Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
What a dialoogue!
First: "ONLY" an art. If I ever hinted that I believe that an ort
is "only", you can wash my mouth with soap. "Art" is for the gifted
individuals, the rest of us can only sit on the sidelines and applaud.
Second: How many referees would let me get away with citing a
reference, in one of my papers, with a phrase like, "if you would only
read" followed by words to the effect of "then you will see what I mean."
If you think that you know papers that respond to my specific criticisms,
then a credible response will cite the specific refernces that rebut my
criticisms, along with quotes that show that the reference states what is
claimed.. It may be relevant that I have followed Hake's studies from
somewhere near the beginning, and was one of the early critics of his
conclusions.
I object strenuously to the kind of communication that is of the nature of
"If you would only read ...". I have no idea of what you got out of
reading the particular items referenced, and I decline the invitation to
try and read your mind. I see that phrase repeatedly emanating from
newcomers to the net who are trying to persuade others to their political
or religious views, The invective I've referred to suggests that I have
transgressed on beliefs that are held with similar fervor.
Regards,
Jack