@JohnMartin You are welcome

@JLB I responded via e-mail, but in brief, it is a matter of mere procedure. That is all. Questions need to demonstrate some amount of research. Or if you have an answer and wish to share your insight, the answer should be posted upfront. You are at liberty to not cooperate with protocol, but your reputation will likely reflect that and if you do not edit appropriately, then you can expect someone else eventually will try to, or your contribution may be closed or even deleted.

@JLB You are bright and capable of attending to these matters yourself. I think you have a lot to offer and would hate to see your valuable contributions buried unnecessarily.

If it is the response of the community you seek (their exposition) then approaching them according to the policies and procedures of the forum will likely yield much more satisfactory results.

@Sarah In hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/6231/2873 I just added an Estimate #1 (373 days) and an Estimate #2 (384 days) and showed my math fro reaching those totals.

Actually the latter is 382 days.

@Daи [quote]There are "things indifferent." We can take them or leave them. ... Even indifferent things, of course, can assume a grave importance circumstantially. If someone calls out, "It is heavy!" as I stoop to lift a box of books, or "It is red!" as I career towards a traffic light, I treat these observations as warnings of serious responsibility. ...

@Daи ... Yet what gives them that significance is not their content; ... They borrow their momentary significance from the practical conditions in which we shelve books or drive cars.[/quote]

amazon.com/Self-World-Time-Theology-Induction/dp/0802869211

(page 33) - it's better in context than out. :)

@Davïd good stuff

It's a great book (imo!)

btw - got a moment?

@Davïd just added it to my reading list, looks short enough to read in a couple days too, although I suspect it will take longer since it will take more chewing to swallow :)

@Davïd yes

@Daи yes, chewing and cogitation required! But his writing is so elegant (imo, again!)

@Daи Just a quick question - an idea hatched in my head for "a Question", but

@Daи I think it's inherently "off topic"

@Daи It was, more or less, "What works of fiction help to shed light on the Bible and its interpretation?"

So ... off topic, right? It's neither BH.SE itself, nor Meta... :/

@Davïd interesting, probably would not fly because it is a list question

@Daи reading ....

@Daи It's the old "question that can be answered" thing, yes?

@Davïd I don't think there is an official ban of list questions, it is more or less network-wide understood that such questions usually don't work here

@Davïd mainly yes

@Davïd part of it is we don't want to be Wikipedia, but then again, there are reasons why we can convert posts into 'community wiki', so....

@Davïd I think you could ask on meta whether or not you should ask it

because while my inclination is no, I can't say definitively

@Daи Will do. It's possible it could be phrased as a question ... but it's "legit" to test out a question on Meta, then? or concept for such?

@Davïd I meant ask on meta whether or not you could ask the question - OR... just ask it and see what happens :P

if it is off topic, it will get closed

@Daи :) The "tools" will do the work! ;)

@Davïd if anything it would get closed as too broad most likely

@Daи What I'm sensing in it is another avenue for helping to develop interpretative strategies and engaging communities of readers

that might be a bit vague and airy-fairy though

@Davïd let's solicit some help, one moment :P

@Daи OK - although I'm inclined to throw a quick "whaddaya think" on Meta and see what happens

@Davïd that works too, but we may have some folks drop into chat in just a second

@Davïd is wondering if this is on topic:

@Daи OK - will keep my powder dry while we await the heavy artillery.

@Davïd they may not come, we'll see

@Daи Actually, it could be more a "question" than a "list" just by: "CAN works of firction help to..."

@Daи FYI: we are backing off from some of the advice we give about these questions. Things that don't work at SO might work ok on smaller sites.

@Davïd there ya go.... interesting

@JonEricson ok cool, and the meta post never comes out and says they are off topic, just that they may not be answerable

@JonEricson Thanks for that, Jon - is it still worth sending up a trial balloon on Meta? Or asking the question and seeing if it gets shot down?

For instance, we now have a full site for Software Recs.. ;-)

@JonEricson oooh, I can see all the sales reps flooding in now ;)

(and the Mechanical Turk HIITs for 'answering' questions about various software products :P )

@Davïd I'd ask directly on the site.

Worst that can happen is I close it right away. ;-)

@JonEricson Would your advice (at this point) to be a bit relaxed about the "list" aspect? I think it could be productive, and trying to "force" a non-list might make it less so.

