Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 12:30:13 -0400
From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca>
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Non-experimental science (was "What must the ...")


Hi all,

Doug, thanks for your nice reply.  I feel badly for having foreclosed 
further discussion.  I am so impressed by the commitment to working 
things out that we have on the list, I don't want to be the first to not 
live up to it.

The only thing of importance that I was trying to say -- obviously very, 
very, *VERY* poorly -- was that I agreed with Marshall.  So if everybody 
else now agrees with him too, all should, at least, be well.  I should 
have stuck with my original "What he said" message --  which sentiment 
holds for his latest post as well.      

I *will* look back over Tobin's posts, especially, to see if there is 
any way that I could possibly think any of the things that it clearly 
seems to others that I think, but which I most emphatically do not!  If 
there's something in the way that I've expressed myself, and it sure 
seems as though there is, which would lead more than one, otherwise 
rational person to understand my position to be one which is 
unrecognizable to me as my own, it's probably my fault.

Plus sorry about all them double negatives.

R.




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---