A. Brian J. Cutler (aka Brian Sapient)
B. Rook Hawkins
C. Kelly
Alright, here are the results:
16 (28%) voted for A. Brian J. Cutler (aka Brian Sapient)
31 (54%) voted for B. Rook Hawkins.
10 (17%) voted for C. Kelly.
I was surprised by the results, because Rook Hawkins got the widest margin in the group. I didn't think it'd be that big of a margin though! I personally voted for Rook. At first, I thought most people would vote for Cutler since he's the most vocal nincompoop of them all. But no, the average person who know RRS, know all too well how desperate Rook is in trying to show how smart he is when he isn't. We know he doesn't do his homework. We know he's pretending. We know he's no smarter than an adolescent junior higher. We know he doesn't know the Bible. We know he's a complete crock. We know he's a moron. Just look at what he wrote in his blog (unedited and unaltered) about himself:
October 9, 2007 - Tuesday
Arrogant or Confident?
Current mood: discontent
Category: LifeRook Hawkins: Cocky and vicious prick, or confident, knowledgable historian?
Consider that as I press on with a short digression.
(WARNING! This blog post is going to be a lot more personal than the average reader of my blog might be used too.)
I'm a realist. As such, I know I have shortcomings. Not in the least, I know I can be obnoxious at times, although in all honesty, I really don't try to be. But, that doesn't stop the occasional comment directed at me concerning my arrogance. Some time ago, somebody I respected called me self-centered, and the comment was so odd from this person it was more hurtful then I would have otherwised admitted.
Just today, somebody asked me if I thought I was cocky. I didn't know how to answer. I just kept thinking about that earlier conversation with that person I respected, and how that caught me offguard. So I asked her, "What do you think?"
"My first impression of you was that you were cocky." She said, "But I don't think that anymore." She explained to me that it was in the way I debated, that I was confident about the information that I knew and how I presented it, and if you didn't know me--it seemed cocky instead of confident.
I've heard similar comments before from people, especially when they got to know me. I often thought that confidence was always important, especially when dealing with a subject in which most people who I'd be talking too would be twice-plus my age, with doctorates hanging from their walls. But I'm not so sure I like being thought of as arrogant, especially if the person thinking that about me is somebody I may care about, who I may want to get to know better, or maybe keep a relationship with.
At the same time, it's who I am. And although I believe in bettering myself, I often wonder if there is such a thing as "going too far" with bettering yourself to the point where you're no longer...yourself. I feel that my confidence in myself is what sets me ahead of others, and the confidence in what I have learned is what sets me apart from my competition or colleague. To some extent, even saying that sounds arrogant to me now--but, that is still how I feel.
If I were less confident, less ambitious, would I be able to carry my weight in a debate with the Ergun Caners and the Dominic Crossans? Would I be able to be the historian I am? I don't think I could. Maybe that is part of the problem too, perhaps I fear losing confidence, because I feel that is the backbone of my personality.
Sure, I have a lean, and I like to be very mellow and laid back. But does that mean I'm arrogant? I know my shit, and I back it up with facts. Does that make me cocky? I will call you out if you are bullshitting your way through a discussion, and it is something I know you are wrong about. Does that mean I am somehow self-centered and bias? I don't think so. Are these attributes collectively seen as obnoxious? Yes.
I guess I am both explaining myself, and seeking some opinions. What do YOU think? Do you think I'm too arrogant? What would be a better method? I'm interested in opinions. Who is Rook Hawkins? Am I a cocky and vicious prick, or a confident, knowledgable person?
You're neither, Rookie. You are an idiotic coward though. LOL! You have to let go, dude. You are without a doubt the biggest dumb ass of the RRS crew. Congratulations!
7 comments:
Great job! This is exactly what Christianity needs right now, someone who isn't afraid to say what needs to be said.
Yo, did I just read correctly, Rook can hold his own with the Caners and Crossans of the world? Is he serious? Reading books about history doesn't make you a historian. I feel so unsure about the future when I hear statements like these from the youth. When did we decide to set the bar so low?
It's great that he actually thinks he held his own in the Ergun Caner debate.
Yes, you guys read right. Rookie thought he did well with Ergun Caner. That's a laugh! Rookie went on and on and on about the love/hate question with Caner, remember? Rookie is a complete moron.
Crossan is no real scholar in my book, but he is compared to people like Rookie.
Two words - SPELL CHECK. You can always easily tell when Rookie is plagiarizing, as there is then lack of grammatical or spelling errors like in this short essay. Sheeeshz - I can’t wait for the book - should be a tough read!
Reading the comment by Rook Hawkins where he says that he can hold his own with Caner and Crossan, I was reminded of all the comedy shows with a character who's profoundly ignorant, yet considers himself immensely well-read and intelligent, and sounds off to all and sundry who humour him, without actually realising how stupid he looks.
No, reading a lot of books don't make you an historian. To do that, you also have to show some understanding of what you've read and the ability to critique the authorities and source one cites in order to support your own argument. This actually requires doing some thinking and writing for oneself, rather than simply plagiarising what someone else has written. You also need some background in historiography - the philosophy of history. This is what is required of academic historians, who for their higher degrees have to produce dissertations based on their original research from primary sources. I haven't seen any evidence of any of this from Rook Hawkins.
I don't, however, think you have to worry about cocky kids like Rook somehow signalling the intellectual decline of the West, Thad. There have always been kids like him who had an overinflated opinion of themselves. I can even remember being a bit like it myself. Hopefully as he gets a bit older, Rook'll get some perspective on things and realise that he's not as bright and as well informed as he thinks. Then he'll be on his way to getting some real wisdom. 'Be not wise in one's own eyes', as the Book of Proverbs has it. It's a fine piece of advice, which Rook could certainly learn from.
Post a Comment