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

[Xtalk] Re: HJ groups future

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... This seems to me to be a good point. Perhaps the protocol should be adjusted to say that signatures are desirable rather than that they are obligatory.
    Message 1 of 2 , May 26, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On 25 May 99 at 20:25, BobSchacht@... wrote:

      > Objection. Those on the list who use AOL do not have this feature, and would
      > have to manually key the signature in every time. I hope I am wrong about
      > this, and that someone can explain to me how to add a signature when using
      > AOL. Since AOL is the largest email provider on the net, this is not a
      > trivial problem.

      This seems to me to be a good point. Perhaps the protocol should be adjusted
      to say that signatures are desirable rather than that they are obligatory. One
      thing that seems to me to be essential, however, is that people do not hide
      behind blatant pseudonyms.

      Another suggested protocol was:

      > > 4. Please quote only the relevant parts of messages to which you are
      > > responding.
      > > Recipients will better understand your point if you do not quote items
      > that
      > > are
      > > not directly relevant to your response. In general, quote no more than six
      > > lines
      > > of a previous message at a time.

      Bob replied:

      > What do you mean, "at a time"? Six lines per e-mail? or six lines of quote per
      > comment on selected quote? Also, line counts are unreliable indicators, as
      > they depend on how your e-mail is set (font size, margins, etc.) I think you
      > could scratch the last sentence ("In general...")

      The "six lines" came from me originally, I think. Anyone with an interest in
      the Synoptic Problem would find the history of these protocols curious. When I
      saw them, I emailed Jeffrey off-list to say that they bore an uncanny
      resemblance to Corpus Paulinum protocols, which themselves were influenced
      by Synoptic-L protocols (e.g. see the tell-tale Markan redaction re. "the
      University of Birmingham's illustrated guide . . ."!). [And prior to that, the
      Synoptic-L protocols were markedly influenced by b-greek and Ioudaios
      protocols]. But Jeffrey then Emailed me to say that he had based these Xtalk
      protocols on the John_Litr ones (which were in turn influenced by Synoptic-L)!

      Anyway, that aside, we instituted the "six lines" as "a rule of thumb" on
      Synoptic-L just to give people something to aim at. We had had complaints from
      academics who rightly objected to extensive, unnecessary quoting from previous
      Emails. One of them suggested the six lines rule of thumb. I have found it
      useful from time to time to ask myself whether I could get the quoting down to
      a reasonable length, though it is not always helpful.

      > A useful device is a "warning", perhaps in a graded sequence:
      > First abuse: a "reminder" is given
      > Second abuse: a "warning" is given
      > Third abuse: removal from the list.
      > Perhaps these should be time-limited, e.g. first abuse in calendar month, in
      > order to wipe the slate clean from time to time.

      Agreed -- good idea. We have a system like this on Synoptic-L and it has
      worked well to date. We have only had to bar one subscriber so far (in
      well over a year) and this was somebody who blatantly refused to follow the

      > The rules are important, because the moderator(s) can appeal to them. This
      > removes it from the realm of the personal into something a bit more objective.
      > Due process, in a sense.


      > I dunno. I still prefer CrossTalk if we can keep it. "Historical Jesus"
      > narrows the scope (e.g., leaves out "early Christianity" in your list
      > description) too much. Furthermore, as Tom Kopecek might argue (woudn't it be
      > great to entice him back to the list?), any attempt to completely divorce
      > "historical" Jesus research from Christology and Patristics is doomed. Not
      > that we need to mix them all up together, but that we need to be aware of how
      > various Christologies and patristic writings have influenced the "historical"
      > record about Jesus. Kopecek is one of those former crosstalkers whose voice I
      > dearly miss. His cross-examination of Yirmiyahu ben David's attempt to
      > reconstruct the HJ through his (Y. bD's) version of the "ebionite gospel" is
      > worthy study material.

      Again agreed. I would also love to see Tom Kopecek involved again. Perhaps
      too the ideal might be to keep "Crosstalk" if possible, but we can't do that
      on egroups given that the original Crosstalk is partly located there. I have
      not heard back from Harper Collins yet.

      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

      Aseneth Home Page
      Recommended New Testament Web Resources
      Mark Without Q


      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.