Love Among Men

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You only admit to using them when you can squirm your way from it. When denial is not possible. Then you plagiarize from them without attribution.

And it's hilarious that anyone else citing them is using them as an "academic source" but you're just citing them. Do you really think anyone buys that?

point-and-laugh.gif

I acknowledged my error on that particular occasion.

Now, do you have anything useful to add to this thread?

[rogue06]

I acknowledged my error on that particular occasion.

Now, do you have anything useful to add to this thread?

Let's not pretend that you didn't first tried to deny it here:

To use one of your own oft trotted out phrases,

Mixed up your meds again?

And only acknowledged you did so after I posted a link making your continual pretenses to the contrary no longer a tenable position.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's not entirely impossible that at one point that I knew Robin was a he but if so it has slipped my mind.

Of course it did.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Let's not pretend that you didn't first tried to deny it here:



And only acknowledged you did so after I posted a link making your continual pretenses to the contrary no longer a tenable position.

Our exchange pertained to your not availing yourself of your favourite academic source to ascertain exactly who was Robin Fox:

If that is the case why did you not consult your favourite academic source to ascertain basic facts about Robin Fox?

And what was the purpose of One Bad Pig introducing Lane Fox?

Left that to you since you love to pretend not to use it.

I do use Wiki and the articles can be very informative but, unlike you, I do not consider it to be an "academic" source.

You then write this - my emphasis:

Says the person caught plagiarizing from it while pretending it's beneath her to use it.

That led to my post

To use one of your own oft trotted out phrases,

Mixed up your meds again?

You then write

Are you going to pretend that never happened?

Which had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia.

So have you mixed up your meds? Or are you simply desperate?

[rogue06]

So how are things going so far?

Unable to refute anything I posted from Robin Fox regarding Achilles and Patroclus, H_A's "best shot" (and only shot) was to try to make a mountain out of the molehill of my mistakenly referring to him as her. That was all she could manage. smiley snicker.gif

Then I guess it started sinking in just how pitiful that was so still unable to refute anything H_A decided to instead focus on telling me I should have Googled him and looked him up on Wikipedia.

Such a skillful display of riposte

And to top it she's now taken the tact that I consider Wikipedia an "academic source" but of course couldn't provide a whit of evidence to back up this increasingly desperate move.

Unfortunately, that opened her up to being reminded that she considers it a worthy enough source to plagiarize from -- which she at first denied. The denial stopped the moment I linked to an example.

At this point, I think she has exposed herself as the fraud she is.

Can't dispute Fox's assessment so forced instead to focus on a simple mistake.

Keeps bringing up Wikipedia while claiming it's my idea of an "academic source" only to be reminded that she holds it so highly that she plagiarizes from it.

And me brudder wonders why I continue to mess with her. Usually you have to pay for this sort of comedic gold.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So how are things going so far?

To whom is this addressed? Your fan club?

Unable to refute anything I posted from Robin Fox regarding Achilles and Patroclus,

What precisely have you posted from Fox on those two figures? You cited an edited quote that you found courtesy of Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_and_Patroclus

H_A's "best shot" (and only shot) was to try to make a mountain out of the molehill of my mistakenly referring to him as her.

My initial remark pointing out that Robin Fox is male was to highlight [yet again] your slovenly behaviour.

Can't dispute Fox's assessment so forced instead to focus on a simple mistake.

Fox made no assessment he offered his opinion on that literary text as he does on other literary as well as cinematic sources. That is why I suggested that you read the entire chapter. The chapter looks at male bonding in these various warrior epics and film narratives. His examples range from Gilgamesh through David and Jonathan via The Man Who Would Be King [amongst others]. He also examines the roles, effect, and impact of females in these narratives

He notes from these sources that:

What comes out of these examples, above, perhaps anything else is this intensity of emotional attachment and the terrible grief engendered by the death of a companion.

His comments on Achilles and Patroclus include:

This raises the question of whether the male bond in these cases involves physical homosexuality. The answer is that it may or may not. There can certainly be literary versions of the bond that sound very much like homoerotic passion. Who could doubt that this was the case with, for example, Antonio and Sebastian in Twelfth Night, or the other Antonio and Bassanio in The Merchant of Venice (Hamill 2005). This, though, runs along with heterosexual attachments. Certainly there was physical sexuality between males in classical Greece and Rome, with the qualification, noted by Paul Veyne (1982), that the passive position in the partnership could be assumed only by an inferior. We are well aware that in Greece, marriage, while a duty and even a pleasure, often took second place to the physical love between men.

