Languages ( was : Yiddish translation of Gita

Robert Phillips RPie at CONCENTRIC.NET
Fri Jan 23 22:45:22 EST 1998


winnie fellows wrote:

> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
> Para: Winnie Fellows <Winnie Fellows>
> Data: Sexta-feira, 23 de Janeiro de 1998 21:27
> Assunto: Re: Languages ( was : Yiddish translation of Gita
>
> >winnie fellows wrote:
> >
> >> >What impresses me the patience with which some people take even patently
> un
> >> >called for remarks such as about Why have Gita in Yiddish so seriously
> and
> >> >explain teh whole issue. I  salute you Mr lars
> >> >keep it up and those who asked this rather silly question, shoudl be
> more
> >> >considerate of traffic on inetrnet and avoid crowding it by posting such
> >> >remarks
> >> >thanks
> >> >akg
> >>
>
> >> This discussion which followed the remark was certainly above your
> >> intellectual level ( or below ) for you didn't have the courage to take
> part
> >> in it, being only concerned with a fruitless post festum observation.
> >
> >Is that really a fair conclusion to draw from the above remark?  Really,
> what
> >does that say about you, that you would conclude anything of the sort?  I'm
> >sorry that you were stung by the remark and the implicit criticism, but you
> do
> >yourself no favors with your above snit.  It needn't be pointed out that of
> >course many if not most people who did not participate in the overall
> discussion
> >are in all capable of doing so, and chose not to for reasons of their own.
> It's
> >quite an unflattering portrait you have painted of yourself, with this
> bitter
> >remark and the one which initiated the discussion in the first place.
> >
> >> As a
> >> matter of fact the remark had the benefit of opening a healthy
> discussion
> >> which proved if nothing that it was neither hostile or unproductive .
> >> Jesualdo Correia
> >
> >  It did, indeed; it's fortunate that the good colleagues of the list
> helped you
> >dig out of the hole you dug for yourself.  What a pity you chose to jump
> back
> >in...
> >
> >In first place Winnie Fellows didn't write the top quote. You should pay
> more attention to the thread.

I'm unconcerned about names and aliases, etc.  I responded - via e-mail - to the
address from which the snit was sent.

> In the second place nobody helped me to dig me
> out of any hole. The hole you imagine is that of your own manicheistic view
> of things which seems to be bound to rigid lines of thinking, missing the
> possibility of exploring deeper regions beyond formal stetements. If anyone
> of those who made the hostile observations about my astonishment would care
> for discussing the topic, as Lars did, the whole issue would be much more
> profitable.

Powerful over-analysis of a pretty simple situation.

> Of course it was a fair conclusion to draw for that post festum remark and
> it was  addressed exactly to the one made it and  not to those who did not
> participate in the debate.

That fellow did not participate in the debate; you addressed it to him, and in
doing so characterized him unfairly and probably incorrectly.

> In some schools of spirituality certain
> provocations are made on purpose just to stir some underlying some major
> feature up.

"...Some schools of spirituality...?"  Powerful over-analysis of a pretty simple
situation.  What you're describing is called, to use a 'Net expression,
flame-baiting.  It's hardly a deeply significant spiritual or intellectual
pursuit.  What that fellow offered was not flame-bait.  What was offered in the
original post was not flame-bait, either.  It was a callous and chauvinistic
remark, and you were rightly called on it.

> If the intention is not related to negative emotion or
> ideological hostility- and my original  remark WAS NOT- then the important
> is that what follows.

I'm sure your original remark was not meant "negatively" or with overt
ideological hostility.  Yet it smacked of both nonetheless.  At best, it was a
carelessly worded question.  Really, you have over-analyzed a pretty simple
situation.  I'm not interested in an on-going e-mail battle with you; I've spent
enough time on this issue as it is.  I think you were wrong in both your initial
remark and your outright and mis-placed hostility when that fellow offered
perfectly valid criticism of your initial remark.  That's pretty simple.


Pie



More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list