Saturday, January 8, 2011

Dead Sea Scrolls: Two Nov. online Articles by Golb, Golb


Raphael Golb was given permission to write.
Judge Berkman, in her November sentencing, gave him permission to write about his case.

So he wrote this:
"The Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal: How I Was Convicted of a Crime" Nov. 2010:

Here Raphael provides a multitude of details, most of which will be quite new to readers- much was even new to me too.
Raphael's essay ties together loose ends; shows everyone's part in the case; etc; and it will be clearer how the case was too complicated for a jury.

A great deal of his account, you will find, this blog of mine had gotten wrong, or halfway wrong, or hadn't known about at all. I apologize! There are folks who believe I get my info direct, so I repeat that this blog is my personal understanding- which I interpret my own way, clear with no one, and no one corrects me. I'm sure I'm often mistaken.

-------------------
Originally there was a second article by a "Golb"- the father this time- which I was pressured into taking down, by the types of comments I received. It was a link to Raphael Golb's father's reaction to a document that the prosecution used in the trial as evidence against his son.

I felt it was relevant to publish the father's response to this piece of trial evidence which may have influenced the decision to sentence his son to prison.
Before I say more about this, I want to advise:

WHAT SCHOLAR IS "RIGHT" OR "WRONG"- what scholar did or did not "plagiarize"- and even whether Raphael's accusations are true OR FALSE (a civil matter, not a criminal one)- actually HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CASE, or the questions i'm trying to raise. 

Because I don't focus on facts or people's opinions about those facts. I focus on HOW Raphael expressed himself: I focus on "internet impersonation."

cont'd


I believe this prosecution document was Professor Schiffman's detailed scholarly defense on what Raphael said was plagiarized. Which puzzles me, as this was not a civil libel case, so I wouldn't think Schiffman needed to write a defense of his scholarship.

I put up the link to Golb's father's reaction, but the comments I received were about the Dead Sea Scrolls debate itself. But I instruct in my Disclaimer that I'm not interested in the scholarship. More importantly, I have no understanding, no right to an opinion, and certainly no right to moderate a forum about it. Because as the writer, I am automatically the comments moderator.

Worse was the tone- unconstructive, some even destructive comments, more ad hominem than discussion, about the scholarship of individuals in the debates. This is a battle I don't want to be in. And this is not the tone I want my blog in.

So "they won"- I took down Raphael Golb's father's article. The best way to win over me is to be less than gracious.