I should re-read Snowcrash. Was one of those texts the namshub of Enki by any chance?
Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
41–50 of 106 posts
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who or what would you ban? The New York Times? The submitter who used the NYT title verbatim, according to HN guidelines?
The guidelines specifically call out linkbait titles: "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" so in the parent comments argument that the title is clickbait it certainly isn't "according to HN guidelines". I'd be interested in what the ratio of users that only know portions of the guidelines that are often repeated in comments vs those that have actually read through the guidelines.
> The guidelines specifically call out linkbait titles:
That's true, they do. And the parent comment here claimed linkbait. The suggested guideline is to default to the original title first, and avoid editorializing by default, that's the spirit of the rule, and then if the title is egregious, try to fix the wording to be less misleading.
There are lots of possibilities, one of them is that the submitter doesn't know or doesn't believe the title is linkbait. One of them is that @LegitShady has an opinion that is shared by a minority or nobody.
The problem with suggesting a ban when not editorializing titles is that it assumes linkbait is clear and absolutely recognizable, and that everyone agrees. Banning someone for an offense they might not be able to recognize in advance is a draconian measure that will reduce the quality of open discussion here. We already have mechanisms that help filter bad titles, including article downvotes, a flagging system, and moderators that actively respond to title wording complaints.
> I'd be interested in what the ratio of users that only know portions of the guidelines that are often repeated in comments vs those that have actually read through the guidelines.
I'd likewise be interested in what ratio of users read a comment and use assumptions to jump to a hard conclusion that denies benefit of the doubt without acknowledging the possibility that other causes are possible, including their own misinterpretation.
Having read through the guidelines completely, I know that reading with charitable interpretations and giving benefit of the doubt is in the spirit of the guidelines. With respect to the top comment here, I humbly suggest that banning anyone for using verbatim titles goes directly against the spirit of HN, and the literal wording of the guidelines too.
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#43> a big part of it is that they have "Bible" in their museum name, and that gets all the bigots out in arms. This is laughable considering Hobby Lobby is run by religious bigots.
Hey, dang, where are you, man? Gonna ban this guy for "ideological flamewar"?
Nah, this Dan is a founder, a YC alum with 11,000 karma points. He can say whatever he wants. At worst, he'd get a "Well, yeah, you're right, they are religious bigots, but please be more subtle about it." But he won't even get that, because no HN user with >=500 karma's going to flag his comment.
Of course, weberc2's comment is downvoted.
Nah, HN isn't biased to the left at all, dang. After all, people on both sides complain, therefore it must be perfectly balanced, right?
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, it wasn’t so long ago that “take the high road” was the common mantra. Turns out, even if you disagree with people or think they’re wrong, you can still behave with decorum. It makes everything more pleasant.
Does that hold when they're actively working to harm you and yours?
It’s about approach. Most of the time people aren’t actually trying to harm you. Coming into every disagreement with a “you’re the enemy” viewpoint is a sure way to make sure there’s no such thing as civil discourse. Despite popular belief, blanket outrage actually fixes very little.
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#45I should re-read Snowcrash. Was one of those texts the namshub of Enki by any chance?
Thanks. I was having a "this sounds like something out of ... out of what?" feeling about this.
It's out of Snow Crash, of course!
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#46It seems extremely prejudicial and even driven by a bigoted and hateful motivation to emphasize the purchaser of the fragment when the story is really about the person who is accused of illegally taking and selling the fragments. It would be like writing the headline like this "Oxford is Officially and International Illegal Historical Artifacts Dealing Organized Criminal Enterprise." if one were to have a bigoted bia…
You are suggesting here that when purchasing such artifacts for a major museum collection, that the Hobby Lobby/Bible Museum owners have zero responsibility to verify the provenance of the artifacts and the legality of their sale. All they have to do is just not ask any probing questions, and they should be able to claim that "we didn't know they were stolen!" Sorry, but that's outrageous.
[flagged]
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#47> a big part of it is that they have "Bible" in their museum name, and that gets all the bigots out in arms. This is laughable considering Hobby Lobby is run by religious bigots.
Is there anything to substantiate this, or is this a generic "Christian therefore bigot" slur?
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you can't read the article shows. You are totally misrepresenting what is happening now and what happened in the past to push a particular political agenda. This has nothing to do with export laws. The documents were the property of Oxford in a collection that he oversaw. Now Oxford discovered that he sold the documents. Also, ancient artifacts are protected regardless of their value. That is what keeps…
Your post is extremely misleading with respect to the Iraqi antiquities case. Here is the Government's complaint in that case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/978096/... . And here is the stipulation of settlement entered into by the Government and Hobby lobby: http://www.artcrimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/3... . First, "they" did not "intentionally forg[e] documents" or "fak[e] the…
The law rightly sets a high bar for accusations of intent, but when someone who is knowledgeable about the antiquities market turns up as the recipient of misappropriated property in multiple cases, it raises questions of both intent and ethics.
Your post persuasively refutes some of the claims in the post you are replying to. As you present it, however, neither party seems to have had much reason to raise the issue of intent, and consequently your narrow focus on the legal claims does not go far towards resolving that question.
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there anything to substantiate this, or is this a generic "Christian therefore bigot" slur?
https://rewire.news/article/2015/07/15/hobby-lobby-blocking-...
Does that article (and publication) strike you as trustworthy? Does it appear that the author and publication aspire to present a balanced perspective? Would you be persuaded if I linked to a Fox News (or similar) article on the issue?
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#50It seems extremely prejudicial and even driven by a bigoted and hateful motivation to emphasize the purchaser of the fragment when the story is really about the person who is accused of illegally taking and selling the fragments. It would be like writing the headline like this "Oxford is Officially and International Illegal Historical Artifacts Dealing Organized Criminal Enterprise." if one were to have a bigoted bia…
>>The contract was made in 2013 between Dr. Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores
>extremely prejudicial ... to emphasize the purchaser of the fragment when the story is really about the person who is accused of illegally taking and selling the fragments.
i think laws are pretty consistent everywhere in civilized world - knowingly purchasing stolen staff is a crime, and buying ancient texts from an Oxford professor instead of buying them from Oxford doesn't really pass smell test (or like they say in legalese something like what would a "reasonable man" do)