Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

I apologise for giving the impression that I was arguing in the way I was
politely requesting you not to argue. I did not intend to argue in this way,
but I see that I left myself open to being misunderstood.

I did not intend to cause offence by requesting you not to do something
which (as I now accept) you had no intention of doing. I apologise for any
offence caused by this.

And I agree that it would be best to leave this here.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GregStffrd AT aol.com [mailto:GregStffrd AT aol.com]
> Sent: 24 May 2001 17:45
> To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Cc: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
> Subject: Re: Exodus 3:14 -- Request for Moderator Action
>
>
> 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
>