[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Misreadings
Dear Dr. Avital Pinnick and list,
I have carefully read your post (below) and that of Greg Doudna of Nov 2
which mentioned me. I have often used quotations (with " "s or >>s) and
often provided bibliographic references, though sometimes I didn't copy
long posts and long exchanges, as the orion list instructions recommend
against that. Certainly I will comply with this instruction to use more
quotations. But, in this case, neither post informs me of a single proposed
"misreading," so I cannot quote it. Nor can I, if appropriate, explain it
or apologize for it.
When G. Doudna first, long ago, wrote concerning the locus two jar,
after carefully reading his post and consulting the relevant notes and
photos in Humbert and Chambon, I wrote in saying the archaeology had been
misinterpreted. Greg wrote further; I invited Jodi Magness to comment. I
have some experience as a dirt archaeologist, but clearly less expertise
than she. Her expert comments, IMO, concur with the dismissal of a c. 100
deposit date for that one jar. I have disagreed with the interpretations by
G. Doudna and F. Cryer of C14 dates, after careful reading of their posts
and Radiocarbon journal articles (and I was not alone in finding some of
their use of the data unscientific). I have also written, as has Prof.
Magness, against the idea of abandonment at Qumran for long periods in 1BCE
and 1CE. IMO, the facts are against these three proposals. I ask you to
check as to who complained to you about what Greg wrote was my
"inability...to understand or report others' arguments accurately." I do
not know, but wonder whether it is precisely those, such as G. Doudna and
Fred Cryer and Jim West, whose arguments I have actually read carefully,
sometimes found wanting, and responded to directly and critically. I wrote
to the list in protest of Greg's statement quoted above. Some of F. Cryer's
posts have been remarkably out of line, IMO. Frankly, I am disappointed
that my request for censure of inappropriate language was not reflected in
In other words, I suggest that it is not my mistakes, real or
alleged, that are chiefly at issue here. I suggest it is dissatisfaction
at having weak proposals answered which has led some to seek my silence.
Who is misrepresenting whom?
If orion list becomes a forum in which ideas which contradict basic
archaeological and historical principles gain currency, then the Dead Sea
Scrolls story will merely gain another "scandal."
Offlist lately I have received one complaint on the subject of
*alleged* misreading by me; but I cannot respond here, as it was offlist.
I had sat down this morning intending to respond privately and
constructively to that private note, but was quite disappointed by your
moderator's note addressed especially to me.
Clearly, I am interested in these subjects. I appreciate the
potential of the orion list and have learned some from it. I would regret
it if I were removed. If I were removed I would consider it unfair. But, if
such arises, I would not spam the list, as Ian H. (who helped supply the
misreadings to get the 63 BCE deposit proposal started) has done.
In sum, I ask that my posts (past and future) be read to see
whether I have made a good faith and reasonably well-informed effort to
contribute positively to orion discussion.
Stephen Goranson firstname.lastname@example.org
>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