We have a collection of Rookie Hawkins's never ending list of lies, deceit, stupidity, cowardice, and plagiarism. But this is yet another shameless low-down dirty action done by the lights of him. As some of you know, Rookie will have a self-published book coming out (since no reputable publishing house is interested in his work). In so many words, he thinks his non-intelligent, shallow-thinking, unscholarly, high-school level, no-BA thinking brain poured out on a dubious thesis is well and good enough for a "peer review"! Okay... okay... okay... stop laughing and keep reading, please. You guys may have recalled where Rook Hawkins claimed he had a JBL membership card that gave him the privilege of publishing in the journal. Uhm, it doesn't allow you to do that.
But to hit the point home our source (who is an atheist!) had his moment with Rookie and this is what he had to say:
You're probably aware that Rook posts little bits of smug self-congratulation and masterbatory ego-stroking on YouTube. On finding this little gem I posted a comment under the name "Sextus666" asking him why he was accepting congratulations on the fact that he'd merely subscribed to a journal and why he was claiming his subscription gave him the right to publish in the Journal when this was a lie. Someone else called "Atheist Sage" agreed and so Rook had to rapidly go into censor-mode and remove our comments.Then I found this item, where Rook talks about how his book is going to be "peer reviewed". Both "AtheistSage" and myself posted asking what kind of academic press was accepting submissions from an amateur with no education or training beyond high school-level. He replied that the press in question was "the Copenhagen International Seminar". I knew that the Copenhagen Seminar was run by Dr Thomas Thompson of the University of Copenhagen and a quick Google showed that he was the Editor of the Copenhagen International Seminar series. It also showed that all the other publications in that series were by professional academic scholars with teaching or research positions at universities, not by uneducated, totally unqualified dweebs who think that because they put "Ancient Texts Expert" on their MySpace page they are some kind of scholar.So I dropped Dr Thompson a quick e-mail (Sept 10) alerting him to Rook's claim, pointing out that he was making this claim publicly as part of some kind of pre-publicity for his book and asking if this claim was correct. He replied to me on the same day:Dear [DELETED],
Thank you very much for your letter. I appreciate very much your taking the trouble to write to ask about this book. I knew nothing of these announcements. No, I have not accepted this book for publication in our series. I have asked to read it, but I have made no judgment concerning its suitability for our series. As far as I am informed, it is not yet finished. Without referring to your letter or to you, I have written Mr. Hawkins and asked him to remove this advertisement. I am most grateful for your help in this regard and for your very quick reply.
Thomas
Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen
Not long afterwards he wrote to me again:Dear [DELETED],
I have just been informed by Mr. Hawkins that he intends to remove the reference to publication in the Copenhagen International series immediately. Again, thank you very much for your help and concern in this.Thomas
Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen
Sure enough, on heading back to YouTube I found the reference to the Copenhagen International Seminar series had gone, but so had my comments. When "AtheistSage" noted the sudden disappearance of Rooks claims about publication and asked if he was going to explain why they had gone (guessing the truth), that comment was rapidly censored by Rook as well. When I tried to post a reply questioning why Rook was frantically censoring all evidence of his humiliation and his original lie I found that "Sextus666" was now blocked from comments on all of Rooks YouTube videos.So feel free to publicise this little drama and to cite "Sextus666" as your atheist source.
Hey Rook,
You done got caught! I'm glad you had a little bit of dignity to correct the wrong you did, but you have waaayyy more wrongs to correct. So, get busy, buddy boy.
By the way, my man Bodhitharta says it like it is:
***UPDATE***
Frank Walton has been caught lying?! Say it ain't so!
Alright, RRS has responded and Thomas L. Thompson wrote the following letter:
Dear Rook,
Before I received your letter this morning, I had never heard of Frank Walton and, as far as I can recall no one with that name has ever written to me. I did receive a letter from a certain Tim O'Neill, who, after asking him to identify himself, replied that he was an amateur researcher, interested in questions of the historical Jesus, a claim which I credited as, among other things, his assumptions about academic credentials were, at best, naive. I receive such letters frequently and so, after a cursory check of the name on Google, I responded.
He reported to me that you had made a public claim that your book was to be published in the Copenhagen International seminar, a monograph series for which I am responsible. Since, as you know, I am in fact currently reviewing your monograph and considering it for publication, I wrote you immediately and asked you to remove any such claim from your web site, which you immediately agreed to do, without objection and without questioning my request. With that I was satisfied. Such misunderstandings frequently occur, I felt, and are easily corrected.
