From: Isidoros (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 19 1999 - 07:51:14 EST
My name has been impugned in what is clearly an unfair, improper
and irresponsible manner before the entire B-Greek list membership.
Accordingly, canons of fair play, academic ethics and jurisprudence
require that response to such accusations as were made be duly heard.
What follows is in defense of my person and my ideas, so that members
of this list be informed fairly and fully, and so that they form their
own opinions about the defamatory posting.
Dear Edward Hobbs and fellow members of B-Greek,
If I were somewhat surprised to see my name being offered as a "Native
Greek" who might possibly have a special way of reading the Greek NT and
of contributing to its understanding, I was startled to see Jim West's
reference of my name and email address being followed by an extensive
biographical ref. that, though posted publicly (some years back) it properly
belonged to the inner workings of another list. Past the momentary
discomfort of feeling unwittingly responsible to having filled members'
stuffed boxes with k's of uncalled for, personal, material, I finally deemed
that I ought not send in any manner of apology, and so as not to compound
the k-bytes infraction.
Yet, that mere unpleasantness is now been followed by an act I can only
characterize as a grave ATOPON (Lk 23:41, Acts 25:5, 28:6, 2Thes 3:2)
and rather uncharacteristic, I should still think, of the member Edward Hobbs.
That's an ad hominem attack that is beyond ordinary meanderings on this list,
falling rather within the scope of a different branch of science--and one
that is concerned, too, with the therapy of the psyche--just as it falls also
within society's leg-al system. For myself, for now, I will stay this within
the leg-ein of this co-legion.
Wrote Edward Hobbs, Co-Chair, B-Greek, on Tue, 16 Mar 1999 12:42:45:
>Jime West advises us, and Wieland in particular, to consult
>Isidoros Kioleoglou on modern Greek issues relating to the GNT.
>This is probably VERY bad advice. Isidoros is one of the very few
>persons we have had to expel from B-Greek. Aside from his being something
>of a crackpot, and an abysmal scholar, he writes vituperative, even
>malicious messages to the List and especially to anyone who disgrees with
>PLEASE spare us on the List, at least, from having to go through the
>Isidoros nightmare again!
1. LOGOU KRISIS : the "cutting," passing judgment on the word, Logos; Censure.
May I say to such as these, and in particular here re
>Isidoros is one of the very few
>persons we have had to expel from B-Greek
I have not been expelled from B-Greek. I receive posts regularly, and such
as those by E. Hobbs and J. West on "Native Greek." Thus, one wonders, how
should a member of this list take just this. How would any member feel
after reading their death notice, and as pronounced by their executioner?
One way I can see it is: Edward Hobbs, Co-Chair, B-Greek, either
(a) no longer remembers well and confuses things (time may likely take
a toll on us all) in which case one might as well wonder whether he is
not confused about the other things he so aphoristicly, ad hominem, wrote
about me on list--along maybe with other things he writes on B-Greek, or
(b) he lies (a possibility which I should not want to even contemplate)
knowing that he, along with the powers that were, did not expel me.
Though I see no serious third alternatives to such a careless and Un-Christian
behavior as his, a sub-variant of both cases might be that such were the
forces at play within his psyche that he was/is want of _projecting_ that
I were expelled, believing finally his wish to be reality. That is the stuff
of prejudice. But, again, one should leave such as these to another experts.
At the same time one wonders: do C.W. Conrad and J. Robie suffer from
a same type of amnesia and did not jump, as is their custom, to at least
correct the offender? For, they also knew.
The truth is that--and it has now to be told fully, since by a Chair's lie or
mindlesness the issue has been put openly, and falsely, before the forum--
on 10 Mar 1997 11:12:37 (EST) I received a post from fellow B-Greeker
Edward Hobbs, with Subject line "Official Notification", in which, he, and
after citing as cause to his action my response to a post by Jonathan Robie,
quoting my post in its entirety, he, as "Chairman," together with C. W. Conrad
"on behalf of the Staff of B-Greek," issued to me effectively a Warning,
that I would be removed from this list if I did not "abide" by the "B-Greek
I apologize to the members for the length and, also, for writing about what
may _appear_ to be not related to the purposes of B-Greek, I beg your
understanding in this, but I must respond to a publicly posted accusations
at least in trying to clear my name. It is just so very easy, and especially
for persons in positions of power, to spill out some pungent oil over
a piece of writing paper, staining it, as it may be so laboriously difficult
to cleanse after it. Besides, a case of one's censure may have to do with
matters of substantive importance to a Greek Biblical understanding,
rather than to mere differences in manners and ettiquet of good behavior.
