It's important not to give offense, but also important not to take offense.
So maybe we should just move on. I don't mean to be unduly epistemological,
but dwelling on the topic of why we haven't always stuck to the topic is
not, so to speak, sticking to the topic (of medieval religion).
As for you, my poor dear Joseph (below), my heart goes out to you. I give you
a grandmotherly kiss on the forehead and suggest putting the matter in
perspective. Think about it. If the worst thing you've done this year is to
send posts to a medieval religion list that didn't stick strictly to the
subject of medieval religion...then you can't be all bad, and you might even
be doing better than many people.
I don't want to lead us into that other waste land of (ahem) undue levity on
a list that bills itself as academic. But could you smile just a little bit,
Joseph? Please? I think we're all friends here. Most of us. Most of the time.
best,
pat sloane
==============================================================
In a message dated 01/14/2000 11:09:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> To the List Procurator,
> Co-owners and all member of the Medieval Religion List:
>
> I deeply regret, and sincerely extend apologies for any
> offense rendered by my postings. I unqualifiedly assure you all that
> none was intended, either directly or indirectly. It is precisely
> because I profoundly respect and cherish the authors and traditions
> we are discussing, as well as those who invoke them, that I made my
> posting. Sadly, my rhetoric occasionally lays siege to my true
> intentions.
> I would welcome the opportunity to reply off line to any further response.
> I remain apologetic,
> Josef Gulka
>
> "Nescire siquidem infirmitatis est,
> scientiam vero detestari,
> pravae voluntatis."
> Hugh of St. Victor
> Didascalion, Praef:1
>
>
> Josef Gulka
> [log in to unmask]
> 215- 732-8420
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|