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

Re: scholars and apologists (tomb stories)

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    Yuri- Of the half-dozen notes you ve sent today, I ve chosen to respond to this one, although my comments relate to several others as well. As you know, I have
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 4, 1998
    • 0 Attachment

      Of the half-dozen notes you've sent today, I've chosen to respond to
      this one, although my comments relate to several others as well. As you
      know, I have reason to be grateful to you for kindness you have shown me
      in the past. But you have not been similarly charitable to Ryan, or to
      Steve, in the message to which this is a response. In the spirit of the
      language that you sometimes use with Ryan, I'd like to "help you out"
      here. First, my analysis of your opening response to Steve:

      On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:
      >> Anyhow, since I've not been involved in this discussion this year,
      >> let me give reasons to side with Ryan on this.

      Yuri responds:
      > Yes, Steve, to side with Ryan, and presumably with Mr. Pinard. You're
      > now finding yourself in fine company, or so it seems...

      Here, you're letting yourself get carried away by your penchant for
      one-liners. There was no particular reason to stop and comment at this
      point, since you ended up quoting the entire paragraph anyway. Why not
      quote the paragraph in its entirety, then comment on the whole thing?
      These one-liners are really not very informative, and they mostly just
      serve to get people annoyed. (I know - "in my opinion".)

      With respect to the issue at hand, I would like to associate myself with
      Steve's (and Ryan's) general position on the historicity of a "tomb"
      burial (_by whom_ is another matter). Does that mean that I'm guilty by
      association with the notorious William Pinard? I would certainly hope
      not. As you know, one occasionally finds oneself in agreement on an
      issue with someone else while yet disagreeing with that other person's
      argumentation. I presume that one may say that one agrees with
      so-and-so's position without having it inferred that one endorses the
      type of reasoning used by so-and-so. So you have been unfair to Steve in
      your comment, and, in general, I would suggest that this one-liner
      technique provides a milieu in which unfairness, among other negative
      qualities, tends to flourish.

      Now, on to Ryan:
      The only words which I can think of to properly describe a lot of your
      specific comments (and Jim West's, early on) are 'condescending' and
      'patronizing'. Sorry to have to say that, but surely you realize it. If
      I were to say to you that I wanted to "help you" with your reasoning,
      how would you be likely to respond? Or do you believe that it's OK to be
      condescending/patronizing to certain people but not to others? What I'd
      like to suggest is that you try to meet Ryan's arguments without the use
      of personal innuendo or polemics - or don't respond at all. Surely not
      all of your colleagues are masters of logical reasoning. How do you deal
      in general with people whose method of argumentation drives you crazy?

      Mike G.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.