@JonEricson lol - and (gasp!) the world will keep turning! ;)

@Davïd I don't know about "what works have" but "it what ways have" could be a really interesting hermeneutical-approaches question that would call for examples being brought out in answers anyway.

@Davïd you could even combine the two by asking how and asking answers to explain specific examples relating how

@Caleb bingo combine asking for resources with showing how they shed light on Biblical interpretation

@Caleb Just so - and I have some thoughts of my own, which could provide some examples

Better to include examples in the question? or just provide an answer as a kind of example?

@Daи It's a concern.

@Davïd I would save the examples for the answer space, just make sure to set the stage in the question so it's apparent how this is relevant to the field in general and try to give it a scope that could (with some heroic effort) be answered definitively rather than being a perpetual fly trap for users opinions of what should infuence what.

@Caleb If it an answer was "definitive", it would be truly "heroic"!

@Caleb A bit like this comment on the Meta.Meta that Daи linked above.

@Davïd Yes, it would take a small encyclopedia, but there is still a subtle difference between something that takes research and references to answer and something that people feel like they can answer with their opinions and personal anecdotes.

I don't feel very precious about this, so if either (a) Jon shuts it down, or (b) others jump in and edit ruthlessly, that's fine with me!

@Davïd It might be better to start with something really specific. For instance, Job is a book that is often referenced in works of fiction. Job has almost taken a life of it's own that might not be as grounded in the ancient work. So a question about the "evolution" of Job's interpretation in fiction seems really interesting to me.

@Caleb That's a good distinction to keep in mind.

@Davïd In reality, I won't likely touch it.

@JonEricson Yep, that's specific. And it's very interesting. I'll give it a bit of thought, and give it a shot later this evening.

@JonEricson I make no such promises ;-)

@Caleb :D

@Davïd yeah, more than likely it will only get closed if five users vote to close it, which isn't likely

Well, I've got a couple things to tend to first, but will return to this later. Very grateful for the input, gentlemen!

@Davïd One thing I've found (and it doesn't seem fair) is that established users tend to get away with more than new users.

@Davïd No problem. ;-)

@JonEricson I guess there's a community / trust thing at work there?

@JonEricson I do like how specific that is, but esp with the non-exegetical questions I'd be happy to see some more questions about the field of study as a field of study even if they start out very broad. (Just look through the questions I've asked if you want clues about what I hoped for this site!)

OK - off for now. Thanks again!

@Caleb Oh, I agree.

@JonEricson it is true

@Davïd glad to help :)

@Caleb @JonEricson thanks for jumping in - collaboration always beats my inexperienced opinion :P

I have the recent AI site in mind right now. One danger on a site like this is that people ask theoretical questions rather than practical ones. An expert can pull off the former (and I think everyone in the room right now can), but new users often can't. It's kinda hard to explain why that is.

(for those reading, I asked them to jump in) :)

@JonEricson there is some truth to that here also, part of it being knowledge of the subject area

We don't want to get rehashes of Wikipedia articles about, say, who wrote the gospel of John. But an expert has questions along those lines that we do want to see. I've been thinking about how to encourage the good questions without getting the blah questions. (And not just for this site.)

@JonEricson Yes, and the phases that a beta site goes through in attracting and keeping real expertise is a strangely twisted and self referential path.

@JonEricson part of it is those without deep knowledge of the subject area don't even know what to ask - their questions are often broad and basic

@JonEricson I'm kind of bummed not being able to watch the private beta for the reincarnation of that (and morbidly curious about software rec) but I didn't have a commit slot to get into either.

@Caleb Yeah... It's a danger for me right now, since I wrote so many of the early questions and answers. I often stop myself from casting summary judgements on content. (It still happens, but think of how much I filtered. ;-)

@Caleb I can get you beta access, if you like. Which do you want?

@JonEricson Hmm, well I have no expertise for AI, but software rec I might have a legit reason to be in.

(And anyone else, who cares.)

Shhwwweeet

Will I get kicked out if I answer vim for everything?

@Caleb On AI, I'm wondering if anyone really is an expert. I think you can be expert in the tools, but nailing down the entire topic is like putting a worm on a hook.

@Caleb I'll just post my emacs alternative and we'll see who wins. ;-)

@Caleb Eh, here's AI too. There's a real danger it won't be around in a couple of weeks.

@JonEricson awesome!