And he also references the Theban Sacred Band:

In some cases the erotic bond between males was indeed used to strengthen the warrior group, as with the famous and formidable "Sacred Band" of Thebes: 300 paired lovers sworn to defend each other to the death. Homoerotic attachment certainly was there, but it was rarely dichotomized as it is today between "gay" and "straight"-with "bisexual" to account for those who can't be so pigeonholed. Homosexuality in Western history was seen more as a mode of experience than as a type of personality (it was what you did, not what you were), and everyone was capable of it. The legal punishments were not for homosexuality but for homosexual acts (sodomy). In the end we cannot reduce the male bonding of warrior companions to homosexual attraction.

With regard to the very short and edited quote that you offered, Fox's comments pertain to the unfortunate tendency among some contemporaries to regard all instances of male bonding and affection in various narratives as "repressed homosexuality" and in that I would agree with him. He refers to such individuals as conspiracy theorists, noting that their contentions cannot be proven because we cannot ascertain if they are right or wrong. Hence his complete comment which I originally cited, and from which your brief quote was derived. I therefore provide it again.

There is certainly no evidence in the text of the Iliad that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers. There does not seem to be any suggestion that Malory meant us to see the Arthurian knights as homosexual. Indeed, a major part of their problem was the strength of their heterosexual attachments, which were fatal to the male group, as was also the case with the Volsungs, where the male bond completely succumbed to the interests and passions of the women. Those contemporary critics who see all literary instances of male affection for males as proof of "repressed homosexuality" have the same problem as other conspiracy theorists: their hypothesis is invulnerable to disproof; we have no way of knowing if they are wrong. The safer view surely is that the male bond could involve sex, but it was not about sex, as the bond with the female was. Without sex between male and female there could be no reproduction, but the male group reproduces first by recruitment (knighthood is a kind of cloning).

Keeps bringing up Wikipedia

I did not keep "bringing up Wikipedia" I made one mention of it but you had to have your ten cents. You also erroneously alleged that I continuously plagiarise Wiki and to illustrate your incorrect allegation you made a further idiot of yourself by citing the two sentences that I failed to acknowledge [and to which I agreed I was in error]. However, those sentences were not from Wiki but from here https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...reaty-of-ghent

You cannot get your facts straight even in your allegations.

[rogue06]

To whom is this addressed? Your fan club?

What precisely have you posted from Fox on those two figures? You cited an edited quote that you found courtesy of Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_and_Patroclus

Please try to keep your story straight. First you declared that I got the quote from the online version of the book and now its Wiki. Which is it?

My initial remark pointing out that Robin Fox is male was to highlight [yet again] your slovenly behaviour.

It was the entirety of your rebuttal

It was all you had

Fox made no assessment he offered his opinion on that literary text as he does on other literary as well as cinematic sources. That is why I suggested that you read the entire chapter. The chapter looks at male bonding in these various warrior epics and film narratives. His examples range from Gilgamesh through David and Jonathan via The Man Who Would Be King [amongst others]. He also examines the roles, effect, and impact of females in these narratives

The man wrote a book on the subject and dedicated the eighth chapter to the unsupported claims from some quarters that see every male friendship as rock solid evidence that they were gay. That led to the conclusion that folks such as yourself are no different than conspiracy theorists. No need for actual evidence supporting your fantasies.

And be honest just this once. You looked him up hoping to find anything to discredit him no matter how strained and weird that might be because that is exactly what you do (saying someone isn't qualified because they were born in Connecticut has to be my favorite pathetic rationalization on your part smiley snicker.gif ). But failing that you instead focused like a laser on my mistakenly referring to him as her due to his first name. Because, that was all you had.

He notes from these sources that:

What comes out of these examples, above, perhaps anything else is this intensity of emotional attachment and the terrible grief engendered by the death of a companion.

His comments on Achilles and Patroclus include:

This raises the question of whether the male bond in these cases involves physical homosexuality. The answer is that it may or may not. There can certainly be literary versions of the bond that sound very much like homoerotic passion. Who could doubt that this was the case with, for example, Antonio and Sebastian in Twelfth Night, or the other Antonio and Bassanio in The Merchant of Venice (Hamill 2005). This, though, runs along with heterosexual attachments. Certainly there was physical sexuality between males in classical Greece and Rome, with the qualification, noted by Paul Veyne (1982), that the passive position in the partnership could be assumed only by an inferior. We are well aware that in Greece, marriage, while a duty and even a pleasure, often took second place to the physical love between men.