The post which was cited as culpable to issuing that Warning was sent
by me to J. Robie on 4 Mar 1997 21:38:18 (GMT), with "Subject: Re: What
language(s) did Jesus speak?" and it was in response to one other post
by him in which he had complained of my being "rude" for having written to
a member, after his being once more rhetorically asserting that Aramaic
was the original language of Jesus and NT, asking to provide "PROOF" for it.
The post began with "Dear Jonathan Robie, life is very short, and the kindest
way I know to be generous (...) to my fellow travelers (...) with whatever
knowledge I may be informed of, is to be direct, forthcoming, precise...".
Anyone interested in reading this, and to the issue of "Notification," please,
consult the archives, as all is too long (8k) to be included also here, at
Take-off point for the complaint was that I had capitalized letters, a thing
that was considered "shouting"--whereas I thought I capitalize for emphasis,
an act similarly understood by other members and, I remember, by Prof.
I thought it was I who had actually been on th receiving end of various
persons, and of Jonathan Robie, who was evidently by then a B-Greek Staff
Member, and I responded to J.R.s afront, who had called my "capitals" mail
"rude," to clarify that I meant to be rude to no-one at any time, that I
think I were, and that my sole purpose was to communicate on the important
and the substantive, politely, yet without ado for any special "niceties".
Ed. Hobbs, C.W. Conrad & Staff, however, *interpreted* this thesis to mean
that I meant to rationalize and justify in advance my future deviant behavior
off the "Standards", and so Warned me--while at the same time, probably
energized the mechanism whereby any in-coming posts by me would be
controlled, intercepted, examined, and if approved by them allowed on list, if
not, remove me from membership. Now, I, generally, can see the need for such
a mechanism, when it concerns a special academic forum--provided that are
developed in support of it very clear, objective, known, that is, announced to
all, and fairly, judiciously applied criteria to support and effectuate such
mechanism. In the absence of all of these (at least) any decision for limiting
the Freedom of Speech, let alone of removal, of any forum member would
amount to nothing less than what is called in Greek LOGO-KRISIA, the judgment
and cutting of the word, censure. Faced with what I considered to be an unfair,
subjective and unjust act, not wishing to fight or argue about it, nor wanting
to put the three in a position of erring further, sinning as it is said, and
on my account, I ceased from participating actively, and merely read posts.
I thought this unfair for, even though I think that no-one may be a fair and
impartial judge of one-self, no matter how I re-examined my writings,
nowhere did they appear rude, or even really inconsiderate, toward anyone.
Nonetheless, I asked two Internet aquaintances, not B-Greekers (so as not to put
any member here on the spot) to review several of my posts. The response was
that, No, nowhere did they seem to have crossed any ethical, Nettiquete lines,
however high the Standard. In fact, I even received, and at about the time of
the Robie complaint, a brief supportive mail by Jim West, commenting on the
heat put on me about the "CAPS" and that I ought stand up to just such pressure,
adding further that these young men had no idea what academic debate was
in medieval times. The case of said "caps" had brought to mind the Matthean
(23:23) "DIULIZONTES TON KWNWPA ..." and especially the "KAQARIZETE TO
EXWQEN TOU POTHRIOU .. ESWQEN DE ... " etc. Slowly I came to feel that
the EXWQEN TOU POTHRIOU, the occupation with my manners and appearances,
the forthright manner of my speech, was rather an grounds by the list
GRAMMATEIS to tame a significantly differing voice under their control.
Deeming near impossible to come to terms with this, again, I ceased to actively
participate--and this is an apology both toward Hobbs and, especially, Conrad,
for not believing in the possibility of their passing on my participation
as well as to those B. Greek members who may had expected of me at the time
to go on with certain threads I had started on special Greek language insights
and that I left suspended.
