rest
48. someone whose understanding of Plato is Neanderthal-like
49. a pseudo scholar
50. someone who takes genuine debate lightly
51. someone incapable of intelligent debate
52. someone who uses Plato like “fast food”

So, is that your idea of disseminating Plato’s words in an unbiased fashion, without agenda, insults, or emotion?

In my last posting, I asked you to do the following:

1. Please illustrate for us all, by quoting any one of my postings, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias.

You chose to not quote any of my postings and to not illustrate in any way, shape, or form, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias. Instead, you chose to try and blame me for bringing the topic up in the first place and suggested that I owed you another apology.

2. So, please demonstrate for us all, Helios, where, in passage 106a of the Critias, Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story?

You chose to demonstrate that Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story in Critias 106a by quoting the phrases “spoken truly and acceptably by him” and “just retribution if he errs” from Critias 106a. You have failed, however, to demonstrate that Plato’s use of these phrases was for the purpose of attesting to the truth of the Atlantis story, because you did not demonstrate that these phrases were said in regards to the Atlantis story. Again, please demonstrate that the aforementioned phrases were written in regards to the Atlantis story.

3. Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?

You chose to not illustrate where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed and you chose to not quote from the Critias. Instead, you chose to call me a “dullard.”

4. To inform us all as to just what material of Mr. Gill’s have you ever read and what about it caused to have such a low opinion of him?

You chose to not answer the question directly. Instead, you chose to inform us all as to just what material of Mr. Gill’s you have read by stating “The material I have read of Mr. Gill's is in association with his opinion on Atlantis.” Perhaps I should have been more specific and asked you to inform us all as to what article(s) you have read and in what journal it/they appeared?

5. Demonstrate your familiarity with Christopher Gill by telling us all what university Mr. Gill is associated with?

You chose to not respond to this question in any way, shape, or form.

6. Provide evidence that supports your contention that my interpretation, that Plato wishes us to observe Critias’ disbelief due to his use of the word “incredible,” is “reaching” in order to prove my point.

You chose to not provide evidence to support your contention that my interpretation “reaches” in order to prove my point. Instead, you chose to respond by asking “Why should I have to?” Furthermore, you asked “What evidence did you supply to support such (a)…conclusion?” The evidence for such a conclusion was provided in the form of:

A. A list of words synonymous with “incredible” (i.e., not credible) that illustrate the negative aspects of the word “incredible” in relation to that topic (e.g., unbelievable (i.e., not believable), implausible (i.e., not plausible), improbable (i.e., not probable), doubtful (i.e., full of doubt), questionable(i.e., causing one to question), nonsensical (i.e., not making any sense), not to mention absurd and far-fetched)
B. Plato’s own statement that “a work of such extent (in addition to others) could never have been artificial.” The logical inference to be drawn from this is that either the writer - Plato, the speaker - Critias, or both, believed that particular detail in the description of Atlantis to be either naturally occurring (i.e., not man-made) or fictional (i.e., not occurring at all).
C. Two different ways that the passage could be approached based on the available evidence, both of which necessitate the observance of Critias’ own incredulity regarding that particular detail in the description of Atlantis.
D. A list of words & phrases synonymous with the word “nevertheless” that illustrate that Critias’ use of the word “nevertheless” indicates that he felt obliged to say what he was told regardless of its incredulous nature.

I provided three pieces of evidence for my argument from just that one sentence and you have failed to argue a single one of them. Instead, you perceived it as condescension and asked “I suppose that if Plato used the word "wonderful" as opposed to "incredible" we would then have a list now of all the many meanings of the word, "wonderful," correct..?” Well, Helios, Plato didn’t use the word “wonderful” to describe that particular detail in the description of Atlantis, therefore, your question is irrelevant. You have clearly demonstrated that either you do not understand the point/counterpoint argumentative process, or you do not have any arguments sufficient to overcome my arguments.

7. Illustrate for us all where, in either the Timaeus or Critias, Plato ever uses the word “manuscript”?

You chose to not illustrate this for us all. I asked you to please find the word “manuscript,” in either the Timaeus or Critias, and highlight it in bold for us in your posting. Your failure to do so can therefore be construed as evidence of your inability to locate any appearance of the word “manuscript” in either book.

