Kata Markon

["L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>]

JFAlward AT aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 12/29/01 8:52:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> larry.swain AT wmich.edu writes:
> 
> << Perhaps it wasn't directed at me either, but let me say that I subscribe
>  to every list Jeffrey moderates and I have found his hand to be a light
>  one.  I find your post of yesterday evening insulting and
>  unprofessional.  If you have complaints the proper place to address them
>  is to Jeffrey personally and to other members of the board of this list,
>  not to the list in general.  In doing so, as Tony pointed out, you have
>  actually perpetrated what you accuse others of doing.
> 

> 
> "Perpetuated"?  Is that the word you meant to use?

No it isn't, which is why I used the word PERPETRATED.


> 
> Do you mean "done"?  If you're saying I did the same as Tony did when I
> criticized another poster (Tony), then of course that is true.  I'm sure
> you'll agree that one is expected to raise objections in public in response
> to such publicly made criticisms, don't you?


I too disagreed with Tony's response, but understand where it came from
just as I understand the original bibliographic request.  But that is no
excuse for castigating the moderator who attempted to explain where
Tony's complaint may have been based, and then to go even further and
decry the list and its apparent lack of activity as being the
moderator's responsibility rather than the list members' responsibility.

 
> Now, if you mean "prolonged the existence of," then your comment is ironic.
> You are doing the same thing.  Please note that there would not have been a
> second post on this matter, let alone a third and fourth from me, if
> others--including you--had not attempted to rebut my criticisms in public,
> rather than off-list.  Am I not to respond publicly to comments made 
> publicly?

Since I didn't say PERPETUATE but rather PERPETRATE this unnecessary
criticism is beside the point.  I only remark that you were off base in
attacking Jeffrey and you have created the unfriendly atomosphere for
which you reprimanded both Jeffrey and Tony by doing so, and are
continuing to do so with this message.  And since you seem to appreciate
irony, it is rather ironic that you here castigate me for responding to
you onlist rather than off list when in point of fact you attacked
Jeffrey rather publicly.  That's irony if you ask me.

> 
> Larry, if you had truly wished to see this thread end, then why did you not
> send me your post off-list?  If you had done so,  then I would have written
> this to you, rather than to the list.  The same can be said to the moderator
> about his posts on this matter.

I said nothing in my note about anything ceasing and desisting.  I
stated quite publicly that your criticism of Jeffrey was and is uncalled
for.  In future, please do not put arguments in my mouth and then argue
against them.  And again you attack Jeffrey regarding his public
posts---why is he not supposed to defend himself publicly against a
public attack?  You invoke this "rule" for yourself, yet do not accord
it to others.

> 
> I think the better place for such matters is on-list; the perception that
> things might be going on behind the scenes hampers the free exchange of
> ideas.  

Open criticism of the moderator without first having spoken to the
moderator and the board of the list is hardly the best way to fix what
you might see as a problem.  Nor do I see your note regarding Jeffrey's
moderating practices as being a free exchange of ideas, much less an
accurate view of the situation.  


>In addition, it seems inappropriate that the validity of criticisms
> about the moderator should be judged by the moderator.  

They weren't, or at least not entirely.  As I stated, I'm on every list
that Jeffrey moderates and have been a happy and pleased participant,
and have taken part in the special lists he has created in the past as
"seminars" with Crossan and Dunn etc.  In fact, I asked him to be my
advisor when I started my own list and borrowed a good deal from him in
creating it.  So, I as a participant will go on record as saying that
Jeffrey is doing a fine job as moderator.  


>I am not so naive as
> to think that my opinion alone would be enough to cause a change in the
> moderator's attitude; 

I think you are misguided.  Jeffrey merely provided information from the
list protocols that could be the source of Tony's complaint, he did not
justify Tony's complaint, nor did he attack you in any way that I can
see.  And as he pointed out, he approved, and rightly in my view, the
original message in the first place from a new subscriber.  Nor do I
find Jeffrey's attitude in approving that message, nor in trying to
preempt a problem with you in his original response.  In fact, I find
his attempts at peacemaking and explanation a positive reaction and
wonder where the source of your rancor lies.


it would be by the weight of the opinion of several
> others that might do so.  How would I rally others to my side--if such a
> rally were even warranted--if I made my criticisms in private?  Are not
> decisions and judgements to be made in a democratic fashion on this list?  
> If
> not, why not?

It is a moderated list, not a democracy.  And it is in fact testimony to
Jeffrey's patience and willingness to receive criticism that he has
allowed his chief critic to remain on this list, to freely post whenever
and whatever he wishes.  If you wish to establish your own unmoderated
list on the Gospel of Mark there are now many venues available for you
to do so.  But I for one see a need for moderated lists.

> Now, let me take this opportunity to question the moderator's claim that he
> thought the letter from the Norwegian professor was appropriate:  If that
> were true, then why did he delay for so long any comment about the slap
> delivered to the professor by another poster?  And, even when he *did*
> finally make his first comment on this matter, nowhere was there to be found
> any hint that he thought the comments from the student from New Jersey were
> impolite.   He's never said that he does not approve of the rebuke, and he's
> had two opportunities to do so.  Shall we not assume that he thinks the
> public comments about the professor were  warranted?  If not, why not?
 
YOu can't have it both ways Joe.  Either you want moderation or you want
democracy, you call for democracy and the free exchange of ideas and
then criticize Jeffrey for not being intrusive enough when that exchange
occurs.
As I stated in my original post, I have found Jeffrey's moderator hand
to be a light one, and this is a case in point.  His remarks in response
to yours to try and explain Tony's position were an attempt to avoid a
flame war, a war that you have PERPETUATED.  Any other intrusion was
unnecessary as many list members were helpful and provided the requested
bibliography.  Most of us who disagreed with Tony simply ignored his
statement finding no reason to respond to it.  He's also never said that
he did approve of the rebuke by Tony either, as a good moderator he has
remained neutral on the issue.  It is a non sequitur to assume that
silence means approval.  Sometimes silence is the better part of valor.



> One would think that if a list has only been attracting five or six posts a
> month for the last several months, that one would wish to adopt a more
> inclusive attitude toward new posters such as the Norwegian professor, and 
> be
> quick to restrain those who would make new posters feel foolish.

Which since Jeffrey approved the message is precisely what he did,
included the message.  Again, you can't have it both ways, Joe, either
you want a free exchange of positions and Tony should be free to voice
his objection just as much as the person asking the question should be
free to ask the question, any intrusion of Jeffrey's on the issue is a
heavy hand.  Nor do you know what if anything happened behind the
scenes.  A small thing has become a mountain and I'm convinced that
after this little war that our newcomer will indeed be relunctant to
post again, this war on your part has done more damage than good in that
regard.
 
> This is just my perception of what has happened, and what has been happening
> in the past year with this list.  There may reasons other than elitism why
> the list has been comparatively unsuccessful; it is my hope that they will 
> be
> found and confronted.

Might I suggest that you examine other lists that deal with the gospels
in particular?  I understand that the Luke-Acts list is very slow these
days, until recently there has been no Matthew list, which hasn't been
all that active either, and the John list (which I believe Jeffrey is on
the board for) has had periods of few emails as well.  So I would say
that this list is pretty much in the same ball park as other lists
dealing with the gospels.  I have found no elitism among the members of
this group, except once with a member who said I was uninformed, but
that was not the moderator or any of the board.  

Regards, 

Larry Swain