However, I must thank you for referring me to the criticism you have received on Frank Walton's blog, which I have just read. Dated September 14, this person claims that he had written to me--apparently, I now assume, posing as Tim O'Neill to prevent me in identifying him or his blog. In Frank Walton's blog, following a rather scurrilous description of your academic interests, he accuses you of lying regarding a claim that the book you now have in progress is to be "peer reviewed" for the Copenhagen series. This statement of yours, however, is true and I hardly have any objection to this description--as it accords well with our discussions in the past.
In quoting my letter (without my consent or knowledge), not only has Frank Walton deleted the name of Tim O'Neill in the address and claimed that the letter was to himself, he also has deleted the question he in fact had asked in his letter to me--not whether your book was to be "peer reviewed" and under consideration for publication in our series, but rather, whether the book had been already accepted for publication. That he has switched his questions is, of course, unknown to the readers of his blog and thoroughly dishonest.
If you consider it useful to cite this letter in responding to Frank Walton's slander, you have both my permission and best wishes.
I hope the blog-storm that the unethical misuse of my letters has created will not effect your consideration of our series for your monograph and that you will allow me to continue with my review of the book as heretofore planned.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas
Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen
Uhm, okay. For the most part the letter sounds good to me. *SHRUGS* But I only have a few responses:
1. Notice that in Rook Hawkins' blog and in the Rational Response Squad forums they refused to post a link to my blog, thus not giving their readers the whole story. Typical RRS tactic.
2. I'm not Tim O'Neill (aka "Sextus666"). He asked us to keep him anonymous, but now that his name is out...
3. Mr. O'Neill was the one who gave me the expose on Rookie Hawkins. As you can see above we quoted him verbatim, subtracting his name.
4. Mr. O'Neill gave me permission to post his email in my blog. I find it ironic that Mr. Thompson would be concerned about his letter being published without his consent yet at the same time would allow Tim O'Neill's letter to him to be published (see below) without his consent. But whatever...
5. As for the peer review being published in the journal, well, read what Mr. O'Neill wrote, he never said it would be published in the journal. He was questioning whether Rook Hawkins was correct about being peer reviewed in the journal, and if his book was to be published by the Copenhagen series. Because that's what Rook claimed. That's all! And Rook Hawkins was wrong. Otherwise why would he have taken away the "Copenhagen International Seminar" reference! I mean, to me that's the smoking gun right there! In fact, that's pretty much the point of this whole fiasco.
6. If Mr. Thompson wants to put a review of Rook Hawkins' book in their journal, well, go right ahead. Mr. Thompson will be the laughingstock of the ages.
7. I'm glad that Mr. Thompson vindicated our story that Rook Hawkins misused the "Copenhagen International Seminar" name.
8. I would like to thank RRS for providing this letter. As far as I'm concerned it has bolstered our claim that Rook Hawkins still misuses a source to bolster his ego, and then was caught.
LOL! Honestly, Rookie, you hurt yourself more than helped yourself by providing this letter.
Speaking of Rookie, we would like to thank him for providing the following letter exchange between Mr. Thompson and Mr. O'Neill:
Dr Thompson,
I'm inquiring about a book that is apparently being published by a certain Rook Hawkins called Discovering the Gnostics. The author has posted videos on YouTube doing some kind of pre-publicity for this book in which he says it is being published as part of the Copenhagen International Seminar series put out via Equinox Books. On checking out this series I've noticed that the other writers it has listed are all professional and fully qualified academics. Yet this person is not qualified at all, has no education past High School level and is an amateur with a web-based radio show aimed at promoting atheism and "proving" Jesus never existed.
Is the Copenhagen International Seminar series really publishing this guy's book?
Thanks in advance,
Tim O'Neill
Dear Mr. O'Neill
You neglected to identify yourself.
Thomas
Thomas L. Thompson
General Editor: Copenhagen International Seminar
Dr Thompson,
I don't understand. As I mentioned in my e-mail, I came across a video on YouTube where this person claimed he had a book being published by the Copenhagen International Seminar. Given his lack of credentials, I found this a little hard to believe. So I thought I'd check with you. Given you're the editor, I figured you would know if this claim is correct or not. I'm simply an amateur researcher interested in the issue of the historicity of Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Sorry to bother you with this, but I was intruiged by his claim.
So is this book being published by the Copenhagen International Seminar series?