This "Notification" was an infringement on the fundamental Right of Freedom
of Speech, that everyone ought to enjoy here along with all others. It is
to restrict the Freedom of anyone because just anyone *thinks* that that person
*might* violate a "Standard". And this is particularly the case where it
an *Academic* forum member for communicating ideas, on to the Truth. As is
also a violation of that central Christian *command*, Thi ALHQEIAi (said so
(to the) "Truth", where this word bears an "apocalyptic" connotation that is,
semantically, not recognized by "scholars." The "Notification" appeared to be
designed that one did not speak *his* Truth, but conformed to the "Truth"
as maintained by "scholars," and as cut to such an understanding, and the
The grounds for my control were subjective. For, look to the one paragraph
within the post cited above (URL) that was singled out as being culpable
to necessitating my being put "on ice," and really ask yourself if being put
under control of speaking to your fellow members is justified on account of it:
> Rude [I had written] 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 have
to uphold in addressing here an-other, as I do also have a sense of what
means privilege and obligation in being a member to just such a
conferring forum, obligations that I religiously see that I maintain. >
This they said was "an apologia for rudeness as a right," therefore ...
I shall not comment further on why E. Hobbs and C. W. Conrad & Staff
might have considered this to be any violation of the "B-Greek Standards."
If they wish they may address the point. Past this substantive issue, however,
of infringement on freedom, I should like to state why I think that they did
not have the right to sit in judgment of me for reasons that are strictly
legal, as they are also ethical.
a. When I subscribed to B-Greek on 4 Jan. 1977, I received a "Welcome"
message, where I was kindly provided with a Description of the List.
and information on How to subscribe, what were the Commands, et other
technical info, but nowhere were I given any Rules, or Code, let alone of
any specific reference to criteria for behaviour and expulsion.
How could then anyone be accountable? to what?
b. I had similarly not been informed -- and this was the only Administrative
post that I had received before the Hobbs-Conrad intervention-- that
there was any "Chairman," and that this was E. Hobbs, or that there was
a "B-Greek Staff", headed by C. W. Conrad, and that either had any manner
of role or of power in judging who stays, and under what specific criteria,
and who does not, on B-Greek. The only functionary mentioned was
List-owner D.J. Marotta. Should one not had been informed of these?
How can anyone sit in critical judgment of anyone while coming out of
nowhere and while saying really, "Hey, I don't like the way you speak
to me, so you now go under." The only "signature" that had appeared
before then at the bottom of Hobbs posts (let alone of Carl Conrad, or
J.R.) was "Edward Hobbs." That is not how I understand that our
Democratic society and our Academic institution operate. In our society
we are citizens under a Constitution and within a court of Law. In
within Academia Freedom of Expression is Gospel, and there are very
specific, narrow, objective (as that is possible) regulations, overseeing
by indifferent to the issue bodies, that might come to ever rule on
whether the privilege of Freedom of Speech has been abused--and these
are all out in the open and known in advance to everyone. Here?
c. Why, would it had made any difference had Edward Hobbs signed on as
"Chairman" (if he were, before then)? Besides the fact that this begs the
question, the answer being that it ought to had been so stated from the
--or, why is the official function stated now by all, E.H., C.W.C. and
--an answer is that, Yes, it might had made a difference. For, past the
point about propriety, it would had made likely a difference in my behavior
--after an unhappy engagement or two with any of them opting likely to
avoid them (as I think have variously done many members in the past)
engaging substantively only other members--well, if *that* were possible,
since Carl Conrad especially has taken upon himself to responding to
just about *every* point that is raised on list-- a practice that imho may
be not merely intimidating and stifling, but one that gives the deleterious
impression that the way to read through NT Greek is in strict accordance
to the canonized Grammar. (Here, again, one may think appropriately of
Matthew in 23:23, or 22, while exclaiming, in speaking of those other
GRAMMATEIS ... ODHGOI TUFLOI... A metaphor which reflects strictly my
academic opinion and it is intended against noone as any peronal attack.)
Back to the point at hand and, past any one member's possibly accommodating
behavioral affect toward any list Canon enforcers, imo, the more important
is that would had made a difference on how they, themselves, perceived the
non-engaging--them--the non-differing--with them--at least directly--
d. For, here previous to the serving of Notification, there had been
instances that warranted the expression of difference, or even academic
disagreement on substantive issues with both Hobbs and Conrad, and then
engagement with Robie. Now, would in any Academic Peer Hearing Body,
or even in a Court of Justice, say in a three judge panel, sit in hearing
and deciding on a case Judges where they were, themselves, the one of
two differing parties? No! Never in a Democratic, fair-minded society,
let alone in an academic forum, would the claimants of any one side
presume to sit in Judgment of the other--however a high regard they
might have had of their own Fairness and Infallibility as Rulers.
presumed to had been Gods. Even in Medieval times, during the infamous
Inquisition trials pretexts were kept.
