tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post784770379651229561..comments2023-11-05T04:09:26.194-05:00Comments on e g r e g o r e s: Caroline Tully and the "Internet Smear Campaign" Against Ronald Hutton. meh.Apuleius Platonicushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-41120764905854703872012-03-30T16:58:47.293-04:002012-03-30T16:58:47.293-04:00Cornelius, if there *is* an "internet smear c...Cornelius, if there *is* an "internet smear campaign" it is not directed at Prof. Hutton (whose works, if they are as wonderful as everyone insists they are, should be able to withstand Ben's critique; indeed, as I have observed, any sort of "internet smear campaign" seems to be directed at Ben, himself! I distinctly remember how Peg Aloi (who is not a faculty member of the University she claims to be...I checked so that I could report her for gross academic misappropriations) demonstrably misrepresented Ben's book multiple times without even reading it. Then, when brave Ben called her out on it, on Chas Clifton's own blog, she defended her statements with the audacity of insisting that "she did nothing academically inappropriate"! Really?! Demonstrably misrepresenting a work and its author's position is appropriate academic protocol, now? Astonishing to me was when I fumed about this on FB only to have Galina Krosskova defend the academics in the debate by stating that what they are doing is appropriate academic debate intent on resolving the issue. Sorry, but that's utter rubbish when it involved indefensible misrepresentation! And, what strikes me as another gross bit of academic misappropriation is the fact that Tully quoted Carla's off-the-cuff message board response as though it was representative of her and the Wicca Apologia's general way of writing more respectable tracts. In fact, it seems intended to defame her, specifically, and the WA in general as potential threats to her Huttonian hubris. I must also admit what a snob she seemed during her Wild Hunt podcast interview, appearing to look down on non-academic pagans, as though we should be pitied and don't know what we're talking about or, wore, that we have no right to criticize the word of so-called *real* scholars!Wade MacMorrighanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17444754331865119613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-34929312800226810062012-03-28T16:44:40.762-04:002012-03-28T16:44:40.762-04:00Set next to Tully's tirade, Kraemer's piec...Set next to Tully's tirade, Kraemer's piece is a shining exemplar of scholarly objectivity.Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-86989830481807048572012-03-28T16:05:33.776-04:002012-03-28T16:05:33.776-04:00AP, I'm of the opinion that Tully's articl...AP, I'm of the opinion that Tully's article was unreasonably offensive and inappropriate for an academic publication, but I have a hard time seeing how you can characterize Christine Kraemer's essay as a "knee-jerk endorsement of Hutton." I expect you to do better than that.Scottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-17903445018816130102012-03-28T15:48:24.601-04:002012-03-28T15:48:24.601-04:00The worst part of all this is that Tully, Hutton, ...The worst part of all this is that Tully, Hutton, Peg Aloi, Chas Clifton, etc, all have a strong tendency to present their own views as officially blessed by "scholarly consensus", when the truth is that there is a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement about all of the issues involved in debates about the historical roots of modern Paganism.Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-28484295818918218852012-03-27T18:58:07.844-04:002012-03-27T18:58:07.844-04:00The more I read about this whole spiel it seems li...The more I read about this whole spiel it seems like the dreaded divide between Pagan practitioners and Academics is all in a few peoples' heads, particularly people on the Academic side. Most of the time these academics don't even attempt to respond to any points people make, they merely respond with 'Oh, you're not qualified, you don't meet such and such standards, pew pew'.Kaukohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14177203153515014615noreply@blogger.com