From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 27 1999 - 07:48:39 EDT
OFF-LIST:
Dear Rod, I'm sorry you had to be subjected to this, perhaps primarily because I had replied originally to Jim West that you and others would surely want to get their 2c+ worth in on this matter. I would like to think this little tempest is over or at least in the mop-up stage, but as with Floyd, there's been some damage, most of it, I think, to Jim's precarious reputation for sanity. I hope that I've exposed to public view his frightful cynicism to which you to have alluded in the note you just posted. The most disturbing thing about this to me is that he's certainly not stupid even if he acts that way; it just seems to me that he fires off responses without thinking through what he really means and what the farther-reaching implications are of what he's hastily claiming. I don't think we're anywhere near the point that we're wanting to take disciplinary action against him, since he has expressed opinions rather than directly insulted anybody, but I wrote him on Saturday--particularly with respect to his re
sponse to you--that he is often terribly rude when he's trying to be funny and sometimes terribly funny when he's trying to be rude. And it bothers me too, as one who would like to claim to be "liberal," that for one who appears, at least superficially, to be a "liberal," he gives public exposure to a frightfully closed and unreflective mind.
I wish you well, as always, c
At 6:50 AM -0400 9/27/99, Rodney J. Decker wrote:
>I returned to my study early this morning after a busy weekend and discover
>that a TEMPUS has developed in the teapot! I read some comments that are
>apparently directed towards the study of aspect, but honestly don't
>recognize *some* of them as at all reflective of the discussion. Some even
>think that the discussion apparently doesn't bother to deal with the text
>but only with abstract speculation divorced from reality. Since such
>comments appear to come from those whose mind is already made up and who
>only come to the forum of b-greek to have their predispositions supported,
>I will answer: Nope!
>
>For those who are willing to consider the matter, I'll point out that
>Porter's vol. on aspect contains 22 triple-col. pages of Scripture index to
>the NT and another 15 to extra-NT texts. (One reviewer estimates that he
>incorporates about 50% of the verses in the NT in his discussion; I haven't
>tried to verify that, but it wouldn't surprise me.) Fanning's work has a
>14-page index (also triple col.). But yes, the discussion needs to receive
>more attention in extended portions of text. Which is why my diss. was
>"Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb _in the Gospel of Mark_ with Reference
>to Verbal Aspect." I set my task to be that of determining if Porter's
>theory was adequate to handle the actual data of an extended portion of
>text. My conclusion? Yup.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:40 EDT