From before the foundations of the world...

[Kara]

Kara,

It's always been the case that our readership comes to their own conclusions after weighing the evidence presented for/against an argument. There is always an open invitation to criticize ideas and question conclusions and how they are arrived at. What you're asking for is nothing new. What is objectionable is your approach.

Consider how this thread developed.

I presented an argument that the Peshitta was known to the Odist. I offered one piece of linguistic evidence, in the form of an idiom, and explained in detail why it better matches the Peshitta than the Old Syriac.

When I called on you to provide evidence to back up your hypothesis, as I did, you readily admitted that this is not your field of expertise and you called your opinion an assertion.

In other words, you see your role on this forum as being that of a questioner, not an expert on the subject matter.

While I appreciate your honesty, with which you validated Andrew's opinion that you are not literate in the subject, I would much more appreciate if you took the time to think out your assertions and perhaps flesh them out with some detail. A one liner, like "But it could have also been...." doesn't really get me excited.

I would really like it for once if someone would come along and punch me in the mouth with a solid piece of evidence that would refute my theory. For instance, you could have dropped in a few examples of how the Odist makes use of the Diatesseron or Old Syriac, but you chime in with a one-liner. A hardly thought-out one at that.

There are ways to question a hypothesis that does not rub someone the wrong way. The fact that both Andrew and I got the same impression from your writings suggests that you should alter your approach.

I'm open to suggestions. Which ways of questioning are more user-friendly? Let's say that a prominent physicist, such as Stephen Hawking, gave a lecture about his research at so-and-so hall. I'm one of the students sitting in the lecture hall with little to no experience in, say, astrophysics. After the lecture, he asks for any comments or questions. Do you think he'd find my questions offensive, considering that I stick to questioning the premises of his argument? If he did object to my questions, what would be a reason why, other than because of a shattered ego? Do you think he'd dismiss my questions or rival causes simply because I don't know astrophysics? Truth is, in my opinion, I hurt Andrew's feelings because he thought he knew something, only to discover he couldn't answer my simple questions about his source and his assumptions; he resorted to poisoning the well and straw man's argument . He turned this into me disrespecting his tradition. So defend him. That's what friend's do.

Also, when I do make a point, I take the time to appeal to qualified authority, you know, actual experts in the relevant field. Whether or not you choose to abnegate their testimony simply because it's detrimental to your argument and call it "copying and pasting" is ultimately up to you. Isn't that what Andrew did? Why the double standard?

Who here defines "evidence?" Is it you? Is evidence whatever promotes Aramaic primacy? Is there such a thing as "strong" and "weak" evidence here or is "evidence" assumed to be strong everytime, depending on his faith, values, and place in your heart? I find this to be hellishly one-sided. Thirdly, yes, I'm a questioner and not an expert. Who, here, REALLY qualifies as an expert? Andrew? Why? Because he has a Jewish background and was baptized by your Church? Because he possesses a decent library? You? Why? Because you're fluent in Syriac and is involved in the Church? You don't think your research suffers from EXTREME bias and distorting influences, such as staying true to Church tradition? In light of this, I remain distrustful of whatever's posted until every premise is proven irrefutably

And wait a min. Are you pardoning Andrew's behavior because the approach of my questions hurt his feelings? No matter how you try to turn it around, my questions remained pointed at his argument, not his person. He insulted me as a person. You wrote rules for that.