From: "Widder,NE" <N.E.Widder-AT-lse.ac.uk>
Subject: FW: dialogues
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:28:07 -0000 


For the last few weeks I've been away from London and carrying on these
discussions through web access to my e-mail account.  To put the matter
simply, every time I respond to an e-mail and forget to change the address,
it doesn't send it to the list but to the individual who wrote to the list
and to whom I am responding.

That out of the way, for those who really care at this point, here is last
night's response to Unleesh's latest dodge.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Widder,NE 
> Sent:	07 January 1999 17:12
> To:	'Unleesh-AT-aol.com '
> Subject:	RE: dialogues
> 
> You are missing the point, yet again.  I have not asked you to adopt my
> differentiations.  I have instead complained about the way in which you
> have consistently imputed to me and differentiations and binary
> oppositions I have not made, even after I have consistently explained that
> such binarisms were not intended and explained differently.  Your empathy
> and understanding here have been pathetic, even though you are the one on
> a high horse about empathy.  You own reclassifications that you have
> forced onto others have only amounted to dodging questions.
> 
> You have been asked a number of simple questions to which you have
> responded with these sorts of claims.  Perhaps, the next time you are
> asked, you will be honest and simply say that you haven't yet thought out
> how to do some of these things.  However, simply imposing your own
> distinctions on others (i.e., academic/non-academic,
> stratified/deterritorialized) only makes you look like a fool who doesn't
> even know what he is talking about.
> 
> Nathan
> n.e.widder-AT-lse.ac.uk
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
> To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Sent: 1/7/99 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: dialogues
> 
> In a message dated 1/7/99 6:08:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> N.E.Widder-AT-lse.ac.uk writes:
> 
> << coming from someone who has
>  shown no ability to tell the difference between much of anything. >>
> 
> But it's accepting -- or even "understanding" -- which involves some
> sort of
> tacit acceptance or positing -- a taxonomy, a way of dividing the world,
> that
> allows for one to be controlled, to participate in one's controlling, in
> the
> first place. If I'm not distinguishing along your lines, and walk in a
> blur,
> I'm beginning to walk in the right shoes.