Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Paul Zellmer wrote:


>Rolf,
>
>You are wrong to interpret that the lack of response implies no answer
>to your question.  While I can only confidently speak for myself, I
>decided weeks ago that, even after giving you numerous opportunities to
>alter your purposes, your posts of this nature are not the honest search
>for knowledge or understanding of others' positions.  They are rather
>theses for debate, debate in which you will remain unconvinced no matter
>what is put forth.  And, as for your attempts at falsifying what you
>perceive as the dominant view of the hebrew verb (which, BTW, does not
>seem to describe accurately any of the views given in response to your
>posts), I have seen nothing put forward by you that would replace such a
>theory by positively assisting in the interpretation of forms one comes
>across in the text.  Therefore I look at what you write, and choose not
>to waste my time and bandwidth responding.
>
>This is not to say that I do not respect your abilities as a scholar or
>that you are off as far as your self-limited analysis of the qatal and
>yiqtol allows you to deduce.  It was perhaps a bit dishonest (in that it
>was misleading) for Rolf to write a response to Rolf, but that was how
>you wished to separate your ideas from your question.
>


Dear Paul,

I do not think it accords well with the spirit of scolarly discussion that
you, instead of discussing my questions about the Hebrew language, use ad
hominem arguments expressed by such words as "not an honest search for
knowledge" and "perhaps a bit dishonest"; and by saying that I don't
"describe accurately any of the views given in response to (my) posts" and
that I "will remain unconvinced no matter what is put forth".

In my early student days I learned some fundamental rules for a scholarly
discussion:

1) Always show your opponent respect and dignity.
2) Never doubt the motives of your opponent.
3) Never express that your opponent is stupid or stubborn.
4) Never use ad hominem arguments.
5) You can only succeed by using scholarly arguments pertinent to the
subject being discussed.

It seems to me that you have not fulfilled any of these fine rules, and I
hope that I in the future can discuss  Hebrew in a scholarly way with those
who do not find such discussions a waste of their time.





Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo