Subject: Re: Alternatives

From: [email-masked] (E. Habas)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 13:10:01 +0300 (IDT)

>I must confess I feel a bit ambiguous about keeping the requirements
>low.  While a second-year Greek student could learn a great deal from
>those who typically contribute to the list, I doubt that student would
>have the background to be able to debate what are sometimes complicated
>issues.  Asking questions is another matter--a question that is overly
>simplistic may be ignored, but I have known plenty of second year Greek
>students who have asked challenging questions.  These students could not
>only learn from the experts on this list, but also all of us might learn
>from their questions, as I frequently do.

The same goes for fully qualified scholars in different fields. And who
will judge who among these have enough "overlapping" expertise and whose
interests lie too far afield? And what about a scholar whose formal
education is "different", but over the years developed an active interest
in aspects of TC? Also, some of these people, scholars and
scholars-in-the-making alike, are not in the habit of wasting the
list-members' precious time and energy (I suppose Dr. Adair can tell how
many of the list members, knowledgeable or not, actively participate in
debates), so there is no real *need* to expel them.

Is it really possible to identify unequivocally a list-member as
'un-suitable' on purely professional grounds, without personal opinions
playing their part? I would think that extreme rudeness (not always
unattested on this list, alas) should be the only grounds to close the list
to anyone.That should include, IMHO, wasting other people's time and
computor space on totally irrelevant matters, and sharing problems students
may have with their homework (not serious research, but the type that can
be solved by a quick visit to the library or the tutor's office).

Effie

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:37:03 -0400 (EDT)

Over the weekend I have been thinking about the comments that people have
made on this thread.  On the one hand, there are some who want to see the
list focused exclusively on non-introductory types of issues, such as
evaluations of specific readings, and so would prefer a closed or
moderated list.  Others have pointed out the value of questions from
novices, who sometimes see things from a perspective that those more
acquainted with the subject might not notice.  I have an idea that takes
both positions into account and might satisfy the majority of people on
the list (I doubt I can satisfy everyone!).  

I could set up a separate list called tc-pro (or some such) that would be
a closed list, open only to people with certain minimum qualifications.
People who only wanted to participate in the discussions on this list
would be free to do so, but people could also choose to remain on the
tc-list and participate in tc-pro as well (they would not receive
duplicate messages). Furthermore, everyone on the tc-list could watch the
discussions on tc-pro, but only members of tc-pro could respond on the
tc-pro list itself.

Such a setup would have the following benefits.  (1) TC professionals
could opt for a list with reduced traffic that would theoretically only
deal with matters of interest to the majority on the list.  (2) Students,
interested amateurs, and those with less tc experience would benefit by
watching discussions among tc professionals, which would demonstrate
something of the way in which those who do tc on a regular basis go about
their work.  (3) Anyone on the tc-list could comment on, critique, or ask
questions about discussions on the tc-pro list, and those on the tc-list
could respond (hopefully many people on the tc-pro list will choose to
remain on the tc-list as well).  (4) The tc-list would remain open to
anyone who is interested in the topic and is willing to follow the
guidelines associated with the list.  (5) Any general announcements
relating to new TC articles, books for review, or other matter of interest
to many on the list would be announced on the tc-pro list, and thus also
on the tc-list, so everyone would see them.

If we were to set up a tc-pro list, what would be the qualifications for
membership?  I think that we would want to set the qualifications fairly
high, for a couple of reasons.  First, since everyone on the tc-list will
be able to observe the discussions on tc-pro, there is no danger of
information being denied to those who are interested.  Second, if we set
the qualifications too low, everyone will abandon the tc-list and join the
tc-pro list exclusively, and we won't have accomplished anything.  I would
suggest that the tc-pro list be limited to those who have published
something in the area of biblical textual criticism and perhaps also those
who teach textual criticism in a college or seminary setting.  I would be
interested to hear comments on the membership of the tc-pro list.

If we decide to create a tc-pro list as described above, some computer
programming will be required, so it won't be available immediately.  I'll
wait to see what the response is before I begin work on it.

Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:17:07 -0500

> wait to see what the response is before I begin work on it.

    As an interested amateur, I think your suggestion is perfect to meet
the needs
of everyone interested in tc.  The pros can discuss academic topics
without
interruption on tc-pro and still give generously of their time, as I
find they always
do, to us "informed" layman looking to learn.

--
D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon ([email-masked])

 http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:39:46 -0500 (CDT)

>discussions on tc-pro, but only members of tc-pro could respond on the

[ etc. ]

As a counter-proposal, what about a "tc-intro" list? That would allow
people who know they are beginners to post their questions there, and
avoid ridicule, but lets the "main" list still be open. This wouldn't
eliminate all kookiness from the tc list, but would lower the noise
level a bit....

My opposition to a closed list out of my own experience. I have
never attended a seminary, have taken no courses in TC, and have no
Hebrew (I also don't discuss Hebrew TC; I know my limitations). My
Greek, such as it is, is self-taught. In other words, it would be
very difficult for me to "qualify" for tc-pro.

