tonight's paradise hotel. c'mon. do NOT try to tell me that none o'you are
paradise hotel freaks. who's excited? who's gonna win? what's the
"ultimate" prize gonna be?
okay, let's poll.
if the next message you write in is pointless, you are a scott & holly fan.
if the next message you write in is boring, you are a dave & charla fan.
if the next message you write in is flawless, you are a tara & keith fan.
so. i am either a scott & holly fan, or a dave & charla fan. kaff kaff!!
>>> jrovira@drew.edu 10/01/03 02:12PM >>>
Daniel, we talked about so many different topics and subtopics in that
single discussion I have a hard time identifying the specific one you
tried to reference with a generic word. There were humanists and
humanititists and humanities and liberals and politics and covert intent
and on and on and on....In the course of that discussion, you made
continual reference to something I said months ago that I'd forgotten
(and am not even quite sure what I meant at the time). So if I have a
hard time picking one thing out of the jumble, well, I don't think
that's too unreasonable to expect.
I obviously -do- want to know what you mean since I suggested how you
could make yourself clearer.
Figuring out the author's intended meaning is usually a matter of at
least some guesswork. But if you want to engage in this guesswork about
any author, the place to start is by asking him/her just what they meant.
To put it simply: Duh.
The problem with this exercise, of course, is that the author is usually
inaccessible, so references to the author's intended meaning usually
remains in the "guesswork" (at least to some degree) category. That
doesn't mean (and I know you still don't get this) that the work's
"meaning" is inaccessible. My point all along is that we don't generate
textual meaning by authorial intent -- this idea is just a stand-in for
historical and linguistic analysis.
In this situation, of course, that's not the case. You can always just
ask me what I mean -- if you really want to know. For all your supposed
respect for the author's intended meaning, though, I don't think you
care what it really is.
Jim
Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:
>It was plural since you were defining three words, two as a subset of the
>one but I guess, I, as the author, am assuming way to much continuity of
>thought between posts and posts over time. My mistake, I shouldn't assume
>that you may actually want to understand what some else means. I have since
>jettisoned the quote list. Funny Jim, the author's intended meaning is
>unattainable for you and yet you want me to quote you back to yourself so
>that I am not misunderstanding your intent. It is not crying Jim, they are
>tears of hilarity.
>Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Oct 1 17:19:15 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 06 2003 - 16:07:43 EST