Re: Reponse to Robbie

Jim writes, surrounded and punctuated by more aggressive and confrontational
language:
<< You said something along the lines of, "When Blake said 'to generalize is
to be an idiot,' he meant, 'to generalize is to be an idiot' or he did not."
I admit I'm paraphrasing [. . . .] You said this in response to my offer for
broader context for Blake's words. [. . . You implicitly] affirm that your
reading is the only correct one. >>

I offered what you paraphrase in response to your rejection (or what I took
to be your rejection) of the validity of calling Blake's assertion a
generalization, EMPHATICALLY NOT in response to your offer for broader
context. You did offer this, you provided a little, and I'll be interested
enough to read more if it should come. But it does not seem to bear very
forcefully on my response to (what I took to be) your rejection of one,
particular, reading.

I meant no such affirmation as that you ascribe to me, express or implied.
And (appreciating the very helpful suggestion,) I do believe that I pay
rather close attention to my words. Considering the sheer volume of
occasions when you have quoted me and responded below with a clear
misreading of what you quoted of me (often missing a "not" or something
similarly obvious), I should think that I pay rather closer attention to my
words than you often do.

Presumably referring to this sentence of mine:
<< But I still don't see how it is plainly absurd, when seeing the quote in
the context of a bananafish post containing nothing else about Blake, to see
it that way. >>

Jim writes:
<< This last sentence is essentially a repetition of what I said in my last
post. You're presenting it as part of _your_ response to me without quoting
me, which implies the idea is original to you. This is a fundamentally
dishonest form of response. [. . .] Your response is nonsensical. >>

I honestly have little idea what you're talking about -- as I remember
things (and I have the digests if you want to read them again, though I have
little such desire myself), you rejected a reading outright that I took to
be the most obvious one, and which is in fact the one that has been
suggested virtually every time I have ever seen anyone refer to the
quotation. I spoke in defense of this reading -- NEVER suggesting that it
was the only possible one -- while you continually corrected me concerning
what a generalization really is (and what, though *I* couldn't tell how it
falls short of your own definition, is not one).

If that sentence to which you refer is a repetition of what you said -- if,
in fact, you acknowledged the validity of reading Blake's assertion as a
generalization -- then I missed something big and we are in agreement. If
that sentence to which you refer is NOT a repetition of what you said, then
I suggest you read me more carefully before suggesting such greater care in
my own reading of myself.

You're being ridiculous. This whole argument is preposterous. I won't
continue with it for one further word.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Jul 18 20:44:10 2003