From: Isidoros (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 04 1997 - 18:38:18 EST
Jonathan Robie wrote:
>Sun, 2 Mar 1997 22:13:51 -0200 (GMT)
>>I found this message disturbing, not because I disagree with
>it, but because I found it rude.
Dear Jonathan Robie,
life is very short, and the kindest way I know to be generous with my
being, energy and whatever knowledge I may be informed of, to my fellow
travellers, and in a forum such as this, where communication and the
sharing of ideas re Biblical Greek is the ultimate means and purpose
on the way of being informed and enlightened, is to be direct, forthcoming,
precise, and that even if it may at times be perceived, as you say, as being
"rude." (And, noone, please, make any excuses for me, in the sense of my
speaking "thus" as a matter of any cultural differences in expression...)
Rude, I, if allowed self-characterization, I have not being. And not merely
because of the exegesis given on the importance of being direct, but
because I have I think a fair sense both of what rights I do have to
uphold in addressing here an-other, as I do also have a sense of what
means priviledge and obligation in being a member to just such a
confering forum, obligations that I religiously see that I maintain.
>In general, we've been very good at being polite and respectful with
>each other on B-Greek, and that is important to me.
For communication, at least civility, in getting a point accross, I agree,
a colleagial spirit, and the appropriate for the forum grace, is the means
to go about our business here. But, this is not to be done for the sake,
merely, of "communication". That is the means, it is not the substance
here. The substance is the *idea* to be communicated. Hopefully,
the two should go conjointl, but, it is the idea that is of importance.
And at times, in fact, the idea may be such, that being "congenial" and
overly "polite," and the like, might just not be the appropriate stance
in communicating the very ideas - and I do not mean by that one has to be
"rude" about anything, quite the contrary. Just, maybe, direct, as I thought
was what was warranted in this case. One could *in fact* be all smiles
and salutations and be quite rude, you know, as, for example, while
unsubstantively asserting a hypothesis as fact.
>I have no idea who is right on these issues, but I don't
>see any reason that the burden of proof should rest on
>only one party.
No? you don't? And you don't see the reason why the burden of proof
should rest with Mr. Kilmon? Sorry, but I should not think we can
discuss this much beyond this point. If I mauy beg the indulgence of
colleagues, let me inform you that it is the responsibility of the one who
asserts a proposition as fact to provide for any and all proof, substantive
evidense, if you will, if challenged - and he, in our case, is Mr. Kilmon -
to the relative satisfaction of him who asks. These are the rules of
age-honored academic "reason."
Yet, you would have been right that "the burden of proof should not rest
on [any] one party", if Mr. Kilmon, or anyone, had put this issue up for
discussion. But that is not the case here.
>Could you explain *why* you find it unconvincing and irrelevant?
I 'll say two things, please. First, do not pass, implicitly the burden of
proof on to me - among other things it would be unfair to Mr. Kilmon -
he must still make his case. Second, I would not have used either
of these two words in describing my "founding" sense to what he has
said. But to honor him, for you, and for the sake of all and our communal
dialogue, I have address some of my objections in this previous post
of which you chose here to pay attention only to my request for PROOF,
while completely ignoring the prerequisite - that no proof has been given.
>> May we have some PROOF of this?
>> PROOF, please,
>> PROOF (and, parenthetically speaking, the same.)
>> PROVE it.
>> PROVE that, too, by the way.
>Do we have to shout at each other?
No, Mr. Robie, we certainly don't. Only to capitalize the notice for the
assumed, standard obligation of one to provide for proof, whenever one
addresses the body of a public academic forum as if speaking to a
private club, where credo and faith are assumed by initiation into it.
>Can't we discuss this as adults,
>maybe even as scholars?
That is precisely how some are going about it, matter of fact, not
arguing, but not be pretentious about it, either, when ignored.
>Your position seems to be that Jesus spoke Greek fluently.
*You* may be so *assuming* by "antidiastolh," by "reading into" my
objections in how Mr. Kilmon is asserting his positions. That is neither
fair, nor correct.
>You have asserted this several times without providing any
>evidence, and nobody has attacked you for doing so. Now you
>demand that Jack provide a very high degree of proof for
>his position, though you have never provided any for yours.
I reitarate: it is not *my* positions that are on the table here,
do not roll "over" the burden on me. And I did not "assert" *anything*
that I would not be willing to give a fair and full explanation of what
I did mean - and I will, on anything past you so deem appropriate
and necessary, or anything future, and once we are done and over this
I shall await for your questions, whenever, gladly.
>> Looking forward to the learned statement of facts and of evidence.
>> Thank you
>If we want this list to be a vehicle for "learned statements of facts
>and of evidence", we had better be respectful with each other.
Fully agree. Starting with the facts, first; the Truth, and with Ourselves
- our Big Selves - second. And of with this List.
>I found your message very insulting to Jack,
To Jack, Jonathan, I feel, I have been most kind - my way of kindness,
perhaps, though not so exclusively mine, if you know what I mean.
>and it provided no facts or evidence at all.
Agree. That was not my responsibility - in fact, it was not to have given
any - but I did address the matter, didn't I, and did give some indication
as to objections, and "set up" the issues to be evidenced! Please, do not
you thing that is a proper academic liturgy in aiding the other to orient
himself as to what may not be reasonably clear or acceptable to the one,
so as to redress the issue and develop the one common dialoque?
Thank you Jonathan in making me more sensitive as to the prioblems
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:08 EDT