LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  June 2001

TSE June 2001

Subject:

Re: mirages in TWL

From:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sun, 3 Jun 2001 09:45:55 EDT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (226 lines)


--part1_14.151ea0f1.284b9993_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 6/2/01 12:24:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] 
writes:


> Pat wrote:
> 
> <<Then you can show how wrong all those painters were in having three place 
> settings and three chairs at the table, when Christ --according to you--was 
> invisible. How did he expect to get his chow if nobody was able to see him 
> and the waiter consequently wouldn't realize that there was a need to set 
> out 
> a plate for him?>>
> 
> Pat:
> 
> Either you are completely misreading what Rick wrote, or I am.  I assume 
> you 
> are as inclined to think you are right at I am to think that I am.  So I 
> went 
> back and re-read his posts to find my error, but I still can't see how the 
> suggestion that the travellers didn't realize that the fellow with them was 
> Jesus would prevent them from setting a table for him, as a human being 
> whose 
> presence they recognized. So I read it again, and I still don't see it.  Am 
> I 
> missing something here?  Or maybe I'm seeing it but not recognizing it?
> 
> Tom K
> 
> Tom K
> 
> 
> 
> 
Tom,

You're misreading. Here's a summary. I think what you may have missed is item 
1 (below), and if you don't know what Rick said that was incorrect (or that 
it was incorrect), I'm sure it would be a mystery to you why I'd be 
correcting him. Or trying to correct him!  If this summary still doesn't 
clarify, let it go.

(1) Rick had said that in the story of the road to Emaus, Christ was 
invisible to the people he was walking along with. 

(2) I pointed out that Rick is incorrect--that this isn't what the Bible 
story says.   Though I didn't say so,  I didn't think he'd actually read the 
story.  I thought he'd made a guess, based on Eliot, as to what the Biblical 
story "probably" said, and in this case the guess was wrong. 

(3) Rick then posted a Biblical passage that was supposed to "prove" he was 
correct (in saying that Christ was invisible to his companions). A losing 
battle actually, as he just plain wasn't correct. 

(4) I responded to the purported "proof" by asking if Rick had actually read 
even the Biblical passage he'd posted, as it clearly says the two companions 
didn't recognize Christ, and it clearly did not say that the companions 
couldn't  see Christ. 

Rick will have to say whether this was the first point at which he realized 
that his guesswork about the Biblical story was off base. The story did not, 
as a matter of fact, say that when Christ and the disciples met on the road 
to Emmaus, they were unable to see him.

Whatever the case, Rick now moved into salvage mode, briefly admitting he'd 
been incorrect, but only for the purpose of introducing the new argument that 
maybe even though he'd been wrong, he had actually been right. This new 
argument was based on playing with words--that maybe it was true that the 
disciples couldn't see Christ if they couldn't "see" (recognize) him for who 
he actually was. Translation: Rick, unlike the rest of us, is right even when 
he's wrong. Or (alternate thesis) hell is going to freeze over before Rick 
admits he isn't always right about everything. Or, more kindly, maybe he was 
embarrassed because he'd been "summarizing" a story he hadn't actually read. 
I wasn't of course, out to embarrass him.  I just wanted to prevent his 
sowing confusion, and had momentarily forgotten that  he doesn't take kindly 
to being shown he's in error. Beats me what the problem is--most people would 
rather be corrected than not, as it's one of the ways we learn.

This isn't a criticism of Rick, as he isn't an academic. So it probably isn't 
fair to hold him  to rigorous intellectual standards.  But there's also 
another side to the picture. It isn't fair to knowingly spread 
misinformation, either. Doing so can  be confusing to students, who often 
have no standard for judging. Rick knew he hadn't actually read the story 
about which he was pretending to be knowledeable, and I knew it too.  But how 
is a student supposed to know?  And if the student does realize that Rick 
hasn't read the story about which he was pretending to be knowledgeable, what 
kind of example does it set for that student to see an adult faking it in 
this manner? 

Having heard Rick out in the past--on how busy he is, that he shouldn't be 
expected to necessarily have time to read texts before he offers "opinions" 
about those texts, and that he isn't an academic--I'm of two minds on how 
much slack to cut for him. If he's so into the thrill of explaining 
everything to everyone  that he'll even take on "explaining" texts he hasn't 
read, that's his problem. On the other hand, I can't help comparing Rick to 
Rick Seddon, who isn't an academic either. What I admire about Seddon is that 
he intuitively understands the basics, either from a natural aptitude for 
clear thinking or from his experience as a naval officer. If Seddon is wrong 
about some item, he doesn't have any hangup about admitting it, learning from 
it, and going on.  And I've never even once seen him wing it or fake it by 
pretending he'd read something he actually hadn't read. So I think he's 
great--a real professional!--and also a good example of the point that one 
doesn't have to be an academic to understand the need for intellectual 
integrity. I actually think R Packard could learn a lot from R Seddon, but 
that's getting into another story.

