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

Protocol

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... All messages must be signed -- with  a full name and some indication of social location and/or academic affiliation. Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson,
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
       

      Frank Jacks wrote:

      > John,
      >
      > I see that you continue to exempt yourself from list protocol by not
      > identifying yourself at the end except just by name ... oh, well ... I
      > also notice that no moderator has jumped in to adjudicate over whose
      > reading of the protocols is accurate.

      All messages must be signed -- with  a full name and some indication of social
      location and/or academic affiliation.

      Jeffrey
      --

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      jgibson000@...
       
    • Frank Jacks
      Jeffrey, I do appreciate your most prompt posted response to my statement, but I must confess that it leaves me unclear as to who you are agreeing with or even
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffrey,

        I do appreciate your most prompt posted response to my statement, but I
        must confess that it leaves me unclear as to who you are agreeing with
        or even whether your are "taking sides" at all. Your response speaks of
        "academic institution," which would seem to support John's contention
        that non-academics need not identify themselves ...? On the other hand,
        a renewed inspected of the protocols does not use theword "academic" but
        "institutional" ... ???? I would think that holding some ecclesiastical
        position qualifies as "institutional" ...? So are you clarifying the
        meaning/intent of the stated list protocols [if so, then let me suggest
        that the moderators revise it by replacing "institutional" with
        "academic"] or ... well, what? I admit to being puzzled and perhaps even
        confused. Thus, I would appreciate your further clarification. To
        clarify my question, was it the original intention of the moderators to
        say that only "members of the guild" (to use the common phrase) ought to
        identify themselves by "institutional affliation"?

        Frank

        Clive F. Jacks, Th.D.
        Professor of Relgion, Emeritus
        Pikeville College
        Pikeville, KY

        (but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)

        P.S. I suddenly realized that it might be a courtesy to the non-U.S.
        listers to further identify Pikeville, KY, as being in the U.S.
        and that "metro Atlanta" means Atlanta in Georgia ...? Or would this be
        "bending over backwars" to be courteous?


        Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:


        >
        >Frank Jacks wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        >>John,
        >>
        >>I see that you continue to exempt yourself from list protocol by not
        >>identifying yourself at the end except just by name ... oh, well ... I
        >>also notice that no moderator has jumped in to adjudicate over whose
        >>reading of the protocols is accurate.
        >>
        >>
        >
        >All messages must be signed -- with  a full name and some indication of social
        >location and/or academic affiliation.
        >
        >Jeffrey
        >--
        >
        >Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
        >
        >1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
        >Chicago, IL 60626
        >
        >jgibson000@...

        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Our list protocols at http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/#protocol includes the ... Please note the if any and if applicable . Besides your name, some
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          At 01:00 PM 9/2/2005, Frank Jacks wrote:
          >Jeffrey,
          >
          >I do appreciate your most prompt posted response to my statement, but I
          >must confess that it leaves me unclear as to who you are agreeing with
          >or even whether your are "taking sides" at all. Your response speaks of
          >"academic institution," which would seem to support John's contention
          >that non-academics need not identify themselves ...? On the other hand,
          >a renewed inspected of the protocols does not use theword "academic" but
          >"institutional" ... ???? I would think that holding some ecclesiastical
          >position qualifies as "institutional" ...? So are you clarifying the
          >meaning/intent of the stated list protocols [if so, then let me suggest
          >that the moderators revise it by replacing "institutional" with
          >"academic"] or ... well, what? ...
          >Clive F. Jacks, Th.D.
          >Professor of Relgion, Emeritus
          >Pikeville College
          >Pikeville, KY

          Our list protocols at http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/#protocol includes the
          following:

          >3. Please identify yourself at the end of each message by giving your
          >full name as well as your institutional affiliation (if any), your
          >homepage (if applicable), and some indication of your social location. You
          >may wish to ensure that your signature is an automated part of any message
          >you send to XTalk. This can easily be done through the
          >"preferences/options" button available in most e-mail programs.
          >
          >Unsigned messages or pseudonyms in signatures are not acceptable.
          >
          >If you wish to be addressed by a name other than that under which you are
          >subscribed, indicate this in your signature.

          Please note the "if any" and "if applicable". Besides your name, "some
          indication of your social location" can include, besides institutional
          affiliation, a variety of other indicators, such as relevant memberships
          (e.g., SBL), your highest degree and institution granting the degree, etc.
          and if you can't think of any other indicator of social location, you
          should at least identify the city where you live.

          Don't make a complicated issue out of this. Your own signature is just fine.

          Bob Schacht
          University of Hawaii
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... I am supporting your notion -- as do our protocols -- that a name in a signature is not enough. I take your point, too, that institutional is probably
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
             

            Frank Jacks wrote:

            > Jeffrey,
            >
            > I do appreciate your most prompt posted response to my statement, but I
            > must confess that it leaves me unclear as to who you are agreeing with
            > or even whether your are "taking sides" at all. Your response speaks of
            > "academic institution," which would seem to support John's contention
            > that non-academics need not identify themselves ...? On the other hand,
            > a renewed inspected of the protocols does not use theword "academic" but
            > "institutional" ... ???? I would think that holding some ecclesiastical
            > position qualifies as "institutional" ...? So are you clarifying the
            > meaning/intent of the stated list protocols [if so, then let me suggest
            > that the moderators revise it by replacing "institutional" with
            > "academic"] or ... well, what? I admit to being puzzled and perhaps even
            > confused. Thus, I would appreciate your further clarification. To
            > clarify my question, was it the original intention of the moderators to
            > say that only "members of the guild" (to use the common phrase) ought to
            > identify themselves by "institutional affliation"?

            I am supporting your notion -- as do our protocols -- that a name in a signature is
            not enough.

            I take your point, too, that "institutional" is probably better than "academic"
            affiliation. But the call for academic affiliation had behind it the notion that
            XTalk is a forum primarily for professionals and graduate students working in the
            field of HJ/NT studies.

            In any case, please note that both our protocols and I myself in my last message
            noted that all signatures should contain a full name and an indication of social
            location **and/or** "academic" affiliation.

            In other words,  there must always be **some** identifier beyond one's name in
            one's signature. And it was never the moderators' intention to say that **only**
            those who are "members of the guild" need to place use an identifier of any sort in
            their signature.

            Hope this clarifies things.

            Jeffrey
            --

            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

            1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
            Chicago, IL 60626

            jgibson000@...
             
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.