Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

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