From before the foundations of the world...

[Paul Younan]

I'm open to suggestions. Which ways of questioning are more user-friendly?

OK, here's a suggestion: you don't have the intrinsic right to answer a post which took hours to research with a one-liner. That would be a good start.

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?

Suppose, after an hour-long extensive lecture on the expansion of the universe via a wave function, Mr. Hawking's attention is turned to me in the audience with a microphone shouting:

".....or it could have been an orbital function."

Would he not be reasonable in ignoring me and moving along to the next questioner?

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?

Yes, he probably would dismiss you if it were as readily apparent to him as it was to Andrew and I that you really didn't have any substance to your argument, other than to argue.

And not because of a shattered ego, trust me that neither Andrew nor I have egos.

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;

Let me bring something to your attention, Kara, that may not be readily apparent to you. Nothing you could do or say would hurt Andrew's feelings, trust me on this. I've seen Andrew easily hand people far more qualified and learned in this topic their proverbial derriere on a silver platter. I doubt Andrew shed one tear over your post. Who has the ego? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

...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.

Again, Andrew needs no defending from me. My intention in bringing up that other post was to bring to your attention the fact that you are being hypocritical. Not to defend Andrew.

The "friends" argument you keep bringing up is getting rather stale. Of course Andrew is a friend, as are a lot of people here with whom I've had many disagreements in the past. But you are clearly in the wrong on this thread and on the other one, and I call it like I see it.

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?

Appealing to authorities is fantastic. Why did you choose not to do so on this thread? Instead, you throw out a one liner and we are all supposed to gasp?

Who here defines "evidence?" Is it you? Is evidence whatever promotes Aramaic primacy?

Evidence is anything substantial you can bring forward to support your argument.

Here is a bad example: (what you did)

".....or it could have been (snip, blah blah"

Here are some good examples:

"How do you explain Ode 42:17, where the wording is more like....."
"Prof. So-and-So, in his article in So-and-so journal, argues for a different origin to the idiom in the Odes...."

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?

Strong evidence: Direct quotes from the primary texts, or from an authority.
Weak evidence: Any one-liner beginning with "Or", "But", "Well", etc.

No you are not getting away with spending 2 minutes responding on something that took me hours to formulate and research. At least put in a reasonable amount of time fleshing out your ideas with actual facts and some sort of reasonable evidence, before wasting our time just because you feel you need to get a word in.

I find this to be hellishly one-sided.

Yea, one side is right and the other (you) is wrong.

Thirdly, yes, I'm a questioner and not an expert.

Yes, one of those in the back of the hall that the professor tries hard to avoid eye contact with because she knows the question will be asked just for the sake of asking it.

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?

If you could product a somewhat sensible post that contained your own thoughts and research, that amounted to half of the quality that Andrew's typical post contains I would be pleasantly surprised. And I'm not saying that to attack your person, but only to encourage you to do so. You are obviously a bright and articulate individual, and I hate to see you waste your time questioning other people's ideas rather than applying substance to your own.

You? Why? Because you're fluent in Syriac and is involved in the Church?

I'm really not into puffing my chest talking about my qualifications. Suffice it to say that, like most people, I have spent my lifetime learning something that is important to me. I am always learning. Not from you, unfortunately since all you do is critique the ideas of others.

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

No one is without bias. That's a part of life.

Whether or not my research suffers from extreme bias, and distorting influences I will leave it up to others to decide for themselves, as always. I hide nothing. I am who I am, and everyone knows what that is. None of us knows who you are, none of us heard of you before you barged in here with little more care than the proverbial elephant in a china shop.

Contrary to your opinion, I have nothing to sell you or anyone else. I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your mind, evangelizing you or being your internet buddy. I do this for a love of the language of my Saviour, and for other personal reasons I would rather not share with you at the moment. I have done this for a decade of my own time, sweat and effort. And I have asked for nothing from anyone in way of support. I don't have a book to sell you, and the 10-15 regulars here are hardly a cult following fit for my huge ego. I manage to mess up making Kool-Aid, so don't shed a tear worrying about that.

You know, the other day I received an email from a marketing company wanting to pay a substantial amount of money to advertise on peshitta.org. My response to them was that it was important to me that our readers not be bothered with distractions such as advertising, so I turned them down despite the fact that the monetary compensation based on our traffic and importance was substantial. I have in fact turned down many such offers in the past.

Allowing you to become an unchallenged distraction would be far worse. If you have anything constructive to add we would all certainly welcome it. But please, don't just argue for the sake of arguing. Add something to the mix. Stir up ideas. Flesh out your hypotheses. Challenge, if you must, in a substantial manner.

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.

Are you saying that Andrew hurt your feelings because he said it was readily apparent to him that you are illiterate (by way of Aramaic)?

Both of my parents were illiterate in English until the day they died. Why is that an insult to their person?