John Lupia wrote:
> Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
> > Then what was your point?
> Its hard drawing a diagram in an email. I have no
> skill at it. My point was confirming Mark G's own
> point by providing an example, one which he might
> learning of.
Right. Now I see.
It is befitting the spirit of collegiality to give a
fellow the benefit of the doubt that they are
operating from positive intentions rather than
malicious ones. The rapport I have with Mark G. is
sufficient that I think he would have construed my
intial post as a helpful one rather than maligning
him. The question you posed regarding your reading as
suggesting plagarism would have been appropriate for
Mark G. to have asked if for some reason he thought I
was trying to make look badly. Your reading could
have been communicated off-list and all of this flurry
could have been avoided and kept the list focused.
> It's what we call in academia
> information sharing.
Thanks for letting me know this. And apologies for
forgetting that when
it comes to knowing, let alone decreeing, what's what
within "academia" and what is and what is not proper
academic discourse, you are the
Thank you for the acknowledgment. Ad hominems are not
appreciated (like that hurled last night as well).
> > What is typical in bad scholarship in *any* day is
> > to make a claim about
> > what was "done" in literature and then, when
> > to provide evidence
> > for the claim, to refuse to do so and/or to
> > an excuse that
> > allegedly exempts one from doing so.
> My point was foundationally laid showing the folly
> the whole procedure and method used by Tolbert. The
> fact that you are unaware of Elizabethan
> use of such forms and require my instruction only
> indicates that you have insufficient reading in
> literary criticism. So my suggestion was to trek off
> to the library. But this does not appeal to you and
> you would prefer for me to do the leg work.
No, I was just appealing to what I understood to be
within academia as that which is incumbent upon a
Then you have misunderstood academic form. The only
provision an academic need make is to point to an
absence of evidence essential to a premise showing the
argument is a house of cards without foundation. As
for pointing to secondary material as a comparative
and contrasting indicator one is not required to
provide more than what I already have, merely pointing
to it at large in a general manner. But, I even did
take this a step further to help you out on this since
you seemed genuinely interested in this later form,
and I realized then that it was a sidebar which I gave
out of consideration. Sometimes people ask questions
on list that should be off-list and this is such a
case; and my answer too should have been off-list
pointing to Shakespeare�s Tempest, or his other plays.
I was also assuming that it was generally known by the
academia such as yourself that it is fallacious to
assume or conclude
that because I ask **you**, the claim maker, for what
you see to be
evidence for your claim, it follows that I then have
no knowledge of
the literature from which your evidence is purportedly
to be found. I
believe academics call this bifurcation and condemn
it; but then again,
what do I know?
Another wrong assumption. It does not logically
follow to provide detailed secondary material when the
secondary material has nothing at all to do with the
premise of Tolbert�s argument to begin with. What is
essential is to focus on what is logical and logic
dictates that Tolbert need prove her premise before
building an argument.
As for bifurcation, it is risible that you are pinning
this on me, when it is clearly plain that it is you
who have taken on a two pronged argument, not I. You
are the one taking this discussion into two separate
branches: (1) first century literary form, essential
and relevant to the discussion (focusing on Tolbert�s
thesis in this regards); (2) Elizabethan literary
criticism, not related to the discussion, having no
relevance whatsoever to first century literary form
and does not address Tolbert�s thesis at its very
foundation, nor sheds light on Mark G.�s question
since he is interested in validity.
> Regardless, the more important and properly focused
> question is the one I posed regarding first century
> use, which *is* foundational to the whole argument
> developed by Tolbert. Yet for some ghastly reason
> cannot phathom this and insist on going in a
> that offers nothing to the question which Mark
> Am I barking up the wrong tree? Consequently, I am
> inclined to see you going off the topic and not
> addressing what Mark G. asked for in order to raise
> some sidebar argument for purposes that do not bear
> fruit to this list nor to this discussion.
Two points in response. First, if indeed what you
brought to bear as an argument against what Mark was
mooting is, as you
**now** claim, a sidebar argument, why diid you bring
it up in the
You are bifurcating again. Please read my above note.
OED �bifurcation� : 1. Division into two forks or
branches (viewed either as an action or a state.).2.
concr. a. The point at which the division into two
forks takes place. b. The bifurcating branches or one
of them. Now honestly, Jeffrey, I have no intention
to push the literary critical discussion in this
direction outlined above, you are, which is why I
characterized it then and still do as a sidebar having
no relevance whatsoever to Mark G.�s question.
Second, is it really, as you **now** claim, a
"sidebar argument"?. If, as a rereading of your
initial message to Mark shows, one of the crucial
points in your attempt to show that Tolbert was wrong
was your claim that Tolbert's view of what Mark was
doing was not only unattested but was something that
ran counter to what actual authors actually did
(albeit in later literature), how can this be viewed
as a "sidebar argument"? Isn't the establishment of
such authorial practice essential to your case? If
so, how can asking you to do so -- or your complying
with my request to give specific examples where this
authorial practice can be seen -- be something that
is off topic?
Or is it that you are **now** saying that the
practice you were referring to -- practices which you
claimed were not
imagined but which could actually be found in (later)
illustrated how authors actually worked, and which
Tolbert was wrong in her claims about Mark's authorial
practices -- are
**not** relevant to the issue at hand?
See above comments.
John N. Lupia, III
31 Norwich Drive
Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
Phone: (732) 341-8689
Editor, Roman Catholic News
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...