> Dear Jack:
> While the number of February's messages (139) far exceeds the monthly
> (about 70) for this project, I cannot help but notice the sudden cessation
> communication since your intervention closing the active threads. Or have
> participated in the fallacy of proximity here, missing the natural rhythm
> the list?
Probably so. Currently, most of our academics are tied up with Semester
activities. They do have a life outside John_lit. :)
> As a member (actually, as quite a new member) of the list, I was mildly
> disappointed in the occasional questionable personal remarks scattered
> throughout, and I wonder if these remarks led you to halt postings. You
> to have been most effective in meeting the goal of quieting things down,
> did you intend what seems to be a chilling effect?
I assure you things will pick up. This list traffics very substantive
> I should also ask if the discussion's turn toward semiotics had a chilling
> effect on you. I can appreciate how some approaches to the Johannine
> question the validity of semiosis; indeed, the historical and textual
> on the list are likely predisposed to be suspicious of anthing that begins
> structuralism. Nonetheless, I agree that literary theory qua literary
> should not be the emphasis. I hope I did not contribute to anyone's
> discomfiture so early in my stay on John_Lit, yet I remain convinced that
> breaking new ground usually involves a modicum of angst. My analysis of
> discussion was meant to bring the relationship between authors and texts
> sharper focus, nothing more.
This in itself viz. the Johannine material is a good subject for discussion.
> Perhaps if you were to share your views on how and where the discussion
> should proceed, the membership might adjust its commentary and demeanor.
Although John_L is not a moderated list, per se, the standards are high and
interference by the moderators is very rare. I stepped in in this case
because I sensed a fuzzy interface between as argumentum and ad hominem. I
would not, hoowever, presume to guide any of the members' discussions
outside of what we all know as proper netiquettes, academic demeanor and the
protocols of the list. Sometime you have to step in just a tad bit before
things get carried away. That seems to work since John-L is one of the
least problematic discussion forum in its category and one of the best
respected for scholarship.
> I had hoped to engage Johannine literature not only objectively, but
> intersubjectively, as the latter tends to inform readers more about the
> phenomena of texts and about methodology than the former.
Have at it, Joe. You came aboard just at the time I made a very rare
appearance on an issue...probably the second in a year. Don't let it jade
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.