Haran

Yeah...it has none!

Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey, dont sweat the small stuff. It is poor allocation of your time trying to influence moderation here.
You are better off making claims that Ehrman means something entirely different from Doherty's reading of his text while showing off your knowledge of a bunch of manuscripts and forgetting to illustrate how Doherty's meaning is entirely different.
That is a more entertaining Jeffrey than an anal-retentive, fuddy-duddy poster fussing over how he is called and the expressions used by posters.
Now, what was that Tertullian said in Latin again?

jjramsey

For those wondering if Hoffman is misrepresenting Gibson, here's the relevant thread: Born of a woman

jgibson000

OK Teddy.

But please note that my asking about this has nothing to do with me being the person you characterize me as being. It is a matter of a perceived double standard.

I asked because I was more than once accused here of, and upbraided for, writing "vitrolicly". But in the light of how people can (and apparently do) lace their messages with base crudities and even use them of one another, that charge was not only exaggerated but unfair.

Hardly small stuff.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

As the Toto noted, the swear words were not directed at you. It was fussy of you to make it your business to question the propriety of the words I used.
Having started on the wrong foot, you can easily mistake "relevant humour" as "unfair" and "double standard" while there is no such thing.
The trick is to remove your moral blinders and just relax. Just take it easy.
You dont see me pulling my hair out over "Teddy", do you?

jgibson000

Well hOPOS EPIELPTOS, you've misread and misunderstood my words. I was not referring to your use of a crudity in your previous message. I was referring to the use by others of this and other crudities in other messages (eg., one of Michael Turton's).
No, but because you aren't offended by this, doesn't mean that other's shouldn't (or have no right to) be. For all we know, you could find creating child pornography acceptable. But that doesn't mean anyone else should.

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

I am happy with a swashbuckling Jeffrey that swings and ducks and in the fog of nebulous posts. It is always a good tactic to be vague, then when a specific response is given, become conveniently specific and claim you were misunderstood.

jgibson000

Vague? What is vague or unclear in "But in the light of how people can (and apparently do) lace their messages with base crudities and even use them of one another", especially given the words "people", "their messages: and "of one another"? How could this possibly be interpreted as a reference to your previous message and your use of the "f" word in reference to a thing (fate)?

No tactic here. But most certainly a misreading that is one of your PARASHMA .

And, BTW, it's "a Jeffrey who ..." not "a Jeffrey that ...".

But at least you addressed me properly this time.

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

Turton is not people. I am suprised that your superior command in language did not help you discern this simple fact. In other words, Turton and who?

jgibson000

And I'm suprised that you do not appreciate the significance of "e.g", let alone "e.g. one of Michael Turton's" in the context in which this prase appears..

Speaking of being anal.

But I'm not suprised that in trying to make your point, you resorted to misquoting me. My use of the exprssion "e.g., one of Michale Turton's" was not in the original message which you claimed was a referent to your message.

Jeffrey Gibson