RE: [Synoptic-L] "oxon"
- To Jeffrey Gibson and others,
I will include my academic background as the protocol requests. Would you all
please also abide by the protocols that require the messages posted to be
concise and on the topic of synoptic studies? I count 20 posts under the topic
of "oxon" which have no relevance to synoptic studies.
B.A., B.D. (Hons)
University of Sydney
From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] "oxon"
On 1/28/2013 7:08 PM, Greg Crawford wrote:
> Come now fellows, stop patting yourselves on the back. Those letters after
> name are usually only important immediately after you get them. Sure, you need
> to reward yourselves with a sense of accomplishment. After that, however, the
> pathway to real accomplishment is one in which the letters after your name
> become irrelevant. Think of the greats in the realm of scholarship. Do we
> to them as "Dr"? Or do we simply call them by name? One can have as many
> after one's name as a Welsh railway station, but at the end of the day what
> counts is the evidence and the argument. Can we please return to that on this
So far as I can see, no one here --with one exception -- has appealed
to their credentials when making an argument, let alone said that their
arguments are strong because of them. Most of us -- with, again,
apparently one exception -- realize that one of the things credentials
indicate is that someone with them should know what constitutes a good
argument. Having them, however, is no guarantee that any given argument
a credentialed person makes is any good.
In any case, I feel compelled to refresh your memory with respect to
Synoptic Lists protocol regarding signatures since you seem to have
forgotten it. It reads:
> 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. Synoptic-L does not accept anonymous contributions or the
> use of pseudonyms.
Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W. Pratt Blvd
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- A few exegetical comments
> To: SynopticI am curious about the "or" you slip in between "current address"
> 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
> 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).
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"?
>Another exegetical anomaly I fear, for while "Oxon" is indeed not
> 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
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
>Here you have raised my curiosity for I can not think of any
> 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
> 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.
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
(but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)