Yup. He notes there is no evidence in support of the claim but that doesn't stop some from pushing the idea. You don't need no steekin' evidence when you just know, Know, KNOW that you right, correct?

And he also references the Theban Sacred Band:

In some cases the erotic bond between males was indeed used to strengthen the warrior group, as with the famous and formidable "Sacred Band" of Thebes: 300 paired lovers sworn to defend each other to the death. Homoerotic attachment certainly was there, but it was rarely dichotomized as it is today between "gay" and "straight"-with "bisexual" to account for those who can't be so pigeonholed. Homosexuality in Western history was seen more as a mode of experience than as a type of personality (it was what you did, not what you were), and everyone was capable of it. The legal punishments were not for homosexuality but for homosexual acts (sodomy). In the end we cannot reduce the male bonding of warrior companions to homosexual attraction.

Which, of course, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Achilles and Patroclus no matter how many times you desperately attempt to shoehorn them in.

With regard to the very short and edited quote that you offered, Fox's comments pertain to the unfortunate tendency among some contemporaries to regard all instances of male bonding and affection in various narratives as "repressed homosexuality" and in that I would agree with him. He refers to such individuals as conspiracy theorists, noting that their contentions cannot be proven because we cannot ascertain if they are right or wrong. Hence his complete comment which I originally cited, and from which your brief quote was derived. I therefore provide it again.

It's finally starting to dawn on you what he said, which is what I have been pointing out all along.

Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope for you yet -- although I've learned not to hold by breath waiting.

I did not keep "bringing up Wikipedia" I made one mention of it but you had to have your ten cents. You also erroneously alleged that I continuously plagiarise Wiki and to illustrate your incorrect allegation you made a further idiot of yourself by citing the two sentences that I failed to acknowledge [and to which I agreed I was in error]. However, those sentences were not from Wiki but from here https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...reaty-of-ghent

Says the person caught red-handed plagiarizing from Wiki.

Now, much later, you found something similar but for some strange unknown reason you didn't bring this up when caught you with your whole arm in the cookie jar. Funny that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Please try to keep your story straight. First you declared that I got the quote from the online version of the book and now its Wiki. Which is it?

Once again you appear to have not bothered to read your sources. The reference is on the Wiki page.

It was the entirety of your rebuttal

It was my initial reply.

The man wrote a book on the subject and dedicated the eighth chapter to the unsupported claims from some quarters that see every male friendship as rock solid evidence that they were gay. That led to the conclusion that folks such as yourself are no different than conspiracy theorists. No need for actual evidence supporting your fantasies.

Evidence you have still not bothered to read the chapter in question.

And be honest just this once. You looked him up hoping to find anything to discredit him no matter how strained and weird that might be because that is exactly what you do (saying someone isn't qualified because they were born in Connecticut has to be my favorite pathetic rationalization on your part smiley snicker.gif ). But failing that you instead focused like a laser on my mistakenly referring to him as her due to his first name. Because, that was all you had.

Robin Fox was born in God's Own County.

And your citing of two [edited] sentences as if somehow they proved your point illustrates how ignorant you are when it comes to referencing sources in order to put forward a cogent post.

Yup. He notes there is no evidence in support of the claim but that doesn't stop some from pushing the idea.

And I agree with him on the tendency of some to theorise about "repressed homosexuality".

Which, of course, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Achilles and Patroclus no matter how many times you desperately attempt to shoehorn them in.

The whole chapter is about male bonding in epic warrior narratives. You really should read the chapter and then comment. You just are simply continuing to make yourself look ever more foolish. However, do not let me stop you from being the forum fool.

The chapter also touches on attitudes within ancient Greek city states and homo-erotic behaviours.

It's finally starting to dawn on you what he said, which is what I have been pointing out all along.

All you have done is cite two edited sentences you found in a Wiki article.

Says the person caught red-handed plagiarizing from Wiki.

Are you really this stupid or do you just pretend?. The site I used for that two sentence quote was not Wiki. And I quickly admitted my error over not citing my source.

[rogue06]

Once again you appear to have not bothered to read your sources. The reference is on the Wiki page.

