Dan's epistemology [quite short, was "(unfortunately, long)"]
Dan.Wagner at datastream.net
Tue Mar 6 16:21:24 EST 2001
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:50
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Dan's epistemology (unfortunately, long)
> I was thinking about not sending this post, as there seems
> there is little
> hope of communication with you, Dan.
If by "hope of communication" with me you intend an undercover way of saying
you hope for the possibility of converting me to your religion, sorry, but
that's impossible ... sort of like getting me to believe that i am not the
son of those whom i presume to be my parents: I cannot prove it perhaps, but
i know it's true. Too much evidence to just explain it all away. I don't
have enough faith to believe someone who'd tell me it's not true.
> You "saturation of the airwaves"
I apologize to all who were offended by that, which was not intentional. I
do realize how it appeared, but it was for circumstantial, not apologetic
reasons. I have Thur/Fri evening working late when it's not busy on my job,
and i rarely take anything home. I almost caught up Thurs PM but wanted to
revise and reread/edit my initial key responses to all who criticized my
*single* post earlier. On Fri. i posted those, and then caught up on the
list and added some other misc. posts which unfortunately added up...
(i can give my work supervisor's phone no., Ian, if you question the
historicity of this; imagine, being able to check it out, even fly to USA
and see it with your own eyes, then something you can *know* is true! But
... then they could be lying to cover up for me or other agenda, you might
get the wrong Dan Wagner ... actually *nothing* could be proven
absolutely--nothing ever has. But incredible weight of evidence and common
sense ought to play some factor in one's epistemology.)
> yesterday showed that you have little respect for the main
> purposes of this
> list. There was almost nothing to do with the sorts of this that are
> normally dealt with here, minimal linguistic work, merely a
> few citations of
> texts, no efforts to deal with what the writers were doing.
> In fact, your
> general approach is to sublimate the original writers'
> activities to your
...which is precisely a key reason why i'm not replying to the bulk of
> However, I send this because 1) I spent a fair bit of time on
> it, and 2) I
> don't think I have communcated my complaints about what you
> are doing here
> clearly enough.
Clear enough already, but without enough substance. But i'll quit on all
this sort of stuff! I hope to get to DAniel later if not too busy but want
to post this now lest i be misinterpreted, if all my posts are at once.
More information about the b-hebrew