8. Please explain to us all how my agenda, which you have stated is “to use both dialogues to support my point(s)”, is any less your agenda, or the agenda of any person posting in this Forum?

You chose to not respond to this in any way, shape, or form.

9. Please “put up” by providing evidence of the insults, or “shut up” and quit stating that I have insulted you.

You chose to not “put up” or “shut up,” and you chose to not provide any evidence of insults. Instead, your response was to try and blame me for the tone of your messages and to ask ”…please don't tell me that you wish for me to now cut and paste all the many derisions, insults, and snide comments you have made during the course of this discussion, not merely to myself but to others?” Yes, Helios, that’s exactly what I want you to do.

10. Please illustrate how my responses were non-contextual, contained erroneous comparisons, were based in false logic, or contained any insults. Please illustrate this by providing evidence that supports that contention.

You chose to not illustrate your point by providing evidence to support your contention.

11. Either “put up or shut up” regarding being able to refute my research at its core.

You chose to not respond to this in any way, shape, or form.

From your responses, or lack thereof, it can be reasonably deduced that you are either unable or unwilling to support your accusations, suppositions, and contentions with any sort of evidence. This is, therefore, evidence to further support my contention(s) that:

1. You have a low comprehension level of the material at hand
2. You do not understand the point/counterpoint argumentative process
3. You do not understand, nor employ, Scientific Methodology
4. Your responses were non-contextual
5. Your arguments were based on false logic and hearsay
6. Your arguments contained erroneous comparisons

Although you might be insulted by them, my aforementioned contentions cannot be construed as “insults” when they are supported by strong arguments and substantive evidence; until such time as you can overcome the arguments and evidence, my contentions will stand.

By the way, anyone who knows me can tell you that it is just in my nature to be sarcastic; it is just part of the joy that is me.  Wink

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 200
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #115 on: March 13, 2008, 10:43:13 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 05:41 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
Oh, yes, I forgot one other thing; you stated in your last posting that you found "at least three inconsistencies from (my) version as opposed to the more accepted versions by Lee or Jowett."

Unfortunately, you failed to cite those inconsistencies; therefore, based upon your failure and/or unwillingness to cite those inconsistencies, it can be deduced that, in fact, there are no inconsistencies between R.G. Bury's translation and those of Lee and/or Jowett. Otherwise, if three inconsistencies actually did exist, you certainly would have taken the time and effort to cite them.

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002 
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #116 on: March 13, 2008, 10:43:51 pm »

Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 07-09-2004 06:25 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric,
I think Bob Sarmast had 50 of 52 clues matched for Plato's Atlantis with his Cyprus location.
I now see that Helios has 52 out of 52 clues to your behavior in regards to Plato. How many is he correct onÀ Maybe there is really more to you and Atlantis than meets the eye.

Co-incidence?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #117 on: March 13, 2008, 10:44:09 pm »

rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 07:26 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pox on all your houses!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #118 on: March 13, 2008, 10:45:11 pm »

Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 11:41 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
You'll forgive me if I don't answer each of your points word by word this time. Whilst during the course of reading them, I realized that they were simply the same old arguments, that you weren't repetant of anything and simply fell asleep... I got up later, made myself a cup of coffee, tried honestly to give you a more fair hearing, to little success, I'm afraid, for I fell asleep again...

You'll be assured to know that you are right in one of your statements, at least, Plato does not say "manuscript", but neither does he say "letters" as you say either, but rather "writing." (Jowett translation) The word "manuscript" is my mere description of the writing, for, in my own language, what would such a volume of collected material be called if not "manuscript." "Letters" incidentally is even more of a poorly chosen word, for to most, it implies correspondence, such as a "letter" written from me to you...This should be apparent to you of yet another weakness involved in the particular translation you are working from. Had I known that you would have taken not only Plato's words but my own so literally, I would have taken more care in the choosing of my own descriptions. I make this point simply because, as one who fancies himself an expert in "eptimology", I can see how important this is to you.

I remind you, however, that the whole "manuscript" tangent was simply a debating tactic on your behalf in order to divert attention escape reponsibility for disproving the point at hand, the exact verbiage had very little to do with what we were discussing. Then again, that seems to be a tactic used frequently by you. I've noticed you often tend to draw on points that haven't much pertinence to the material we are discussing, try to broaden the discourse into a much broader discussion, at times, even try to move it wholly away from the original topic. As I said in the past, with your skill at endeavoring to confuse others, I think you might be better suited as a politician. Ah, the tactics of the desperate...

Since I am growing weary of this little exercise, and for the sake of the others who may be reading this, I will sum up the conclusions of our little discourse, both yours and mine, and simply leave them for others to decide. During the debate, I believe I gathered enough of your opinions and theories, at least enough that are pertinent, that make a reasonable amount of sense, to also make the case on your behalf. (Don't worry, I'll do my best to do justice to you.)

My own position is really quite simple, I believe when Plato says "true," he means "true."

The debate started like this, that you said that there were only two mentions during the dialogues of their truthfulness, while I said there were several, I found six, to be perfectly accurate. I believe at the start of this little exercise, you said something, about your attack on the dialogues, something along the lines of “let’s see what type of savior you are.” I remind you, though, that since Plato uses the word “true” in the better part of the mentions, it was incumbent on you to prove to us all that when he said “true”, he really meant “false.”

your quote:

Helios,

"As far as I know, there is only two references to the story being true, and that is in Timaeus 20d-e,"

my quote:

"Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true. "

From this point on, I'll remind you, whatever hostility that arose through our discourse was something of your making, and I simply responded in kind. Of course, just like the dialogues themselves, simply believe what you wish. It is the others here who may or may not have become confused by your rather self-serving interpretation that I care to enlighten, your own confusion seems to be quite apparent.

From Critias:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right..."

I simply presented this point as the narrators saying that they spoke truth the say before and intended, under the threat of divine retribution, that they would speak also speak truth this day as well.

You defended this point to saying that the speakers were confining their speech about the gods. In addition, you also raised the diversion of the first paragraph.

About ancient Athens:

"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

Of course, on this I said that "true" meant "true."

While you, in turn, after first stating that the line nowhere appeared in your copy, then repented and apologized, also cast doubt that the land of Athens was ever anything other than it appears now, again something Plato does not say. Later, switching tactics, of course, much discussion on the "cosmological" nature of Timaeus, then, of course, further sarcasm to underline your point.

About the Atlantean engineering works:

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

Ah, here we had all the varied definitions of the word "incredible." I said that you were reading too much into the line, you opened a dictionary and proceeded to read even more. Ah, the joys, and triumphs of eptimology.

From Timaeus:

Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."

Again, I said that "true" was "true."

And, of course, hear was where we had, initially, at least, the definition of the word "hearsay" as your key arguing point. Friends, remember the discussion of the "bored, 1950's housewives..?" I believe here also arose the discussion of "plausible deniability" as Erick later reached for a more respectable metaphor in order to prove his "point." Presumably, a built-in method for Plato to "bob and weave" and escape the story's credibility, should it, perhaps, be received poorly, I imagine.

I trust I paid that point the proper consideration, Erick?

Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:

Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

This was one of the most obvious references by Socrates concerning the story's truth, which, I believed best attested to it's truth.

Erick's response?

quote:

"To save time, see my previous point. "

Of that, I'll simply rest my case.

Again concerning the war:

Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"

Erick viewed this as merely an "echo" of the earlier point and called on his pet parrots to assist him. He chose various other ways to explain himself, but I believe that this one sums up his position most perectly:

quote:

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

I trust, if we explored this again, we would be treated to further explanations of the word "hearsay."

I, in turn, wrote:

"Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true. It is only those that wish to claim it as an allegory of some type that wish to insist it's a fiction."

All told, three mentions at the mininum of the word "true" or variation thereof, two mentions of the word "fact," and one reference by the narrator that his descriptions are as he was "told."

So when I say that you are a crude debator and a sloppy researcher, I am, perhaps, being kind, Erick. I submit that you are the one with a truly low comprehension of the material, for, had you really been as aware of the material as you pretend to be, you would have been aware of each of these quotes before I even told them to you. Indeed, as I have also told you, I wouldn't have even had to inform you of them at all. The long and short of it is that only someone who happens to be desperate to support his own perculiar idea on Atlantis would resort to such vague and short-sighted arguments to plead his case, in terms of this material. You would have done well to embrace these points, rather than to try so earnestly to escape them with points like "false logic", "erroneous comparisons", and, of course, my own personal favorite, "hearsay," all of which, I would submit, apply far more ably to your arguments than mine.

I am not coming up with any new line of logic here, I am simply applying a logic that has been in force since as long as mankind knew the value of writing which is that "true" means "true." It is only to those with your particular grasp of Scientific Methodology wherein "true" really means "false. " A most faulty, even obtuse, line of defense if I have ever heard one.

Indeed there are several variations of the text between all three translations, but since they are too numerous and that would be a much longer exercise, I will not illustrate the examples. If you are as interested in the material as you claim to be, you will feel free to investigate themselves. Be assured, they are there, and they are not minor ones either.

Then again, I have always maintained that you need to return to the dialogues in order to have a better grasp of the material at hand. You have resisted this suggestion, it seems, at your own peril and because of your own faulty pride. To further resist it would be even more at your own peril, for it will put you at a further disadvantage when it comes to true comprehension of the points at hand, not the ones that you simply wish to be there, but aren't.

"True" means "true", it seems to be the one word in the dialogue who's definition you have yet to quote. Fast food - take what you need to from the material to support your own faulty conclusions whilst ignoring it's central "truth."

The dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have taken quite a beating.

I do not see this so much as a victory for me, but rather Plato, who has been vindicated once again, after yet another ill-informed amateur has tried to "take him down."

Conclusion: whether or not Atlantis did indeed exist or not, Plato himself believed that it existed and also wished for the story to be taken as true as others as well.

Perhaps somewhere tonight, the ghosts of those who once dwelled in Atlantis are also celebrating.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

Not to be rude, but I believe we have just seen a perfect example.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #119 on: March 13, 2008, 10:46:07 pm »

 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 12:57 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
"As one who fancies himself an expert in eptimology," you'll be interested to know that R.G. Bury's translation also uses the word "writings." As a self-proclaimed expert in eptimology, however, you should have long ago realized that the Greek word that was used by Plato was "grammata(atos)," a word for which the complete Greek-English Lexicon has "letters" listed 7 times and "books, treatices" (i.e. codices) listed only once. "Letters" does not imply a correspondence, as you suggest, but rather, written characters, as the Greek-English Lexicon clearly demonstrates and explains. You seem to keep forgetting that I have had my "nose in the books" for nearly 6 years now, and that I have performed a metaphrastic translation of the entire story. Did you really think that I did not know the meaning of the word "grammata(atos)?"

Incidentally, other definitions of the word also include, but are not limited to:

1. the alphabet (i.e., letters)
2. written characters (i.e., letters)
3. inscription
4. epitaph
5. lines of a drawing
6. picture
7. notes (in music - expressed as letters)
8. figures (in a picture)
9. to read
10. school (where you learn your letters - 11. the alphabet)
12. scribe
13. etymologically
14. articulate sounds (i.e., letters)
15. diagram (mathematical)
16. divisions (said of dicasts)
17. roster (said of guards)
18. quarters (of a town)
19. accent
20. 1/24 ounce, scruple (small weight or measure)
21. set of written characters (i.e., letters)
22. piece of writing (hence, letter)
23. papers or documents
24. records
25. title-deeds
26. contract or estimate
27. account (of loans)
28. bond
29. note of hand
30. a man's writings
31. Imperial rescripts (i.e., = hieroglyphics)
32. article (of a treaty)
33. laws or rules


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com


[This message has been edited by Erick Wright (edited 07-11-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy