You have been publishing and announcing on far too many occasions modules which we believe to be illegally distributed. Once all is discussed without resolution for far too long time in the end only one opinion can prevail, and this is our opinion on our lists.
Looking at your latest announcement this has not changed. Our mailing list is not open to distribution of modules which are not in our view bona fide - quite irrespective of what you think you know better.
You can dress this all up in as pious language as you like , but the bottom line is that your posts on this list are quite grossly and persistently abusive. You are abusing our facilities to promote work we asked you to keep of our channels and you are abusing our kindness by repeatedly coming out with the same personal accusations.
Do as you like on channels you own but you must abide to our rules on our channels, mailing lists and servers. As you feel manifestly unable to do so you have no place here.
Peter
P.s. for those who have stumbled into this exchange, Andrew created a set of modules from very prominent material we judged to be under copyright. A huge discussion happened at the time, he remained entirely unwilling to accept that our views should carry on our project. In our view he was endangering the project in a significant way. Ever since he pops up here again, offering his modules up for "testing".
Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Virtual modules (parallelism) & fragmentary texts
From: "Andrew T."
To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum
CC:
I know you do Peter. Though I am your neighbor, you’ve made your hardness-of-heart towards me perfectly clear in previous instances though I have not wronged you. Perhaps God brought me into your life for a reason.
Your back-biting gives me opportunity for patience, and forgiveness, and Christlikeness. Thank you for this. I thank God for it. Any one who has seen our interactions on this list can judge rightly who is modeling the savior they profess, and who has hardness of heart. Has anyone else in your life called out your hypocrisy with honest love? Perhaps they’re afraid.
Therefore, I encourage you to pray: pray for patience, and God’s wisdom, pray for the ability to show yourself as a letter from Christ delivered, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not in digital Sword modules, but on tablets of human hearts. Pray also - that you fully behold the glory of the Lord, being transformed into the same image, from one degree of glory to the next. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit (2 Cor 3).
If I ceased to work on this project, whether in public or in silence I would be accountable to God. If you block me on the list, as you did previously, you yourself can account.
Personal stuff aside, have you considered my observations about virtual modules and versification?
I think Andrew, it would be all round better if you moved on. Permanently.
There is no place here in this project for you to offer your modules whether for "testing" or otherwise.
Thanks
Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects._______________________________________________
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [sword-devel] Virtual modules (parallelism) & fragmentary texts
From: "Andrew T."
To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum
CC:The wiki’s whiteboard shows discussion about support for virtual modules:Specifically the idea of pushing parallelism back to the API has potentially great benefit for modules built from incomplete MSS. For example, I’ve compared the English translation of say the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q2 Genesis found here:With the LEB translation (v2.7 contained in the Sword project) or found here:I’ve found similar enough translation style and word choice between the two that a case could be made they are complimentary. In terms of completeness the DSS are fragmentary compared to Masoretic text (MT). Yet more than 20% of the scrolls found at Qumran are copies of books found in the Hebrew bible (published largely in Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD)); show us what scripture looked like in the century preceding Christ; disclose ancient writing styles and spellings; and reveal the formation of biblical canon (exhibiting source elements of, Masoretic text, LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch. For example see:Yet creating a sword module from such important yet still fragmentary material leaves gaps most Sword applications don’t do well with. (I’m speaking from experience. I have such a module)However the idea of virtual modules might solve this. Consider the syntax:<verse osisID="LEB:Gen.1.1">In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth —</verse> <verse osisID="DSS:Gen.1.1">In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.</verse>...<verse osisID="LEB:Gen.1.9">And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.</verse> <verse osisID="DSS:Gen.1.1">And God said, “Let the waters underneath the heavens be gathered together in once place, and let dr[y land] appear.” And it was so. [And the waters under the heavens gathered together to their place] and the dr[y land] appeared.</verse> <verse osisID="ACV:Gen.1.1">In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.</verse>Or:<verse osisID="Gen.1.1"> <seg type="x-parallel" subType="x-LEB">In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth -</seg> <seg type="x-parallel" subType="x-DSS">In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.</seg> </verse>This solves the problem of modules with fragmentary missing bits, buts introduces a new problem; namely collision between different versification. Consider, for example, a case where parallel versions contain practically the same versification except the latter includes Psalm 151. Does a whole new versification then need to be introduced? Or how about two versions with completely different versifications, or non-standard versifications. (My DSS module mostly agrees with the LXX versification save for a handful of exceptions, I think Ps.151 being one).So my question: has development on any of this been advanced? If I create a module with parallel syntax such as above, is there anyway (or anyone interested) in testing?
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
