Re: Dan Wallace's Grammer
Don Wilkins (email@example.com)
Sat, 11 Jan 1997 05:55:36 -0500 (EST)
At 12:28 PM 1/10/97, Alan M Feuerbacher wrote:
. . .
>I feel that at this point I should explain a couple of things.
>My polemical post was never meant to be read outside the narrow
>confines of a mailing list where this sort of inflated rhetoric
>is normal and looked on with some amusement. Walt has already
>apologized for sending the post to B-Greek, but the damage is done.
>Some have expressed the view that such a polemical level
>of discourse is always inappropriate, and I'll admit there is
>something to be said for that, but you have to be a long-time
>participant of that mailing list and know the players to
>appreciate the context of my original remarks. The list is
>oriented toward discussing the doctrines of a certain religious
>group which will remain nameless for the time being. Since
>the religious group itself generates much controversy, a list
>concerned with it will naturally generate heated debate.
>Many participants post to elicit a reaction from others, or
>to goad lurkers to take positive action rather than sit there
>like a lump. Sometimes that requires strong language or the
>kind of polemical rhetoric that would never fly in a scholarly
Just one more comment, Alan. I am on the list of which you are speaking and
once in a great while post something to it, but as you note, the rhetoric
tends to get way out of hand. IMHO, there is no excuse to bend down to that
level, and one who does probably deserves a swift kick in the posterior.