Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] "oxon"

Expand Messages
  • lmbarre@gmail.com
    Well, I am advocating the use of pronominals. Faux pas? Barré ... From: Frank Jacks Date: 1/28/2013 6:41:23 AM To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re:
    Message 1 of 34 , Jan 28, 2013
      Well, I am advocating the use of pronominals. Faux pas?

      -------Original Message-------

      From: Frank Jacks
      Date: 1/28/2013 6:41:23 AM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] "oxon"

      Perhaps I have not been paying attention of attention, so that something
      slipped by me, but I have no idea why this was posted since most of us
      on XTalk/Synoptic-L/etc already knew this (???) ... hmm, what I find
      missing is some mention of context which explains why you think this
      needed clarification (???).


      Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union Seminary, NYC)
      Professor of Religion, Emeritus
      Pikeville College,
      Pikeville, KY

      P.S. As for Jeffrey's "... so proudly displays ...", isn't that simply his
      following e-board protocol?

      P.P.S. Also, did you mean this phrase to be something of a "slam," which
      is what is sounds like, in what might be an unfortunate choice of words?

      P.P.P.S. Also, I trust that you will excuse my not addressing you by
      name, but
      as this e-mail lacks such I have no idea what it might be (???).

      > FYI, "Oxon.", which Jeffrey Gibson so proudly displays, it not an
      > title. It is merely an abbreviation.
      > In postnominals, "University of Oxford" is normally abbreviated "Oxon.",
      > which is short for(Academia) Oxoniensis: e.g. MA (Oxon.), although within
      > the university itself the abbreviation "Oxf" can be used.
      > Barré

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Frank Jacks
      A few exegetical comments ... I am curious about the or you slip in between current address and institutional affiliation, since the text in questions
      Message 34 of 34 , Jan 29, 2013
        A few exegetical comments
        > To: Synoptic
        > On: Protocol
        > From: Bruce
        > A great deal of nonsynoptic time seems to have been spent, and to continue
        > to be spent, on this "Oxon" issue. I quote one relevant item of the list
        > protocol as recently posted:
        > 8. It is essential to provide a full signature for every Email message
        > sent
        > to Synoptic-L. This signature should identify yourself, your address and,
        > where appropriate, your institutional affiliation and homepage
        > Please note that this is a requirement to identify those posting by their
        > name, and current address or institutional affiliation (which functions as
        > an address for most academics).
        I am curious about the "or" you slip in between "current address"
        and "institutional affiliation," since the text in questions has an
        "and," the qualification here being only "where appropriate." Does
        this not mean that both are to be given? (???) So when your "or"?
        > It turns out that "Oxon" is not an address, and it is not an institutional
        > affiliation. Despite one recent comment, it does not appear that there is
        > anything in list protocol to require the routine posting of a curriculum
        > vitae.
        Another exegetical anomaly I fear, for while "Oxon" is indeed not
        an address or institutional affiliation, why is is not included in the
        first portion of the sentence, "to identify" oneself. While it is true,
        that this is not specifically required, where is it precluded? In fact,
        why not an abbreviated vitae, which I have always found to be most
        helpful. (???)
        > Another relevant item of list protocol is the following, and again I quote:
        > 10. Please avoid all critical comments of a personal nature. While the
        > "cut
        > and thrust" of academic argument is welcome, this should never descend into
        > personal attack.
        > There have been repeated instances, on this list as well as on others which
        > overlap with it in membership, of attempts to discredit participants on the
        > basis of their academic qualifications, rather than on the substance of
        > their arguments. That would appear to be a violation of the prohibition of
        > ad hominem attacks. If a member making an argument is in fact incompetent
        > with respect to the topic being discussed, that can be brought out, and can
        > only properly be brought out, by demonstrating the inaccuracy or irrelevance
        > of some points of the argument, by an argument which *goes to* the argument,
        > and not to the person making it. It cannot validly be brought out by calling
        > in question the educational background of the person making that argument.
        > This repeated violation has consistently gone unrebuked by the respective
        > list managers. I venture to call it to their attention now, as a matter
        > deserving their consideration.
        Here you have raised my curiosity for I can not think of any
        such ... although that might be the product of my poor old mind.
        Perhaps you might share with me some "for instances" in an
        off-board e-mail, which I surely would appreciate.
        > Respectfully submitted,
        > E Bruce Brooks
        > Warring States Project
        > University of Massachusetts at Amherst

        Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union Theological Seminary, NYC)
        Professor Of Religion, Emeritus
        Pikeville College,
        Pikeville, KY

        (but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.