Originally posted by Solomons
Of course *real* vampires dont exist,so neither would real vampire websites.But im sure there a few ones with odd people claiming to be vampires...Porphyria i think thats kinda like a vampire...

Agree with you also. Real vampires don't exist. What exist instead it's some odd illness like the Porphiria, and some mental disturbances that make some people belives they are real vampires.

All the rest is just a urban legend.

Originally posted by Merticus
A groundbreaking academic work on real vampirism and the vampire community is now available. The long-term academic and sociological significance of this work can't be underscored enough.

How and why is this an academic work? (this would mean that there's a university/accepted institute somewhere that endorses this 'work') Show me some backing to this

but to be honest, the academic and sociological insignificance of a claim like this cannot be mocked enough.

really

sleep tight

Shade

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Mirrorshade]

Originally posted by Merticus
If you wish to be technical about it..
Joseph Laycock is an independent scholar and recipient of a grant from the Pluralism Project. He holds an Masters in Theology from Harvard University and is a doctoral candidate in religion as Boston University. This particular work was peer reviewed, fully sourced/first-hand research/extensive bibliography, and is published by Praeger Publications and ABC-CLIO - an academic and scholarly publishing house. He has also presented on the topic of real vampirism and the vampire community at the annual conference of American Academy of Religion, November 17, 2007. For more information see:

I do wish to be technical about it.

This man, as you claim, is an independent scholar. Does the independent part mean that nobody wants to back his claims? if so then how is he a scholar?

next:

'He holds an Masters in Theology from Harvard University and is a doctoral candidate in religion as Boston University'


I have to admit that I don't like organized religion, don't to bow to any of it. Your man there did, ok, and now he is a candidat for a religious doctorate.
Well that doesn't change a thing. He's a candidate (woops I almost forgot: very important this: a master) a master in making a life out of taking tall tales at face value an writing about them.

What that guy says about the supernatural surely must be carved in stone

But somehow I'm still not convinced. Call me, well, call me what you will as long as you use the words 'not' and 'convinced'.

'This particular work was peer reviewed' OK, so am I correct in assuming that means: people who believe the same thing say he wrote about it in a convincing way?

just asking

good night,

Shade




[edit on 16-6-2009 by Mirrorshade]

Are you joking around here, Shade?

"This man, as you claim, is an independent scholar. Does the independent part mean that nobody wants to back his claims? if so then how is he a scholar?"

"Independent scholar" means that he wasn't commissioned by a university to perform the study. It happens fairly often that serious scholarly work is performed without being commissioned. Since the word "scholar" refers to someone who researches a topic in a rigorous way, there's nothing about "scholar" that requires one be part of an institution. What do you mean "back his claims"? All of his research is sourced, anyone can check it if they want. *You* could check it if you wanted. His peers checked it, and didn't dispute it, which means that they "back his claims."


"I have to admit that I don't like organized religion, don't to bow to any of it. Your man there did, ok, and now he is a candidat for a religious doctorate."

Do you know what Harvard Divinity School is? It's not a seminary school; you don't go there to become a priest or a minister. A Master's in Theological Studies is a degree in which you research how people have interacted with religion throughout history. It's not doctrinal. Likewise, a PhD from BU isn't a degree in *believing in God*, it's a degree in studying religion. No part of either the Harvard Divinity School *or* BU's PhD program in religious studies constitutes a wing of organized religion.

"Well that doesn't change a thing. He's a candidate (woops I almost forgot: very important this: a master) a master in making a life out of taking tall tales at face value an writing about them.

What that guy says about the supernatural surely must be carved in stone"

Nor does anything about having an MTS or PhD in religious studies require that one take "tall tales" at face value. In fact, the exact opposite of that is true--getting a degree in religion requires a rigorous analysis of those "tall tales".

"'This particular work was peer reviewed' OK, so am I correct in assuming that means: people who believe the same thing say he wrote about it in a convincing way?"

No, you are actually completely incorrect in that assumption. "Peer-reviewed" means "reviewed by people who have studied religion" not "people who are religious".

Even a casual reading of the book or, incidentally, of any of the criticism of the book, would realize that it's what's called "an ethnographic study"; it analyzes a culture or a subculture without making claims to the veracity, or lack thereof, of that culture's beliefs.

When you meet a real one you'll know just on how you feel yourself.