illiteracy . . . (chuckle)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Mcreery: "Generous Readings"
• Previous message: Allen Zagarell: "limited discussion"

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
argument.
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 . . .

John

• Next message: John Mcreery: "Generous Readings"
• Previous message: Allen Zagarell: "limited discussion"