RE: definitions

So, an attitude of superiority disconnected fro reality is not descriptive
of the intellectual environment that is common universities? We can throw
away the word intellectual, but answer the question. You demonstrate my
point, you make a statement, wave your hands about and dodge the question.
Ok, my definition could use some work but you so glibly through away the
whole discussion and then wonder why people in your area of endeavor have
the sort of meetings described in the essay. You may take those who
submit to the internal rules seriously but after all, that state university
isn't self funded. When you are asked what you do with all that money, how
do you answer?
 
Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Omlor@aol.com [mailto:Omlor@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:30 PM
To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
Subject: Re: definitions

Daniel writes:

"Pointless? yet compelled to respond."

But of course. Once you made the debate pointless by offering as a premise a
definition which already assumed your conclusion, it was necessary to point
out that no rational debate could logically follow.

And so I did.

All the best,

--John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 18:46:05 2003