On the other hand, while I know that there are many here who disagree
with my opinions, I would point out that I *do* know about NT manuscripts,
I know the rules of internal evidence, I don't accept appeals to
providential preservation, and I don't ring in specially revealed
documents. I challenge opionions (a lot!), but I state my evidence
and am willing to learn (as I have learned from this list).

Also remember, folks, that you don't have to read postings to this
list. Indeed, many of you have software that lets you do as I do
and *filter* the list. If you don't want to listen to me, filter
me out!

So consider me as lightning rod. If you want me to go away forever
(and I strongly suspect some of you do), then vote for a closed
list. Automatic corollary: Be prepared to *never* learn from anyone
whose experience doesn't match yours.

If, on the other hand, you want free debate, vote for an open list.

Sorry to go on for so long, but having suffered through this thread
and the earlier Academic Imperialism thread, I would rather be told
to just go away and not come back rather than being told that I'm
a second class citizen....

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:11:31 +0100

I personally like Jimmy's plan.  Despite the obvious ego blow to those
of us who would not qualify for the tc-pro list [despite my reading and
graduate seminar in TC, I have not published and have not taught our
elective course], there is no sense in which *anyone* would be excluded.

As I understand it, the tc-pro list would be open to professionals to
debate questions.  Members of the tc-list would still be able to ask
questions and debate the issues with one another in an open forum.  As
Jimmy mentioned, the ideal situation would be for the members of tc-pro
to continue to participate in the tc-list.

I would favor such a plan, and I commend Jimmy for obviously putting a
great deal of thought and effort into coming up with a good compromise.
Should the group decide against it, I will withdraw my suggestion
willingly but I would like for us to find a way to filter some of the
problems that E. Habas mentioned.

-- 
H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D.			Assistant Professor of NT
3000 6th Avenue				Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem.
Fort Worth, Texas 76110			P. O. Box 22000
817-923-3008				Ft. Worth, TX 76122
817-922-9005 FAX			817-923-1921, ext. 6800
[email-masked]			817-921-8760 FAX
					[email-masked]

Visit My Home
Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html									

"The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what
he becomes by it"	--John Ruskin

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:46:15 -0600

>elective course], there is no sense in which *anyone* would be excluded.

One phrase: "Separate but equal is not equal."

>to continue to participate in the tc-list.

It's not really that simple. I haven't seen what happens when one
closes a scholarly list, but I *have* seen the results on a list
devoted to "folk music." Believe it or not, the list has evolved to
the point where discussion of actual folk music (the traditional
music of various peoples) is *excluded from the list.* It's not
likely to happen here (there is a special circumstance involved
in that case), but it's not impossible, either.

>problems that E. Habas mentioned.

Since I appear to be outvoted, I'm going to put in two special
appeals.

First, *DON'T* call it tc-pro. I'd still argue for "tc" and
"tc-intro," but if that is unacceptable, how about "tc" and
"tc-scholarly"? It's a little less judgmental.

Second, how about a way to petition into tc-scholarly? That is,
you can get in if you have the academic credentials, *or* if
three accredited members of tc-scholarly ask to let you in.
It seems to me that that would still succeed in keeping the
radical sorts out, without imposing *quite* as severe a gag
rule. (Translation: I think I could get in that way. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:58:01 -0700 (PDT)

> One phrase: "Separate but equal is not equal."
 
I am not sure our foreign list-members recognize this allusion to the Jim
Crow laws of the US before Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education overthrew
their last vestige. 

> in that case), but it's not impossible, either.

I am glad Bob grought this issue up, mentioning the example of another
list. What should we expect will happen to a closed "tc-pro" list, based
on the experience of other closed lists?  I very much doubt that it will
be the unadulterated good the plan's proponents seem to expect.  So, for
example, if tc-pro and tc-list are separate, I expect the latter to either
wither and die or quickly degenerate into a forum for nothing but
meaningless blather. 

> Since I appear to be outvoted, I'm going to put in two special

In this matter, as in many matters (not just TC) opinions should be
weighed, not counted.  In particular, I recall the list-owner soliciting
our opinions, I expect he will take them into serious consideration, but
he is under no obligation to count our votes. 

But even more central to the issue, there are other means for us to deal
with the "problems that E. Habas mentioned".  The means I have been using
all along is generous use of the delete key.  Judging from the
correspondence on the proposal to close the list, I would say many other
list-members are quite content to do the same.  For those of you whose
mail-readers support it there is the even more user-friendly option of
kill-files. 

The ability to tell, by reading no more than a few posts, whether a given
contributor is capable of making meaningful contributions should
definitely be among the qualifications for being in tc-pro.  But if he has
this capability, the list member can use the kill files to solve the
"problems" anyway, so the need to separate the list vanishes. 

Finally, I do have one alternative concrete proposal.  I have refrained
from offering it before because I suspect that the list-owner's software
does not offer this capability conveniently (if at all), in which case it
is unreasonable to expect him to do it.  The proposal is to keep the one
list, but have different privileges for different members. The members who
have proven themselves capable of meaningful contributions (but who will
decide?) will have the privilege of posting to the list, others can
receive posts but not originate them. 

Now if it were possible to judge a contributor's worth by the letters
after his name, I would say that this is the clearly superior solution.
But as it is, the judicious use of kill files is still the better way. 

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).