My two cents,
I am sorry Lois but I have to go in to bat for Francine on this one.
I actually think Francine has put some good points forward. I don't think
Francine is necessarily claiming that academic training/study makes you the
expert but that it does equip you with knowledge and understanding, and
hopefully a discerning eye.
As we are all aware, however, what is once considered the gold
standard in thought and interpretation related to a certain subject, will
possibly in time be reviewed and pushed down the list. Gold standards
change. I think this is what is being pointed out to you. However, your
education is gained, (self education is valid of course or academic
training), one must always be aware of and acknowledge one's limitations.
As I have told Francine, it is the manner in which correction to
misconceptions are made. As I was quite rightly told, I am free to hold my
opinion and act on it as I will.
I actually don't think Francine is trying to intimidate you with her
Is your conflict more caused by a different knowledge base?
Anyway, I think the sources you site, Lois, are valuable in their
own way but have to be put into context and their limitations acknowledged.
No intention to harm,
> I'm going to make a statement that will alienate a lot of people
but so be
> it. Logic is not a substitute for knowledge or familiarity with a
> one thing, logic is based on one's own experiences and mindset. It
> equip you to understand the thinking and values of another
> all, culture is not always logical--especially to outsiders.
> I've been studying Celtic stuff off and on for 30 years. I earned
an MA in
> medieval Irish religion (chiefly monastic practice). I'm not a
> not an expert on all aspects of the subject. Indeed, no one knows
> about the subject. But I am familiar with a lot, and, since my
> degree was in Christian history and theology, I'm also familiar
> origins, events, ideas, practices, and documents of that
tradition. Am I
> suggesting I know everything? Absolutely not! I already said I
> am suggesting that if all you've read is one or two pages on the
> a couple of books, you do not have the perspective to draw a
> about evidence based on logic or you perhaps don't have the
> sufficient to judge the value of a source.
This manifesto of yours is *incredibly* arrogant, both in the
try to attach to yourself and the assumptions you make about the
others, and I think I'm beginning to understand the source of your
towards me. It is that I don't automatically bow to your credentials
supposed authority that lends you. I have strong confidence in my
and my judgment, and I won't be intimidated by you. You hinted at
this in a
post from a week or so ago. I don't care if you've read every book
published on this subject, and have written half of them. You are
can be wrong, and I have as much right to question your statements
request sources from you as you have to question mine and request
Lois Chadwell Cruz