My series on the blunders of D. M. Murdock (aka “Acharya S”) must have touched a nerve somewhere – particularly when it managed to be mentioned on a conspiracy theorist website and is as embarrassing as this post is for Ms. Murdock. There was a particular user who commented on the second page of the thread by attacking me and defending Murdock. Now, I don’t particularly care about the opinions of me at Murdock’s forum of fanboys, but I will respond when they are disputing the evidence I presented and lying about it in the process. This is especially the case when they obviously have not checked the source for themselves and it gives me the chance to throw a few quick zingers just for the lulz.
Now, given this comment is on an anonymous forum, I cannot be sure of their identity, but their tone, their awareness of my existence, and their constant use of links to the aforementioned forum narrows down the possibilities considerably. However, their identity is of less concern than illustrating the combination of arrogance and ignorance one runs into among Murdock’s minions. What is hilarious is that this individual seriously believes that links to threads from that website will convince anyone of anything apart from their collective credulity.
Well, let’s get to the fun and see what happens when we actually check their statements. This individual begins with the following:
First of all, this thread started off by regurgitating the crap from a known Christian apologist, Albert Mcilhenny, who is also labarum312 on Youtube. Nobody cares about his opinion except other fundy Xians too lazy to actually look things up for themselves, let alone actually study the subject. A normal person would be ashamed to ever cite this guy Albert for anything.
Isn’t that just so open minded? So much for a forum that titles itself “freethought.” Well, everything I stated in that post and the relevant video are easy enough to check out by just reading the book. I challenged people to check things out but this individual never bothered. Did he/she think I just made this stuff up out of the blue? Some of us actually do some research that involves more than a Google book search.
Take note that in all Albert’s rantings (and all the ranting throughout this thread) nobody has actually proven anything wrong. It appears nobody has even checked into the claims that Albert himself makes because if you did you’d notice all of his complaints are erroneous. For example, his claim that Dr. Josue V. Harari is not the author but merely an editor is wrong as even a cursory check will show. Though, he probably did ALSO edit as well, which is not uncommon.
So all my complaints are erroneous. For example, he/she thinks Harari did write the words discussed and gives as evidence this link to the Amazon page for the book that has Harari listed as the author. I almost doubled over in laughter as Amazon frequently lists editors as authors by mistake. This is particularly amusing since when you check the book cover pictured on the page, it clearly lists Harari as editor and writer of the introdcution – a common role for the editor. Furthermore, if he/she looked at the same photo, there is a list of the contributors of articles that includes the Paul De Man who I stated authored the article in question. Amazing what happens when your ideology doesn’t overrule your common sense – but the Murdock fanboys are a special breed.
While I do understand that this particular individual is so devoted to his/her mentor that he/she cannot sit idly by while she is criticized, it might do him/her well in the future to actually CRACK OPEN THE BOOK lest he/she provide me with further comedic material. The fact is that, unlike this individual, I opened the book, read the citation, and I am correct.
Also of interest is the fact that this person stopped disputing my claims at that of the author. The real point of the post and video, the fact that the text was dealing with a 20th century poem by William Butler Yeats, was never countered. That would require obtaining the book and reading the cited article rather than relying on snippets from Google book search. At that point, this misguided soul would find out that I was correct in everything I stated.
Frankly, the misattribution to Harari rather that de Man would have been a minor issue had the context been correct and I said as much in both the article and the video. The real disgrace is that Murdock cited a discussion that, in context, offered her position no support whatsoever and she likely never read it herself. The fact that she miscited the author was just gravy. Obviously this fanboy never bothered checking my claim. Much better just to be told what to believe. And this person thinks Christians are the deluded ones.