Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST

[Dave31]

Since someone has brought it up. I took the religious studies coursework at a University, which is hardly a community college.

Nevertheless it is telling how someone resorted to an ad hom, a tired claim that I haven't read Murdoch's historical revisionism, and an inability to answer anything that I post. This is why I have him on ignore.

Right, that's why you're here for no other reason than trolling. You have nothing to offer this thread beyond trashing Acharya's works which you know hardly anything about.

I'm sorry you wasted your money on a sanitized, mainstream status-quo course (talk about "historical revisionism" (& ad homs) - geesh) but you don't need to take it out on a female author. You have not read a single book of hers and you know it so stop pretending. You obviously haven't even read the article that this thread is about

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST
(and Religious History)
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skeptic-zeitgeist.html

That's why Tim has had to revise his article for Skeptic Magazine

Enjoy the new video description for CIE -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ZmsRUmuWU&feature=channel_page

 

[Dave31]

Thank you, dave31, for alerting me to the disturbing use of this name at the Randi forum. For the record, I have never used that name on the internet; it never came from me; and I'd like the name stricken from that forum for my personal privacy and safety. It is apparent that the use of name at the Randi forum has only been for disrespectful and derogatory purposes. Its use originally came from detractors attempting to cause me harm. After my son was abducted out of my arms by three strangers, law enforcement officials repeatedly impressed upon me how vital it was not to expose such private information. I find it appalling that others refuse to respect that request--this behavior is unfortunately typical of the callous and hateful attitude towards others held by both believers and nonbelievers, obviously.

I use Acharya S and/or D.M. Murdock - that's it. That's all I have ever used.

- Acharya S

Please completely remove that name from this forum and CEASE and DESIST using the first name for future use as a females personal privacy and safety is at stake.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

The last time I did something like that was when someone told me there was good caouse to believe the Maya civilization had roots in India. Against my bettter judgment, I went ahead and ordered this $ 45.00 book, which was a total waste.

Yeah, I know how that is. I have self that I call my "collection of wrong ideas". Most of these texts deal with the premise that the only reason that the "truth" isn't out there is because the "mainstream academic establishment" doesn't want to challenge the "status quo". A ridiculous notion if I have ever head one given that discovering something new that challenges long held ideas (with evidence) is a boost to the career of any researcher.

 

[TimCallahan]

Dave:

There will be very few revisions to my article for Skeptic. Most of these relate to changes in the final version of Zeitgeist. I'll add a footnote about the Book of Amduat and an introductory or end mention of Acharya's rebuttal and my response to it. Otherwise the article remains pretty much the same as what ran in e-Skeptic

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Please completely remove that name from this forum and CEASE and DESIST using the first name for future use as a females personal privacy and safety is at stake.

Out of concern for her safety I will henceforth refer to her as Dotty.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Out of concern for her safety I will henceforth refer to her as Dotty.

Fair enough, but I prefer dishonest crackpot as both a more honest term and one that protects her privacy.

 

[Ducky]

Please completely remove that name from this forum and CEASE and DESIST using the first name for future use as a females personal privacy and safety is at stake.

If the name is all over the internet already, then your claims of security via obscurity are useless.

And since her name is already elsewhere on the internet (and likely also cached by google and the wayback machine to name a few) then what security does telling us to stop using it provide?

This makes me doubt the validity of that claim, and think that this effort is a cheap trick to attempt to develop sympathy while simultaneously using emotional appeals to heavy hand the conversation. How about you produce evidence of her child's kidnapping before we blindly accept the words of someone who clearly cannot distinguish between the appearance of security and the reality of it.

So what would you then do to me if I posted the name Dorothy M Murdock?

Oops. Too late.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Please completely remove that name from this forum and CEASE and DESIST using the first name for future use as a females personal privacy and safety is at stake.

Why would the sex of the person matter in any way at all?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

If the name is all over the internet already, then your claims of security via obscurity are useless.

And since her name is already elsewhere on the internet (and likely also cached by google and the wayback machine to name a few) then what security does telling us to stop using it provide?

This makes me doubt the validity of that claim, and think that this effort is a cheap trick to attempt to develop sympathy while simultaneously using emotional appeals to heavy hand the conversation. How about you produce evidence of her child's kidnapping before we blindly accept the words of someone who clearly cannot distinguish between the appearance of security and the reality of it.

So what would you then do to me if I posted the name Dorothy M Murdock?

Oops. Too late.

I think this story is useful to Murdock because it allows her to reinforce the idea that what she writes is dangerous. In fact she actually has written about "people" trying to stop her. See pseudo-history usually relies on a conspiratorial mindset to explain why "the man" won't let the information "get out".

Why would the sex of the person matter in any way at all?

Because it is an attempt to frame our (mine, GreMNE, Callahan, etc) criticism of Murdock as a bunch of men picking on a woman. Like Ducky pointed out, it is meant to create sympathy.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

HER 2 YEAR OLD CHILD WAS ABDUCTED

Please provide evidence for that, you have been asked for it before..

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I think this story is useful to Murdock because it allows her to reinforce the idea that what she writes is dangerous. In fact she actually has written about "people" trying to stop her. See pseudo-history usually relies on a conspiratorial mindset to explain why "the man" won't let the information "get out".


Because it is an attempt to frame our (mine, GreMNE, Callahan, etc) criticism of Murdock as a bunch of men picking on a woman. Like Ducky pointed out, it is meant to create sympathy.

I want to hear him say it

 

[TimCallahan]

Fair enough. None of the many libraries I checked had anything by Acharya S or Murdock, D. M.; nor did they have any listing for "The Christ Conspiracy."

I guess the only way I'll be reading her stuff is if she sends Skeptic Magazine a review copy.

 

[TimCallahan]

Dave:

To see how likely it is that Acharya S either is or is not publicly known as Dorothy M. Murdock, I googled "Acharya S, Dorothy M. Murdock." After going through 10 pages of the headings I found under that listing and ignoring any that had to do with this thread (as well as GreNME's blog), I found her listed 25 times as both Dorothy M. Murdock and Acharya S.

Of these 15 were secular sites either critical or supportive of her, but certainly not likely to be nasty in a personal way. Seven were Christian sites, hence quite hostile, and three were foreign language sites, which I couldn't figure out. So, the breakdown is this: 60% secular 28% Christian, 12% foriegn.

It would appear, then, that it is well known that Acharya S is Dorothy M. Murdock. Thus, this thread is obviously not revealing some secret that will result in stalkers suddenly discovering her true identity. However, I will refer to her as D.M. Murdock in the print version of my article in Skeptic.

 

[Robster FCD]

I have to wonder if Dave is suffering from a bit of white knight syndrome, hit his focus on Dorothy being a single woman. I put it in white text to protect her of course.

That said, I eventually watched Zeitgeist and found it hysterical. Nobody really needs a doctorate to tell that its bunk, from start to finish.

Also, we don't really need to read all of her books to tell whether she is on to something or if its bologna, no more than we need to be OTIII to figure out that scientology is junk.

 

[Stout]

I have to wonder if Dave is suffering from a bit of white knight syndrome, hit his focus on Dorothy being a single woman. I put it in white text to protect her of course.
.

Yea, "protecting" what's her name's name is just too weird for words. I mean I know both her names and I'm just some random guy on the internet who knows how to use wikipedia.

That said, I eventually watched Zeitgeist and found it hysterical. Nobody really needs a doctorate to tell that its bunk, from start to finish

I beg to differ here. As I stated upthread, I watched part 1 and I would have accepted it at face value had I not read three days of the original Zeitgeist thread. What do I, or any random person on the internet know about the relationship between Jesus and Horus ? Most, nay all, of the people I've mentioned this to in the last two years have never even heard of this relationship, much less have the resources to debunk it.

Likewise with the income tax stuff. I didn't live in the US, but you have to figure that if income tax was EVER found to be *illegal* then the US government would patch that loophole faster than i divorced Brittaney Spears

My point is, that most of the info in Zeitgeist, save the 9/11 stuff is beyond the scope of the average Joe's average knowledge and it requires a significant amount of research to prove it false. If someone's a conformation bias type, as in strictly looking for supporting information, there's lots out there to support what's said in the movie. I've had a few people forward me "information" about the NWO's plan for implanted RFID chips.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I beg to differ here. As I stated upthread, I watched part 1 and I would have accepted it at face value had I not read three days of the original Zeitgeist thread. What do I, or any random person on the internet know about the relationship between Jesus and Horus ? Most, nay all, of the people I've mentioned this to in the last two years have never even heard of this relationship, much less have the resources to debunk it.

I think you make an excellent point here. If it had not been for the several courses in religious studies I would not have recognized most of the basic errors, besides the simple ones like the Dec. 25th nonsense.

Some people I encounter will accept it outright because it makes sense to them, the a both the difficulty of knowing the resources to debunk the claims, or even where to look for them.

 

[Dave31]

Dave:

To see how likely it is that Acharya S either is or is not publicly known as Dorothy M. Murdock, I googled "Acharya S, Dorothy M. Murdock." After going through 10 pages of the headings I found under that listing and ignoring any that had to do with this thread (as well as GreNME's blog), I found her listed 25 times as both Dorothy M. Murdock and Acharya S.

Of these 15 were secular sites either critical or supportive of her, but certainly not likely to be nasty in a personal way. Seven were Christian sites, hence quite hostile, and three were foreign language sites, which I couldn't figure out. So, the breakdown is this: 60% secular 28% Christian, 12% foriegn.

It would appear, then, that it is well known that Acharya S is Dorothy M. Murdock. Thus, this thread is obviously not revealing some secret that will result in stalkers suddenly discovering her true identity. However, I will refer to her as D.M. Murdock in the print version of my article in Skeptic.

Again with your comprehension Tim - how many times does something need to be explained to you? Seriously? It's been explained about a dozen times times to you now just in this thread alone.

