OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

[Ovinomancer]

Involvement of myths or not i figured you would agree with the statement:

"The notion that scholarly pursuits should ignore partisanship is valid and the most important thing recently posted."

Since you dont allow me to clarify as that may have added confusion.

Im saying we should investigate truth without regard to partisanship.

The involvement of mythic thinking does not subvert the above statement. (Or the former one. But whatever.)

That was not the entirety of your post. I see no need to continue investigating the OP premise until the main imoediment is addressed.

Agreeing or disagreeing with a platitude was not my objective.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

That was not the entirety of your post. I see no need to continue investigating the OP premise until the main imoediment is addressed.

Agreeing or disagreeing with a platitude was not my objective.

I reposted the part i had meant when i said "i think we are all in agreement"

It applies universally. To everything. Full stop.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

But whatever.

That said, i agree that wr should deal with things in the order you outlined though.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I believe that there are those here that are purposefully attempting to derail this thread. The question remains: WHY? The OP is stating a position; you don't have to agree with him and neither does anyone, it seems no one possess the entirety of the information he is seeking, OR that they wish to not answer questions regarding it, the latter two points remain unclear as to which would provide a clearer path forward if there was one. I for one am sensing rampant partisanship beginning to rise ever further. In every instance where the OP has asked for engagement there has been avoidance to do so based upon supposition/predisposition or the mere unwillingness to engage. These instances are then projected upon the OP for whatever various reasons relating to those other reasons for avoidance, but none of them relating to the pursuit of the matter, which is seemingly already discounted out of hand even as he presents more and varied evidence to support his thesis.

Disparagement, histrionics, dismissive attitudes, avoidance: This as stacked against a position. Though the OP may not win the War here, he has certainly won this battle.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Rob Kuntz]

That’s b.s. Rob.
Just because someone wrote a nice review of your book doesn’t mean you put up with this.
Also? Disagreeing with conspiracy cranks isn’t partisanship.
It’s common sense.
And FYI, you can look at the FIRST PAGE of the thread and see where people engaged him constructively.

he has never engaged with substantive points.Not once.
His textual analysis is bunk, and he has never engaged with any few evidence, instead insisting that his theory is always right.

I find your post offensive to say the least and stopped at the second line.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I find your support of this guy offensive (especially after Peterson graciously exited), so we are even.

No you directly disparaged my entire person, my character. I only supported him in his attempt to forward his position. So. We are far from even. Being the fine person that I am, however, I will let it slide. Why? Because, Lowkey, You're just not worth it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*