[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

orion Misreadings

This is addressed to the list in general and to Stephen Goranson in 

On the topic of misreading postings:

1) READ CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU REPLY. Make sure you understand what the 
writer is saying. This may sound elementary but careless replies waste 
time when the original writer is forced to restate his or her position 
again and again.

2) If possible, quote the original writer briefly, with >'s and "cut and
paste." When you paraphrase, there is a greater chance of misinterpreting the
original posting. Remember that the rest of us do not always have the benefit
of having the original message in front of us to check its accuracy. 

There have been far too many complaints about misinterpreted postings 

Avital Pinnick
list moderator

On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Stephen Goranson wrote:

> Greg Doudna wrote on Nov. 2, among other sentences:
> "This is caused by the inability of S. Goranson to understand or represent
> others' arguments accurately."
> 	This is not fair.  If I did make mistakes,  I did not intend to. My
> objections to his dating of the locus 2 "scroll jar" (which are similar to
> the observations of Prof. Magness), and to his proposed circa 55 BCE scroll
> deposit, and to other matters as well, are based on my understanding of
> history and archaeology. It is possible that what he considers evidence of
> a lack of understanding or misrepresentation arises, rather, from a
> differing evaulation of the evidence than his. But I cannot comment at the
> moment  on whether specific claimed misunderstandings and
> misrepresentations arose in my mind or his and on who owes apologizes to
> whom. In any case, I submit that his Nov. 2 post was not fair.
> sincerely,
> Stephen Goranson   goranson@duke.edu
> P.S. I quoted one sentence from the second paragraph of that post. That
> paragraph appears to include a request that I not "cite or quote" him, so
> it has indeed been difficult for me to know how best to respond. I chose,
> in this case, to respond briefly, rather than to review and reexplain my
> objections to his dating proposals.