The fact remains that you had to SEARCH around to find that name - it was NOT in Acharya's response article or any of her websites. Nor was it in any of her videos - like you claimed it was earlier and you were PROVED WRONG.

post 24 Tim "Actually, she freely says in a video that her real name is Dorothy Murdock"

Dave "Nope, that is completely incorrect - she has never once used the name "Dorothy" as I've already stated. She says "D.M. Murdock" as made clear by her blog and video - which also states that she had nothing to do with parts 2 or 3:

"First of all, let me clarify that I was not involved in the creation of ZEITGEIST, other than providing a few images and consulting on Part 1 at the last minute, the result of which was the final, "Official" version. However, my work did serve as a significant inspiration for Part 1. I had no involvement in Parts 2 and 3, and make no comment thereupon in this article."
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/04/zeitgeist-refuted-not.html

She even starts the video off saying, "Hello friends I'm D.M. Murdock aka Acharya S..."

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? Acharya Responds - VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST
(and Religious History)
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skeptic-zeitgeist.html

Interesting how that name is nowhere to be found in anything by HER.

NONE of you know whether or not that is her real name anyway. So, regardless of the search you performed the fact remains the same:

1. She has never used that name.

2. She does not want it used.

3. It's usually only used for derogatory or disrespectful purposes (i.e. GreNME & other punks who viciously spread it around to attack a single female who has never done anything to them - very brave of them).

4. It's dangerous to her physical well being and her family.

Tim "It would appear, then, that it is well known that Acharya S is Dorothy M. Murdock. Thus, this thread is obviously not revealing some secret that will result in stalkers suddenly discovering her true identity. However, I will refer to her as D.M. Murdock in the print version of my article in Skeptic."

I'll keep that in mind as I post your address and private information all around the net - what goes around Tim ... and when you come back and ask me to stop, I'll just respond in similar manner as you saying something like - "what's the big deal." Same for everyone else here.

What a major disappointment the members are here - at least in these threads who are more interested in posting a female authors private information putting the safety of her & her family at risk than they are having a reasonable discussion of her works. Some of the most disgusting people on the net are right here in this very thread hiding behind the guise of "skepticism."

 

[Dave31]

Fair enough. None of the many libraries I checked had anything by Acharya S or Murdock, D. M.; nor did they have any listing for "The Christ Conspiracy."

I guess the only way I'll be reading her stuff is if she sends Skeptic Magazine a review copy.

LOL, there are a great number of libraries that carry her books - You've never requested a book at the library before? You've never heard of an "inner library loan"? I thought you were the great scholar, Tim? What exactly are your credentials and qualifications Tim?

And, I'm sure she could rely on a totally UNBIASED REVIEW from you Tim, RIGHT? Yeah, WHATEVER - nothing I've seen from you would convince me otherwise. I'm sure she's in a rush to have you review her works. You probably wouldn't understand them anyway - it's far over your head, apparently.

 

[Dave31]

fullflavormenthol "Because it is an attempt to frame our (mine, GreMNE, Callahan, etc) criticism of Murdock as a bunch of men picking on a woman."

I'll let atheist author David Mills author of "Atheist Universe" answer that one for me - here's a recent review by him of Acharya's WWJ :

"...D.M. Murdock/Acharya S, like all authors on controversial subjects, has many critics. But they all share one commonality: They don't know what they're talking about. Murdock understands many languages and has a breadth of knowledge her critics cannot match. This fact irks the uninformed. Having given a fair hearing to some of her online detractors and their "rebuttal" videos, I have detected not only a lack of knowledge on the part of her critics, but also, in some cases, a thinly disguised misogyny...."

Check out the full review here - http://stellarhousepublishing.com/david-mills-wwj.html

Or read it at Amazon - Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ by D.M. Murdock

fullflavormenthol "If it had not been for the several courses in religious studies I would not have recognized most of the basic errors, besides the simple ones like the Dec. 25th nonsense."

Actually, you're just displaying your ignorance here - it's one of the easiest to demonstrate. But, just stay there in your small bubble of knowledge (that you paid for) and your bigoted attitude.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Wow you mean David Mills has an opinion? Who cares if an obscure atheist writer actually buys into the claims of Dotty "mad" Murdock. She can't back up her claims, they only work on the pretense of some vast conspiracy.

Oh and the claims of misogyny are just great. So it is impossible to point out how Dotty is wrong, without hating her because she is a woman. Wow, so basically Dave31 has completely derailed his own thread.

Oh, and Dec. 25th....perhaps I should link you to the thread in which you unsuccessfully argued that one? Though it might bring back some bad memories for you, given that close to half of it is in AAH (well at least your posts).

Dorothy Murdock, aka; D.M. Murdoch, aka; Acharya S., aka; an author has yet to back up any of her claims and uses equally wooish sources for her claims. And yes it is possible for someone to write a book about atheism, and be wrong on the subject of religious history.

Oh, and yes I went to college. I know you look down on college, and all that thar book learnin' what takes place beyond the teachings of "the Guru"; but I don't feel bad. Oh, and you also are completely ignorant of the nature of the classes I took.