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

Re: [Synoptic-L] "oxon"

Expand Messages
  • Frank Jacks
    Greg, While I am not unsympathetic to your point about how posts are to be relevant to the topic of synoptic studies, I fail to understand just how the topic
    Message 1 of 34 , Jan 29, 2013

      While I am not unsympathetic to your point about how posts are to
      be relevant to "the topic of synoptic studies," I fail to understand just
      how the topic of board protocols is not also germane (???) ... perhaps
      I am missing something, in which case I would appreciate illumination.

      But on the topic of our identifying ourselves in the signature, I would
      also appreciate clarification about yours - would I be correct in thinking
      that the University of Sydney is the institution where you obtained your
      degrees? If so, then why not add current current address/location and
      institutional affiliation as per board protocols, as Jeffrey pointed out?


      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 Atlanta metro area!)

      > 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.
      > Greg Crawford
      > B.A., B.D. (Hons)
      > University of Sydney
      > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > Jgibson
      > Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013 12:29 PM
      > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > 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
      > your
      >> 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
      > refer
      >> to them as "Dr"? Or do we simply call them by name? One can have as many
      > letters
      >> 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
      >> list?
      >> Greg
      > 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.
      > JG
    • 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.