Tim O'Neill
So, uh, where was Tim O'Neil being dishonest? *SHRUGS* He was just asking questions. And so, Mr. Thompson wrote the following back:
Dear Mr. O'Neill,
Thank you very much for your letter. I appreciate very much your taking the trouble to write to ask about this book. I knew nothing of these announcements. No, I have not accepted this book for publication in our series. I have asked to read it, but I have made no judgment concerning its suitability for our series. As far as I am informed, it is not yet finished. Without referring to your letter or to you, I have written Mr. Hawkins and asked him to remove this advertisement. I am most grateful for your help in this regard and for your very quick reply.
Thomas
Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen
And:
Dear Mr. O'Neill,
I have just been informed by Mr. Hawkins that he intends to remove the reference to publication in the Copenhagen International series immediately. Again, thank you very much for your help and concern in this.
Thomas
Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen
But all in all, uh, dude, where did we lie?
Still, Rookie Hawkins tried to use "Copenhagen International series" and later deleted the reference after being caught. There's just no denying that. What more does Rook want? But Rookie does say, "Not only is there no video posted about the publication of my book anywhere in any monograph (It was actually a COMMENT posted to one of my videos dealing with my book...so automatically he is lying to Thomas here)." Uhm, yes, Rookie indeed it was in the comment section. We already said that. Are you feeling okay?
Anyway, on a completely different topic Bodhitharta has more to say:
This just in:
Tim O'Neill RESPONDS!
9-14-2007
Frank,
The funny thing about liars is the way they compound their lies with more lies. Having lied in his YouTube comments by claiming his book was to be published by "the Copenhagen International Seminar" Rook has now lied again to Dr Thompson by claiming that you e-mailed him posing as me.
How could you have posed as me? Prior to my first contact with you on Sept 12th, you didn't know I existed. Rook knew I existed - because I e-mailed him about one of his historical errors (he claimed the canon of the NT was set at the Council of Nicea) back on July 23. And if he was checking with his heavy-handed enforcer, the "High Level Moderator" (is that like a Dungeon Master?) "todangst"/Chris Smith, he'd know that Smith banned me from the RRS Forum for "being a troll" (ie daring to question the pseudo scholarship of Rook "I'm an Expert!" Hawkins) back on Aug 12th.
So Rook knew I existed almost two months ago. And Rook knew that I was not you and had nothing to do with you. Yet he's run to Dr Thompson telling him the e-mail he received from Tim O'Neill were from you?
In other words, he's deliberately lied. Again.
This guy doesn't seem to realise that when you're already in a hole the best idea is to stop digging. From Dr Thompson's e-mail:
I had never heard of Frank Walton and, as far as I can recall no one with that name has ever written to me.
The good professor is correct - as far as I know Frank Walton has never written to him. As far as I know Frank Walton didn't know Dr Thompson existed until I e-mailed him about Rook's YouTube lie on Sept 12th. Thompson goes on:
I did receive a letter from a certain Tim O'Neill, who, after asking him to identify himself, replied that he was an amateur researcher, interested in questions of the historical Jesus.
He sure did. That e-mail was sent by me on Sept 10th at 10.29am Sydney time. This bit from the good professor was weird though:
who, after asking him to identify himself, replied that he was an amateur researcher, interested in questions of the historical Jesus, a claim which I credited as, among other things, his assumptions about academic credentials were, at best, naive.
Eh? What "claim". The "claim" that I'm an amateur researcher? I am - unlike Rook I have university qualifications, including a post-graduate degree. And unlike Rook I fully acknowledge that I am an amateur and not an "expert" in anything. What Thompson is trying to say here is unclear - not least because the sentence above is ungrammatical to the point of being totally obscure. "(A) claim which I credited as, amongst other things, his assumptions about academic credentials were, at best, naive."? What? Perhaps he posted when he was tired or something and accidentally deleted something from that sentence, because as it stands it makes no grammatical sense.
He reported to me that you had made a public claim that your book was to be published in the Copenhagen International seminar, a monograph series for which I am responsible. Since, as you know, I am in fact currently reviewing your monograph and considering it for publication, I wrote you immediately and asked you to remove any such claim from your web site, which you immediately agreed to do, without objection and without questioning my request. With that I was satisfied. Such misunderstandings frequently occur, I felt, and are easily corrected.
All that is perfectly true. Rook did make that claim in his (now removed) YouTube comments on this video. That claim was a LIE (how Thompson can call it a "misunderstanding" is a mystery) and Thompson asked Rook to remove his LIE which Rook quickly did.
