I am leaving on a trip so I will, ambiguously stated, look forward to
reading what is in my mailbox when I return. For those that feel
inclined to reply, please don't copy me. I will read what is posted
to the list and despite the charm that your post may contain, I will
only have time to read it once.
I think it important to clarify a few points from my post suggesting
that other members and I would prefer that some discussions were
contintued off-line.
On the list, we are living in a quasi-democratic or quasi-populist
community in which there is for better and for worse little governing
structure. There are naturally a spectrum of outlooks concernig what
are and are not useful and interesting topics.
In general, the delete key works pretty well. Lord knows I have used
it a lot these past few months. Nevertheless, what is true, is that
the quality and subject of the posts determines who joins and who
leaves the list. THe Unsubscribe message sometimes works better, and
that is what concerns me.
> My concern is that the volume and the type of recent posts means
that fewer thoughtful people will become or remain part of the list
(thoughtful defined, of course, from my perspective). Allan
Harvey's departure from the list is an example of this. Reflecting
an earlier post's statement that the poster had not recommended that anyone
join this list over the last few months, I too have refrained from
suggesting that a former student of mine join the list because I
did not think it would make a good impression or be fruitful.
> I am as much concerned with the quality of the discussions as I am
with the flaming. Superficial discussions that seem uniformed
about the history of such arguments (such as Bishop Usher's dating
of Adam using the bible), which would rate at best a "gentleman's
C" on a freshman rhetoric class, and which are oblivious to various
implicit assumptions concerning scripture, for example, are not
edifying. I have posted a few "gentleman's C" posts in my time and
there has been plenty of chaff, but there was been a strong
intellectual, reasoned backbone on the list that was well-informed
concerning history, theology, and philosophy, and sought to be
better informed.
> Along these lines, I was not suggesting, in general, that
discussions of the historicity of Genesis were unwarranted. Peter
Ruest, Glenn Morton, Bill Payne and others put together thoughtful
posts that are well-documented. Although I do not connect well
with some of their posts (they seem to some degree to be in
different intellectual universes than me), I appreciate them,
interact with them to some degree and learn from them because they
have thoughtful content. What I am doing is appealing that
discussions of topics such as this be done at a higher level if
they are pursued.
> Since this is a populist list, if a significant number of people
want to hear Jim's perspectives on the historicity of Genesis, or
discuss how many years between Adam and Christ I will bow to the
will of the people. I suspect that the larger group feels
similarly.
In short, the list is largely influenced by the subscribers and the
good-will of the people who post. I express my opinion because I am
concerned with the direction the community is moving. Others must act,
or not act, to determine the direction the listserv moves. I think it
important to say that I have no ill will towards Jim or Mike or anyone
else even when I am called a heretic. I just am interested in
different questions, and suspect that others are as well, and that
pursuit of their discussion was going to make it more difficult to
continue what I feel has been the positive character of the listserv.
Blessings!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 19 2002 - 11:41:12 EDT