RE: into the jungle

Scottie,

Your example would only be appropriate if one of the speakers did not know
what an elephant was. That's not the case in your little discussion, so
your scene is not only too simple for our question, it's not even relevant.

Again, to be clear -- John G. wrote, concerning an author's work:

"I take issue with the stance I have to be knowledgeable of him before I can
criticize him ."

I choose, because of my own work habits, not to participate in a
conversation that begins with this premise.

Thanks,

--John
 
 
            In all this shuttling of the puck John responds to the word
deconstruction like the security police dogs respond to the word 'attack'
from their handlers. He is quick to point out our filthy rags but he has
yet to say anything illustrative on this odious topic. It is a lot of
shield work but no swordplay. Why so? While John G. swings the barbarian
broadsword and Scottie wields the rapier, what does John O. heave? the
bludgeon, quite the indiscriminate arm reserved for the unruly masses for
say, a policing action. Interesting. Should John O. deign to stoop down
and actually, extemporaneously, describe the ideas behind his irascible d
word then maybe the log jam would break free, if an exchange of ideas were
the motivation, hmmmm. You know, as things that make you go hmmmm.
 
 
 
 
Daniel

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Mar 4 10:28:40 2003