Jonathan Robie wrote:Careful here ...Please don't take this into American politics, and keep discussion strictly relevant to understanding the phrase θεραπείᾳ πολλῇ.
I get the caution, and I'm sorry to have sailed so close to windward in a public vessel and allowed the sail to luff here, and thank you for putting your hand on the boom to stop it swinging over and knocking someone overboard. I also realise that if either MA or myself had posted posts like these as some of our initial posts on this forum, we would have had our subscriptions cancelled.
I would like to drop the sail for a moment and have a chat before we continue.
MAubrey wrote:Speaker A: Short absolutist-sounding statement
That might be okay if the speaker (in the case of this interaction you were actually speaker C) were making a statement of their own opinion or belief, but what has been given here is:
MAubrey wrote:You've just described how the political system in the United States works...
Your statement is simply not true. The United States as a country or a political system is generally off the radar in my thinking. I hadn't once mentioned or inferred anything about that country.
Now, as shocked as a I was to find you putting an alien inference into what I had written about Herod and Roman society, I thought the more civilised thing to do would be read what you had written in the nicest possible sense and to engage with you in your topic of interest rather than give you a terse, "No, you're wrong, don't put words into my mouth" which reply would do nothing to further our mutual understanding.
To my mind, it would be better if you were to phrase your statements in the first person to avoid sounding high handed, "What you have just described reminds me of ...". And for the participles, "As far as I understand / based on ... Greek has no passive voice".
MAubrey wrote:Speaker A: Short absolutist-sounding statement Speaker B: Question Speaker A: Explanation Speaker B: Response Speaker A: Question Speaker B: Explanation
While it is nice for you to offer yourself as a souce of explanations, I think it would be more beneficial if the statements didn't derail the conversation that they were in. Greek prose compostions that I have seen, and explanations of participles as a part of the Greek verbal system used in sentences is a massively under-understood area of the language. Perhaps if you had an objection to a very small point about terminology or understanding, you could start another post saying "Greek has no passive" and then field questions. Throwing in a contentious statement has a particular style about it, but following it was (something like) "I don't want to go into / go over ...", which leaves others to pick up the pieces. I understand that some highly intelligent and very insightful people have a strong disaverstion to details that are at odds with their views, so I don't think there is a big problem in pointing things out within the flow of a conversation.
The point that I was making in this
thread was some semi-grounded speculations about how the Roman patronage system worked, and specifically the question about loyalty between client and patron, and that I think money per se
is secondary to the establishment of a good working relationship of support. I was expecting replies to my statements that were something along those lines, and I had assumed that your statement about the United States was something that people living on your side of the (North) Pacific Ocean might understand as a contemporary example.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, I think there has to be a balance between overly terse and rambling. It's a balance we all need to work on, though it gets easier as we get to understand each other better..
I think there are two things to consider here. FIrstly, that when we are speaking it is a conversation with an A,B (and C, D ... n) participating where we can each explicate our views. But additionally, the record of this conversation is going to out-live the period of our participation in the forum, so a more fuller explanation is needed and with so many passive readers, who do not ask questions, a fuller explanation is useful of points raised.
Once again, sorry for posting some things about the political system of a contemporary country with which some people identify and to which some people have an attachment. How about we hoist sail and continue downwind for a while.
I wish to preach... that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.(TR-1899)