Just looked. Um, where does it mention that the quote is from the chapter dedicated to the Company of Men Tribal Bonds in Warrior Epics?

Oopsie.

It was my initial reply.

It was all you had. You furiously Googled him and couldn't smear him like you usually do, so you were stuck with focusing on my referring to him as "her" due to his first name.

Evidence you have still not bothered to read the chapter in question.

Yet another of your typical unsupported claims.

Robin Fox was born in God's Own County.

Buffoonery.gif

And your citing of two [edited] sentences as if somehow they proved your point illustrates how ignorant you are when it comes to referencing sources in order to put forward a cogent post.

The buffoon can't remember that in her previous post you all but validated what I wrote.

You really do need one of those pill boxes that keep everything separate so you don't keep mixing up your meds like this.

And I agree with him on the tendency of some to theorise about "repressed homosexuality".

Theorize is often far too generous a word. For some all they need is to read of two men bonding to cry that means they're gay.

I'll repeat something from an earlier post

There's this thing called "brotherly love" that many today seek to discount. I saw it with my cousin who was in special forces in Vietnam. He and his "band of brothers" have remained close since then, often travelling a thousand miles or more to get together again every few years (and now to go to funerals as they start to die off).

For folks such as yourself this indicates they just must have been no different than the Theban sacred bands.

The whole chapter is about male bonding in epic warrior narratives. You really should read the chapter and then comment.

Indeed. But we were focusing on Achilles and Patroclus, so that's what I concentrated on. Unlike yourself, I feel no need to try to impress others that I knows stuff.

You just are simply continuing to make yourself look ever more foolish. However, do not let me stop you from being the forum fool.

PROJECTOR.jpg
H_A avatar20440_0.gif

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The thing is, you aren't even the forum fool. That title goes to Little jimmy. But I won't stop you from keep on trying. You seem to really want it.

The chapter also touches on attitudes within ancient Greek city states and homo-erotic behaviours.

Given that we were explicitly discussing Achilles and Patroclus that is naturally what I focused on.

All you have done is cite two edited sentences you found in a Wiki article.

Did the Wiki citation happen to mention the name of the chapter that the quote was contained in? If not, just where do you think I got it from moron?

Are you really this stupid or do you just pretend?. The site I used for that two sentence quote was not Wiki. And I quickly admitted my error over not citing my source.

Funny how you didn't note that when you were accused of plagiarizing it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given your increased use of images and emoticons you must be on the back foot.

Just looked. Um, where does it mention that the quote is from the chapter dedicated to the Company of Men Tribal Bonds in Warrior Epics?

If one clicks on the title of Fox's book in the reference link at the bottom of the Wiki page one is taken straight to the volume as it appears on Google Books, complete with the chapter title. https://books.google.de/booksid=YCxy...page&q&f=false

It was all you had. You furiously Googled him and couldn't smear him like you usually do, so you were stuck with focusing on my referring to him as "her" due to his first name.

That is one of your "typical unsupported claims".

Yet another of your typical unsupported claims.

If you had read the chapter in question you would not have needed your latest flurry of posts.

The buffoon can't remember that in her previous post you all but validated what I wrote.

I think you take the crown for the Forum Buffoon. I quoted the entire section to put the edited quote into context.

Theorize is often far too generous a word. For some all they need is to read of two men bonding to cry that means they're gay.

Oh look! An unsupported sweeping generalisation.

I'll repeat something from an earlier post

You do not need to.

For folks such as yourself this indicates they just must have been no different than the Theban sacred bands.

Unless your relative was with his male lover?

Indeed. But we were focusing on Achilles and Patroclus, so that's what I concentrated on. Unlike yourself, I feel no need to try to impress others that I knows stuff.

Ah but you see I do know stuff because I read a lot.

Given that we were explicitly discussing Achilles and Patroclus that is naturally what I focused on.

You consider an edited quote from Fox you found on Wiki to be what you "focused on?

Did the Wiki citation happen to mention the name of the chapter that the quote was contained in? If not, just where do you think I got it from moron?

As noted above clicking on the volume title in the reference on the Wiki page takes one you straight to the Google Book version of the volume complete with the chapter title.

Funny how you didn't note that when you were accused of plagiarizing it.

Yet you have several times on this thread alleged I was plagiarising Wiki when my uncited comment came from a completely different source.