illiteracy . . . (chuckle)

Wed, 2 Mar 1994 23:52:04 EST

Zagarell makes a good point . . . and caught me in the same errors I'm
complaining about. Honestly, mia culpa, nothing is more illiterate than
getting someone's name wrong, especially when in the heat of an emotional
I said that certain views were indefensible . . . and from your post
. . . they are not yours. Yes, you are right . . . about the predetermined
name form, and predetermined set to interpret your post in a certain way. As
you suggested, it was reread . . . and you did NOT suggest the `forefather
argument.' On this one, I am going to swallow hard and acknowledge a
personal failing of more than once getting names of people wrong and confused
. . . at time much to my own detriment. Obviously I made the same conceptual
error in reading your post.
What exactly, however, do you mean `given the exclusion of certain
viewpoints from our field . . . ?' It may be that we are talking about the
same kind of problem with different presets, especially if you mean that
our field has excluded unintentionally/or intentionally a large domain
of interdisciplinary knowledge . . . in favor of an all to oft form of
anscestor worship of theoretical positions?

John O'Brien
Indiana University

OOOPS, did it again . . . all too oft, not all to oft . . .