Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Exodus 3:14 -- Request for Moderator Action

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: GregStffrd AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Cc: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
  • Subject: Re: Exodus 3:14 -- Request for Moderator Action
  • Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 12:44:55 EDT


In a message dated 05/24/2001 6:47:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Peter_Kirk AT sil.org writes:

<< Greg, do you not know the difference between a request not to do something
and an accusation of having done so? I think you need to learn this
difference between these things in English before trying to understand the
Hebrew Bible. >>



Yes, Peter, I do. But you made no such explicit request; instead, you wrote
in such a way as to color my words with an argument that I did not even begin
to advance. What is more, as I have said repeatedly, there was no basis for
you to make such a "request." Nothing I said even remotely hinted that I was
pursuing such a course, which is why your actions are so inexcusable and your
refusal to simply acknowledge and apologize so telling.

You have misunderstood and misrepresented simple English comments several
times, and advanced arguments that you initially made up and condemned.
Therefore, may I respectfully suggest that you take to heart *your own
advice* and learn to properly understand basic English before getting
involved in Hebrew study? You might also learn some common courtesy along the
way, if you plan on talking with others about such things.



<< I apologise to you that some with an inadequate understanding of English
may
have misunderstood my statement as an accusation. >>



For the second time, that is not the issue. What you should apologize for is
your own inadequate understanding of English, and your subsequent
misrepresentation of the simple statements made which you did and still do
not understand. Again, there was no basis for your invention of an argument
and attribution of it to me, nor for your subsequent use of the same type of
argument which you previously made up! I would not have believed anyone
capable of such actions and misunderstandings had I not been directly
involved in the issue myself.

All we have gotten from you is qualification after qualification after
qualification, in an attempt by you to rewrite what you initially wrote. I
explained and documented this very clearly in my last two emails, but instead
of quoting what I wrote and quoted from you, and responding in kind, you send
these general emails that do not engage in all of the specific points raised
by me.


<< I am not going to
apologise for something which I did not intend as an accusation and which is
not written in the form of an accusation, rather of a polite request. >>


It was neither polite or a simple request. You quoted me and then made the
horrific comment. Now, if there is no basis for what you said in fact, but
only a request by you that such a course not be taken, why mention it at all?
In other words, to make this easier for your to understand, Peter, you
clearly saw something in what I wrote that made you think that such a warning
was needed. You even gave two quotes from my posts to support your abuse of
my argument when I called you out for your misrepresentation! But as I
explained, there is nothing in either of those quotes that in *any* stretch
of the imagination points to or even hints at the thing of which you spoke.
So where did it come from if not your own overactive imagination? THAT is why
you owe me an apology, because nothing *I* said gave reason for you to act
and speak the way you did.



<< I do apologise if I failed to understand the subtle distinctions you were
making between the purpose of this particular discussion and the general
purpose of the list. >>


Thank you.



<< I have already apologised for writing that Stoney "probably knows English
better than you do". I hope you can accept this apology. >>



Yes, I do. But this was not the only issue: You used this comment to try and
make the same point you accused me of making, namely, that such knowledge put
him in the right. As I noted in my prior email, there is no other meaning
that one could be expected to take from your use of this argument, than that
Stoney is right *because of* what you claimed. So you have apologized for
half of the problem on this point, and that is good, but not the *main*
problem.

I think it would be in your best interest to recognize that you not only
invented an argument and put it my mouth in ad hominem fashion, but you used
the *same* type of argument to advance your own cause! It's not just the
unfounded claim about "knowledge," but your *argument,* that is a concern. I
am still not sure you understand this, yet.



<< I understand that you do not wish to answer Stoney's point about
"storytelling". He is an expert on this matter, and has stated his point.
You are free not to respond if you wish, but if you do wish to, you should
do so by reasoned arguments and not by rubbishing the whole method of
literary criticism, as you do when you write '"storytelling" of this kind
(marked by irritation in the reply) has not been shown to relate to anything
in the text or context?' Surely literary criticism relates to all
literature, and "storytelling" insights to all narratives? Well, this sounds
a bit like laying down the law, and I don't want to do that. This paragraph
is my recommendation to you. If the moderators have other feelings on this,
I will be glad to hear them. >>



Peter, I responded on the grounds I see as most necessary for a discussion of
the point. I cannot be clearer in explaining the point to you than what I
wrote in my last email:

<>


In every respect, then, I have remained focussed on the core issues. When
someone is able to establish their point by using the syntax, semantics and
context of the text, then I will gladly comment again. But I am not going to
do anything more than grant an unlikely possibility for his point about
"irritation," without something more in support of the point than an attempt
to understand English translations of the passage.

There are numerous points and direct questions that I asked you in my last
two emails, and you have ignored almost all of them. Therefore, I do not
believe you are interested in a productive conversation at this point.

I am satisfied with your apologies on certain points, though you refuse to
apologize for the two main problems, particularly your unfounded ad hominem.
But I realize this is probably the most I can expect from you at this point.
My advice to you, Peter, is to let it go before you say something else that
is offensive.

Greg Stafford




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page