Re: [Synoptic-L] "oxon"
- On 1/29/2013 8:08 AM, Greg Crawford wrote:
> . Can we please have concise posts which are on topic, satisfying protocols #1, 2, 3, 7, & 9?I think that you would do well to make this request not of Frank, but of
L.M. Barre. It is he, after all, not Frank, who has been dragging the
list off topic with his attempts to ride a few of his hobby horses and
by asking questions to which he already had his answers (see our
exchanges on "Oxon" on the Biblical Exegesis List).
And as to conciseness, you might take your own advice. This message of
yours to which I am now responding contained (before I snipped it) at
least 2 layers of prior discourse.
Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W. Pratt Blvd
- 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!)