From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:35:05 EST
Subject: Re:  Re:  Re:  Re:  RE: relations (external/internal)


"
Once again, (un) thought, you show your complete lack of engagement with a
subject matter."

I think it's relevant to comment upon this, for a couple reasons.

I don't see how this amounts to anything but a "more scholarly  than thou"
game which seems increasingly silly in a situation where no one can possibly
know everything that is in the archives. In such a situation, the real
question becomes one of selective criteria : how is one navigating one's
choices through the archive? And what are the foundations for those criteria?
>From what styles do they emerge?

Even if one did nothing but hit the archives every day, one would never
approach anything close to a comprehensive survey. And the entire idea that in
order to discourse one must have this prerequisite scholasticism under one's
belt is ridiculous as it disqualifies the great majority of thinkers. Which
means it amounts to little more than an attempt at intellectual intimidation,
which is disgusting. P.S. I am not intimidated! If you want to discuss styles
of navigating the archive, we could compare our strategies.

Also, since when did making fun of another discourser's name become part of
the discourse? I seem to remember that back from --- elementary school.

Shall only the scholarly dare to speak? Shall only those with sufficient
footnotes (again, criteria please) dare to raise issues of practical
importance?

These aren't polemical questions.

(un)leash