I repeat, I had no problem with what was written, just the manner of the
wording. I, and most people I would hazard a guess, do not have problems
with factual or mythological sources being used to support conjectures &
hypothesis. How those items are presented is where the perception of
patronization arises. I think Joe's reply message more clearly stated what
he meant in the first message, without giving an impression of elitism.
Having followed this list for some time now, I have found Joe to be a well
reasoned, intelligent and open minded individual. I have the highest respect
for his opinions and enjoy reading his remarks. My comments were in no way a
criticism of him. I just thought the posting that I replied to could have
been phrased better. Which true to form, he did quite admirably. Thank you
Joe for past and future comments. I look forward to them.
Respectfully Yours,
Dana
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Wallace-Murphy [SMTP:tim@templartim.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:48 AM
To: sinclair@quarterman.org
Subject: Re:: Academics patronising attitudes?
Dear Dana,
Noone, academic or otherwise, who chooses their words carefully, is
responsible for any misconceptions about their attitude perceived in
error
by their readers. Sadly a large number of readers tend to perceive
and use
of archival or archaeological sources as being somehow elitist and
take
umbrage at that. That is their problem.
Those of us who seek to extend the bounds of truth by investigating
myth an
legend in depth in order to establish what truth may be found in
their
foundation are castigated by academics on one side and by the
general reader
on the other for not perpetuating legend.
My own published work on the Sinclairs is aavailableto anyone who
wishes to
purchase it or borrow it from a public library. within it you will
find that
I ndistinguish ver carefully between legend, archival record,
arcaheological
aretfact, academic opinion from theose better qualified than myself
and,
lastly, my own opinion. Any reader may accept, reject oer modify my
opions
according to their own insight, knowledge or prejudice.Just because
I have
written something does not mean it isgrabvenin stone as 'Divinely
Revealed
Truth' My opions are just that, opinions arrived at by reasoned
speculation
based upon the avaliable evidence. Many others on this list,
including Joe
Erks, take a similar view. Others differ.That is their prerogative.
However,
truth is immutable. Opions vary.
Best wishes
Tim
sinclair@quarterman.org
http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html