Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Even by Fox News' standards, this is really painful to watch:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0[/youtube]

It's basically akin to Aslan talking to a wall. Sadly, The Daily Show's interview with him had more integrity.

I think she went a little too far a the end of the interview but I also think he went WAY too far in the conference references to "I have a Ph.D, I am a scholar, etc." He pretty much started off like that and persisted throughout.

One thing I really can't stand is the "Believe me because I have a Ph.D." approach. I've seen that a lot in my own world and many times people who say that are totally full of crap.

∞∞∞ wrote:Even by Fox News' standards, this is really painful to watch:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0[/youtube]

It's basically akin to Aslan talking to a wall. Sadly, The Daily Show's interview with him had more integrity.

She probably wasn't smart enough to realize he was trying to talk down to her level of intelligence so she could understand. What a complete and utter dumbass.

And yes it is sad that the Daily Show did a better job with the interview. Sad but not surprising. I wonder what percentage of Fox viewers watching that interview were approving of her line of questions and their head in unison?

JohnStOnge wrote:I think she went a little too far a the end of the interview but I also think he went WAY too far in the conference references to "I have a Ph.D, I am a scholar, etc." He pretty much started off like that and persisted throughout.

One thing I really can't stand is the "Believe me because I have a Ph.D." approach. I've seen that a lot in my own world and many times people who say that are totally full of crap.

How would you have approached her questioning your qualifications every other minute? As most everyone would, he presented his credentials (which also included more than his degrees). Also, not once did he imply that she should believe him because he was a scholar. In fact, he makes it perfectly clear that people will disagree with him and he's fine with that. But how can you disagree with him if he's never allowed to present his material and methodology (and it's clear she didn't read the book)? Compare it to this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYOm_GrzFVI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPpWX__snsg[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEuf2zY8wOs[/youtube]

(how sad that Fox News needs to be compared to a comedy show)

JohnStOnge wrote:
One thing I really can't stand is the "Believe me because I have a Ph.D." approach. I've seen that a lot in my own world and many times people who say that are totally full of crap.

Knew this would be your reaction.

He wasn't saying 'I have a Phd... I ama scholar' to saythat his argument is correct and no one should question him.... But, to answer the question... 'Why did you write a book about Jesus?'

'Because I have a Phd and I am a scholar in the subject.'

How would you have approached her questioning your qualifications every other minute? As most everyone would, he presented his credentials (which also included more than his degrees). Also, not once did he imply that she should believe him because he was a scholar. In fact,

I guess people can interpret things in different ways but I don't think he would've said "I am a scholar of religion with four degrees including one in the new testament and fluency in Biblical Greek" the way he did if he was not basically saying, "you should believe me because I really know what I'm talking about." Especially the way he put the emphasis on the "four" as he spoke.

I see people on TV commenting on issues all the time without talking about what their credentials are.

I don't think she was questioning his credentials. She was just implying that he is biased because he's a Muslim. So she said "why would you write it." Saying he's a historian and it's his job was good. That's a good answer. He could also have turned the tables on her by asking her a question like, "Do you think that historians should limit themselves to subject matter directly related to their own religion? So, for instance, are you saying that a Catholic historian should never investigate the life of Ghengis Khan because he wasn't a Catholic?

He could've just said he's a historian and obviously Jesus Christ is an important historical figure. No reason NOT to make him the subject of study regardless of your religion.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that she was over the top on the basically implying he had an ulterior motive thing. Just think he spent way too much time talking about what an expert he is. How expert you are and how many degrees you have don't have anything to do with whether you're biased or not.

I thought the whole thing was pretty much MEH.

In fact I was thinking about something else.

That he wouldn't dare write something similar about Mohammed.

I'm waiting for all those bloodthirsty Christians to put a bounty on his head and then go on a murderous riot all over the world.


Sent from the center of the universe.

That he wouldn't dare write something similar about Mohammed.

I think you're correct. I think a historical treatment of Mohammed might end up talking about a guy who attached himself to a rich woman (gigilo) to get started on a prosperous path then at some point decided to marry a six year old and screw her when she was nine.

Now, I've written a lot and taken a lot of heat about what is pedophilia and what is not. It has to do with the age at which sexual maturity is reached.

But if you marry a six year old and "consummate the marriage" when she's nine you're probably a pedophile.

All kinds of other stuff too. You know people can make fun of Christians a lot and that's fine. But the fact that billions of people follow the story of THIS guy is REALLY amazing. Believing that guy was a "prophet" of some God is really, really bad.

CID1990 wrote: That he wouldn't dare write something similar about Mohammed.

Why bother, Mohammed was illiterate anyways.

CID1990 wrote:I thought the whole thing was pretty much MEH.

In fact I was thinking about something else.

That he wouldn't dare write something similar about Mohammed.

I'm waiting for all those bloodthirsty Christians to put a bounty on his head and then go on a murderous riot all over the world.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Only if he wanted his Christian wife to see his head on a pike in the middle of Tehran.