Dated September 14, this person claims that he had written to me--apparently, I now assume, posing as Tim O'Neill to prevent me in identifying him or his blog.
Here Thompson assumes wrongly that Frank Walton was posing as me. How could he? He didn't know I existed until two days later. It seems he assumes this because of something Rook wrote in the "letter" Thompson refers to in his opening sentence - though Rook hasn't been good enough to share that letter with us. It would be interesting to see what he wrote to Dr Thompson, since (i) Rook knows full well that Frank Walton and myself are two different people on opposite sides of the planet and (ii) if Rook told Thompson Frank was posing as me, that was another LIE, since Rook knew full well that Frank and I were different people.
In Frank Walton's blog, following a rather scurrilous description of your academic interests, he accuses you of lying regarding a claim that the book you now have in progress is to be "peer reviewed" for the Copenhagen series.
And this is wrong - I stated quite clearly what Rook claimed: that his book was being published by the Copenhagen series. I wrote to Dr Thompson to check if this was true, he confirmed that it was not and Rook removed the claim at his request. Rook's LIE was his claim the book was to be published by the Copenhagen series and his removal of that claim at Dr Thompson's request is proof that this was a LIE.
This statement of yours, however, is true and I hardly have any objection to this description--as it accords well with our discussions in the past.
The statement was NOT that the book was simply being read by Dr Thompson as a favour to Rook (which is true and which was acknowledged in the e-mail quoted on Frank's blog) but that the Copenhagen series was peer reviewing and publishing the book (which was a LIE). That was what Thompson objected to and what Rook removed.
In quoting my letter (without my consent or knowledge), not only has Frank Walton deleted the name of Tim O'Neill in the address and claimed that the letter was to himself,
Frank Walton simply posted the e-mail that I sent him and claimed nothing dishonest at all. Either Dr Thompson has wrongly assumed that Frank pretended to be me (someone he didn't even know existed on Sept 10th) or Rook has LIED again and told him so. Either way, this is wrong. And Frank posted it with my full consent and knowledge. I can post what I like of my e-mail correspondence.
he also has deleted the question he in fact had asked in his letter to me--not whether your book was to be "peer reviewed" and under consideration for publication in our series, but rather, whether the book had been already accepted for publication. That he has switched his questions is, of course, unknown to the readers of his blog and thoroughly dishonest.
And this is also wrong. Frank simply posted what I sent him. I didn't ask if the book was to be "peer reviewed", I asked if it was to be published by the Copenhagen series. Because that's what Rook claimed. Dr. Thompson made it clear in the very e-mail I quoted that he was intending to read the book, but that's not "peer review" and it sure as hell wasn't an indication that it was being published by his monograph series. Which is why he acted so swiftly to have Rook's LIE removed and why Rook scurried to remove that LIE.
What we see here is a frenzied attempt at arse-covering of a fairly pathetic nature.
I hope the blog-storm that the unethical misuse of my letters has created will not effect your consideration of our series for your monograph and that you will allow me to continue with my review of the book as heretofore planned.
I hope Dr Thompson's academic peers don't get wind of the fact he's even considering publishing a contrived piece of Jesus Myther crap by an inarticulate and blundering kid with no education past high school level. If they do, Thompson will be the laughing stock of his field. Perhaps when he gets Rook's manuscript and sees Rook's hilarious claims that the canon of the New Testament was set at Nicea in 325 AD and that the Arians denied the divinity of Christ Thompson will realise what a bumbling clown he's dealing with.
So there we have it - a LIE compounded by more LIES. Rook would have been smarter to have just taken this one on the chin. I guess being smart just isn't his style.
Yours in vast amusement,
Tim O'Neill aka "Sextus666"
Sydney, Australia
Like the Energizer Bunny, Rook Hawkins keeps going and going and going with lie after life after lie. He's telling everybody that Tim O'Neill and I are the same people. Of course he knows this isn't true. To prove it, you guys need only look at our IP addresses and see if they match. You'll see that they don't.
*SIGH*
Yet again the obvious thing that Rook Hawkins is still ignoring is the fact that he claimed his book was to be published by the Copenhagen series. His claim was found to be false. And so he took away the "Copenhagen" reference. Why? Because he was caught lying.
Related:
Rook Hawkins - the plagiarist
Dennis McKinsey's response
The Stupid Mind of Rook Hawkins
Paul McFarland catches Rook in a smoking gun lie
0 comments:
Post a Comment