MarianneLuban at aol.com
MarianneLuban at aol.com
Fri Aug 27 19:17:08 EDT 2004
In a message dated 8/27/2004 2:38:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peterkirk at qaya.org writes:
> >>Now you are libelling *me* in a public forum.
> >No. I am not. Because when I wrote about "setting precedents" in a
> >post, you replied with an example of someone being shot or stabbed or
> >something. For that, the defendant would be involved in a criminal case,
> in which
> >caselaw and precedents do not apply--only the facts of the case matter.
> >sole exception to this is a "wrongful death" lawsuit--which is a civil
> matter and
> >can be brought even when the defendant in a criminal action is judged "not
> Well, thanks for the explanation. First let me explain that I am a
> British citizen and English law on these matters is not identical to
Actually, it is. American law is based on English law. In a criminal case
in the UK, it is "The Crown vs. Whomever", just as in the States it is "The
State vs. Whomever".
The government on any level is left out of the civil cases. It is simply
"Smith vs. Jones".
But the whole point of my posting about law (although I didn't
> use the terms) was to say that a historical matter is not like a civil
> law matter as you suggested, in which the court decides based on
> precedents etc, but like a criminal law matter in which the court
> attempts to find the facts - and, even if the court makes a mistake, the
> facts are still the facts.
I said that scholarship is must fall within a framework of previous
scholarship by which certain assumptions have already been established. For example,
it has been established that Amenhotep I reigned after Ahmose I. If someone
wishes to disprove that, the person first takes this assumption and then must
provide a pretty solid case why this is not so in order to convince those who
believe in this order of succession. One cannot simply say "Well, I have this
evidence that I believe is a fact" and then expect others to agree that it is a
fact without some pretty good evidence--or argument. Unlike in a criminal
case, there usually is no "solid evidence"--in Egyptology (unless one digs up
something new that sheds a whole different light on everything) but only
arguments for a new interpretation of the old evidence. So, as in a civil case, it
is the arguments that pursuade and establish a new "precedent" for looking at
any given matter in a certain light. If the arguments are persuasive enough.
> >You might find yourself > needing a lawyer yourself.
> >Or you--if you continue to publicly assert that I am libeling anybody. If
> >you publicly accuse someone of that, you had better make sure that it is
> > You have no idea whether or not I have > qualifications in law. You should
> >>be careful before making such a statement publicly about someone who for
> >>you know might be a practising libel lawyer who would certainly see what
> >>write as a
> >>libel against himself. Such things could get very expensive for you.
> >LOL! Your previous post about the law would have tipped off anyone who
> >anything about it that you are no "practising libel lawyer". And the one I
> >am replying to erases all doubt entirely. If you are no lawyer, as you
> >below, no claim by anyone that you don't know the law could ever be
> >as libel by a court of law. Period. Because you would in no way suffer
> >damages by such a claim.
> Well, you may be right. But you didn't know I was not a lawyer, until I
> said so in my PS. You show either ignorance of the law or recklessness
> in publicly accusing people you know almost nothing about of ignorance
> when in fact you have misunderstood the facts.
You showed evidence that you did not know the law. Therefore, there was no
reason for me to believe otherwise. It is not imcumbent upon me to do a search
on you to find out exactly what you do for a living in order to state an
opinion that you do not know the law. However, did I know for certain in advance
that you are in fact an attorney (which you aren't) and then made the
statement, then that would be a whole other matter. This is not a forum for legal
discussion and one would not expect it to be populated by lawyers. In fact, I
suggest that no further legal matters be discussed here unless they pertain to
> >>>>Meanwhile, Marianne, I haven't noticed many question marks in your
> >>>>recent postings, just quite a lot of statements like "definitely" and
> >>>>"No doubt about it".
> >Did you make certain of the facts before you wrote that? My assertion is
> >that you did not--and that it is a gross exaggeration.
> I copied and pasted these two quotations from one of your postings.
I didn't see them. And two does not constitute "a lot" in anyone's book.
> >But I agree with you that the moderators ought to intervene, to >
> >>stop list members libelling either reputable scholars like David Rohl or
> >>other list members.
> >Or threatening them--as you have done me. I am going to give you some good
> >advice: calm yourself now and think twice about replying to any of my
> >posts--unless you can do so in a scholarly and gentlemanly fashion. I am a
> student of
> >the law. And don't at this point need a lawyer for anything.
> And I know the law better than you seem to think.
Good for you! But, don't forget, it was you who stated that I do not have
the right to take part in any discussions on Biblical Hebrew--assuming that I do
not know anything about that subject. And yet--what do you think modern
Hebrew is based on? Chinese maybe? Hebrew is Hebrew. It is only those terms
that had to be coined by the venerable Ben-Yehuda and those western terms that
were incorporated that make the appreciable difference. It is not only scholars
of Biblical Hebrew that are able to read the HB, you know. For the sake of
this forum, I think we have reached the point where we are not going to be able
to discuss anything in a peaceful and objective manner. I could--but I have
reservations about you. Therefore, I suggest that we reply to one another no
longer as to avoid off topic disruption.
More information about the b-hebrew