Hobbs & Conrad & Co, in this, as in any instance in which they be directly
involved as discussants, should have had simply disqualified themselves,
bow out, admitting to not possibly being a disinterested party. While being
in the positions they were, and are--positions of decisive power, and of
possibly exerting threat or intimidation, they should bow out and not
directly in any discussion that might even potentially lead to
with anyone. They can't have it both ways. In this case, at minimum, they
should had said: "Look, do not differ here on any serious matter with us,
as *we* kick butt, even way out off here--while you can't really do
anything about it, or to us, and we on the other hand won't debate with
For all these legal as well ethical grounds the passing of such judgment and
Notification as was this, is not merely illegal, and null, but is also
unethical and immoral.
The word BLASFHMIA I think you know well. Yet, here is not merely a New,
but a Live "Testamental" case to put your B-Greek, and your Christianity,
to the test.
Wrote, very unfortunately, also, Edward Hobbs, Co-Chair, B-Greek, and
>Aside from his being something
>of a crackpot, and an abysmal scholar, he writes vituperative, even
>malicious messages to the List and especially to anyone who disgrees with
Please, (I) justify your judgments on my being
(ii) "abysmal scholar"
and, similarly quote of my having writing the said
(iii) "vituperative, even malicious messages to the List"
(iv) "and especially to anyone who disgrees with him."
Edward, while awaiting for your justification of these, kindly explain to me,
as, too, I think to Jim West, and to Wieland Willker and to other possibly
interested B-Greek members, how can you have written all these things--
in prefacing your response to Jim's suggestion that members interested in a
"Native Greek's" insight and contribution etc consult with me-- along, also,
>This is probably VERY bad advice.
when you had written to me in your "Official Notification",
"it is evident that you have something to contribute and that you can
help us understand some issues perhaps better than many another source."
*I* can contribute to your understanding the issues better than...? Who, *me*?
Who, which, "me"?! The same one that you spoke of above, and that I think
Jim West referred to Wieland Willker when seeking a special insight etc,
or the "crackpot", "vituperative," "malicious" and "abysmal scholar?"
Or, should one rather not ask: who are *you*? The "one" who included the
above in that Notification, or the "other" who calls one other with slanderous
names and calls out, or should I, too, say "shouts" (caps...): It is VERY
3. TELOS Last points, and especially since by now have lapsed well over two
days after B-Greek member (too) Edward Hobbs' defamatory post appeared
on B-Greek while we have not seen any presumably care-taking list-watcher,
like, say, an otherwise ever-present "Co-Chair", or the ever-mindful now
List-owner, call this member to task, or to order: to give a full and proper
explanation of his behavior, in substantiating the said slanderous bile or to
retract, fully, and to apologize before the members of this community --
albeit if even to one, against whom he had written ad hominem, and in his ...
absence (!), I ask:
a. Is one to assume that Co-Chair C. W. Conrad and List-owner J. Robie
condone of such behavior, as to call anyone slanderous names on list?
b. Have they taken any action, in putting Ed. Hobbs, say, on Notification, or,
as some (who, in remembrance of my being of old here written me) have
suggested: examined removing an offender of slander from list?
b. Or, does Chair Conrad and Owner Robie approve and agree with such
the exemplification of "Standards" such as these, and with the substance
of such defamation, and so acquiesce silently?
These are serious questions. And I am in wait for answers, at least, on list;
the while, a cleansing Christ is rising before my eyes, purging, at the Temple
(the real Christ I think is not been any on list, so worry not about issuing
"Him" a "Notification" to for the upturning of any there tables) as before also
there again comes Mathew with his chatter about the GRAMMATEIS, and the
FARISAOI, and now especially those poor UPOKRITES--persons of two-minds,
of two-tongues and of two, double-, "Standards"--quick to Judge, an-other!
I am praying that such are not really any of you, and that something is
taking place beneath the seemingly indifferent list screen.
Xairete, all! With very best wishes,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:20 EDT