pat

--part1_14.151ea0f1.284b9993_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>In a message dated 6/2/01 12:24:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] 
<BR>writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Pat wrote:
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&lt;Then you can show how wrong all those painters were in having three place 
<BR>settings and three chairs at the table, when Christ --according to you--was 
<BR>invisible. How did he expect to get his chow if nobody was able to see him 
<BR>and the waiter consequently wouldn't realize that there was a need to set 
<BR>out 
<BR>a plate for him?&gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Pat:
<BR>
<BR>Either you are completely misreading what Rick wrote, or I am. &nbsp;I assume 
<BR>you 
<BR>are as inclined to think you are right at I am to think that I am. &nbsp;So I 
<BR>went 
<BR>back and re-read his posts to find my error, but I still can't see how the 
<BR>suggestion that the travellers didn't realize that the fellow with them was 
<BR>Jesus would prevent them from setting a table for him, as a human being 
<BR>whose 
<BR>presence they recognized. So I read it again, and I still don't see it. &nbsp;Am 
<BR>I 
<BR>missing something here? &nbsp;Or maybe I'm seeing it but not recognizing it?
<BR>
<BR>Tom K
<BR>
<BR>Tom K
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>Tom,
<BR>
<BR>You're misreading. Here's a summary. I think what you may have missed is item 
<BR>1 (below), and if you don't know what Rick said that was incorrect (or that 
<BR>it was incorrect), I'm sure it would be a mystery to you why I'd be 
<BR>correcting him. Or trying to correct him! &nbsp;If this summary still doesn't 
<BR>clarify, let it go.
<BR>
<BR>(1) Rick had said that in the story of the road to Emaus, Christ was 
<BR>invisible to the people he was walking along with. 
<BR>
<BR>(2) I pointed out that Rick is incorrect--that this isn't what the Bible 
<BR>story says. &nbsp;&nbsp;Though I didn't say so, &nbsp;I didn't think he'd actually read the 
<BR>story. &nbsp;I thought he'd made a guess, based on Eliot, as to what the Biblical 
<BR>story "probably" said, and in this case the guess was wrong. 
<BR>
<BR>(3) Rick then posted a Biblical passage that was supposed to "prove" he was 
<BR>correct (in saying that Christ was invisible to his companions). A losing 
<BR>battle actually, as he just plain wasn't correct. 
<BR>
<BR>(4) I responded to the purported "proof" by asking if Rick had actually read 
<BR>even the Biblical passage he'd posted, as it clearly says the two companions 
<BR>didn't <U>recognize</U> Christ, and it clearly did not say that the companions 
<BR>couldn't &nbsp;<U>see</U> Christ. 
<BR>
<BR>Rick will have to say whether this was the first point at which he realized 
<BR>that his guesswork about the Biblical story was off base. The story did not, 
<BR>as a matter of fact, say that when Christ and the disciples met on the road 
<BR>to Emmaus, they were unable to see him.
<BR>
<BR>Whatever the case, Rick now moved into salvage mode, briefly admitting he'd 
<BR>been incorrect, but only for the purpose of introducing the new argument that 
<BR>maybe even though he'd been wrong, he had actually been right. This new 
<BR>argument was based on playing with words--that maybe it was true that the 
<BR>disciples couldn't see Christ if they couldn't "see" (recognize) him for who 
<BR>he actually was. Translation: Rick, unlike the rest of us, is right even when 
<BR>he's wrong. Or (alternate thesis) hell is going to freeze over before Rick 
<BR>admits he isn't always right about everything. Or, more kindly, maybe he was 
<BR>embarrassed because he'd been "summarizing" a story he hadn't actually read. 
<BR>I wasn't of course, out to embarrass him. &nbsp;I just wanted to prevent his 
<BR>sowing confusion, and had momentarily forgotten that &nbsp;he doesn't take kindly 
<BR>to being shown he's in error. Beats me what the problem is--most people would 
<BR>rather be corrected than not, as it's one of the ways we learn.
<BR>
<BR>This isn't a criticism of Rick, as he isn't an academic. So it probably isn't 
<BR>fair to hold him &nbsp;to rigorous intellectual standards. &nbsp;But there's also 
<BR>another side to the picture. It isn't fair to knowingly spread 
<BR>misinformation, either. Doing so can &nbsp;be confusing to students, who often 
<BR>have no standard for judging. Rick knew he hadn't actually read the story 
<BR>about which he was pretending to be knowledeable, and I knew it too. &nbsp;But how 
<BR>is a student supposed to know? &nbsp;And if the student does realize that Rick 
<BR>hasn't read the story about which he was pretending to be knowledgeable, what 
<BR>kind of example does it set for that student to see an adult faking it in 
<BR>this manner? 
<BR>
<BR>Having heard Rick out in the past--on how busy he is, that he shouldn't be 
<BR>expected to necessarily have time to read texts before he offers "opinions" 
<BR>about those texts, and that he isn't an academic--I'm of two minds on how 
<BR>much slack to cut for him. If he's so into the thrill of explaining 
<BR>everything to everyone &nbsp;that he'll even take on "explaining" texts he hasn't 
<BR>read, that's his problem. On the other hand, I can't help comparing Rick to 
<BR>Rick Seddon, who isn't an academic either. What I admire about Seddon is that 
<BR>he intuitively understands the basics, either from a natural aptitude for 
<BR>clear thinking or from his experience as a naval officer. If Seddon is wrong 
<BR>about some item, he doesn't have any hangup about admitting it, learning from 
<BR>it, and going on. &nbsp;And I've never even once seen him wing it or fake it by 
<BR>pretending he'd read something he actually hadn't read. So I think he's 
<BR>great--a real professional!--and also a good example of the point that one 
<BR>doesn't have to be an academic to understand the need for intellectual 
<BR>integrity. I actually think R Packard could learn a lot from R Seddon, but 
<BR>that's getting into another story.
<BR>
<BR>pat</B></FONT></HTML>

--part1_14.151ea0f1.284b9993_boundary--

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager