From: Isidoros (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 1997 - 19:10:01 EST
Jonathan Robie wrote to me on 4 Mar 1997 22:18:01
>To me, it is rude to shout PROVE it,
I, till day before yesterday, when an astutely observant member,
evidently wondering about some discrepancy between my words and
the size of my lettering in challenging Mr. Kilmon's positions,
wrote to me:
>it just occured to me that you may be unaware of a convention
>on the Net that capitols are used as "shouting" or angry statements
>(and I've been asked myself not to "shout" at times as I was using
>upper case for ease of reading one day when I had misplaced my
>glasses.) I believe there is some misunderstanding here, and that
>is part of the problem. When you wrote PROOF it was interpreted
>as being rude.
Well, I confess, I did NOT know this convention; so I can see why
you, Tony Prete and, importantly, Jack, might have been upset.
My warmest thanks to the colleaque who informed me on this, as
also to Michael Palmer who brought again the matter to memory
when yesterday he wrote:
> [In my response below UPPER CASE = emphasis, not shouting.]
That is presicely how my caps were intended - up to this point,
as also with the "NOT" so scripted in the above phrase. Emphatically
I say that I might had meant to dramatize a point, but never shout.
If this caps convention is established on the Internet and on this list
on such a wide basis and for long time that even if not written on
list Intro references must be so definitely assumed as upheld Canon
that every participant ought to have known previously to posting in this,
well, then, my humble apologies - one more time that my many-faceted
ignorance is showing, and evidently at some, I hope not too serious, cost.
But, if it is not so categorically an assumed case as described above,
allow me please to tell you, too, that it is rude, indeed, to call a
colleague rude - and in my book may be so the case anyway even if
the other "shouted" by any conventionally risen height of letters.
To me, it is reasoned and erudite argument that counts, not caps or
small case grafitti, and *certainly* not name calling, which detracts,
at least, from the common purpose.
>imply that other people are ill informed,
Quite a bit of a different thema, as far am concerned.
If I am ill informed I will appreciate it to be told, and rather
straight, of it. I consider it part of every scholar's prerogativy,
as well as responsibility to say so, if in dialoque and one feels
certain that way, indirectly and, yet kindly whenever possible, also,
if it needs be, rather directly.
>call people names (hO TIMHTHN TWN PANTWN comes to mind ;-> ) etc.
I called people names? Not - though, in the same spirit with the above,
I feel it is within the perview of a scholar to communicate his/her
intent, and by drastic, even epithetic, periphpastic means, if on a rare
(one hopes) occasion. In the above, feelings of wonderment (?!) were
were expressed by the accompanying qualifying exclamation and question
marks, which you have forgoten (?!) to include them here, ;-) whereus
the phrase itself was a very sincere, exhasperated voicing of feelings
in leu of that wise, famous Anglosaxon expression (or is it American?!)
"Mind your business" which certainly ought have no place in a scholarly
list such as this. If Jack Kilmon wanted to call me or my writings
anything other than his usual characterization of "con mucilatum" and
"snoty", OK, Jack and I have an "argument" (reminding "something of
the Medieval" collegial disputations, an old friend commented) but you?
Is this any personal or direct business of yours so as to stick out your
(and, reminded here of a Hebrew anecdote I heard apropos the case) head
("...like a pumpkin")?!
(And, by the way, note, it's O TIMHTHS, or TON TIMHTHN, TWN PANTWN.)
>To me, it is bombastous to assert one's own authority and position
>instead of providing carefully reasoned arguments.
Common Jonathan, you are using no caps but surely know (or do you?!)
how to heat air to a... bombastic point; you throw too many "bombs",
deafening, and won't beable to hear you no more if you keep this level up
one more post. I've "asserted" none of the above, upon you or anyone
here. I've treated you - and wouldn't dream of treating you or anyone
anyway otherwise - strictly as equals. With due respect. Or, are you
begging the isssue, and asking perhaps for any different type o' treatment
from me? In which case do write, and we'll see, depending - only do so
privately. Enough of this noise on list.
>But you have asserted on several occasions that Jesus spoke fluent
>Greek, identified Greek as the language of Jesus, etc., without ever
>producing any proof. I would be very interested in hearing what proof
>you have for that position.
I said nothing of the sort; not what you say, anyway. You have to be
*precise* with me. Exacting. But if you think that I did say that, or
any other that you should like me to elucidate on, or support any
phrase or point I made - I said this again in one of my last posts -
you don't have but ask me to do so, citing though at the same time
the exact phrase, and if possible the subject and date of post, in
case I need to remind myself of context.
So, what is it exactly that you would like to hear me support?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:08 EDT