If disagreement is insulting then you are equally insulting.
No, I am not. I don't call you a liar, for one. And I am not saying you hold the position you hold because you feel ashamed of something you RP.
You believe I offer arguments from authority and I believe your arguments are from ignorance.
That, just there, is exactly what an an argument from authority IS.
The slave pace issue was only one really mundane example that you haven't denied yet.
You mentioned it. I accepted it as truth, then checked it out, later. It wasn't in the scrolls. Then you said it was in the scrolls, but without the name. I didn't even know what slave paces are supposed to be (even if you say I take slaves through them on a daily basis). What you DID mention about what Luther said was wrong (since you straw-manned him). So, as far as I am concerned, this slave pace evidence is no longer admisible. Consider that a denial.
And as for me 'running under Pelo's skirts'... that is anoher silly tit-for-tat. The arguments I have posted in this thread do in no way rely on anything he has said or done. I think you are confusing this one with another thread from a while back (because you keep referring to it in your posts, even if no one seems to have responded to that, yet).
Anyway, you have indeed made it perfectly clear that you dislike the scrolls. You have fallen short on giving arguments, instead insisting that you have them, but don't want to share them. Fine. I have drawn my own conclusions about why you dislike them so much. And I will stop responding to your posts in this thread, since any more of this pointless tit-for-tat would be pointless, given that you are unwilling to back your claims up with arguments. It would be a waste of bytes.
Now, back to Pelo's 'skirts':
Pelopidas wrote:And the point again is that yes, Luther gets some stuff right, or would you send people read Plato too in order to discover Normans influences, and given that, people should include him at the material worth reading.
I think he gets most of the more basic stuff right, really. The simple summary stuff. I suspect that few people here are in a position to judge MOST of his essays, though. Probably not even Garian or Caranda or Kaitlin (I have no issue with including her in a list of 'experts' on the books that post here), because, well, you would probably need to have done the right sort of reading.
Luther gets a lot of stuff about Norman's likely sources of inpspiration right, I suspect, in a way few of us could, simply because he seems to have a fairly siminal background as Norman/Lange. If you happen to have that background, you spot similarities and likely sources of inspiration. Norman probably didn't read much Foucault, or Frankfurther Schule or post-modernists or modern anthropology. Or if he did, it clearly doesn't shine through in the books. Nor did he study history in-depth, I think, though he clearly had an interest in it. Both of that shines through. He clearly isn't an exact scientist either. He clearly did read his classic philosophers, most likely his classical history (Plutarch, Tacitus, and the like), and probably took a shine to that, because that DOES shine through in his novels. Luther's background clearly enabled him to investigate and talk intelligently about Norman's inspirations in a way that many other 'experts' would not be able to. Someone might read and memorize ALL of The Canterbury Tales, without any errors, but that doesn't mean they are qualified to act as experts on Chaucer.
That doesn't mean that all the stuff in the Luther Scrolls is all that profound. Or all that useful to you. It depends on what you are looking for. But if someone wanted to spend time to become an expert on the Gor books, beyond just wanting to learn and maybe memorize every single trivial detail regarding the way kamisks are knotted in the north vs the south or something, so they can always flip out a quote in an argument about the perfect visual representation of gorean avi's, then they should NOT AVOID the Luther Scrolls. They seem to be the only thing of it's kind, covering many different topics, including detailed commentory regarding the various revisions Norman made to the books, examinations of his professional philosophy, his direct 'science fiction' examples, and so forth... the sort of stuff someone professionally studying a set of books might need to look into.
Now, I get that we are RP-nerds. That we don't care about how the Star Trek creators thought up and developed Klingons, we just want to know the word for baseball bat and zipper in the Klingon language, uber-nerds that we are. But to dismiss the Luther Scrolls, one of the most elaborate, far ranging (and overall decent quality) set of texts about the Gor books just because he may have gotten some of the small details that might relate to RP wrong (not as wrong as some seem to think they are, clearly) and to then go on and build what Keyser rightly called something of a conspiracy theory out of it, seeing his texts as the root cause of all those onlinisms and all the bad stuff we used to encounter and still encounter in SL Gor, and to dismiss his stuff as 'crap' and as something that should be avoided because of it is, frankly... extremely unfair, narrow-minded and really rather silly.
And, as I see it, the only possible explanation of why some many intelligent people (like all of you gorums posters) would insist on something so silly MUST be that there is a collective 'opinion' swaying many of you. Because nothing is as good as addling the brains of otherwise intelligent people than collective silliness.